Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[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."

[titanmike]

Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin of life.

Lots of info regarding the age of the Earth and the techniques used in trying to determine it on this site.

[donh]

Science is no more "proven" an institution than faith.

Funny how materialism when challenged ends up in complete skepticism. Funny how those who say they know everything, when tested, have to admit they know nothing.

There is a vast difference, which you seem unable to fathom, between not being able to prove something, and not knowing something. Conditional knowledge is not a disease, it is the natural human condition.

[Junior]

Vulcanism. It works.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"All the rules in Leviticus are still in effect?"<<

Now, you and I both know there is not enough space or time to go into ALL the Levitical laws! Plus, we've gone off the original subject of the thread, which will understandably annoy others. But, you asked, so here are a few to think about...

Many of the Levitical laws concern sexuality, specifically sexual immorality. If sexual immorality in the form of, say homosexuality or adultery are to be promoted and encouraged as an acceptable option in our society, then what about bestiality (sex with animals); incest; pedophilia (sex with children, which, like ancient Rome, is on the rise); prostitution; abortion (opps, that one IS being promoted and encouraged!). Many of the laws in Leviticus concerning sexuality address all these issues. Sexual immorality leads to disease, deformity, degradation, and death. It disrupts and degrades families, children, and society. It reveals a low regard of the value of oneself and of others. Sex in and of itself is not wrong. It's the way humans have twisted sexuality and justified immorality that makes it wrong.

Another example: Lev 15:19-24, laws concerning bloody discharges. Bloody discharges are unclean, ask anyone who's got AIDS; ask any healthcare provider who deals with hundreds of governmental regulations for the handling and disposal of bloody instruments. A deeper reading of the Bible shows that this issue of uncleanliness during menstruation is in no way a dis of women nor is it saying that women are unclean. But bloody discharges in an era without the knowledge we now have of, for example, the ways in which infectious diseases are spread would have to be viewed as unclean. Even with modern medical knowledge, bloody discharges are unclean. You'll find upon an in-depth reading of the Bible cover-to-cover that many of the Levitical laws are simply common sense sanitary laws. (Other sanitary laws: Rules for handling food; prevention of spread of viral/bacterial and sexually transmitted diseases; prevention of mildew [ever known a child with allergies to mold/mildew?]; purification of the body [this would have spiritual connotations as well as the obvious physical health-related issues] to name a few.

Sacrificial laws (burnt and blood offerings) – for example Lev 1:9. There were offerings to God as atonement/apology of sins; the best of ones' livestock, etc. were offered in exchange for forgiveness; a way to express sorrow and repentance for sins; was a form of worship. In the New Testament, this practice of offering atonement/apology by blood sacrifice was satisfied (replaced) by grace and was fulfilled by Jesus' death--His blood and His sacrifice replaced the blood and sacrifice of animals. There is no longer any need for blood/burnt offerings; we no longer have to abide by Old Testament blood sacrifices 'cuz Jesus gave Himself as the ultimate and final sacrifice for us.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Continental Drift . . .

Yeah continental drift alright, like your drift away from the subject.

[PatrickHenry]

Any opinion on the fate of poor ol' Onan?

Genesis:
38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

[VadeRetro]

Any pretense of responding to criticisms is by the wayside here. As we blow the legs off of one indefensible post after another, you simply Google up another one and keep trolling for suckers. "Helium in the atmosphere?" Helium escapes from the atmosphere.

"Decay of the earth's magnetic field?" You mean, like just before each of dozens of complete reversals?

"Excess argon in recent lavas?"

Am I a prophet? Three hundred posts ago I predicted we'd get to here.

Occasionally, somebody on the evo side clubs a Young-Earth argument on the head like killing a baby seal. The Shriek Chorus immediately arises. "Strawman argument! YEC-ism is a strawman!"

Is it? Start a thread on radiometric dating. The same people will haul out material from dog-eared, fuzzy-edged creationist pamphlets. You will once again wearily look up the rebuttals to hoary tales of old Hawaiian lava from fresh eruptions and old shells on live snails.

Strawman, my earlobe!

Three hundred posts ago! That's before you were a YEC, isn't it?

[PatrickHenry]

Creationism is never having to say "I'm sorry."

