Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
Only God knows what would be in your heart, your neighbor's heart and the wife's heart. 99.99 percent of cases of adultery involve the severe infliction of pain on someone.
A caveat-- that figure would be lower if you don't count those so calloused they can no longer feel the pain.
Which is why we would have a problem if he were to require us to whistle Yankee Doodle while standing on our tounges.
I see. But in the .01 per cent case, your argument, I presume, is that Jesus said it was ok, because the law of agape love, as expressed in the Golden Rule trumps commandment against adultury?
Go read the Bible. Jesus actually addresses adultery rather specifically.
I don't know that I would disagree with that. Do you? Do you believe chain gangs are wrong? How about the less brutal, DUI weekend litter crews?
Not that I see it as terribly relevant, but yes, I think these things are wrong. I don't think jailed prisoners who work for more or less nothing, and whose labor can be liquidated by the state should be competing with free market labor for any job whatsover, no matter how menial. If they must labor, instead of working on improving their souls, than they should be doing perfectly useless, somewhat demeaning tasks, as befits those who are being punished. If the state is in the rehabilitation business, than that is what prisoners should be doing, if the state is in the retribution business, than that is what they should be doing. displacing taxpaying workers from their jobs using prisoners is not what the state should be doing.
So you feel that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with slavery? It's just when you've a mean-spirited master that God condemns slavery?
I have posted my biblical references every time we've gotten down to cases in this discussion. Kindly return the favor. To what verses do you refer? I am not inclined to scour the New Testement to make your argument for you.
Oh, and do be sure to point out to me how these references you are going to offer up resolve the dilemma of the fellow we are talking about, whose been beseeched to impregnate his neighbor's wife, and wishes to follow God's law on the question, as soon as you can advise him properly.
Does this mean you believe in an absolute morality after all? :-)
So you feel that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with slavery?
No more so than other other sort of punishment. I do think there is something intrinsically wrong with racism or breeding people to be slaves.
You seem like an educated guy which is why I didn't feel obliged to provide links. Some of the most famous NT -- and OT -- passages involve adulterers/adulteresses. There is the He who is without sin incident and the woman at the well. to cite two.
The NT is largely a rejection of legalism -- although as you point out -- not the law. Adultery remains wrong.
Concerning the situation you described, those involved would have to account for their actions before God. If they can, they can.
A better and, more common, example of apparent Biblical inflexibility concerns divorce which the Lord equates with adultery.
You can posit the far more realistic situation in which a woman who divorces the fellow who has been beating her every night and goes on to marry a nice guy who will support her kids, then ask if she has committed a sin.
Now, an absolute saint might leave the husband for safety's sake, pray for his soul and raise the kids on her own. A weaker person might not. The same chapter says Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. and two chapters later comes the warning about judging ohers.
According to the Bible is divorce adultery? Yes. Is adultery a sin? Yes. Can God still love those who committ adultery? Yes, obviously.
You might also want to consider what Matthew 5 says about looking at a girl with lust. That was one of the verse I had trouble accepting when I first began believing. It soon made perfect sense. You look at a girl and feel attraction you are human. You look at a girl and start scheming of a way to take her to bed forgetting that she is human too, you are comitting adultery.
Perhaps, but if you want to make an argument, even from well-known and widely shared material, it is obligatory to cite the specific support for your argument, rather than expect someone to cast about in a vast array of evidence for the relevant testimony.
Some of the most famous NT -- and OT -- passages involve adulterers/adulteresses. There is the He who is without sin incident and the woman at the well. to cite two.
As best I can tell the "woman at the well" incident casts no insight on this argument. Jesus devined that she had 5 husbands, which made a big hit with the townfolk, but doesn't seem to provide any obvious moral lesson. The "without sin" incident seems to be a caution against enforcing God's commandment against adultereses--which, incidently, seems to contradict God's instructions regarding adulteresses, unless you think God intended for the stones to throw themselves--however, it does not, at first blush, provide me with any insight about my friend's impregnation dilemma. Jesus is careful not to contradict the commandment against adultury, yet jesus doesn't refute the Golden rule here, and I am still at a loss as to how to resolve two commands from God that seem to have come into conflict here.
The NT is largely a rejection of legalism -- although as you point out -- not the law. Adultery remains wrong.
indeed
Concerning the situation you described, those involved would have to account for their actions before God. If they can, they can.
