Skip to comments.
Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^
| 12/11/02
| WILL SENTELL
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."
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; rades
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,100, 1,101-1,120, 1,121-1,140 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: donh
And when did (the material was declared to be the sum of everything) occur? Science operates on available evidence. You raise a very good point. We have a culture -- especially our education system -- based on the assumption of the totality of materialism. Proponents of this view succeeded by claiming to speak with the authority of science. True science does not presume that the spiritual does not exist or is irrelevant.
To: whattajoke
If the spiritual is denied the most important part of existence is missing. . . .While I respect it, this is merely your opinion, and my happy existence flies in the face of it. Is your happiness based solely or mostly on material things?
To: B. Rabbit
Replace the word "science" with "Tribune 7's life" and the word "one" with "Tribune 7" Hey, all I did was back up what you challenged me to.
To: A2J
It is amazing to think that despite the superfluity of evidence some deny a Creator God.
"Hubble's Smash Hits."
Living unborn baby at 18-weeks (Photo by Lennart Nilsson, Life magazine, April 30, 1965).
To: Soliton
In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids.
What does that have to do with the "Theory of Evolution" ? Study evolution for yourself instead of believing the endroctrination you have been taught by some well meaning professor. Make your own decisions. I think you would find the "Clonaid people" believing that Aliens created life on earth have it closer than evolution by means of macro-evolution. If it would not be for so many people falling for this hoax, it would be laughable. Evolution fails some very basic laws of science.
For example, it defies the Law of Biogenesis, & the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
To: Tribune7
Is your happiness based solely or mostly on material things?
although you won't believe me, of course not. In fact, I live a rather spartan life, preferring to spend my extra income on travel and savings for later in life. I'll need it later in life because a) I'm getting married to a woman I am deeply in love with which makes me immeasurably happy (not material), I plan on experiencing the wonder of having children with said fiancee (not material), and being comfortable enough to continue to grow, learn, and experience many, many non material riches.
To: whattajoke
Is your happiness based solely or mostly on material things? . . . Although you won't believe me, of course not. Why would I not believe you? If you are a happy person, you are not a material person.
On the other hand, why are you claiming that your "happy existence flies in the face" of my claim that If the spiritual is denied the most important part of existence is missing.
To: usastandsunited
Evolution fails some very basic laws of science. For example, it defies the Law of Biogenesis, & the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Amazing how often these two items pop up. The so-called "Law of Biogenesis" relates to the work of Louis Pasteur, who showed that food spoiled only when exposed to bacteria in the air. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The Second law of Thermodynamics is badly understood by creationists. It's use by them is recommended against by Answers in Genesis, a website which is highly regarded in creationist circles.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
To: usastandsunited
Sorry guy we debated those worn out topics hundreds of posts ago even the evolutionists who half understand science don't pull out the second Law of thermodynamics anymore and we discussed the first one fully. If you come into this debate please read the thread and dont bring back up topics already discussed explained and tossed aside. Please, please go back and read the last couple posts I made find the link to the "No Nonsense site" and get your marching orders there. That way we don't have to discuss antiscientific bunk that the creationists themselves have given up on. Next you'll be spouting you didnt evolve from a monkey or some such nonsense.
Please Some Creationist post a worthy debate please use science you understand and not science you have no more understanding of than you have of evolution. If you do that it could be a worthy debate. If you try to use science you don't understand we who do understand it will just have to explain it to you again as we have been trying to do for over a thousand posts.
To: PatrickHenry
Holy Crap we think alike :) Those were posted within a minute of each other.
To: Sentis
I also think I need to stop posting here so much. It is making me half literate. I have noticed I am typing so fast to get my points acrsos I have started running sentences together and not proof reading at all.
To: Sentis
Holy Crap we think alike A very worrysome development.
To: k2blader
Those pictures aren't evidence of God's existence. If you would like to debate his existence please bring some evidence for his existence to the table . Scientific evidence not the kind of stuff like saying "I have Faith" or "My Preacher told me he was real". If you can't bring evidence none of us can debate the evidence's validity. I would be happy if you could prove God's existence I don't think you can do it but it wouldn't really bother me that much . However until such time as you can prove his existence please refrain from making statements like "God created the universe" or 'God created the Earth". These are not scientific statements without a proof of the existence of God and they should not be used as a basis for an argument without that forementioned proof.
To: usastandsunited
For example, it defies the Law of Biogenesis, & the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Haha. I just wanted to reitterate what Sentis and PH already drew your attention to. All the leading creationists have implored their flock to stop invoking your 2 shining examples of why evolution supposedly defies scientific laws. (Patrick Henry supplied you a wonderful link, if you didn't feel it was worthy, I beg you to click on it. It's actually from creationists, and not evil-utionists.)
The best is that in my post 1,047 to Gore3000, I even wrote that it was interesting to me that creationists have finally abandoned these ridiculous two "arguments." Apparently, I gave too much credit where none was due.
On 2nd thought, maybe you are just trolling or goofing with us. I'd prefer that to be the case... either that or your pastor is a bit behind the creationist times. FYI, the current creationist falsehoods du jour are "how did the flagella come to be?" "Irreducible complexity" and eukaryotic evolution. Focus on them, as you'll feel a bit more up to date in this non-debate.
To: whattajoke
"how did the flagella come to be?" "Irreducible complexity" and eukaryotic evolution. Focus on them, as you'll feel a bit more up to date in this non-debate.
Of course we have debated Irreducible complexity to death and I think I made quite a hash of it in several posts. In fact along with viral cross-species genetic transfer and the fact the irreducible complexity just isn't a factual debate (as we can provide steps that lead to any development that creationists see fit to put forward) IC is a dead argument also.
As for eukaryotic evolution its only a matter of time before the processes are well known and they will have to give up this debate as well. I wonder what will happen when they have to give up every argument. I mean will they suddenly realize they are wrong or just put their fingers in their ears. (oops they are already doing that when I post).
To: whattajoke; Sentis
lol. No, I'm not a troll. I want to have an open mind on the subject. You may find it hard to believe, & I would be glad to elaborate, but I really do seek the truth on this matter. No sentis, I'm not a scientist. Hope that doesn't disqualify me from reading & forming my own opinions.
Thanks for reference to the link, actually I had read through that web site a couple of days ago. Post #1047 didn't help much either,whatajoke.
Please enlighten me of the evidence of life being created from a non-life form. It seems that will have to be the reference point of this belief. I prefer the scientific works & research papers.
Not arguments, beliefs, insults, etc.
Simple URLs will do.
Thanks !
To: usastandsunited
Please enlighten me of the evidence of life being created from a non-life form. It seems that will have to be the reference point of this belief. I prefer the scientific works & research papers.
Evolution does not say anything about this question. origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. This is a chemistry question.
Creationists like to throw this misstatement into their arguments as well.
Please don't do this too.
It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
To: whattajoke
Focus on them, as you'll feel a bit more up to date in this non-debate. Just as "Love is never having to say you're sorry," so creationism is never having to be up to date.
To: Aric2000
origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.
Ok. I concede I have a ways to go about first learning exactly what the "Theory of Evolution" claim's is.
Please provide me with a link to some official statement that you are comfortable with the correct definition.
We made find we have more in common than originally thought.
To: usastandsunited
Please provide me with a link to some official statement that you are comfortable with the correct definition. I find it amazing -- don't you? -- that you come in here and start posting stuff about flaws in evolution theory when you now say that you don't even know what evolution theory is. Anyway, assuming you are sincere, here's as good a starting place as any: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,100, 1,101-1,120, 1,121-1,140 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson