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."

[js1138]

Can we start over without all the blue and red ink?

[AndrewC]

You're all wrong. It's more like 1 in 1.2, IMHO.

You're really a card jenny. With those odds life should virtually leap out of the test tube upon the conjoining of the reactants. Your "refutation" link includes this gem ---There are three flaws in this conclusion: he assumes (1) that natural selection is equivalent to random shuffling,. What a laugher. Has chemistry changed in the last few years? I did not know there was an additional factor to include in the calculations for chemical reactions named "natural selection". What should I expect when I demonstrate the vinegar and baking soda reaction to my children? Am I to expect gold flakes to appear?

And on the flagellar burial, waving an amulet at it does not make it go away.

[PatrickHenry]

Can we start over without all the blue and red ink?

Apparently not.

[AndrewC]

Apparently not.

Wouldn't you like to shut up everyone that doesn't agree with you.

Splifford the bat says: Always remember:

A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on just-so stories
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.

[gore3000]

Because so many have refuted so many things that you have said

If I have been refuted so many times, you should have no problem refuting ONE (1) of the many posts I have made on this thread. What do you say you stop waving your hands and insulting and just refute a post I have made????

[gore3000]

According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence.

Of course it is easier to believe in multiple (really infinite universes) only if one is a thoroughgoing atheist. The idea of an infinite number of universes is really a refusal to believe in reality. In a sense, materialist/atheists who claim that nothing which they cannot feel, see, or touch can exist are contradicting themselves when they have to propose not just a few, but an infinite number of universes when no one has ever been able to see any evidence of a single one other than our own.

[Boiler Plate]

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.

Please provide specific reference as to exactly which religion espouses a flat earth or the earth being the center of the universe?

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[gore3000]

Kenneth Miller has written a wonderful critique of Behe's favorite icon of irreducible complexity,

Miller's argument is not a rebuttal, it is a typical evolutionist phony argument claiming victory when no such thing has been achieved. Miller again repeats the often refuted argument that the flagellum is just an evolved secretory system. It is not. The secretory system only has some half the genes of the flagellum (and perhaps it too is irreducibly complex!). So what you would need is to have the 20 or so genes in the secretory system evolve - without ever losing functioning - and join with 20 totally new genes in an inextricably complex system to form the flagellum. So no Miller is just trying for headlines, he has not disproved Behe (and BTW the argument of the secretory system is not his originally so he may also be guilty of plagiarism).

[gore3000]

OK so if speciation happens in a lab then you can't really count that.

Speciation is not evolution - period, paragraph, end of story. Evolution requires new genes, new functions, new abilities, increased complexity. Splitting a species into two only separates the original gene pool of the species, it does not create new genes. In addition, at least one of the two species, if not both will be less viable than the 'wild type' which had the complete gene pool. This is the result of all breeding experiments where a new 'breed' is developed.

[Aric2000]

Give me a flipping break, in the dark ages, when the Church REALLY had power, they would threaten excommunication to ANY scientist willing to question Church doctrine.

The Church of course could not keep science from discovering that indeed, the earth was NOT flat, the universe did NOT revolve around the Earth, etc, etc ad nauseum.

The church was VERY adamant about the fact that the earth was the center of the universe and EVERYTHING revolved around it.

The Church has done everything that it possibly can to hold science back, because in the end the church is gonna get caught, just as it has up to now.

When science begins to answer questions with facts, the church gets upset because it's Myths are questioned. The church has always done it and always will do it. I would find it amusing, if it weren't so sad. Believers actually choose to ignore facts, they choose to be ignorant of science, why? because their church tells them that something is true, so they blindly accept it and will fight with all their might to refute anything that might threaten it, namely science and facts.

Please see Mr. Blue and F.Christian and others for this sad, sad, state of affairs. I would add you to the list, but I haven't seen enough of your posts to see whether you are a fanatic as well, or not.

Fanatics in any form are bad, they are close minded, will not listen to reason and pervert that which they purport to understand. Please see, again, Mr. Blue man for just such an example.

I rely on science and facts, hypothesis based on facts, and facts based on solid evidence. Evolution has this and many other things going for it at this time. If in the future a BETTER hypothesis comes about, then we will look closely at it, decide whether the facts fit it better and move on.

FACTS, not myths, FACTS....

Regards,

Aric2000

[gore3000]

Good example of G3K's kindergarten science training. Despite the -- it must be thousands by now -- links, explanations, posts, and examples given to Mr. Blue, he still demands the impossible from scientists.

You attack me for saying that there is no evidence for evolution when you yourself admit that it is impossible to give such evidence!!!!!!!!

Seems the latest attack on my posts by evolutionists is that I point out the obvious. Well, gee whiz, if what I say is obvious then why do evolutionists act as if it is irrelevant? Science has to account for the facts and if the facts are obvious, then they by definition cannot be discounted as evolutionists try to do.

(Discounting, of course, the simple fact that we CAN indeed show him speciation on micro organisms and plants in a lab situation... but oh yeah, creationists have that one covered since that doesn't really count. Touche).

Maybe others say that lab experiments do not count. I do not. I believe a lot in lab experiments. They can teach us (and have indeed taught us a lot). However, what I do object to is the claim that speciation = evolution. It does not. Evolution requires the transformation of a species into a more complex one, not into one with the same complexity, features, abilities, etc. which is the case with all lab experiments. The flies may not be able to mate in some experiments (who would want to after all the stuff they put them through!) but they do not have any greater complexity after the experiments than before, in fact they probably have lost viability because the greater the pool of alleles in a species the more viable it is. This is a well known scientific fact which evolutionists constantly ignore.

