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."
You guys are cracking me up! Do you even realize that this question is still being hotly debated around the World by people a lot smarter than any of us? Furthermore, the answer may not be what you think. I am sure you fellas (if you're women I apologize) are "old-earthers." What would you say if I told you that there is increasing evidence supporting a young Earth? Also, have you read any of Alamo-Girl's stuff? There are a lot of interesting theories out there. Have you guys/gals heard of the RATE project? Check it out: Decay
If you have questions go ahead and post 'em. I have read a lot of the rebuttals to the hypothesis and most of them have been slammed pretty good already by Dr. Humphreys.
Cheers! MM
Although I am sure that this is still hotly debated, only the scientists that are arguing for an earth older than 10,000 years will I admit to being "smarter than any of us". Anybody who is arguing a younger earth is not. I will check out your links though.
Not to keep the pressure on, but gore3000, if you are reading this, HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? Don't mind my previous paragraph.
MM
Quite the proclamation without even bothering to read the article.
Chalk up another reaszon for slappin' that disclaimer tag on the school books.
No it does not. Regarding the man/monkey evolution I am using the 10 million years which EVOLUTIONISTS claim it took to separate man from chimps which are supposedly the closest to man by some 1%. This comes out to some 30,000,000 base pair mutations as I have already explained. This totally disproves the evolution of man. Evolutionists always talk as if it had infinite time, but by their own calculations, some 100 million years for mammals to have arisen, some 500 million for just about all multi-celled creatures to have arisen, there is no infinite time for the numerous mutations which were needed for the numerous changes required to create all the fantastically different species.
Now this lack of a egg creates a new problem for mammals that reptiles don't have. Without the time in the egg mammals are less physically delevoped at birth so need more care by its parent. In fact live birth is almost easier to explain than the original rise of the eggs itself. Now this was very simple refutation and does not include modern evolutinary idea such as genetic drift fromspecies to species but i don't expect everyone to understand this sort of genetic theory.
That is not the question. According to evolutionists mammals descended from reptiles which lay eggs. The question, which you have been avoiding for a few hundred posts already is how - while continuing to reproduce - the change was accomplished. Clearly this is impossible for the simple reason that there are numerous different genes, functions, and entire systems which had to be changed in order for this change to be accomplished and to propose not only that such numerous changes arose to work together to change the reproductive system of a species, but that in addition they occurred all at once is totally impossible. That is why you have been avoiding the question, why you are trying to change the question now, and why NOT A SINGLE EVOLUTIONIST CAN EXPLAIN IN A DETAILED MANNER HOW SUCH A CHANGE OCCURRED.. Let's see you find a reference that explains the scientific facts of how such a transformation occurred in an evolutionary way. You will never find it.
There is no other numeric comparison possible. These 30,000,000 mutations HAD TO HAPPEN for the difference between humans and chimps to exist, regardless of the nonsense you wish to push. That you challenge the numbers shows that you yourself know that it is impossible.
BTW - here are some articles on exactly how the differences in DNA were estimated. They prove you a liar:
Britten compared the sequence of five chimp BACs covering 779 kilobases with the draft human genome sequence. Sequence substitutions account for about 1.4% divergence, but twice as much divergence (3.6%) is contributed by indels. The frequency of indels is less than the frequency of substitutions, but the gaps can be tens of nucleotides long and appear in both human and chimp sequences. Further analysis of the gaps in other genomes may provide useful insights into evolutionary relationships between humans and our closest relatives.
From: The Scientist - How different are we from Chimps
Roy Britten, a biologist at the California Institute of Technology, reported in the current issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that the large amount of sequencing that has been done in recent years on both the human and chimp genomes - and improvements in the techniques themselves - allow for the issue to be revisited. In the article, he described the method he used, which involved writing a special computer program to compare nearly 780,000 base pairs of the human genome with a similar number from the chimp genome.
From: OBGYN.net - Genome Compatibility
Britten based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different. From: CBS News- Chimps & Humans - Vive La Difference
BTW - with the 5% difference that has now been determined that makes it that 150 million mutations were needed to transform humans from chimps - making it five times more impossible than what you yourself considered a refutation of evolution.
You are trying to make me look like I am bashing religion.
No, I am making direct quote of what you said. I am showing that your original statement that religion makes people deny what is good in life is false in view that you see nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments and claim to follow most of them yourself.
They aren't my 'assumptions'. I was simply pointing out to everyone that there are competing theories out there to the 4.5 billion year 'assumption' that scientists are going on.
It is you and your friends who are trying to divert from a scientific discussion on this thread. That is why as soon as I made my post# 988, 989 and 991 asking for explanations which evolutionists could not give, you folk started attacking me and trying to divert the discussion with the totally irrelevant 'how old is the earth' question which you ask to turn this into a religious discussion. Again I ask, if evolution is true, how come no evolutionist can give a scientific answer to the challenges made to them in the following posts:
Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?
There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000
'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000
And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?
As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.
BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000
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.