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."
Again, Galileo was not treated fairly. But he was not treated as horribly as is commonly thought, and the Church was not generally anti-science. And Christianity is certainly not anti-science.
Agreed. Christianity is just fine. And the belief that God is the creator of the universe and all its physical laws is not anti-science. But creationism, as expounded by a very few of its hard-core adherents in these threads, is the very essence of an anti-science, anti-reason, and therefore anti-Western worldview.
Not what I said, try again. Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
You say a simple summary would be okay, then in your next sentence you wish I would supply a discourse on "the definition of a theory" and the "principles of cause and effect."
I never asked you for a definition of a scientific theory. I merely pointed out that your grasp of such is severely deficient.
Think back.... think way back... did you ever do any exercises in problem solving when you were a kid? Step 1 was always "State the problem." You are trying to solve what you percieve to be a problem without ever identifying what the problem actually is. In fact, you have met every request for such with hostility and attack, and have constructed one pretext after another to avoid doing so. Why is that?
Certainly you do not expect "conversational decorum" from a fellow primate, do you? What purpose would it serve? Do I even owe you a simple summary?
What do you have against primates? Some of my best friends are primates. Often, we cordially engage in a free exchange of ideas, even when we hold opposing opinions. And during those free exchanges, the discussion is much more comprehensible when each is conversant with the other's position.
You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, unpleasant little fellow, with no apparent wish to engage in cordial discussion. Obviously you don't owe me anything, but right now, you are the only one who knows what it is you are arguing about. Please feel free to argue about it by yourself.
Ocelot to Platypus! Ocelot to Platypus!
Darwin Central integrity compromised. Worldwide cabal threatened by security breach. Stranglehold on science in jeopardy.
Alert code chartruse.
and the Church was not generally anti-scienceNot generally, of course, but at the time of Galileo it was very much a paranoid church, afraid of everything that could be a challange (remember - the reformation was close). It should be noted, as it has been earlier in this thread (although in quite lame and bigoted ways IMO), Christianity has done a lot to advance science. Someone pointed to the difference in the evolution of Christian and Moslem societies in the scientific fields. Perhaps one could also look at the evolution within the christian world after the reformation to see how religion, or the interpretation of religion specifically, can help or hold back scientific advances.
Browsing through this thread, however, it is not hard to find comments that are quite "anti-science", and much confusion about such trivial matters as the meaning of the word "theory" or "evolution". In such a climate a rational debate on the subject, as it seems, is as improbable as sudden abiogenesis in my cup of coffee.
Just to make my stance on the issue clear - I'd say that any disclaimer about the meaning of "theory" should be non-specific and general to all theories in a science book. Pointing out only a specific theory can only be interpreted as an attempt to discredit it, something that would be inherently anti-scientific. We know evolution to be a fact of life as it can be observed (micro-evolution), and to be a theory when it comes to macro-evolution as science until this day only can give indirect evidence of its validity. To present it otherwise in the books, to the joy of either side in this debate, would be detrimental to the children we hope will continue mankinds quest for knowledge.
For lurkers wanting to know more on the subject, The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut
My friend, you are as always, eloquent and poised even when provoked beyond the human capacity for restraint.
Yes indeed, that's such an accurate description of my Post #540. I "provoked" him "beyond the human capacity for restraint".
Just think if I had written FOUR SENTENCES to him, instead of three. Why, he might have had a heart attack!
That's bulls**t. What do I "intend to deny"?
It's bad enough that you lie about me, it's worse that you're so cowardly that you hide your lies about me in posts to others.
I dare you to defend your honor and tell me in what way I am "denying" the inductive logic which leads to the common descent hypothesis.
It's fascinating that you can say this with little comment, but if I say the exact same thing it leads to a sprouting of multiple irrelevant tangents about Cantor, semantics, ontology, the definition of "true", the definition of "right", etc, etc, etc, none of which actually alter the substance of what I said - which is that all scientific theories are held tentatively.
and Evolutionary theory is not one of the less secure.
