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."
Surely you are not so uninformed as not to notice the naturalistic tendencies of those who imbibe the notions of evolution? The people who espouse this stuff: what do they believe to be the ultimate cause of existence as we know it? Are they silent about causes?
If indeed the theory of evolution has nothing to say about causation, that makes it even less worthy study or acceptance. If causation is attributed to nature alone, then a fundamental assumption has already been made: God has little or nothing to do with creation as we know it.
Those who make this assumption carry themselves with air of irresponsibility when it comes to higher things such as truth and honesty. The results are in plain view by virtue of your own dishonest words.
One may spout off all he wishes about theories within theories, theories about theories, and which particluar theory makes fundamental assumptions about the origin and purpose of life.The hair-splitting sophistry is irksome. A studious avoidence of plain honesty and truth has marked your discourse from the start.
We're not dealing with a particular theory here. It's a belief system. A mindset. A worldview more stupid than a simple fool like me.
But I'm not such a simple fool as to think you really seek a short summary of a particular theory of evolution. You seek to make a bigger fool of me than I already am, and I can do that just fine on my own.
Hmm. As it stands I agree with that statement. What could seriously be wrong with giving students all the facts? Are you honestly taking the Don't-Give-Them-All-The-Facts position?
My point is that textbooks shouldn't have to carry disclaimers for every creation myth under [...]
Again you seem to have misunderstood the article. The disclaimer is not "for" any "creation myth" (as far as I can tell the disclaimer doesn't even mention any "creation myths", whether from Genesis or elsewhere!) but for the theory of evolution - a disclaimer pointing out that it's a theory. Which it is. Which is why you're overreacting.
Try reading the article once again and let me know if you have any more questions. Good luck,
As we shall see, you have an issue with putting a particular true statement in books, even though you have declined to contest the truth of the statement. In fact, let's skip the bulk of your bob-and-weave and get right to it.
So actually I agree 100% with the statement that evolution (the whole "theory of evolution" shebang, not just evolution meaning "change in populations") is a "hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact", for which there is evidence, and I think a responsible science teacher would frame it in these terms (followed by a presentation of the evidence) to her students.
You "agree" with "Evolution = hypothesis or conjecture." Here we get to dishonesty behind your little dance. The statement with which you "agree"--but who made it?--is FALSE. The truth is that evolution absolutely positively has happened and continues to happen. The role of theory is explaining why and how it has happened and continues to happen.
But you object to teaching even that evolution has definitely occurred, that there is no other plausible explanation for the overwhelming evidence. You have specifically declined to attack the statement you would not allow taught. You have declined to offer any alternative interpretation. (But there simply is nothing else.)
You hide rather behind the word "theory" in "Theory of Evolution." There's also a theory of continental drift, which explains (provides a likely mechanism for) the fact of drifting continents. There's also a theory of gravity, to explain the fact of gravity. And so forth.
But only the very existence of evolution must be lied about, if only by posturing behind literally true but misleadingly couched legalistic disclaimers. And what is going on here? Gee! It's a stumper! NOT!
The religious screech and jabber that accompanied the growing acceptance of evolution is well known to students of the history of science. The demographic composition of the current disclaimer movement is no secret either. The Intelligent Design movement is stealth creationism. This has to be one of the worst-kept "secrets" in history since the "founder" of the movement, Philip Johnson, publicly in his writings described the "wedge strategy" of prying the classroom back open for creationism with the wedge of ID.
I'll check back later and see if you've said anything that would require posting something new. So far there's no there there in your posts.
Now you are showing a slight understanding of how science operates. Theories are always updated to fit facts.
In science, neither fact nor theory are the same as hypothesis or conjecture.
But you're not asking that there be doubt regarding all theories. You're asking that there be doubt regarding one specific theory. The difference in treatment utterly destroys the validity of what you say.
