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."

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote "DNA makes the process of evolution far to complicated for it to be even remotely possible in any kind of realistic time frame."

Finally something we agree on. The realistic timeframe you believe in is that the Earth is 6000 years old. I will state for the record the full course of evolution on this planet can not happen in 6000 years. Of course if you admit the Earth is 6000 or even 10000 years old you will certainly be shown for the fool you are. Doesn't your idol Behe think the Earth is as young as 6000 years I am sure you believe anything he says. What say you can you answe this? How Old is the Earth blueman?

[Sentis]

gore300 wrote maybe I should say strawman wrote "One of the things about evolution is that the theory is always behind the science."

All hypothesis proceeds the science that tries to prove it basic science. Lets quit the word games.

gore3000wrote"First it proposed melding of traits, that was disproved. Then it proposed a convoluted explanation of how mutations could be spread. This was made ludicrous by DNA since it required so many mutations, new genes, etc. for it to accomplish a simple change. So the evolutionists proposed duplication of whole genes. When it was found that genes needed a whole support system to make them even work, they ran out of answers."

Everything you say here is a Lie. I mean a blatant Lie. Each of these hypothesis in turn supported what came before and added to the how and why of evolution. What you have just stated is just a outright Lie. Where is your proof for these Lies other than your word on the subject?
Oh I forgot you don't answer questions accept with out and out Lies.

gore3000 wrote"There has never been a real how to evolution, just an 'it happens'. The mutations cannot be found, the species transforming into other species cannot be found. "

We have given examples of just this sort of thing throughout the thread. In fact I was asked to visit a site where the creationists admit that single celled creatures do evolve and that they have quit trying to use that as a proof in fact here is the link.
In fact that link by those who are ON YOUR SIDE prove you to be a Liar as we know you have read these threads fully.

Gore3000 wrote "The inconsistencies"

I have addressed inconsistances in another post as another False witness like yourself tried that route. I will restate that arguments about the how and why evolution occurred isn't a proof that it didnt occur in fact it is a natural scientific process of discovery, reject, discovery that occurs in all branches of science. That you bring it up proves to me your ignorance of the scientific process.

gore3000 wrote "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"

And the above is one of the many contradcitions I speak of. You cannot refute it because it is true so you try to laugh it off but contradictions in a theory render it null and void and are nothing to laugh at (except for opponents of it). "


You wrote this contradiction not a scientist. You are trying to say because you wrote a contradiction that has the word evolution in it that that proves evolution isn't true.

Lets look at this closer you wrote (yes you wrote this not a scientist) "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING."

You stated this not a scientist. Infact the enviroment is not constantly changing. It changes sometimes gradually and sometimes quickly but it doesnt change constantly.

You wrote "Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"


Well in a world the constantly changed it might but as we know fromactually living in the world there are no constant changes. You try to refute someone's point by pointing to something you yourself wrote and then giving it as a reason that they are wrong. This is outrageous it isn't debate it's deception.


This is proof of your deception for everyone to see. Doesn't your God State that it is an absolute sin to give False witness. Have you sinned against your god in lying to the people who read this thread. Can you admit your sin? I doubt it and that makes you less of a witness for your Christ. Who would wish to be like you if thats what it means to be a Christian?

[Sentis]

gore300 wrote maybe I should say strawman wrote "One of the things about evolution is that the theory is always behind the science."

All hypothesis proceeds the science that tries to prove it basic science. Lets quit the word games.

gore3000wrote"First it proposed melding of traits, that was disproved. Then it proposed a convoluted explanation of how mutations could be spread. This was made ludicrous by DNA since it required so many mutations, new genes, etc. for it to accomplish a simple change. So the evolutionists proposed duplication of whole genes. When it was found that genes needed a whole support system to make them even work, they ran out of answers."

Everything you say here is a Lie. I mean a blatant Lie. Each of these hypothesis in turn supported what came before and added to the how and why of evolution. What you have just stated is just a outright Lie. Where is your proof for these Lies other than your word on the subject?
Oh I forgot you don't answer questions accept with out and out Lies.

gore3000 wrote"There has never been a real how to evolution, just an 'it happens'. The mutations cannot be found, the species transforming into other species cannot be found. "

We have given examples of just this sort of thing throughout the thread. In fact I was asked to visit a site where the creationists admit that single celled creatures do evolve and that they have quit trying to use that as a proof in fact here is the link.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i10f.htm
In fact that link by those who are ON YOUR SIDE prove you to be a Liar as we know you have read these threads fully.

