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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: F16Fighter
You will notice that most if not all of the evolutionists have abandoned this thread as soon as mr. Blue man arrived. Why, do you ask, would they do such a thing?

Because he uses the same arguments that have been refuted, time and time again, but he seems to think that if he uses them enough times, that they will somehow MAGICALLY become the truth.

I will not take you through a step by step, because talking to a fanatic, is like talking to a brick wall, because you are so close minded that NO amount of facts will change your mind.

There is MORE then enough evolution information out there to quench your thirst for knowledge of it, if you truly wish to see it, but it just might make you question your faith, so we can't have that.

That is what is so sad about you fanatics, facts that go against the LITERAL stories of your books are BAD, WRONG, a WASTE of time. Sorry, I disagree, I think that if god created this, it is wonderful to discover how and why it works the way it does. God gave us a mind to think with, and a curiosity to discover it, if he meant us to be without this knowledge that we are gaining, then he could have made us robots.

You enjoy being a robot, me, I will take advantage of the intelligence and curiosity I have.

And by the way, the real difference between you and me is this. When it is proven that your creation myth is truly that, a myth, your world will come apart around you, whereas with me, if the theory of evolution is replaced with something that explains the facts better, then I will slide right into it.

Your world destroyed, mine, just a bit more explained.
141 posted on 12/11/2002 9:28:40 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Because he uses the same arguments that have been refuted,

Instead of wasting so much verbiage in invective, why don't you just refute my statements since you CLAIM to know that they are wrong???????????

142 posted on 12/11/2002 9:35:16 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I'll be glad to pass this on to Luis.
143 posted on 12/11/2002 9:36:52 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Waste my time as so many others have?

You are not worth the time because refuting them would do no good, because you would ignore them and continue anyway. So, again, I should waste my time why?

Would you actually look at the facts? Would you actually read the post? Would you agree to be refuted? or instead would you ignore my post as you have so many hundreds of others?

Again, I should waste my time why?
144 posted on 12/11/2002 9:45:30 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Thank you for your post!

Please do pass this on to Luis! His work is absolutely fascinating and I believe his efforts will benefit all of us! I also find his writing style easy to follow.

I'm particularly fond of this one: Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Systems Might Evolve Them

145 posted on 12/11/2002 9:50:12 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Does your God punish people for asking questions?

Have you read the book of Job? FAITH is what He is looking for.

BTW, He is your God too -- you just haven't realized it yet. I denied it for years. Dug into Particle physics, Molecular Biology, etc. The more I learned, the more it became obvious.

Hang in there. It'll come.

146 posted on 12/11/2002 9:56:47 PM PST by ImaGraftedBranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"There is MORE then enough evolution information out there to quench your thirst for knowledge of it, if you truly wish to see it, but it just might make you question your faith, so we can't have that."

You don't seem to understand. Many of us have indeed weighed the "evidence" on both sides of the issue -- regardless of religious dogma. Based upon this evidence, the argument for Creationism is overwhelming, while the argument for evolutionism is quite the opposite.

I think that if god created this, it is wonderful to discover how and why it works the way it does. God gave us a mind to think with, and a curiosity to discover it, if he meant us to be without this knowledge that we are gaining, then he could have made us robots.

True. His "creation" doesn't detract one bit from our drive to explore and pursue satisfaction upon further discovery. However our world certainly appears though it was designed, does it not?

If one accepts the premise of God or Creator of all that exist, is it not possible "normal" geographical timelines could be manipulated by a power great enough to design the infinitessimal itself in infinitessimal detail?

My friend, it is an Evolutionist remains inside the box, and outside the realm of real possibility, and thus probability.

147 posted on 12/11/2002 10:01:40 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; All
Rats, I meant to include an excerpt from that article. Here it is:

Selected self-organization explicitly emphasizes a second dimension of the semiosis of self-organizing systems dynamically coupled (in situation) with their environments. If self-organizing classification implies semantic emergence, selection implies pragmatic environmental influence. In fact, these two dimensions of semiosis cannot be separated; the meaning of the classifications of a self-organizing system does not make sense until it is grounded in the feedback from the repercussions it triggers in its environment...

The ability of agent/environment couplings to select appropriate attractor states to cope with an environment takes us closer to agent's that can select behavior alternatives. Note, however, that selected self-organization requires that both self-organization and a selective process be specified (4). Not merely state-determined, rule-following, self-organization which would amount to agents with no real alternatives. This notion of selected self-organization leads us now to think of what kinds of selection processes are possible, and more importantly for the present work, does this choice of alternative classifications/behaviors exist in or require some kind of autonomy or closure?


148 posted on 12/11/2002 10:03:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
More creationist BS. In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. Where will the cretionist arguments go then?

Right where they have always been. That life requires a CREATOR.

149 posted on 12/11/2002 10:11:00 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
LOLOL! Great catch!
150 posted on 12/11/2002 10:14:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ALS
A science book is suppose to contain known facts.

Like the science book my kids former private school had that showed a divided tongue, with different types of "taste" buds (sweet, sour, etc) for each section.

That's what happens with science. They present things as fact until they are proven to be wrong, which is a constant condition.

God's Word is unchanging. Heisenberg also figured out that there are limits to what we can know.

151 posted on 12/11/2002 10:16:06 PM PST by ImaGraftedBranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
And by the way, the real difference between you and me is this. When it is proven that your creation myth is truly that, a myth, your world will come apart around you, whereas with me, if the theory of evolution is replaced with something that explains the facts better, then I will slide right into it.

It's incredible that you have it backwards and can't see it.

I study Molecular Biology, Particle Physics and other higher-echelon fields of study in the physical sciences. It has only strengthened my faith. My faith, which is an implicit trust in our Creator, may seem a folly to you. However, I will live my lifetime in this faith. You, perhaps, may not. When we die, contrary to what you have mentioned above, I believe that I will go to Heaven to be with God. I will die happy. You, should you stay on this path, will live a seemingly happy and fulfilling life. When you die, you have no expectation to go to Heaven, because you do not believe in a Creator.

If you are right, that is wonderful! We both died happy! I chose to serve my Creator by loving others and doing my best to make the lives of those less fortunate than I am more meaningful -- and that makes me happy.

If *I* am right, what then happens to you? In my scenario, there is a ZERO percent chance of sorrow. In your scenario, there is a 50% chance of sorrow.

I have seen enough of creation to convince me that mankinds attempts to mimic the Creator are folly.

TO come to your other topic: You suggest above that "it will finally be proven" that Creation is a myth. That, my friend, is an IMPOSSIBILITY. It was, is, and always will be impossible to prove that there is no Creator. So, MY world will not "fall" down around me, as you say. You, and ONLY you, have the chance to be proven wrong in this life. When you ARE proven wrong, which is a CERTAINTY when you get to the molecular level, and truly UNDERSTAND what goes on inside a cell, your world will NOT fall down around you EITHER. It will most likely be the single-most euphoric condition you will ever experience. It is UPLIFTING.

I've been there, pal. I denied it JUST LIKE YOU. I thought I knew it all -- even ridiculing my family.

Please, do some serious research at the molecular level, and don't take my word for it or anyone elses -- let it be through your own effort. All of the FACTS are there today. This is not like relativity, where we test observations to see if they fit the theory. This is KNOWABLE facts that are 100% observable -- TODAY! The tide is turning, and it is ALL because of the study of the cell with today's technology.

I bid you well. Don't close your eyes on this. If you are SERIOUS, have the strength to do some serious research. You will be amazed at what you find.

152 posted on 12/11/2002 10:45:17 PM PST by ImaGraftedBranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
Right where they have always been. That life requires a CREATOR.

Yeah, and every scientific experiment ever done was designed, therefore no scientific experiment can tell us anything about the natural world.

If you follow your logic, you'd destroy the very basis of any kind of rational inquiry into the natural world. To be willing to destroy that pillar of modern civilization in order to protect one's religious belief is evil.

153 posted on 12/11/2002 10:58:16 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
I study history, and by studying history I have found MANY fascinating things.

I also study astronomy, in Which I have discovered MANY fascinating things.

I also study Biology, in which I have discovered MANY amazing things.

I have also studied religion, in which I have discovered MANY, MANY, MANY amazing things.

I study, and what I find continues to show me that Science is indeed on the right track, that our main theories are sound and will be built upon greatly in the years to come.

As we have discovered to religions unmitigated gall, is that the Earth is NOT flat, the universe DOES NOT revolve aound the earth, we are indeed little bits of organic matter in a huge universe that is undoubtedly, to me anyway, packed with life. I do not believe in a god that you believe in, I believe in MUCH more then that, but you would have to have the experiences that my life has given me to even come close to understanding that.

You believe in something very small, whereas my beliefs span the universe itself.

Sad really, but I do not force my beliefs on others, so, please, feel free to take your chances, because I take none. I believe in what I believe, based on fact, science, and intuition based on those facts.

Enjoy your book, please, but I can't, I know FAR too much about it's history. That's the problem with an open mind, sometimes the faith is hurt, or even removed, as in my case.

faith in something written, such as the bible is VERY limiting, as I see with many, many, christians, especially creationist type christians, I refuse to be limited by a book, I wish to learn, not what some claim to be god's word, but by studying the universe around me.

Read stranger in a Strange Land, and you will get a glimpse of it, but just a glimpse.

Do you "Grock"?
154 posted on 12/11/2002 11:04:48 PM PST by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
That's what happens with science. They present things as fact until they are proven to be wrong, which is a constant condition.

God's Word is unchanging. Heisenberg also figured out that there are limits to what we can know.

Yes, and the Holy Qur'an is inscribed on gold tablets in heaven, and was recited by the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad (dpp), who wrote it all down. Thus the Holy Qur'an is the unchanging word of Allah (xyz), unlike your science books, which you weak kaffir rewrite every time some new fact comes along to beguile your minds. You materialist scientists are weak like women!

OK, in all seriousness, if you're so afraid of having to revise your understanding of things in light of new data, why don't you just get an old copy of a science book, and never read anything newer? Then you'll have the comfort of an unchanging science. I'm sure it would be very comfortable.

155 posted on 12/11/2002 11:12:56 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
Please, do some serious research at the molecular level, and don't take my word for it or anyone elses -- let it be through your own effort. All of the FACTS are there today. This is not like relativity, where we test observations to see if they fit the theory. This is KNOWABLE facts that are 100% observable -- TODAY! The tide is turning, and it is ALL because of the study of the cell with today's technology.
That reminds me: Kenneth Miller has written a wonderful critique of Behe's favorite icon of irreducible complexity, the flagellum. Briefly:
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.

156 posted on 12/11/2002 11:20:51 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: A2J
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.

What's ironic about this is, a theory is an explanation for the facts. So, the stickers are warning the students that "evolution is not a fact; it's an explanation for the facts." Oh-kaaaaaaayyyyy. And knowing this distinction will save the students' souls because...?

157 posted on 12/11/2002 11:26:33 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; F16Fighter
You're not even close :-)

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)

This short script provides a better picture of the odds:

#!/usr/bin/perl
print "1 in 10";
for ($i=1; $i < 40000; $i++) {
print "0";
}
The output is here.
158 posted on 12/11/2002 11:36:24 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I always wonder about surveys like this. I suspect the questions are phrased rather oddly. I mean if I asked "How often does the Earth complete an orbit" I could get a lot of people to answer "once a day." And most of those people would not actually think that the Earth actually goes around the sun once a day.

And reading horoscopes in no implies a belief in them.
159 posted on 12/11/2002 11:53:29 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Criminal court verdicts and empirical science are not even remotely comparable. Try again.
160 posted on 12/12/2002 12:05:50 AM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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