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."
Would you please post a link to this information?
No, (Francis) Bacon's scientific method of inductive reasoning was the rejection of Aristotle's method of deductive reasoning. Science was the product of Christian Europe, not ancient Greece.
If it wasn't why didn't the Greeks split the atom? It took us about 350 years to accomplish this feat since Novum Organum. Independent Greece lasted about that long after Aristotle's death and, of course, Aristotle's methods were adopted by the Romans and even Europe up until Bacon.
If the nuclear science was too dificult how about steamships or a smallpox vaccine?
Aristotle was certainly not stupid but you can make a case that his four elements (or the adoption by conventional wisdom that there were just four elements) may have actually held back scientific advancement. This is what I fear the extreme emotional instance on following a basically Darwinian model may do with science today.
On a related matter, did you ever consider how much better the descriptions of nature that are in the Bible hold up so much better than those of Aristotle or any other ancient work?
If you don't like that one, do a google search on 'varves' and 'mount st. helens' and pick one. There's lots to choose from.
Wrong again (as usual)
Are you going to apologize for your erroneous remark you made to me on post #1276?
Did you even read post #1303?
Lets see one from a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal instead of a creationist website.
Even so, would you regard geometry and Aristotilian logic as being dependendent on the Zeus axiom? Your answer must be "Yes," for it is only by that same reasoning that our modern science can be said to be dependent on the God axiom.
You made an unsupported claim, I simply asked for your references. I suspected that the bulk of your opinion was based upon Creationist propaganda, and now you have confirmed my suspicion. Thank you.
I quit expecting real science from these individuals a long time ago. Arguing with these closed minds is futile.
I told you how to do a search for more info on the topic. I don't have any cure for laziness. Sorry.
I've never thought about it. Can you give some examples?
We really should define terms. You and your references are expressing an opinion.
Lame and unimaginative at the very least. But keep 'em coming, it's a boring sunday afternoon and I need some laughs.
Ooooh, ooooo! Great point! You can't find great stuff like this in one of those stodgy old, closed-minded peer-reviewed journals: TIME CUBE .
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.