[gore3000]

You're forgetting, that when it comes to the Theories regarding relativity or physical laws then the creationists resort to the traditional scientific definition of a theory. It is only with the Theory of Evolution that the word 'theory' becomes synonymous with 'blind guess'.

Perhaps the reason is that no one can jump off a 20 story building and fall upwards. Perhaps because some 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have shown that relativity is a fact of life (or death). So tell us what incontrovertible evidence can evolution give similar to either of those two theories?

[Aric2000]

This is a well known scientific fact which evolutionists constantly ignore.

And it is a fact because Mr. Blueman says it is, and don't you forget it!!

[Boiler Plate]

A2,
I asked you what religion espouses a flat earth and that this planet we stand upon is the center of the universe and you go haywire.

The answer to the question is, that none do.

You obviosly haven't studied all that much religion. Have a nice day.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Aric2000]

LOL

that was funny, you choose to ignore the main point, that's cute, and typical of fanatics.

Sad, very sad...

[Boiler Plate]

A2,

You rant, you rave, you accuse, you belittle, I ask one simply question that you go bezerk over and then...... you call me.... a fanatic? You were caught by your own fanatacism. You didn't even stop to ask if I was perhaps looking for information to argue your side of the debate.

So am I a fanatic? Kind all knowing Sir, on just what do you base the claim? Could it be because, Oh my, I questioned you?

Sounds like you have become the very "church" you railed against earlier.

Like Patrick Henry, you do not want to debate or discuss this matter as a thoughtful adult, you simply want to elevate your own ego by name calling and trying to get a quick quip in to impress the Evo crowd. Well next time try this "Halt who goes there? Friend or Foe" and save the name calling for your little playmates

I wish you a good night.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Aric2000]

The point had been made, I explained it in detail, and yet you ignore the main point. This tells me that you are either foe, or something else, but not friend that is for sure.

My point was plain for ANY with common sense to see.

What does that tell me? fanatic, for fanatics do not have common sense, they have a book, and they believe ALL that it tells them literally, and of course work their tails off trying to disprove anything that questions it.

Again, the point was obvious, you got pissy, so I got pissy, end of story.

Good night to you sir as well.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

In a sense, materialist/atheists who claim that nothing which they cannot feel, see, or touch can exist are contradicting themselves when they have to propose not just a few, but an infinite number of universes when no one has ever been able to see any evidence of a single one other than our own.

Indeed, it is more irony, like the one mentioned at post 140.

There is little agreement on the multiple universe theory as we can see from this conference: PhysicsWeb - Life, the cosmos and everything

Andrei Linde and Alex Vilenkin invoked "eternal" inflation, in which the universe is eternally self-reproducing. This version of inflation predicts that there may be an infinite number of exponentially large domains - all with different laws of low-energy physics and different coupling constants...

On the other hand, Stephen Hawking objected to the eternal-inflation model on the grounds that it extends to the infinite past and thus violates his "no boundary" proposal for the origin of the universe... Hawking uses the path-integral approach to calculate the probability of a particular history but only sums over those histories that lead to observers.

Neil Turok elaborated on this theme, showing that there are so-called instantons that represent classical solutions of the Euclidean equations that possess a continuation to real Lorentzian space-time. Although the path integral favours inflationary periods shorter than required, anthropic selection can salvage this since one only considers histories containing observers. This permits either open or closed universes but he argued that Hawking's favoured (closed) solution is unstable.

Personally, I think "multiple universe from multiple quantum fluctuations" looks as kluged as Einstein's famous cosmological constant. Also, it seems presumptuous to me that the physical laws of this universe would be the same in any other universe.

There's more discussion in this article by Roger White: Fine-Tuning and Multiple Universes (pdf)

The Design hypothesis does not add to the probability that any particular universe will be fine-tuned. So the Multiple Universe hypothesis screens off the probabilistic link between the Design hypothesis and the fine-tuning data...

However, postulate as many other universes as you wish, they do not make it any more likely that ours should be life-permitting or that we should be here. So our good fortune to exist in a life-permitting universe gives us no reason to suppose that there are many universes.

[Boiler Plate]

A2,

You are your own worst enemy, not me.

You say I got "Pissy"? Why because I pointed out that you answered the question wrong and then went "Haywire" in in giving your incorrect answer? Don't be so childish. You have been loaded for bear from the git go. You are trying to point out your detailed answer to a question that has yet to be asked?

You are obsessed my dear friend and you don't even see it. That is the point! Do you get!

If not let me explain it another way. No religion promotes those ideas anymore, just like no scientists believe in alchemy. Why because we found they were wrong and as it turns out in the case of the Bible that there is no contradiction there so now it is not held as truth or fact. So just how much do you know about religion? From what you have demonstrated, I would venture to say not very much. However as I pointed out earlier you seem to be becoming the very thing about religion you say you despise.

You claim to be enlightened, yet enlightment comes from an open mind and a humble spirit. Strive for those my young padawan apprentice. Come back when you can have a civil conversation. Meanwhile ponder this, just what is the fundemental building block of the universe? Just so you don't think this is another trick question I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Sweet dreams and goodnight

Regards,
Boiler Plate