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."
I don't think the judge allowed any expert testimony (other than Bryan's). Some of the witnesses that Darrow was going to use may have intended to mention Piltdown man and Nebraska man (two hoaxes that were even then in doubt), but they didn't testify. Do you know of any evidence that was actually presented which was later found to be false?
Good Lord! We agree. Let's quit while we're ahead.
To continue is obviously fruitless, but I'll sort out a point for the lurkers lest some of your confusion rub off.
There are facts, and there are theories about the facts. Gravity as a force is a fact. Theories in science about gravity include (as a partial list): Newton's mysterious action-at-a-distance law, Einstein's concept of the curvature of space, and the modern concept of a particle called a "gravition" mediating the force. No amount of harrumphing about the conjectural nature of the graviton or quibbling over observations of the warping of space by massive objects will let you fly around like Peter Pan after a sprinkling of fairy dust.
(Yes, we fly. All the time. But all the flying we do and will ever do is engineered in strict observance of how gravity works.)
In the case of evolution, I see you lumping all the facts under the word "change." That's too vague for my tastes. Two words we have not so far spoken are "common descent." Not only do populations change over time, but all the life we have now arose from probably just one life-form. (Whether the one last-common-ancestor form was already cellular or was something called "RNA World" is a subject still being debated.)
Common descent is no doubt part of what you wish to sweep into the bin of "theory," but most scientists would say it's more like what you're trying to explain. It's there to be seen in one line of evidence after another, so the only questions are about mechanisms. But, however uncontroversial it may appear to mainstream science, common descent is a horror to those who scream that "evolution is only a theory."
Which anyone reading this thread can readily see.
Surprise me, then, and tell me that you have no problem with common descent as part of the factual evidence that has to be explained by any theory of evolution. (Bwahahahahaha!!)
ICR (very anti-evo) says yes.
www.antievolution.org says maybe.
antievolution.org seems rather fair with a slight tilt to the pro-evo side-- check it's home page.
Antievolution.org also says Judge Raulston did not permit any testimony in the official presence of the jury, but one witness testified and several affidavits were read into the record when the jury was excused.
In an interesting but unrelated matter, the antievolution.org site indicates the inspiration for Johnny Cash's "Boy Named Sue" cannot be discounted from being a member of the Scopes' prosecution team.
"Graviton." Sheesh!
There was a real person named Sue, and he was in politics. I don't know if it was in Tennessee. I'm too lazy to Google it.
If that happened, then they were arguing about whether the evidence would be allowed in. If the jury never knew about it, the evidence wasn't admitted, and it wasn't part of the trial. It sounds like a "proffer" of excluded evidence, for the record only, which could be considered by the appellate court in determining if the judge ruled correctly in excluding that evidence.
From what you said to me:
So? It's perfectly reasonable to single out special topics for such reminders if they are especially politically sensitive to the point where many people don't seem to realize the status of the theory as a theory. As is the case with evolution.
That was in response to my saying "only evolution is singled out for the label". That you adopted a different position in other posts is as may be, but that is what you said to me.
The "difference in treatment" exists only in your head, and doesn't come from anything I wrote.
You also said:
"Evolution is a theory" is a true statement. Who cares what my "intention" is for saying this, if it's true?
I suggest you reread what I said about the slanting of news, and reevaluate whether it's relevant to this discussion.
In fact, such a plan would be met with active opposition from the creationists, because it would defeat the entire purpose of their disclaimer scam.
A fast scan indicates that was the case.
If the jury never knew about it, the evidence wasn't admitted, and it wasn't part of the trial.
Here you have a debate as to whether the Scopes Trial was simply a matter of whether John Scopes violated Tennesee law -- he pled guilty and was fined -- or whether the theory of evolution itself was on trial -- it wasn't but that's not what was portrayed in the popular media nor is being portrayed by popular history.
One of the problems that I have with evolution, and I think to what Dr. Franks was alluding, concerns statements reported as fact found later to false. ICR seems to claim some of these made it into the trial record. Antievolution.org isn't refuting this.
No lie, my grandfather's name was Leslie Ruth. He was though toughest Teamster SOB you'd ever want to meet. (One time he threw a politician headlong off a fish truck, but I don't think it was Sue.)
On the other hand, my middle name is "Leslie", but the ribbing I took for it never made me any tougher.
Mine's "Lynn." (Shakes head.) Never was cool with it until Lynn Swann made it big with the Steelers.
Meaning that you don't understand the difference between those two statements. Got it.
There are facts, and there are theories about the facts.
Fine...
I see you lumping all the facts under the word "change." That's too vague for my tastes.
Sorry. But that's all the "facts" we have: changing genetic populations over time. Changing phenotypes (for example we find fossilized skeletons of critters which don't look exactly like modern critters). I'll agree with you that things like this are facts. If you don't want to call it "change", call it something else.
But you can't call the facts "evolution", because evolution is the "theory about the facts", which says that not only do populations change due to various well-documented reasons (duh), but that that's how all species have arisen from one organism. And that statement, my friend, is a theory about the facts. Do we understand one another now?
Two words we have not so far spoken are "common descent." Not only do populations change over time, but all the life we have now arose from probably just one life-form.
This is NOT a "fact". It's a theory regarding the facts. Note your (correct) usage of the word "probably".
Whether the one last-common- ancestor form was already cellular or was something called "RNA World" is a subject still being debated.
In fact, this is the type of thing which can probaby never be known for sure. It can be a hypothesis with a ton of supporting evidence, but the answer to the question "What was the last common ancestor?" can never be a "fact". It's a historical event for which there were no sentient witnesses that we know of.
