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."
Exactly. They say it's about accuracy in textbooks, but the only named subject area is evolution. They say it's about developing critical thinking skills, but nobody wants to question anything but evolution. They say it's not about religion ...
Oh, yeah!
Well, "house arrest" means that he was confined to his own house. It was, I assume, something he provided for himself, from his own earnings. I don't see how the quality of the house cuts either for or against the Church. You may own a nice house, but if you were confined to it for 9 years, you wouldn't think the authorities were doing you any great favor for treating your own house, bought with your own money, as your prison. Anyway, it's clear that Galileo was kept under house arrest for the last 9 years of his life, and that was the point that drew me into this discussion.
Remember what's being claimed here is that Christian instituions are by nature anti-science or somehow inherently impede scientific progress.
Clearly, the Galileo affair isn't one of Christianity's great shining moments. Nor was it intended to be a sign of encouragment for independent-minded researchers. Quite the opposite. But that was then. I'm not one of those who runs around bashing the Church, or other Christians. (Creationists, yes, I criticize their views on evolution; but I certainly don't criticize Christians in general.) The Church has admited its error, and Galileo has been pardoned. It came more than three centuries too late, but still they pardoned him, for which I greatly respect the present-day Church.
Galileo was not treated fairly but you mustn't forget that he was a Christian, was supported by a lot of Christians and, most importantly, that a Christian culture allowed -- encouraged -- him to investigate and publish.
Well yes, he was a Christian, but his astronomical and other discoveries didn't come from scripture, and it's debatable whether the culture in those days encouraged such scientific study. For example: Giordano Bruno (1548-1600). There were terrible abuses in the name of religion in those days. I hope that none of us wants a return of those conditions.
Your arguments and apparently the root of your anger seem to be focused on something that happened 1000 years ago. I am not sure how the Papalcy of millenium has abused you personally, but as I demonstrated in my original question it is character flaw that brings more harm to yourself than I or any one else can.
You stated that you are student of religion and yet you only seem to know something about the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. I would like to point out that the "Chuch" at this time did not contain every or rule over all christians on the planet then or ever. One of the most important thing the "Church" did at the time was to make sure that the common person knew nothing of what the Bible actually said. If you will take the time to study more in depth what happened in that period of time what you find could be quite eye opening. In short the Roman Catholic Church quite simply was a political machine and can hardly be used as an example of what the Bible says or doesn't say.
If you are truly interested in learnig the truth then I again suggest you do so with open mind and humility in your heart.
To be honest I really don't think you find solace in convincing me that evolution is a scientific fact, you have a lot of anger towards the "Church" of a millenia ago and it is hard to figure out how you are going to deal with that. However if you think what the "Church" did to those who didn't believe in the flat earth was bad try reading "Fox's Book of Matyrs". It will put your arguments in a whole nother light.
Good night and good reading,
Boiler Plate
DannyTN: but also how and whether man evolved from apes.
Aric2000: No scientist would say that without FULL and conclusive study of the skeleton as well as DNA evidence. That is the first time I have EVER heard that claim regarding that find. The fact of the matter is that our DNA matches so closely to the great Apes that it almost a certainty that we are related... It was amazing how they came to that conclusion so many years ago, and DNA showed that it most probably is true. It is the MOST likely explanation.
Actually, only recently was the mapping of the mouse genome complete and the chimpanzee is yet to be mapped: UCSC researchers play key role in mapping of mouse genome - December 5, 2002
"At the cellular level, humans and mice are virtually identical," Kent said. "The differences tend to be at the larger level, in how our cells are put together."...
Five other animals already have been sequenced, including the roundworm, fruit fly, and puffer fish. Next in line is the chimpanzee, the closest living relative to humans, followed by dogs, cows and baboons.
The point is that to say we are one-third daffodils because our DNA matches that of a daffodil 33% of the time, is not profound, it’s ridiculous. There is hardly any biological comparison you can make which will find us to be one-third daffodil, except perhaps the DNA.
In other words, just as Simpson argued in the 1960s, the genetic comparison is exceptional, not at all transcendent. DNA comparisons overestimate biological similarity at the low end and underestimate it at the high end – in context, humans are biologically less than 25% daffodils and more than 98% chimpanzees.
The traditional way of comparing ancient and modern species to determine how they have changed over time is morphology, where bones are compared for shape and size. This may involve a large margin of error, however, as it can be subjective and bones such as skulls are malleable and prone to changing shape.
This is of course false. You need to learn some biology before making such claims. Evolutionary theory says nothing about any of these. The origin of life is more of a chemistry question than a biological one. Questions of purpose or destination fall outside biology completely.
Do you believe that non-scientists should determine what is taught in science classes? Who are these non-scientists that you prefer? Actors, poets, politicians, lawyers, quarterbacks?
We've suffered from having non-mathematicians design math textbooks for some time now. I'm disappointed that you wish to continue such a trend.
Naturalist sophistry apparently permeates not only the theory of evolution but also those who defend it. Afraid to call a spade a spade while drowning in the opposite opiate of self-delusion.
No need to waste it on this simple fool.
If you believe evolutionists and scientists to be synonymous you are more narrow minded than both. The fact that you decided to insert the word "scientist" as a substitute "evolutionist" shows you also to be intellectually dishonest as the latter. You might as well be a quarterback.
After reviewing the context of your post I must retract this. My use of the word "scientist" was too broad. I do expect scientists to teach science. In fact I am even willing to admit much good has come from certain scientists who hold an entirely naturalistic view of existence. But I would not want to give them sole reign over the classroom, as they just might be wrong in the end.
Alas, I'll be the simple quarterback for a while.
One important early development was the introduction of the smallpox inoculation. On 27 June 1721, this new procedure was introduced by a clergyman who tried it on his own family by following a Turkish practice, which caused a ferocious public controversy (Beck 1966:30—33). By the 1790s, enough people had acquired immunity to reduce the number of epidemics, but it was not until the 1820s that vaccination became commonplace throughout the country (Larkin 1988:82—3). However, smallpox persisted until the early 1900s in the Northwest and until the 1920s in the cities (Ackerknecht 1965:175—76).
Bottom line, when the facts are placed before them, they will also conclude, as I have, that evolution is a fringe pseudo-science and will not want it to be force-fed to them out of ANY textbook.
My $.02
FRegards, MM
First, metaphysical naturalism (evangelical atheism and anti-Christianity) is a political movement.
Second, science generally tries to stay away from anything that cannot be measured or observed and thus eschews all things that smack of religion or metaphysics.
Third, that metaphysical naturalism evangelizes by falsely presenting science as the authority for its belief, i.e. science has proved that God does not of necessity exist.
Altogether, that means that the classroom has become a place of indoctrination for the politics of metaphysical naturalism which (no surprise) is extremely left-wing.
IMHO, this trend can be, and should be, stopped by simply removing the randomness tenet from evolution theory taught to children in public schools. At post 103 on this thread I go into some detail as to why the randomness tenet is in serious trouble anyway!
Perhaps the philosophy of teleology should be included in High School electives.
My last remark is for Aric2000: I'm hurt that you have not called me a fanatic on this thread. I have been called a Jesus freak for decades. I am fanatic when it comes to Christ and I would like to wear that badge of honor!
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.