Gore3000 wrote "The inconsistencies"

I have addressed inconsistances in another post as another False witness like yourself tried that route. I will restate that arguments about the how and why evolution occurred isn't a proof that it didnt occur in fact it is a natural scientific process of discovery, reject, discovery that occurs in all branches of science. That you bring it up proves to me your ignorance of the scientific process.

gore3000 wrote "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"

And the above is one of the many contradcitions I speak of. You cannot refute it because it is true so you try to laugh it off but contradictions in a theory render it null and void and are nothing to laugh at (except for opponents of it). "


You wrote this contradiction not a scientist. You are trying to say because you wrote a contradiction that has the word evolution in it that that proves evolution isn't true.

Lets look at this closer you wrote (yes you wrote this not a scientist) "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING."

You stated this not a scientist. Infact the enviroment is not constantly changing. It changes sometimes gradually and sometimes quickly but it doesnt change constantly.

You wrote "Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"


Well in a world the constantly changed it might but as we know fromactually living in the world there are no constant changes. You try to refute someone's point by pointing to something you yourself wrote and then giving it as a reason that they are wrong. This is outrageous it isn't debate it's deception.


This is proof of your deception for everyone to see. Doesn't your God State that it is an absolute sin to give False witness. Have you sinned against your god in lying to the people who read this thread. Can you admit your sin? I doubt it and that makes you less of a witness for your Christ. Who would wish to be like you if thats what it means to be a Christian?

[gore3000]

gore3000 wrote "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization" -me- You stated this not a scientist. Infact the enviroment is not constantly changing. It changes sometimes gradually and sometimes quickly but it doesnt change constantly.

According to evolution the environmental conditions are indeed constantly changing and that is how new species are 'forced' to transform themselves into other species. Remember natural selection and all that nonsense? One of the things that creates this constant change is differing species competing for food, etc., remember that? According to evolution this competition which occurs all the time because other species are constantly changing too, forces a sort of 'biological war' between species. Have you not read Darwin?

Another example is the Galapagos finches. The rains there are very variable. Remember the El Nino? Comes every seven or eight years? This causes constant changes and is the source of the increase and decrease in beaks in the finches. If forces them to constantly adapt back and forth. If evolution were true and these beaks changed due to mutations, they would not be able to do that. Because evolution is false and the finches's genomes are able to adapt the size of the beaks without mutation they can adapt to the periods of high and low rainfall which constantly occurs there.

[gore3000]

gore3000 wrote "DNA makes the process of evolution far to complicated for it to be even remotely possible in any kind of realistic time frame." -me-

Finally something we agree on. The realistic timeframe you believe in is that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Nope. As usual I am speaking of the scientific assumptions of evolutionists of an old earth. So you will need to find some other excuse for refuting the above. Let's just take the example of men and monkeys. Supposedly according to evolutionists they diverged some ten million years ago. Supposedly according to evolutionists men and monkeys differ at least in 1% of the genome. Now that does not sound like much but it is a tremendous amount of change when one considers that this represents some 30,000,000 DNA base pairs. That means that in those ten million years the genomes of monkeys and men had to have found some 30,000,000 favorable mutations for these differences to arise. Because such a small amount of mutations are favorable, this is totally impossible and could not have been the way these changes occurred.

[gore3000]

Oh BTW you never refuted those posts you ignored

So what posts are you speaking of? Give me the link and I will do so now. (But you will not because the reason you are making such a blanket statement is that you really do not want an answer but just want to insult me).

[gore3000]

If the universe is in a infinite cycle of contraction and expansion then sooner of later out of an infinite number of bang/crunch events the exact universe fit for life will emerge.

