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."
Haeckel's embryos and the moths were frauds, period. Evolutionists continue to use these frauds in textbooks. The finches have been shown to interbreed for some 20 years and the evolutionists continue to state they are different species. The fly with extra wings is one of the strongest arguments for ID but the evolutionists continue to say it proves evolution. The Hardy-Weinberg experiment is completely backwards - amino acids do not produce DNA, it is RNA reading the DNA code that produces amino acids. There is no excuse for these LIES to be continued to be promulgated in textbooks except that evolutionists do not care about science, do not care about the truth. They only care about promoting their atheistic agenda.
Name it. Define when using God's existence as an axiom has worked quite well. I want you to back this up.
Creationists love to make the comparison between human art and the universe. I can name a couple of differences between the Sistine Chapel and the universe, even right off the top of my head and without having a picture of the Sistine Chapel in front of me!
I think we're having a bit of semantic confusion here over the meaning of "axiom." God's existence as an axiom is essential -- in the field of theology. According to Occham's Razor, it is not rational to insert God as an hypothesis into a scientific problem, when the problem can be resolved by natural explanations without the God hypothesis. And even in those numerous areas where science doesn't yet have a satisfying natural explanation, the God hypothesis isn't really an explanation -- it's just a technique for waving the problem away -- "No need to do any research here; God did it.".
But in the true course of experience, and in carrying it on to the effecting of new works, the divine wisdom and order must be our pattern. Now God on the first day of creation created light only, giving to that work an entire day, in which no material substance was created. So must we likewise from experience of every kind first endeavor to discover true causes and axioms; and seek for experiments of Light, not for experiments of Fruit. For axioms rightly discovered and established supply practice with its instruments, not one by one, but in clusters, and draw after them trains and troops of works.
--Novum Organum
This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.
--William Blackstone
These links by themselves answer your question providing you understand the significance of the documents?
I have to go back to work or I would have found links to Descartes, Pasteur, Newton, Roger Bacon, the founding of the western University system, the founding and evolution of our hospital system, the Declaration of Independence,and Adam Smith, Columbus -- all of which or whom treated God's existence as axiomatic in their deeds, discoveries or theories.
It's essential in the field of the reality. The problem came when the material was declared to be the sum of everything.
Science cannot address the spiritual. If the spiritual is denied the most important part of existence is missing.
I agree with the posters who say invoking God's existence in a scientific theory is cheating. But to deny God's existence or imply that it is irrelevant makes science -- and everything else one would do -- ultimately pointless.
A beautiful but serious book with serious implications -- highly recommended.
Your references are interesting, but not one of them is a logical demonstration of the necessity of the theistic axiom. They are personal opinions only. Work in all the fields you mention can and does progress in the absence of that axiom, so I still say that outside of the field of theology, the axiom is not a logical necessity.
To be certain that I'm being clear here, nothing I'm saying is intended to disprove the existence of God. Indeed, nothing can disprove God's existence. But to assume God's existence as an axiom adds nothing which is essential to the work of science.
And when did that occur? Science operates on available evidence. Nowhere does science claim that available evidence is all there is. It implicitly claims otherwise, in fact, in holding to the principle of fallability, and requiring critical experiments, rather than experiments designed to confirm.
Science is no more "proven" an institution than faith. Our faith in science has generally got more intense technical refinement than our faith in transcendental truths, but is nonetheless faith, at bottom.
Then why are the micro-biology journals still active?
So? The whole point of this discussion is that there wasn't a single common ancestor. Have you lost track of the argument?
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.