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."
Wouldn't require some kind of exegesis; really, just insert a few words: replace "Evolution is how all life was created..." with "Evolution is the theory held by scientists for how all life was created...." Simple.
Another simple and pragmatic solution, short of revising texts in the aforementioned manner, re-purchasing them, and waiting for them to arrive, is to add an amendment to the text effecting this kind of global-replace. Hey, that's the proposal!
An eight-hour dialog on the present controversies regarding the epistimological limits of scientific reasoning, might not be the cat's pajamas for getting an eight year old interested in science.
Heck, it was even starting to turn me off science when I was subjected to it by my correctors on this thread. I agree. ;-)
But adding the five words "the theory held by scientists for" to a few sentences should only marginally add to the boredom factor.
Personally, I'd be more than content to leave biology off the agenda until high school.
Me too. It's also possible to teach about frankly unobjectionable observations like natural selection, DNA mutations, and fossils, without teaching them "evolution" per se. Teachers can teach students that if critters have genetic features which cause them to die without breeding, they probably won't contribute much to the gene pool. They can teach that sometimes it can happen that a piece of DNA gets inverted or whatever. They can teach that archaeologists have found some very interesting fossilized bones, some of which don't look like critters we know about but which resemble critters we know about. And so on. They don't have to say "and that, children, is how all life on earth has come to be. The end."
If they did it this way and creationists still protested, I'd switch sides and sign up for the Brave Defenders of The Scientific Majority team in a heartbeat.
By the way, I expect nobody tells you for sure because nobody remembers. When people have chimed in on this discussion whose kids had current textbooks, so far, I don't remember a reported case of disclaimer-failure.
A solid point. It is, of course, merely an assumption on my part that the state's textbook in question doesn't already have a "theory" disclaimer in its Evolution chapter or section. But again, I do think it's a pretty safe assumption, given that this controversy actually exists; I'd have to think "turn to page 61, idiot, it's already there!", if it were possible to say, would have nipped this thing in the bud. Evidently it has not. I could be proven wrong, but until then, I see little reason to sympathize with the Brave Defenders of the Scientific Majority in their quest to exclude a true statement from being inserted into a textbook. Best,
The smartest paragraph on the thread so far.
"Unobjectionable," not like evolution? We can give them natural selection, DNA, and fossils, but it's objectionable to connect the dots and say that life evolves? But I was lying, wasn't I, when I said you found such behavior objectionable? Or was I?
After all, you have no problem with evolution. I'm sure we've all read the posts where you said so. So I'm really curious to hear how my modest proposal to simply remove all mention of evolution from the disclaimer will fly with you.
I mean, it's not about evolution with you. You're this afficionado of theory versus fact and all. So you're going to embarrass me by agreeing that if I can sell my fellow defenders of science and science education on the idea, you'll sign right up and only those creationists will be unhappy. Right? And then I'll have to apologize for ever suspecting you of being yet another Luddite trojan horse. Because you don't care if it's evolution or plate tectonics, so long as we're making the kids aware of theory.
I deny that common descent is a "fact", sure. But that's not what you said I denied in your lying post to Rightwing. You said that I denied (rather, "intend to deny", reading my mind for the umpteenth time...) "connecting the dots" or "inductive reasoning".
For the record, again, I don't "deny" inductive reasoning (whatever that would mean). I've said several times that I even think, based on that inductive reasoning that you think I "intend to deny", that "common descent" is the likely story! I don't deny it at all!
I just don't think that inductive reasoning applied to some evidence makes something a "fact". Yes, I deny that "common descent" is a "fact". If you had said that to Rightwing I wouldn't have been able to call you a liar. I guess the most generous interpretation of your lie is that you simply misspoke.
[on why it's not ok to call theories "theories", they must be called facts] Science cannot bend over backwards in such a fashion and neither should science textbooks.
I think you're wrong. And I think scientists would disagree with you.
No honest scientist would have one iota of a problem with calling evolution a "theory" in private. (Of course as this thread proves, if they're aware they're talking to creationists, some of them become more defensive and circle the wagons....)
The real question here is why it's so important to you to call it a "fact" rather than a "theory". And why you think that calling a theory a theory is somehow "bending over backwards". I don't know any actual scientists who feel this way. You're a Braver Defender of Science than scientists are.