[js1138]

I have no intentention of diverting the thread towards theology, but you said several times that your faith in the accuracy of the Bible is due in part to the fact that it does not contain a lot of stuff that has become obsolete.

I would ask you to consult with an Orthodox Jew as to the intention of dietary laws. Some are, in fact practical in a time before refrigeration, but sanitation is not the primary intent of these laws. Ask those who still obey them.

The Bible explicitly condones slavery in several situations. You might well argue that these situations no longer exist, but people, in my opinion, have not changed enough so that slavery was once a good thing. A lot of trouble could have been saved by adding an eleventh commandment when the chance was available.

[VadeRetro]

Creationism is never having to say "I'm sorry."

Well, newguy357 did. He'll have read the Creationist Combat Manual by his next appearance, though.

[VadeRetro]

Forgot to get back to you. Apology accepted. Keep in touch with your classy side.

[PatrickHenry]

Pseudo-intellectualism does not impress me and I'm always amazed at the closed-mindedness of those who pride themselves on scientific open-mindedness! There were so many excellent points in favor of Intelligent Design contained in this section of the book -- I was also thrilled that creationism and science (as well as reason and logic) were not as far apart as some would have us believe.

When a science-oriented person says he's open-minded, he means he will consider your evidence and your logical arguments. If you have none to present, he will wait until you do. You may consider this as being "closed-minded," but it's very far from that. I'm open-minded, but I never forget that I have a mind, and I'm very fussy about what I'll let into it. No facts? No logic? Sorry, no sale.

As for these authors with whom you are so impressed, I'll just say that when someone from outside of the careful peer-reviewed scientific community comes along and claims that virtually everything we know is wrong ... well, all sorts of alarm bells go off. Can't help it. If your authors should turn out to be right, I'll hear about it soon enough. We all will.

[viaveritasvita]

Biblical scholars have noted that "the marriage of a widow to the brother of her dead husband was to carry on the dead man's name and inheritance as well as to provide for the widow. The best way to 'carry on' a man's name and inheritance is through a line of descendants. If a widow married someone outside the family, her first husband's line would come to an end. God killed Onan because he refused to fulfill his obligation to his brother and to Tamar." This may have had even more important implications when we read that Tamar was in the line of descendents leading to Jesus Christ (King David's bloodline). Also, the inheritance to be carried on through Tamar (actually, through the tribe of Judah, of which Tamar was a member) is the covenant made between God and Abraham -- that the whole world would be blessed by one of Abraham's descendents, Jesus Christ.

Tamar had to go to great lengths to become pregnant (read the rest of this section), which, had Onan fulfilled his duty to the family, would not have been necessary.

Also, the book of Ruth refers to this obligation of a man's brother to the widow as "Kinsman Redeemer." It is a perfect picture pointing to what, ultimately, Jesus Christ's mission would be -- redemption. This work of Jesus Christ replaces the OT law about a man marrying his brother's widow.

Onan defied God and, as many have learned and will learn throughout history, defying God is not a good idea.

I'm surprised you didn't use as an example of...what? I'm not quite sure what your point was in bringing up Onan and Tamar, but suspect it was to show your belief that God is cruel and unjust and that the OT is just an archaic, dead collection of ridiculous laws. Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't use the children who died in the WTC as an example.

Just curious: Wasn't Patrick Henry a Christian??

[viaveritasvita]

None of my Jewish friends are Orthodox, but these friends tell me that the civil rules for handling food, for preventing/containing disease, and for sexual purity are to preserve Israel from degradation and decay and to have a high order of community health. Many spiritual principles are suggested: Israel was to be different from surrounding nations (the pagan nations); it was (and we are) to be different morally and spiritually from unbelievers around us. A healthy environment and a healthy body make our service to God more effective. (I don't believe I said that sanitation was the primary reason for these laws.)

Please show me where the Bible explicitly condones slavery (other than as explained in a previous post).

>>"You might well argue that these situations no longer exist, but people, in my opinion, have not changed enough so that slavery was once a good thing."<<

I truly don't know what you mean by that and would be interested to have you explain.

>>"A lot of trouble could have been saved by adding an eleventh commandment when the chance was available."<<

You'll have to take that up with God; I'm assuming He thought the 10 He gave us were enough.

