Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: usastandsunited
I wont insult you until you insult me well i might not. My problems with gore3000 and the insults that fly back and forth started with him so i feel no reason to lay off him now.

As for a discussion of the ultimate creation of Life i have no clue how that first cell was formed, well I have a clue but its not like I can give you a fossil that shows that first cell. This may please some creationists in fact earlier I posted how God can even exist in this universe and how he would fit into the scientific evidence as it is known to date. This does not mean I accept God as a being in any way what it does is say I don't know everything. If you beleive that God exists in this universe outside of what I posted earlier then we have a problem.


First tell us how old you think the earth is? If you have a serious answer that isn't 6000 years ago then maybe we can have a basis of discussion. If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old we do not.
1,121 posted on 12/27/2002 3:54:08 PM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; donh
donh to gore3000: Show me the proof that naturalistic abiogenesis could only have occurred by the spontaneous intantaneous transmutation of junkyard piles of misc. amino acids into working prokariotes, as you and Behe insist must be the case.

This remains an excellent question. I would be interested in seeing it answered.

1,122 posted on 12/27/2002 4:57:45 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: usastandsunited; Aric2000
origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution.

Actually that depends on what "theory of evolution" is being discussed.

Definition 4b for evolution in Merriam-Webster OnLine is: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations to which is what Aric2000 is probably referring.

Definition 6 is a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena which is what many -- including some of my high school science teacher as well as some popular news magazines-- seem to mean when describing evolution.

1,123 posted on 12/27/2002 5:11:41 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1119 | View Replies]

To: 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. "-me-

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

The 1% is (incorrectly) quoted all over these boards by EVOLUTIONISTS. The human genome, if you have been paying attention is some 3,000,000,000 DNA bases long, 1% of 3 billion is 30 million. I know the math is really tough but you can check it with your calculator.

1,124 posted on 12/27/2002 5:17:51 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1089 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
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?

I stated exactly why the adaptation of the finches is not evolutionary in my post:

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.

Now the above clearly cannot be evolution, yet this is one of the two favorite examples of evolutionists for micro-evolution. The other favorite example is the moths and we know that that study was fraudulent. What this means is that evolutionists cannot even give proof of micro-evolution let alone give proof of the transformations necessary for one species to become a new more complex species.

1,125 posted on 12/27/2002 5:32:23 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies]

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

If you mean by that that jumbled cut and paste which I told you I would not read you will die waiting. If you want an answer to a question just ask it.

And no I will not go into a theological discussion. You are wishing to divert this from a scientific discussion to an attack on religion like all evolutionists do when they are losing an argument (and BTW you are using the other tactic of insulting the messenger since my posts #988, 989 and 991 which you cannot respond to).

1,126 posted on 12/27/2002 5:41:46 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1091 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Where did you get these numbers. Did you make them up or did Behe make them up? -Sentis-

It's the Patty Murray syndrome.

Aaah, the hyena of evolution going down like a lemming trying to back up a fellow evolutionists who stuck his foot in his mouth so deeply that he has made a complete fool of himself - as you are doing by supporting him.

How either of you do not know that the genome is 3 billion DNA base pairs long and claim that you are evolutionists because it is science and not see that 30,000,000 is 1% of 3 billion is unimaginable. You both have shown yourselves to be totally ignorant.

1,127 posted on 12/27/2002 5:48:39 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Walker makes a compelling, scientific case for the manner in which the nonphysical interacts with the physical in the brain.

I have not read him yet, but I have long believed that there has to be something non-material going on in our understanding and our thinking. We certainly cannot keep every detail of every physical thing we see, yet somehow or other we can remember places, people and things and we can abstract from one thing to another such as we do not have to see every elephant to know that something is an elephant. Our brains certainly have an ability for abstraction and symbolism which can in no way be explained by materialism.

1,128 posted on 12/27/2002 5:55:32 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1092 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
Those pictures aren't evidence of God's existence.

I believe they only touch the surface.

The beauty herein is everyone is free to choose his science, faith, and/or belief system regarding the origin of life. The following site about sums up the issue for me:

God and Science.org - Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe.
1,129 posted on 12/27/2002 6:00:04 PM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1113 | View Replies]

To: 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)" -me- Here you again lie

You are completely losing it Vade. Lay down have a few beers, relax and come back tomorrow. How can one have evidence of a Universe that no longer exists? Please.