Yes, that is the assumption made by atheists to explain how our Universe is so exactly fit for life. It is ridiculous and unscientific. It is unscientific because no such thing has ever been observed (and indeed is totally unobservable - you cannot see what no longer exists). So it is another of the phony excuses given by atheists and materialists - the dog ate my homework type of excuse. It is unreasonable on several grounds including Occam's razor. Another reason is that a random, undirected force would not go 'trying' the dials sequentially until one came about where everything fit perfectly. Another reason is the gambler's misconception that the odds change the more one plays and that the number they are playing is 'bound' to come up. This is not true. In a roulette wheel for example the chance of a number coming up the next time is always the same. Random chance has no memory. So when the odds are infinitesimaly small of something occurring, even after numerous tries, the chances of an event occurring still remain infinitessimally small at each new try.

[gore3000]

YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU

If the above is a request instead of an insult, then just restate your questions.

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote "Supposedly according to evolutionists men and monkeys differ at least in 1% of the genome. Now that does not sound like much but it is a tremendous amount of change when one considers that this represents some 30,000,000 DNA base pairs. That means that in those ten million years the genomes of monkeys and men had to have found some 30,000,000 favorable mutations for these differences to arise. "

Where did you get these numbers. Did you make them up or did Behe make them up?

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote"According to evolution the environmental conditions are indeed constantly changing "

No thats according to you no scientist said that the enviroment constantly changes you did. You give an example of seven to eight year rain cycle. Then give an example of adaptation to prove evolution doesnt occur? How do you possibly make a logical leap that evolution is false becuase animals can adapt? OF course you ignore my questions I asked you.


Just answer this one

How old is the Earth?

[Sentis]

Hello The super post I made the one you refused to read. I made it poretty clear that the proofs in that were ignored.

[Phaedrus]

Thanks, gore. Quantum mechanical effects in brain function are also modeled clearly, extensively and mathematically in The Physics of Consciousness (copyright 2000). Walker makes a compelling, scientific case for the manner in which the nonphysical interacts with the physical in the brain. What's fascinating and utterly fundamental, though, is that the nonphysical is built directly, inextricably into quantum mechanical math, the implications of which have been missed for a full century. These implications are explored by Walker. The Physics of Consciousness is a fine book.

[PatrickHenry]

Where did you get these numbers. Did you make them up or did Behe make them up?

It's the Patty Murray syndrome. Just say whatever you feel. If your feelings are strong enough, then whatever you say is true. To someone like Senator Murray, it's deeply offensive when someone points out that you're flat-out wrong on your facts and your reasoning, and that you sound like an idiot.

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote"Yes, that is the assumption made by atheists to explain how our Universe is so exactly fit for life. It is ridiculous and unscientific. It is unscientific because no such thing has ever been observed (and indeed is totally unobservable - you cannot see what no longer exists)"

Here you again lie Man can see things that no longer exist. Astronomy and Mathematics allow us to precieve that which we cannot see with our eyes. Astronomy allows us to look back into time milllins and billions of years to see the universe as it once was. Then again you ignore the rest of the post which you can't explain. That if the universe was a one time event I explain how life would arise. What your little mind doesnt grasp is this very post disproves everything you stand for.

Gore3000 wrote "Yes, that is the assumption" Made by Creationists "to explain how our Universe is so exactly fit for life. It is ridiculous and unscientific. It is unscientific because no such thing has ever been observed"

No Blueman no ne has every observed a God create a Universe nor will any amount of Mathematics or Astronomy ever see it happen. In fact if GOD had created the universe (How long ago did he do it 6000?) IF God had created the universe Than astronomers could look into their telescopes and they could see the light coming from the creation event that occurred (Hmm didnt you say 6000 years ago) yes they could see that light and see God creating the universe. Guess what thats not what they see. Hmmm how do you explain that ?

OF course you don't answer my questions I have asked five or six in the last few posts but you didn't answer one of them.

I will assume as you don't answer the questions put to you that you are ashamed of your shame God.

gore3000 wrote "even after numerous tries, the chances of an event occurring still remain infinitessimally small at each new try. "

And yet every once in a while some idiot redneck from West Virginia wins 314,000,000 dollars. The chances being small doesnt mean they can't happen but thats what you would lead us to believe while ignoring why my post explains something and your belkief system doesn't.