The mainstream media uses this same technique to slant the news. When a Democrat criticizes a Republican (for example, Trent Lott), they report it, but when a Republican criticizes a Democrat (for example, Robert Byrd), they don't. When they're called on the bias, they rightly say that you can't point to any particular story that exhibits an obvious bias; the words of the Democrats are being accurately reported, after all. If you say that maybe they didn't need to publish a hundred stories about Lott for every hundred complaints about Lott, they accuse you of censorship. Why would you want to hide the accusations of the Democrats from the public?
You insist that students take everything as dogma, Physicist?
Of course not. Putting an equivalent disclaimer on every theory presented to the students would be just fine with me.
Probability: ZERO.
Unfortunately.
Au contraire. This is exactly what I want. You're the one who wants otherwise.
You "agree" with "Evolution = hypothesis or conjecture." Here we get to dishonesty behind your little dance. The statement with which you "agree"--but who made it?--is FALSE.
Well, I don't think so. This may be because you and I use the relevant words differently, as is becoming clear.
The truth is that evolution absolutely positively has happened and continues to happen.
Assuming you're not doing a dishonest definition-shift again and using "evolution" to mean just "change", you can't prove this. It's a hypothesis with lots of persuasive evidence behind it. AKA a "theory". Just like I said.
But you object to teaching even that evolution has definitely occurred,
Again, which "evolution"? Like I said, I agree that "change" has occurred. Namely, change in the genetic makeup of populations of critters. When did I ever say I "object" to teaching that genetic compositions of populations have changed over time and continue to do so?
This all doesn't mean that these changes (i.e. the straightforward result of mutation + natural selection + drift) ARE DEFINITELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF SPECIATION, which is what "the theory of evolution" says. Do you understand the distinction because "change has occurred" and "it explains all differences"? If not, to continue here is fruitless.
You have specifically declined to attack the statement you would not allow taught.
You are very confused. For one thing, there aren't any statements I "would not allow taught" as far as you know. When the hell on this thread did I cite any statements I "would not allow taught"?
For another thing, I "declined to attack" the statement in question ("evolution, meaning change, has occurred") because I agree with it. Why would I "attack" it?
There's also a theory of continental drift, which explains (provides a likely mechanism for) the fact of drifting continents. There's also a theory of gravity, to explain the fact of gravity. And so forth.
True, and true. (Yawn.)
But only the very existence of evolution must be lied about,
What do you mean the "very existence of evolution"? Its existence as a theory? No, I don't think the theory's "existence" "must be lied about". Where the hell do you get that?
And what is going on here? Gee! It's a stumper! NOT!
How old are you, just out of curiosity? I remember when I used to talk this way.
The religious screech and jabber that accompanied the growing acceptance of evolution is well known to students of the history of science.
Um, are you still talking to me? You are going off on quite a tangent. This has nada to do with anything I wrote. But oh, I get it, this is the part where you pretend to know my "religion" again... Yup, you're a mind-reader all right.
The demographic composition of the current disclaimer movement is no secret either. The Intelligent Design movement is stealth creationism. This has to be one of the worst- kept "secrets" in history since the "founder" of the movement, Philip Johnson, publicly in his writings described the "wedge strategy" of prying the classroom back open for creationism with the wedge of ID.
Seriously, WTF are you talking about, and why are you saying it to me?
I'll check back later and see if you've said anything that would require posting something new. So far there's no there there in your posts.
Perhaps that's because you don't understand them, given that you shift the definition of words from post to post and indeed from paragraph to paragraph. This is further proven by the fact that you resort to ad hominems about what you think my "religion" is, and spout off random gibberish about the "demographic composition" of such-and-such, rather than actually reading, digesting, and logically responding to what I actually wrote.
No it's not. It was one of the greatest ages of scientific discovery. It could not have a occured in a culture which did not encourage scientific discovery.
but his astronomical and other discoveries didn't come from scripture
Well, it came from a curiosity and a belief that truth was an absolute and that it was a sin to worship stars. The later two came from scripture.
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was not burned for his scientific opinions. He was burned because he was a bit of a con man and because he said Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician among other things. Remember Venetians did not have the First Amendment. But it wasn't a scientific opinion which got him in trouble with Inquisition
Well, updated or tossed out, as the case may be.