Common descent is no doubt part of what you wish to sweep into the bin of "theory,"
It's a primary component of the theory of evolution, yes. It's not a "fact", you can't prove it, no one currently can, and likely no one ever will. (That doesn't mean it's wrong by the way, or even that I doubt its truth.)
but most scientists would say it's more like what you're trying to explain.
Come again? What am I "trying to explain"?
It's there to be seen in one line of evidence after another,
There's stacks of evidence for the theory of common descent, yes. It's still a theory, not a fact.
Why are you so terrified of letting someone call this stuff a theory? It's not a dirty word. Most "theories" we have are quite good for our purposes.
Do you think that by calling it a "theory" I'm saying it's untrue?
common descent is a horror to those who scream that "evolution is only a theory."
I don't know who you're talking about here, but it ain't me. I'm one of the people saying that evolution is only a theory (which it is). But I don't think common descent is "a horror" at all. It's a quite plausible theory, inf act.
It's still a theory. You should learn to come to grips with the term, perhaps. It's not a dirty word!
Well, yeah. As I said I have no problem with this theory; I find it plausible enough.
But you've been screaming that I don't know you, don't know your religion, etc.
No I haven't. More precisely, that's not what I've been screaming.
I don't care that you "don't know" me and "don't know my religion". In fact I don't particularly want you to. But that's not the point.
The reason I was "screaming" is that you have continually brought up biographical information about me, or at least your pathetic guesses about my biographical information, in a discussion where it has no place whatsoever (a discussion about science). It's not that you don't know my religion that bothers me, it's that you keep bringing it up in the first place. This would bother me whether or not you are correct about what you guess my religion to be.
What you don't seem to fully understand is that this type of thing is widely recognized as a weak and fallacious form of argumentation. Essentially, you have been trying to say to me (I think), "I know what you are - I'll bet you're one of those FUNDIES, ain't ya? Ain't ya??"
This type of crap would get you laughed out of any junior high debating club.
It's bad enough that you seem to think that my religion proves something or other about whether the school's decision is ok. But yes, it's even worse that you have no frickin' idea what you're talking about and thus (what you believe to be) my religion is a completely wild-blue guess on your part. That's just pathetic.
So of course I could be wrong about you having a revulsion to sharing with the chimpanzees a common ancestor less than ten million years back.
I wouldn't say I have a "revulsion" to this, no. I don't know whether or not it's true (neither do you), but in any event, truth is truth. I don't particularly even care one way or the other, except to say that I'm a curious fellow and would like to know what happened either way, if that were possible.
By the way, this type of consideration has no bearing on whether or not the school board's decision is ok.
Surprise me, then, and tell me that you have no problem with common descent as part of the factual evidence that has to be explained by any theory of evolution.
I don't understand this sentence. It lacks precision.
What is "factual evidence"? Is that different from "evidence"? Is there "non-factual" or perhaps "counter-factual evidence"?
If you are trying to say that "common descent" is a "fact", then you're just flat-out wrong. You don't know for sure whether all living things have a common ancestor. You have no way of knowing this, and neither does any human. There is, to be sure, plenty of evidence which lends credence to this hypothesis, and as far as I can tell, that's what "the theory of evolution" is - the hypothesis that all current life descended from a common ancestor through well-known obvious mechanisms such as natural selection.
That's a theory, not a "fact". Further, I don't have to "explain" the theory of "common descent". Even the theory of evolution doesn't "explain" common descent, it hypothesizes common descent.
If you are a proponent of the theory evolution then you're not "explaining" common descent, you're starting from the hypothesis that common descent happened. All you're doing beyond that is providing a plausible mechanism for how it could have happened so as to provide a believable theory (otherwise it would not get off the ground).
That's all fine with me. I have no huge axe to grind with the whole evolution theory. But it is, in the end, a theory. In your overzealous aversion to the term you still don't seem to realize that.
(Bwahahahahaha!!)
???
More non-English.
Ok, touche :) I was wrong here. (I've written a lotta posts on this thread.)
For the record: I'd have disclaimers for all theories, if I had my druthers. But if they want to single out evolution in particular, I think that's entirely reasonable. (Why? Because evolution is a politically-charged issue, and there are many overzealous folks on the "scientific" side who are so defensive for some reason that they resist even saying that it's a theory. cf. this thread, and your own comments, if you don't believe me. The result of this zealotry is that the idea trickles down to regular folks that EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT, which - I hope you'd agree - is a misstatement of the situation. To single out evolution would be merely an attempt to correct this on the part of regular folks.)
Furthermore, I don't think "why only evolution?" is all that good of an argument against such a disclaimer in the first place. (Why only Hussein?) It just doesn't get you very far. Truth is truth. Telling kids "evolution is a theory" is THE TRUTH, dammit.
Also: maybe other theories do have such disclaimers in the regular text of the book already; we don't know. This would make it a moot point.
Finally, I still don't see why "intentions" even belong in these considerations. The best way to frame what you are saying would be to say that,
You agree that evolution is a theory, but you don't like their "intentions" for wanting to say so, therefore you oppose putting this disclaimer in books.
The preceding sentence doesn't sound like the type of thing that belongs in a scientfic or academic discussion to me.
I will gladly bear the arbitrary label of "dishonest" if, in exchange, I may forego an attempt to satisfy the voracious apetite of an intellectual black hole.
I see you've been welcomed by the "howler monkey" crowd. They are strong on repetition, Ad Hominem, and error. Most are inveterate mind-readers, as you have noticed, but are poor at accuracy. They also play to the audience whenever they have been soundly thrashed, as if some invisible spectre can breathe life into their argument. Anyway, I wish you good luck and encourage you --- "Illegitimi non carborundum".
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.