Furthermore, we know who is pushing the disclaimers and why they are pushing the disclaimers and it's actually not good science education policy to let such witch doctors start scribbling in the science books.
It's bad to allow true statements to be printed in science texts if the people wanting to put those true statements in science texts are not the right people. Got it.
You're really something of a science cultist, ain't ya? Scientists are your priests. Only things they touch are holy. Even true words are unclean if they don't come from Scientists. It's just fascinating.
What I have defended to Rightwing and everywhere else on this thread is exactly the right of science to say that the evidence looks a certain way because this initially controversial idea is obviously true.
I will go to the grave defending the right of scientists to say this, as well. And you know what we call such a statement from a scientist?
A theory.
What you are saying, on the other hand, is that any sufficiently organized Luddite group can label anything in science, however well established, as conjecture
Actually, I said "theory", but go on....
and By God get a warning label pasted in the front of a science textbook so stating.
For the zillionth time, why do you think the word "theory" is a warning label? It's the word that SCIENTISTS WOULD USE. Don't you know that?
OK, since you have no problem with evolution, I propose to replace every occurrence of "evolution" in the disclaimer with "plate tectonics." "Origin of life" will similarly be replaced with "configuration of land masses" and so forth. This will make you and the rest of the disclaimer crew just as happy and we'll all laugh about it and go away, right? Because all you really want to do is raise awareness of theory, right?
Right!
If the textbook of the state in question doesn't already say that plate tectonics is a theory, then put a disclaimer for plate tectonics, too. That's my view, and it was clear several hundred posts back.
But you know what? I'll bet that plate tectonics, if it's at all covered, is identified as a "theory" in that text, already. Just a hunch.
Why do I get the feeling that this proposal isn't going to fly?
Because, just as with all the other times you've tried to read my mind and guess aspects of my biography, you're completely wrong. And prejudiced: I'm arguing with you, so I must be a Creationist. I'm arguing with you, so I must disagree with your "plate tectonics" proposal.
The reason you got this erroneous "feeling", and all your other erroneous feelings about me, is because you've prejudged me in your zealotry to defend Science even more than actual, real scientists ever would.
Actual, real scientists have no problem with saying that evolution is a theory. Hate to burst your bubble; I know you think you're on their side and everything.
It's not objectionable to connect the dots. It's objectionable to connect the dots without admitting that's what you're doing.
So I'm really curious to hear how my modest proposal to simply remove all mention of evolution from the disclaimer will fly with you.
I may have misunderstood your 'modest proposal'. You want to remove mention of evolution from the disclaimer? In other words, you want to pull a switch-er-oo on us? Man, that's dishonest. I thought you just wanted to add a 'plate tectonics' disclaimer (if necessary). But you want to add the plate tectonics disclaimer and remove the evolution disclaimer.
But now we're back to square one. On what basis must we remove the evolution disclaimer?
Because you don't care if it's evolution or plate tectonics, so long as we're making the kids aware of theory.
Sigh. Ok, if the choice is between no disclaimer and a plate-tectonics disclaimer only, I'll take the latter. (Although my hunch is, as I said, that such a disclaimer would be redundant.)
But why should that be the choice? Why should we quash the evolution disclaimer?
Then why are natural selection, DNA, and fossils "unobjectionable" but stringing any meaningful picture (the E word) from same is specifically excluded?
No honest scientist would have one iota of a problem with calling evolution a "theory" in private.
I've quoted two now publicly calling it a theory and a fact. The Gould article has been posted to you before. Somehow it didn't get through. You're still screeching the same screech.
(Of course as this thread proves, if they're aware they're talking to creationists, some of them become more defensive and circle the wagons....)
Your mask is slipping. Ranting about the vast evo conspiracy is for the non-stealthies.
But you know what? I'll bet that plate tectonics, if it's at all covered, is identified as a "theory" in that text, already. Just a hunch.
A "hunch?" You're looking about as phoney-baloney as I expected, but I'll be fair and give you a chance or two more.
What's the difference? Do you accept plate tectonics as a revision to the disclaimer, replacing evolution, or not? If you do not, what's your story now about what you are here yelling about?