So...in other words, they must use horse-sense and resolve their moral dilemma using their own brains & hearts regarding their contemporary human concerns--and their decision violates one of the two commands from God--either the Golden Rule or the Commandment against adultery. Just as if morality was a human question to be addressed in human terms?
A better and, more common, example of apparent Biblical inflexibility concerns divorce which the Lord equates with adultery.
...
Now, an absolute saint might leave the husband for safety's sake, pray for his soul and raise the kids on her own. A weaker person might not. The same chapter says Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. and two chapters later comes the warning about judging ohers.
Yea, fine, perish forbid we commit the horrible crime of judging the behavior of others. But that isn't the question on the table. My friend wants to know what he can do to keep on God's good side, when either choice he makes seems to violate one of God's absolute moral laws. It doesn't aid his thinking on this subject a bit to tell him jesus doesn't want him to be judgemental.
According to the Bible is divorce adultery? Yes. Is adultery a sin? Yes. Can God still love those who committ adultery? Yes, obviously.
Again--who cares? My friend isn't soliciting God's love, he's trying to be good when faced with contradictory rules about how to do it.
You might also want to consider what Matthew 5 says about looking at a girl with lust. That was one of the verse I had trouble accepting when I first began believing. It soon made perfect sense. You look at a girl and feel attraction you are human. You look at a girl and start scheming of a way to take her to bed forgetting that she is human too, you are comitting adultery.
Again, not too relevant. My friend's problem isn't with concupiscent lust, it's with apparent moral dilemmas.
However, now you've distracted me--how do you draw the distinction between "scheming" to take a woman a'bed, and "daydreaming" about taking a woman a'bed? If you ask me, a smart god would reserve internal condemnation for acts, not thoughts, but I admit to not being an expert on that subject.
Well phrased.
No, not in other words. What they must do is consider accountability to God in every action they take.
Concerning horse sense and moral dilemmas, if there is no morals there is no moral dilemma. People use their "own brains and hearts" to come to this conclusion every day. They say "the store is not paying me enough. It's only fair if I take from inventory with paying for it" or "nobody's looking, I can sneak into the movie" or If I talk my girlfriend into an abortion I won't have to pay child support."
That people use their horse sense to look out for number one is why God has provided commandments.
This one caught my eye when I re-read your post. It does contradict it. That why it is so famous and significant.
It has only been a theory. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis only becomes a theory after considerable investigation. On the other hand, "creationism" is ONLY a hypothesis.
70% of high school graduates are not able to comprehend basic concepts.
You mean as interpreted though their own personal sense and interpretation of morality? As opposed to any objective measure that anyone can understand?
And we get too many of the 70% starting threads here.
No. Morality isn't a matter of interpretation.
As opposed to any objective measure that anyone can understand?
Don't commit adultery. It's objective. It's easy to understand.
So, I take it then, in your own direct words, people have to evalute contemporary human concerns to establish proper moral behavior.
Concerning horse sense and moral dilemmas, if there is no morals there is no moral dilemma. People use their "own brains and hearts" to come to this conclusion every day. They say "the store is not paying me enough. It's only fair if I take from inventory with paying for it" or "nobody's looking, I can sneak into the movie" or If I talk my girlfriend into an abortion I won't have to pay child support."
That people use their horse sense to look out for number one is why God has provided commandments.
So, I guess you are just going to continue to treat my question like ass wipe instead of answering it. What you are describing is, of course, not moral behavior at all, and forwarding the claim that that's what I'm proposing.
Answer the question put to you, more than once, in far too great detail for a sensible person think that what you've provided here constitutes anything but a naked strawman argument.
There is plenty of evidence around the people can hate god and still have moral fiber--your's is an extra-ordinarily feeble post-hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, and I dismiss it with the contempt it deserves, until you provide me with evidence that belief in God makes people any more moral than otherwise. The anabaptists, the knight's templer, the jews, the witches, and spanish heretics eagerly await your proof.
This one caught my eye when I re-read your post. It does contradict it. That why it is so famous and significant.
Uh, huh...so then answer the question: what should my friend do? Violate the Golden Rule by refusing the impregnate his wife, or violate the Commandment against adultery?
So... then I assume your stance is that the Golden Rule is subjective, not easy to understand, and the contention that the laws of the OT are subsumed by the Golden rule is a bunch of christian hogwash intended to hypnotize the listener?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.