Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[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."

[donh]

Yes I'm a fundie

That you have a great many scientific hurdles to get over before you come to me and my humble hot co-operating RNA communities.

[Gargantua]

More "evolutionist" hogwash.

If all creatures "evolved" by "random selection", why do nearly all all mammals, and all birds have two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth, and the equivalent of two arms and two legs (four limbs)?

All fish... two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth. All reptiles, two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth.

Sound "random" to you? Really?

One of the first laws of Science is that "Where there is a design, there must be a designer"... a little fact that the "evolutionists" like to ignore because it makes them look like the imbeciles that they are.

From single-celled organisms, which evolved first... the circulatory system (with no respiratory system to feed it oxygen)?

Or did the nervous system "evolve" first (with no organs, heart or lungs to control... and no brain to control it)?

Or, would you like to be the first to posit that all evolved at once? Kind of like an evolutionary "Big Bang?" Wow, that would have been lucky, huh?

I'd say you evolutionists have some pretty big gaps to fill before you should expect top be taken seriously by anyone besides puffed-up, self-important, know-nothing academic simpletons... (read "other evolutionists").

And frankly, until you fill those gaps, evolution is much more of a faith-based belief-structure (religion) than is Creation, of which we have a written and verified historical record.

[biblewonk]

humble hot co-operating RNA communities.

You need a symbol more specific than the darwin fish. :-D

[donh]

This is the same puzzling approach that VadeRetro takes; you both seem to think that there is something dirty or shameful about saying evolution is a theory. But why? "Theory" (unlike "wife-beater") is a value-neutral term.

You have a truly annoying way of sidestepping an obvious point with unrelated rudeness. At least it's refreshingly more subtle than Mr. Blue's non-compos mentos act.

[donh]

One of the first laws of Science is that "Where there is a design, there must be a designer"... a little fact that the "evolutionists" like to ignore because it makes them look like the imbeciles that they are.

That is not a law of science. That is a law of ingrained stupidity. It was one of the innumberable proofs of god supplied by 12th century clerics with too much time on their hands. It also a gross and obvious logical fallacy called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Apparent design could be a demonstration of coping mechanisms seeking to maintain linear equilibrium in a slowly changing environment. That is not proof that the coping mechanism was God.

[donh]

humble hot co-operating RNA communities.

You need a symbol more specific than the darwin fish. :-D

I was thinking of inverting DNA and calling it AND. For Autogenic Not using DNA. Catchy, huh?

[biblewonk]

I was hoping for something more graphic like maybe a pentagram made of DNA strands or something.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Or, would you like to be the first to posit that all evolved at once? Kind of like an evolutionary "Big Bang?" Wow, that would have been lucky, huh?

They've been big on the punctuated equilibrium 'thing' lately. Careful, though, there are a couple of new evos that have been posting here, thinking they are breaking the back of anyone who disagrees with their evolutionist garbage, who may fly off the deep end if their pet theory continues to be challenged. I have noticed the insults have been flying around quite a bit. I have also noticed that a couple of these evos are bordering on losing it completely -- melting down into a pool of primordial soup. It's quite fun to watch, actually.

I'm just letting you know what you are getting into by disagreeing with them. They will call you a fool, question your credentials, and flame you repeatedly.

Guess the fact that over 75% of the World's population thinks evolution is bunk doesn't matter to them. Oh well.

FRegards, MM

[PatrickHenry]

If all creatures "evolved" by "random selection", why do nearly all all mammals, and all birds have two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth, and the equivalent of two arms and two legs (four limbs)? All fish... two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth. All reptiles, two eyes, two nostrils, one mouth. Sound "random" to you? Really?

One of the lesser quality posts I've seen. The term is natural selection, hot shot, not "random" selection, which blows your critique away with the dust. Try to learn at least something about evoution -- at least what it is, before you embark on a crusade against it.

[Condorman]

Guess the fact that over 75% of the World's population thinks evolution is bunk doesn't matter to them.

I'd wager fewer still could correctly identify the terms of Einstein's mass/energy conversion equation. Did you have a particular point you were trying to make?

[Sentis]

MM wrote "I have noticed the insults have been flying around quite a bit. I have also noticed that a couple of these evos are bordering on losing it completely --

I'm just letting you know what you are getting into by disagreeing with them. They will call you a fool, question your credentials, and flame you repeatedly.

Guess the fact that over 75% of the World's population thinks evolution is bunk doesn't matter to them. Oh well."



Gore3000 started the insults and I think I am free to call anyone who makes a fool out of himself a Fool.