After all, you probably have no more idea what the high school textbooks say about the epistemological basis of plate tectonics than about evolution. You have specifically disavowed any intent to target evolution, remember? You just want the kids to be aware of what is a theory and it's just a coincidence that you're yapping along with the Young Earthies on the quest for this particular disclaimer.
For the zillionth time, why do you think the word "theory" is a warning label? It's the word that SCIENTISTS WOULD USE. Don't you know that?
Why are you pretending not to know who is pushing the disclaimer and why they want it?
If the textbook of the state in question doesn't already say that plate tectonics is a theory, then put a disclaimer for plate tectonics, too. That's my view, and it was clear several hundred posts back.>
Not "too." Instead. Because you never gave a damn until I brought it up about plate tectonics, so I'll have to insist here. Not "too." "Instead." Or you need another story.
Actual, real scientists have no problem with saying that evolution is a theory.
More importantly, they also have no trouble saying that it's a fact. But you do.
You are right though that I should be careful with typing quick categorical absolutes like "ANY scientist" to save energy and prevent carpal tunnel syndrome. I must be more careful and verbose. As this thread has proven, because I signed up for the Knuckle-Dragging Fundie Creationist team early on, my every sentence will be ground through the dictionary, Google, and a graduate text in logic.
So before you find a real counterexample (one can almost always find counterexamples to statements concerning "all" of a group of humans, after all), allow me to revise my statement:
The vast majority of scientists would agree with me that evolution is a theory.
Best,
I made it perfectly plain exactly what the test was and we both knew that you were going to flunk it. You are fraud, period. That's what's dishonest here.
But why should that be the choice?
Just smoking you out.
Why should we quash the evolution disclaimer?
Why should anyone expect you to renounce what you came for?
Why do you assume it is NOT possible to believe in a Creator AND believe in evolution? The two are not exclusionary!
It's not, I don't "exclude" the picture-stringing at all. I just want it to be admitted that the picture has been strung.
[Bad People, not Holy Scientists, are behind the disclaimer] Why are you pretending not to know who is pushing the disclaimer and why they want it?
I'm not pretending not to know this. I just don't care. Appeals to Authority and Motive don't mesmerize me, as they do you. I just think it's fine and dandy to put true statements in books.
[scientists say evolution is a theory] More importantly, they also have no trouble saying that it's a fact.
This hasn't been my observation. Mine is: Get scientists in a room and say a word like "fact", and "no trouble" is the opposite of what you will see. :-)
Anyway, I'm glad to see you've conceded that evolution is a theory. Now all you have to do is explain why you oppose true statements in books.
[my misunderstanding of, and eventual answer to, your "test"] I made it perfectly plain exactly what the test was and we both knew that you were going to flunk it.
Yes, like I said I misunderstood your 'plate-tectonics' proposal. Sorry about that.
I don't think that (by the measurements I imagine you're using) I "flunked" it, though. I said that between (a) no disclaimers and (b) plate-tectonics disclaimer, I choose (b). That should "pass" your "test", I think....
[why should I accept removing the evolution disclaimer] Why should anyone expect you to renounce what you came for?
Yes, especially when you haven't made any persuasive argument against it whatsoever.
You have their birth certificates?
If Neanderthals were still around as a separate group
Neanderthals were always found in separate groups from humans (homo sapiens). This and the fact that no bones intermediate between the two species were ever found made paleontologists suspect that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens were too different to be able to produce progeny. This has been soundly verified by the finding of 3 different sets of DNA which have been examined by 3 different sets of scientists and all have concluded that Neanderthal was too far apart from Homo Sapiens to have ever been its ancestor. So science again has disproven your stupid little theory. Your macabre collection is totally meaningless.
Falsifiable facts now! How creative.
Yes the scientific community is doing much work. As usual, they care about science, not about politics and ideology. They keep on searching for truth wherever it may lead and the truth does not lead to evolution. It was not scientists looking to prove evolution that discovered DNA, it was scientists looking for truthful answers. Science is essentially non political, non ideological. The evolutionists, the atheists, the materialists, the leftists have tried to turn it into a tool for their ideologies but as in politics, in science also the truth cannot be repressed.
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.