This may be relevant in your debate with others, but it's not relevant to the article about the disclaimer. By speaking of "evolutionary theory" you concede the only relevant point, which is that "evolution" (no matter how secure) is a theory, which is what the disclaimer says (by my reading of the article).
As soon as your notion is extended to cover such less secure theories as stellar evolution, continental drift, and rotational inertia under gravity, than I'll have no problem with your prescription
Are you saying that the textbook in question does not clearly state that the preceding are "theories" already? I'm curious, let me know. I was always indeed taught that continental drift/plate tectonics as explanation for continents was a theory, not Truth, for example. Your point may be completely moot.
You know what's truly ironic: there would be a simple and straightforward way to shut the mouths of the "creationist side" of the argument (I'm including myself even though I'm not a "creationist" per se). Would you like to know what it is? Here goes:
Just tell us knuckle-dragging imbeciles, "The textbook in question ALREADY DOES explain that evolution is a theory! So a disclaimer is redundant."
That's ALL you would have to say. That's ALL the vigorous opponents of the disclaimer would have to say. It would shut our traps. We would have to shut up.
So why don't you say it? Why doesn't anyone say it?
Could the reason be that the textbook in question DOESN'T already say that evolution is a theory?
But that would be quite odd. Why wouldn't the textbook say what is obvious and what everyone, especially scientists, agrees upon?
In fact, any honest scientist would have to agree that for a textbook not to present "evolution" as a theory is, well, scandalous.
I earlier linked for you exactly the article I just quoted to Rightwing. You rapidly dismissed it, all 29 lines of evidence for macroevolution, as evidence for a theory and nothing more. You insist that any mere preponderance of evidence, no matter how large, for facts some people don't want to face should not prevent such facts from being publicly branded as somehow conjectural. You are doing exactly what I just told Rightwing you are doing. You've spent dozens of posts just to me chanting your "just a theory" mantra, defending this creationist wedge-strategy disclaimer as fact and who would have a problem with fact yada yada yada? So who's lying?
Note that the skull progression is not evidence for any particular mechanism of how some population of apes became increasingly human over the millions of years. It is not evidence for Gould's theory versus Darwin's, or whatever. The "how"s can still be argued, and are. This series is merely once piece in an enormous pile of evidence that evolution from one form to another has been a continuously operating feature of the history of life on earth. We are far past the point where the whether of evolution can realistically be called conjectural.
Per your other irresponsible charge, you've now made an extensive public performance on this thread. Do not expect to be pinged whenever anyone refers to your performance. It is assumed that you are reading the thread and you're a public figure now, a famous comedian.
I'm not sure there is anything there to defend. Have you been called a lawyer yet? How about brazen? I have noted that you have been "mind scanned".
You should note the rapid embrace of any induction whenever it would produce a connection supportive of the Darwininianismic position. However, the embrace becomes a ten foot pole when the induction would not support that same position. That is clearly demonstrated by their inability to answer "Are the Nazca lines designed?" with a simple yes or no.
Huh? We're off the beaten path to be sure, so let's go back to the beginning as you suggested.
As I understand it, you have a problem with my stating that evolutionist theory makes fundamental assumptions about the origin and purpose of life. The problem is that you cannot find, in any evolutionist theories, any words to suggest the origin and purpose of life have any stake in the theory (or theories) whatsoever.
I am supposed to show you briefly at least one example of a particular theory of evolution that takes origins and purpose into account. Since, so far, I have been unable to give a satisfactory summary or example, my original assertion is false.
Is that it?
Well, hold on to your banana, because I will freely admit, as you wish, that no theory of evolution addresses the questions of origins and purpose. And I will state that by this omission they have made the fundamental assumption that origins and purpose have no place in science, and in so doing have boxed themselves out of true scientific method, for true scientific method does not a priori discard these questions.
"You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, unpleasant little fellow . . .
I can certainly understand why you'd have that opinion, and I'm glad you've come along thus far for the joust.
I see. And I suppose you believe evolution should be taught as indisputable FACT? What kind of "science" is there in discarding a whole realm of possibilities? Only the most ignorant and dishonest of "scientists" would agree with you in stating that evolution has been PROVED.
Define "proved"...
Divine revelation.
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.