Answer My question how old is the Earth?

[Phaedrus]

The Physics of Consciousness placemarker.

[B. Rabbit]

"Evolution is not science. It is an ideology, a philosophy, but it is not science. There are no clear and distinct facts to support it. Not even the fossil evidence supports it due to the numerous gaps which have not grown smaller with the finding of new fossils. The Cambrian explosion shows that numerous phyla have no possible ancestors. DNA makes the process of evolution far to complicated for it to be even remotely possible in any kind of realistic time frame. The tight relationships between the different functions of an organism makes random evolution totally impossible. Science has already disproved evolution, what is left to do it to bury it"

Just like the wacky idea that the earth revolved around the sun, that "little microscopic animals" make us sick, that clouds are made of water, etc, etc? You are not seeing the bigger picture. Every explanation that the world religions have offered about the "true" nature of things has been disproven at some point or is in the process of being disproven. You are clinging to the last remnants of items that have not yet been disproven. Do not jump to the conclusion that I am attacking your faith, because I am not (although you undoubtedly think that I am). I know of many Christians who would laugh just as hard as I do at your ideas.

Science has already disproved evolution, what is left to do it to bury it"

I must have missed this announcement. Can you send me the website (please, of reasonable credit) where this was announced to the world? Or is there a conspiracy keeping it from public knowledge because of the large amounts of chaos which would ensue because of such an announcement?

However, the universe, by the judgement of scientists was indeed designed

This one too. Seems strange to me that I have never heard of this so stated as a fact by scientists at large. Undoubtedly, you are going to name a bunch of scientist/philosophers who said at one point in their lives something like the following: "The universe seems far too complicated not to be designed." This is not a scientific statement of fact, it is simply the ponderings of some very smart men. You can't make that statement into scientific law.

Now listen closely. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITICAL DEBATOR I have ever seen. You make a statement about how the universe is so obviously designed, but provide ZERO proof. There is no hard evidence that the universe is designed. But this is exactly what you demand from evolutionists on evolution. And then you turn your back and fail to recognize any actual evidence (vestigial limbs, tails on humans, teeth in chickens, hipbones on whales, legs on snakes, fossil record , imperfections, etc.). This is by no means a complete list, but it's no use bringing up more or listing more as you will simply deny it even exists.

[B. Rabbit]

"But to deny God's existence or imply that it is irrelevant makes science -- and everything else one would do -- ultimately pointless"

Replace the word "science" with "Tribune 7's life" and the word "one" with "Tribune 7" and you have a statement that makes more sense. I can deny God's existence all day long, sometimes I do just for fun, and still be very happy. Surprisingly, my life has a point still too.

[B. Rabbit]

Materialists not only deny their own humanity but also everything that is good in life in order to arrogantly proclaim themselves free from a superior being.

Again, disclaimer, i am not about to attack your religion, I am merely trying to show you the absurdity of your statement:

Spiritualists not only deny their own earthly humanity, but also everything that is good in life here on earth in order to arrogantly proclaim they know more about invisible kingdoms.

[B. Rabbit]

"Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate "universe-creating-machine", with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitationl constant, one for Planck's constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculations that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings?"

I don't think this is fair to use. If they weren't set this way, then there would be nobody to talk about it. It's like I tell you to pick up a rock. You pick up a rock and show it to me. I comment on how unbelieveable it is that you picked up this rock with these exact specifications. This rock is 1 in 1 trillion and you picked it up. Amazing! Nonsense. There is no need to talk about impossibility of odds after the fact, it adds nothing to the debate. Insanely impossible things happen everydai. What are the odds that I misspelled everyday just then! Wow! 1 in 1 trillion I bet! There must be a god.

[Tribune7]

Your references are interesting, but not one of them is a logical demonstration of the necessity of the theistic axiom.

Can one survive x number of years without a belief in God? Sure. Can one make contributions to science and technology without a belief in God? Absolutely. Edison was certainly an agnostic, arguably an atheist. But the political culture in which Edison worked was based on an assumption of God (see Blackstone;) as was the scientific climate (see Bacon.)

They are personal opinions only.

No, they were the opinions and observations of Blackstone and Bacon. :-)