[PatrickHenry]

Wasn't Patrick Henry a Christian?

Yes, he certainly was. Thank you for explaining the Onan verses. I never understood them before.

[gore3000]

Thanks for the insults-me-

Thanks for all of your hypocracy.

No, I am not the hypocrite here. You keep calling me insane for not believing in evolution, yet you yourself have already admitted that:

I cannot refute some of the evidence or figures displayed in this post only because my studies and pursuits lie elsewhere.
1285 posted on 12/29/2002 7:16 AM PST by B. Rabbit

Now if you do not know what the heck I am talking about and do not know enough whether I am wrong or right how can you insult me and call me insane on account of my statements disproving evolution? Clearly you can not. Like the rest of the losers of evolution on these threads whenever you cannot prove someone else wrong you just go to insult mode. You should be ashamed of yourself. However, for your valiant efforts at sliming, insulting, and acting in a totally despicable manner, you have earned yourself the following award:

[viaveritasvita]

You seem to be intellectually honest enough to admit that you have closed your mind to the possibility of supernatural intervention. The evidence for Intelligent Design (and, therefore, Intelligent Designer) is overwhelming (DNA, the firmament, skin, atoms to name a very few), but you have closed off portions of that evidence (ie, supernatural intervention) because it doesn't meet your (mankind's) criteria. As for logic, I can only refer you to the book of Romans, which was written by an intellectual of the first rank (Paul).

I think my posts indicate that I have some reservations about Missler and that I don't know enough about Eastman to make a hard decision, so I don't know about being "so impressed" with them. Nevertheless, their argument for Intelligent Design as put forth in the pertinent section of The Creator Beyond Space and Time was excellent.

"Virtually everything" is a strong statement, one that I doubt you really mean since I doubt you have studied everything propounded by Missler and, in fact, I don't believe Missler and/or creationists are saying that everything science has done is wrong. For me, alarm bells go off when something is promoted by the "peer reviewed scientific community" having worked closely with doctors conducting empirical research in a clinical setting for publication.

I don't know if you'll take this recommendation from me, a Christian (**GASP**), but you might really enjoy these two books: (1) The Case for Christ, by Lee Stoebel; and (2) How Now Shall We Live?, by Charles Colson and Nancy R. Pearcey. I believe they will engage your intellect (if you do read either or both, I'd love to know your thoughts).

"If your authors should turn out to be right, I'll hear about it soon enough. We all will."

Amen.

You sort of came off as hounding another FReeper about the question of the age of the earth (when no one really knows for sure and there are plenty of good arguments for both sides -- sheesh!), so I've got a question for you, posed by someone named Alan Sandage: "How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?"

v3

[gore3000]

Darwin was a child of his times; whether he was a latent racist has little or no bearing on the validity of his theory

In the US we were just about to fight a civil war in which half a million whites died to free black people from slavery. Clearly there were many at his time that did not go along with his despicable values.

The quote I posted shows quite well that it is an integral part of evolution, let me quote it again:

In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.

Evolution says that species transform themselves into higher species and that thus we got from bacteria to human. This makes the higher species 'better' and more valuable as the above clearly shows. More importantly, because evolution is atheistic materialism, it denies the humanity and divinity of all men and thus encourages racial and other distinctions which make it easy for racism and for racists to flourish. Let's remember that evolution considers the destruction of species a good thing because the 'cleansing' of natural selection leads to supposedly better, more advanced species. Therefore the killing of the Turks or any other 'inferior' race is completely justified to Darwin and by evolutionary theory. It is from such a milieu, such a zeitgeist, that allowed mass murderers such as Hitler and Stalin to flourish.

[titanmike]

At this point, I'm basically just posting some of this stuff for the benefit of people capable of learning and absorbing new information. That obviously does not include you and a half dozen or so of your comrades here.

[viaveritasvita]

"The precision [of the universe] is so utterly fantastic, so mathematically breath-taking, that it's just plain silly to think it could have been an accident...the very fact that skeptics have to come up with such an outlandish theory [i.e. big bang] is because the fine-tuning of the universe points powerfully toward an Intelligent Designer -- and some people will hypothesize anything to avoid reaching that conclusion." J.P. Moreland