As to losing it, I have just been having fun with you people who believe this Creation nonsense. I have better debates with real scientists over the merits of savannah theory over Aquatic Ape. (I personally think a modified aquatic ape theory will win out).


I Have been called a fool my credentials were questioned and I was flamed over and over. :) I wonder if pretending you are a Saint will work any better than repeating a mantra of Irreducible Complexity or Geologic Column.

Gargantua others have expressed their opinions of your post. I have no real Interest in debating Irreducible complexity again today so I'll just posit a new debate.


All this debate comes down to is how the Universe began

The Universe could have began in three different ways

1. God could have created the universe 6-10 thousand years ago populated the world with animals that cannot evolve or change in any appreciable way. This universe was created with fossils and artifacts in place and the light coming from stars millions of light years away was created already on its way. In this universe natural laws are meaningless and God changes them at his whim.

2. God created the universe. He set the natural laws in place and these laws gave rise to animals and humanity through a process scientists call evolution. In this universe God created natural laws that govern how and why things happen. He was so far sighted that he has no need to disobey the laws he set forth at the beginning of creation on a whim.

3. The Universe exists independant of God. There is no need for a God becuase the Universe has either always existed or if it hasn't always existed the concept of "Before the Universe" is meaningless because time can't exist outside the framework of the natural laws that make up the universe.


As rational beings we can ignore the first universe. The Creationists will want to know why we should ignore it so I'll elaborate. Any God who created a universe with fossils in place and light from distant suns already on its way to earth has basically lied to his creation. This type of God is not that God that Christian's claim to believe in. This is a God more in Keeping with Muslim mythology a God that seeks to trick his creation so that they can not attain salvation without blind unthinking faith.


This leaves the two other concepts of the Universe and I really could care less which of the two are correct. God either created a universe with natural laws in place or he doesn't exist and the universe itself is the primary. It is that simple. If God does exist (I dont at this moment believe he does but that is personal opinion as I can't disprove he exists the same as you can't prove he does) If he does exist you as creationists should marvel at the complexity that this God instilled into his creation. Your God that created everything at one time and in place wasn't very creative but one who creates natural laws which work to bring about his progeny (US) through evolution is a much more intriguing figure.


There is a difference between evolutionists and Creationists one that strikes at the heart of the matter. If evolution was shown scientifically to be wrong and replaced with a more fullfilling theory evolutionists would give it up. W have no faith in the theory we have a rational belief.

If God was to suddenly be proven without a doubt to not exist creationists would deny the evidence they would close their eyes and scream "NO IT DOESN'T" and NO IT ISN'T" at the top of their lungs hoping the evidence would be submerged beneath the strength of their protests.





As to 75% not believing in the concept of evolution it wouldnt matter if 99.9% didn't except it the majority is rarely right That is the very reason the founding Fathers created a republic rather than a democracy.

[longshadow]

I have perhaps the most important credential of all, a credential which almost all evolutionists lack. It is called common sense. [gore3000]

Some examples of G3k's "common sense":

"A circle is not an ellipse...."

"1⁷²⁰...."

"wildly elliptical" planetary orbits

I'm not making these up.....

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Sentis, You've contradicted yourself a few times. You say "I have just been having fun with you people who believe this Creation nonsense.", then go on to say later "I can't disprove he exists the same as you can't prove he does."

That is a perfect example of an evolutionist who wants a "bail out": you say Creation is nonsense but then go on to say you can't disprove it. You are leaving the door open, just in case. Why? Because you don't honestly believe that you, Sentis, evolutionist, evolved from 'bubbling primordial goo'. You like the idea of leaving the option of Creation open, should you find out in the end that the study of evolution was really a study of adaptation and the beauty of the Creator's work, as opposed to the haphazard, unguided, evolved Universe that you perceive it to be.

You said "If evolution was shown scientifically to be wrong and replaced with a more fullfilling theory evolutionists would give it up." You don't want me to start filling you in on the countless debunkings, do you? Or expose the lies and BS that the evolutionist camp has been driving down the public's throats since Darwin and even before him? By the way, speaking of incorrect material, there are textbooks and instructors in schools all around the world still preaching Darwin's blather. Let's work to clean 'em up, shall we? I have links I can provide if you would like. [Lurkers FReepmail me and I will hook you up].

Anyway, I like how you outlined your theories. Thanks for the read. I have to run now and get my wife some Christmas gifts. It's the most wonderful time of the year, ho ho. Happy Holidays.

MM

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

My point is, that generally speaking, billions and billions of people usually aren't wrong, especially in this day and age, and especially with our technological capabilities. Face it, the evolutionist camp is regarded as a joke in most circles, and people scoff at the notion we arose from primordial soup.

