Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

Which broad definition would you like, any definition that I give will necessarily be argued by some, as you call them "evolutionists", to be incomplete. A full definition would take quite a bit of space so I will keep it as succinct as I can.

Biological evolution: Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
-- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

or

evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
-- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Darwin's definition of evolution: natural selection has gradually caused all lifeforms on Earth to have evolved from a single common ancestor.

Is that what you are asking, or is that too general?

I've got one for you, Mr. "All Genetics Disproves Evolution:"

Scientists Pin Down Sea Squirt Genetics

"The sea squirt enjoys a special place in the hearts of biologists because it provides the first evolutionary connection between invertebrates and vertebrates," Levine said. "You look at the adult and you think it is one simple creature, but if you look at the embryo, you see a clear connection to higher animals. This is our ancient, ancient cousin."

Of course, such information doesn't fit into your paradigm, so you'll be sure to ignore it.

The article you posted does not as you loudly trumpet rebut the survey article I linked earlier.

Was there any significance to the point at which you truncated the ABC News article? Here's the last section, the only one that somehow didn't make it onto the thread in your post.

Debate Continues
Loring Brace, an anthropologist at University of Michigan and a proponent of the idea that people descended from Neanderthals — he argues that features of skulls show a steady progression from Neanderthal to human — says the DNA evidence does not sway him. Different patterns of movement may have caused mitochrondial DNA to diverge more quickly in the past, he says. “The whole picture is still very spotty,” Brace says.
Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, says the DNA evidence does not disprove his assertion that the 25,000-year-old skeleton of a child unearthed in Portugal is the descendent of a human-Neanderthal hybrid. The new research, he says, just shows interbreeding was not common.
“There is no contradiction,” he says.
Goodwin also says his finding isn’t the final word. Perhaps Neanderthals and humans mated and produced sterile offspring, similar to mules, the crossbreed of horses and donkeys. “It’s very hard to prove any negative,” Goodwin says. “I wouldn’t claim this to be conclusive.”

Just another piece of evidence on the pile that says our mtDNA isn't neanderthal. What's really needed is enough nuclear--not mitochondrial--DNA to do a good study.

The neanderthal is still a piece of the puzzle even if it's an absolutely proven genetic dead end. If they're offline, they're not far offline. They would be very, very close relatives if they were still around.

after Luther but before the 30 Years War

Of course - I must somehow have switched the years around. But we Swedes always connect the reformation with Gustavus Adolphus, so perhaps I was subconsciously showing my "Swedishness" or something ;)

the harsh treatment of Galileo was a reaction to the anti-heliocentric attitude of Luther

How could the geocentric views of Luther ever have caused the Catholic church to go down harder on the helicentric Galileo? They could of course have said that "since even the heretics thinks the earth is the center, it must be so", but I can't see them ever confirming their own beliefs using "heretics".

I think I disagree with you on this point [...] the way the theory was foisted on me in high school

I can of course only speak for myself and the way evolution was presented in the Swedish school. We had no "disclaimers" but were taught what a theory is. That is, that it's not fact. We even had one of the principal creationist proponents in Sweden, an archaeologist(!), come to our class and present his views. In that kind of climate, I think it's a whole lot easier to develop the minds of our young.

Meanwhile you couldn't even sing a Christmas carol.

That's sad. One of the things I remember most clearly from my first few years in school is how we always sang a psalm first thing in the morning. And this in a public school in "socialist" Sweden :)

"I am curious as to your reference to the "true" scientific method, however."

Please allow me to excerpt a few paragraphs related to basic scientific method, and then I will comment.

"Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

"It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

"When testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes 'common sense' and 'logic' tempt us into believing that no test is needed."

I maintain that discounting the possibility of intelligent design with respect to the world as we know it is an exceedingly heavy bias. Those who discard this possibility do so with such tenacity, with such fear of questioning their own assumptions, as to make their arguments and teaching appear idiotic.

We even had one of the principal creationist proponents in Sweden, an archaeologist(!), come to our class and present his views.

You do know how he would be expected to be treated by the Darwininians here, of course?

not only should he have been suspended, he should have been fired and then blacklisted from ever teaching a science class again, ANYWHERE!!

You do know how he would be expected to be treated by the Darwininians here, of course?

Of course. Just tapping a little of what is said here on FR makes me realize how polarized the issue is, and to what lengths proponents of either side are willing to go for "victory". The loosers in this game are the kids who will grow up equally polarized, unable to take in new information and critically examine its merits. All would be fine if students were made to realize that there are few universal truths in science, if alternative theories are presented and "disclaimers" pointing out specific subjects were thrown out.

Personally, not even psalms every morning, Christmas carols and creationsism lessons could stop me from becoming an "evolutionist". But mostly because of school, I will not ever stop being a "seeker", one that is open for new ideas and is constantly on the look-out for a god. :)

Merry Xmas freepers, with that this Swede signs off for his Xmas holidays.

Just tapping a little of what is said here on FR makes me realize how polarized the issue is, and to what lengths proponents of either side are willing to go for "victory".

Yes, it is polarized. But you can easily observe that only one side of the issue is presented in our public schools. You can also see that the non-Darwininian side is not a fringe group. So in a nation steeped in the concepts of freedom of thought, speech, and association, it should be an anathema to muzzle one side of an issue. Muzzled for even so simple a true statement as the disclaimer.

How could the geocentric views of Luther ever have caused the Catholic church to go down harder on the helicentric Galileo?

Again it was only from a quick scan and I can't remember the site. My impression was that the Catholics felt the need to come down on heliocentricity in order to maintain credibility with potential Protestant converts. But I could have read it wrong. When I get to my home computer I'll try & track down the site.

I can of course only speak for myself and the way evolution was presented in the Swedish school. We had no "disclaimers" but were taught what a theory is.

I think you've got to the root of the problem. Namely American public schools. Dr. Frank had a very good suggestion a few posts back which sounds akin to your experience. I doubt it would be instituted here. It would require too much work by the NEA members.

That's sad. One of the things I remember most clearly from my first few years in school is how we always sang a psalm first thing in the morning. And this in a public school in "socialist" Sweden :)

Now, I'm sad.

"Science must confine itself to those phenomenon for which there is evidence."

Yes, and this is precisely the arena in which both evolutionists and creationists have common ground.

Absolutely. You would therefore consent to provide positive evidence for creation?

Also (and really, I feel silly for mentioning this), I would like to reiterate that since competing scientific theories are necessarily independant, you'll naturally have to refrain from referencing arguments against evolution as support of creationism.

I disagree. I concede there may be an intelligent designer. But because we have no evidence for such, there is no reason to postulate one. Even if the Theory of Evolution was discarded tonight, you still need to have evidence to support ID.

To paraphrase Stephen Hawking, a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements:

it must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements,
and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

An intelligent designer is a considerably arbitrary element. Until the existence of such can be substantiated, science must assume the opposite is true.

The argument is moot: Creation is self-evident.

I have a strong hunch that the most current theories in evolution are a somewhat accurate picture of natural history, but I don't know for sure.

Meanwhile, I am completely convinced that the Creator is the God of Israel, and Jesus Christ is His Son.

I have no problem believing both things. I only have a problem with my brothers in Christ sometimes rejecting me because I don't believe that Genesis was written as God's "Materials and Methods" section. This is grievous to me sometimes, because I otherwise see the world as my "creationist" brethren do. The way I see it, the godless have even less excuse if the theory of evolution is true.

I recommend Romans 1 in the Bible, and the writings of John C. Polkinghorne to everybody.

The political argument is moot, too, because no level of government should be involved in the education (which ALWAYS involves indoctrination) of our children.

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.