But we don't give the new theory the same name as the old theory and pretend that the old theory was right (and unquestioned) all along but we just didn't know it sufficiently (as is done, and will continue to be done, regarding "evolution"). We don't call Special Relativity "Classical Mechanics" or "Newtonian Physics", for example; when the new evidence came in which required updating Newtonian physics, we didn't say "look at this new stuff we've learned about Newtonian physics". We said "Look at this new stuff we've learned about the world", and then updated (i.e. altered) Newtonian physics to create a new theory.
That's not what will ever happen with "evolution" though. All new evidence will be greeted with "Look at this new stuff we've learned about evolution", rather than "about the history of biological life". The new data will be assimilated, the "theory" of evolution will be updated or even altered beyond recognition... and then repackaged as "evolution" again. With the result that "evolution" (unlike classical mechanics) simply cannot ever be disproven or proven incomplete, because it's a moving target.
And no, that's not how science usually operates.
The reason for this is that when you boil it down, "evolution" is effectively synonymous with "the history of biological life" in the minds of most scientists. The working definition of "evolution" is "the naturalistic explanation for how life has arisen". Since this is a rather circular definition of a proposed scientific "theory", it's no surprise that it turns out to always be verified.
And no, I'm not complaining about this per se. That's how science works; scientists almost by definition operate from a materialistic world-view in their work. That's ok with me. I just wish so many wouldn't overreact so much and get all in a tizzy just because some people want their theories to be labeled theories. They are protesting too much. Evolution is a theory.
That's not what I said in the first place. I said a theory is a hypothesis / conjecture (<--those mean the same thing you know) combined with evidence. For example, the theory of evolution.
I'm not? Sure I am. I've said so in numerous posts. Where did you get this misapprehension of yours?
You're asking that there be doubt regarding one specific theory.
All theories, actually. Frankly I'd be shocked and sickened if, say, General Relativity wasn't presented to students with a similar disclaimer. It should be the standard MO for all theories, and any honest scientist would agree.
The difference in treatment utterly destroys the validity of what you say.
The "difference in treatment" exists only in your head, and doesn't come from anything I wrote.
The mainstream media uses [...bla...]
I'm tired of following all spurious tangents. Stay on topic.
Putting an equivalent disclaimer on every theory presented to the students would be just fine with me.
Then we agree. Splendid. Best,
You:
No it's not. It was one of the greatest ages of scientific discovery. It could not have a occured in a culture which did not encourage scientific discovery.
Are you saying that events like the Galileo Affair encouraged scientific study? I say the opposite. So by definition the proposition is debatable. You're not serious that it was all peaches and cream for scientific research, are you?
Me:
but his [Galileo's]astronomical and other discoveries didn't come from scripture
You:
Well, it came from a curiosity and a belief that truth was an absolute and that it was a sin to worship stars. The later two came from scripture.
Repeat: his discoveries did not come from scripture.
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was not burned for his scientific opinions. He was burned because he was a bit of a con man and because he said Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician among other things.
I'm not certain of that, but even so ... is that supposed to make it better? Those were hellish times. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
That's a great point. As I understand it most of the "scientific" evidence Darrow presented in defense of Scopes has now been found to be false.
I'm saying it wasn't the norm -- even in Galileo's life. He was a friend of the Pope and was one of the most respected men in his day, even during his house arrest.
Repeat: his discoveries did not come from scripture.
How literal do you want to be? Do you want to say they came from a telescope? That would be inaccurate. They came from Galileo. What made up Galileo's world view? Scripture had a huge role, and it had a huge role in making up the outlooks of those with whom Galileo came into contact i.e. his culture.
I'm not certain of (the reason for Giordano Bruno's death),
You provided the initial link. :-)
but even so ... is that supposed to make it better?
It only refutes the idea that Bruno was killed for his scientific views.
Those were hellish times. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
And again that's relative. I certainly wouldn't want to trade my Constitutional privleges for a theocracy.
On the other hand, I suspect that most places and times in human history were worse that fin-de-cycle 16th century Italy.
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.