By the way, looks like I was incorrect with my percentage. It's more like 86% of the entire World believes in a Creator. A tad lopsided, if you ask me.

Why so lopsided? One reason -- God. The real question is why are there still people who believe we evolved and were not Created. Check out this essay by Dr. John Oakes: A few reasons why.

Enjoy!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Dang statistics are fun! I never realized so many American Presidents believe in a Creator. And if I am not mistaken, they have some of the World's brightest scientists, doctors, advisors, etc. at their beckon call, and have access to the most up to date research. Guess they must be 'humoring' the 86% of us and being PC. American Presidents that believe in a Creator

Flame away! I probably broke some rule of logic here, but I don't care.

Enjoy

[Aric2000]

One of the first laws of Science is that "Where there is a design, there must be a designer"...


ROFLMAO!! Of all the scientists that I have talked to ro correspond with, I have NEVER heard one of them state that rule.

You must be speaking of the so-called scientists that believe in ID, a nonproven theory that is based on the views of an discredited scientist.

Get a grip, you Creo's have lost it BIG time!!

[Sentis]

MM wrote "Sentis, You've contradicted yourself a few times. You say "I have just been having fun with you people who believe this Creation nonsense.", then go on to say later "I can't disprove he exists the same as you can't prove he does."

How is this a contradiction I realize some of you don't understand scientific concepts but as basic a concept as "contradiction" should be easily understood. When I say Creation nonsense I am referring to the belief that The Universe was created 6-10 thousand years ago with all animals in place. I have pretty much confined my disgust to those who support this notion.



MM wrot "That is a perfect example of an evolutionist who wants a "bail out": you say Creation is nonsense but then go on to say you can't disprove it"

I said I can't disprove the existence of GOD not creation. Maybe I should create Two definitiond i will from now on refer to one group as irrational creationists, I think we know which ones these are, and rational creationists, those that believe in a creator who created the Universe with natural laws that encourage evolution to occur.

Your real problem is that you can't prove the existence of GOD.

MM wrote "you don't honestly believe that you, Sentis, evolutionist, evolved from 'bubbling primordial goo'. You like the idea of leaving the option of Creation open,"
MM wrote "

Well bubbling primordial goo isn't the term I would use more like bubbles of amino acids and the answer is yes. Regardless if God exists or not All creatures evolved from something like this. I actually would love for there to be a creator, a God that, loves his creation. The problem is there is no evidence for this being's existence. Absence of evidence leads me to take the position that he doesn't exist when and if evidence to the contrary becomes availible I will believe. Well possibly believe a creature that helped form the universe exists, if I am given evidence, his devinity will remain in question regardless of the proof. I would give him the respect I would give a parent but would not give him worship regardless.


MM wrote "You said "If evolution was shown scientifically to be wrong and replaced with a more fullfilling theory evolutionists would give it up." You don't want me to start filling you in on the countless debunkings, do you? "

Your debunking is probably as worthless as gore3000s debunking. The evidence against evolution seems to be primarily attacks that were old a hundred years ago. Creationists attack old theories and old statements. This debunking has little or nothing to do with modern genetics or evolutionary theory.

Darwin was a good man he went out with the express purpose of proving that the earth was young and that Creation was real. Instead he returned home with a profound belief that this was a very Old Earth and that animals had diverged in may ways. Was the theory he postulated perfect of course not. Was Newton's theory of physics perfect? Was Einstein's? No of course not Darwin's theory was genius he gave us a theory to work from not one that would last forever. His word is not holy writ however it did open the path to the truth.

Merry Christmas to you

[Sentis]

longshadow wrote "I have perhaps the most important credential of all, a credential which almost all evolutionists lack. It is called common sense. [gore3000]
Some examples of G3k's "common sense":

"A circle is not an ellipse...."

"1720...."

"wildly elliptical" planetary orbits


I'm not making these up..... "


He also said on another thread that chimps have tails


this posted in the interest of accuracy.

[PatrickHenry]

A few favorites, accumulated over the past year:

You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times.
The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right.
Wildly elliptical orbits.
1⁷²⁰.
Evolutionists never won the [non-existent] Nobel Prize for biology.
All discoveries disprove evolution.
DNA disproves evolution.
The fossil record disproves evolution.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The evidence against evolution seems to be primarily attacks that were old a hundred years ago.

Oh really? Seems like you need to read some of the new literature out there. You can find a lot of interesting, but more importantly recent daggers into the heart of evolution, here: No Nonsense

Notice the dates on the references.