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."
Let's face it, God, in the course a normal working day, kills more living things than any deranged scientist.
And one day he's going to do it to you and me. How does one deal with that?
Exactly! And His miracles are used sparingly, typically to illustrate a specific point He's trying to make. However, there is no evidence of the miraculous in the ascent of man, nor is there any evidence of the miraculous in the ascent of life on this world. Indeed, all the evidence points to a mundane explanation.
OH.
Those closed-minded folks.
:-(
Only if you're the kind of person who believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy without asking questions.
A number of the problems involved in radiometric dating are discussed at this site.
The biggest thing which the purveyers of these kinds of theories have to explain to my own thinking is the question of how many of these kinds of heavy metals get to the Earth's surface in the first place. You'd think that if the Earth itself formed up via some condensation process as is generally thought to be the case, then all the heavy metals would be in the interior if not the center.
It seems much more likely that many if not most of the heavy metals got here from meteorites, asteroids, comets or whatever, after the Earth had already formed up and its crust hardened. In that case, the age of the heavy metals and the age of the Earth itself would be unrelated.
;^)
Yes; because that's exactly what geologists do -- they study the verifiable evidence. If you're aware of some verifiable "young earth" evidence that geologists ignore, why not tell us about it?
I asked for verifiable geological evidence of "young earth" theory, and you respond by trying to provoke a dispute about religion. If you have no evidence, why not just say so?
Creation by divine design: Not proven (and cannot be) but also widely assumed to be true based on available evidence.
Which of these has been given unquestioned reign in the classroom for the past century in the United States? Which covers itself in legalisms preventing the slightest reference to the other? Which has adherents that squeak and squeal like pigs when the suggestion is made – even if only in a small textbook disclaimer - that other explanantions for the existence of the universe may be true?
The arrogance of so forcefully positing unproven matters while discounting other possibilities with equal force is unbecoming of educational pursuits. One would think evolution could produce more and more brilliant thinking over time. Alas, however, evolutionists are seen to bend over backwards in eliminating certain possibilities thus giving ample demonstration of devolution with respect to the sciences. Ancillary retro shift resulting from ingnorance held with the tenacity of a rabid pit bull.
Excellent. Now, since it isn't tricky and doesn't take long, point me to someone who's made one, and can tell how it's done.
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.