1,130 posted on 12/27/2002 6:03:07 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: 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.-me-

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.

First of all I am not a spiritualist. This is a demeaning term for someone who is religious.

I do not think my life (or anyone's is poorer) by say obeying the Ten Commandments. What is good in life that one misses out by obeying the Ten Commandments?

1,131 posted on 12/27/2002 6:09:09 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1098 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
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.

It's not the same thing. A rock has no specificity, no purpose. The Universe has a tremendous amount of specificity, of purpose (in addition to complexity). We ordinarily think of things which have all three - complexity, specificity and purpose as designed. Some examples would be works of art, houses, automobiles, computers, etc. We can pick them up like the rock, but we do not think it arose at random. We may know know the name of their maker or the name of their designer, but we do know as surely as we are typing to each other here, that it was not a randomly occurring thing. We know with complete certainty that there was a human mind behind it.

1,132 posted on 12/27/2002 6:15:11 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1099 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
It seems you consider non-material things to not only exist, but also to be of great value. So how can you abide by a materialist philosophy which denies not only that such things have value, but even denies that non-material things exist?
1,133 posted on 12/27/2002 6:21:22 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1106 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

Of course it does. Evolution is materialistic and atheistic. The Law of Biogenesis disproves materialism. There had to be a beginning to life and it was not material, that is what the law says. If one allows God as the Creator of life, then how can evolutionists deny that He created man? Why would it be so unlikely that he would have done as He says in the Bible? It would not be at all unlikely, in fact, it would be the most likely explanation. Evolution requires one to believe many pretty tall tales. If there is a God, there is no need to believe such tall tales because the answer is readily at hand - God. So yes, evolution requires abiogenesis, it requires life from matter, it requires a random Universe. The problem for materialistic evolution is that science has shown both abiogenesis and a random Universe to be utterly ridiculous.

1,134 posted on 12/27/2002 6:28:03 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1108 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
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 .

After you bring proof of one single species transforming itself into another. The reason why scientists believe the Universe has been designed has already been explained to you and has gone unrefuted. The reason why life could not arise at random is as follows:

There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).

The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

So start the insults, you certainly cannot refute the above so that is the only lame tactic left to you and your friends. Prove my statements true with your vituperation!

1,135 posted on 12/27/2002 6:34:56 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1113 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; PatrickHenry
All the leading creationists have implored their flock to stop invoking your 2 shining examples of why evolution supposedly defies scientific laws.

Wow, you mean that billions of religious people wrote that one article? Are you saying something that ridiculous? Or are you saying that the only creationists are those people that write for 'Answers in Genesis'? You paint with a very broad brush. While all Christians agree that the Bible is true, they do not agree on the proper polemics to be used against materialistic evolution. That is a scientific matter, not a matter of faith.

Also unlike evolutionists, we think for ourselves, we are not mind numbed robots such as Patrick who find it necessary to deny the most obvious facts in order to support their mind numbed robot friends.

1,136 posted on 12/27/2002 6:42:55 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
we have debated Irreducible complexity to death and I think I made quite a hash of it in several posts.

And what post would that be? Will you reply with a post# or with an insult?

1,137 posted on 12/27/2002 6:45:22 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Reality is not solely "out there", it's interactive and exceedingly strange. The biologists have much to learn from the physicists.
1,138 posted on 12/27/2002 6:45:45 PM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1128 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Evolution does not say anything about this question. origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. This is a chemistry question.

Why do you deny that which you yourself believe? You are an evolutionist answer this simple question - did God create life or was it the result of random chance?

Evolutionists always claim that one has nothing to do with the other yet almost invariably they believe both in evolution and in abiogenesis. Well, if one has nothing to do with the other this is an amazing coincidence and I for one do not believe in coincidences.

1,139 posted on 12/27/2002 6:49:57 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1117 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Just as "Love is never having to say you're sorry," so creationism is never having to be up to date.

For someone that does not know that the human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs, you should not be saying such things Patrick! Every time you open your mouth you display your scientific ignorance.

1,140 posted on 12/27/2002 6:52:05 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson