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."

[Doctor Stochastic]

As I understand it most of the "scientific" evidence Darrow presented in defense of Scopes has now been found to be false.

I have to agree here. Darrow's primary evidence giver was Williams Jennings Bryan. I'm glad to see that you believe that Bryan's testimony has been found to be false.

[Tribune7]

Bryan was questioned as a expert in the Bible. You're now claiming the Bible to be a science book?

[Doctor Stochastic]

For the record: I'd have disclaimers for all theories, if I had my druthers.

Disclaimers for Group Theory, the Theory of Equations, Analytic Number Theory, Graph Theory, Multiplicative Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, K-Theory, Complexity Theory, Information Theory, Queueing Theory, M-Theory, Set Theory, Class Field Theory, Represenation Theory, too?

What is there to disclaim in these theories?

[Aric2000]

I see, so if ANY scientific theory might possibly bring your bible into question, then it must be a load of BS?

I see, OK, well at least I understand where you stand, but I actually already knew that.

Oh, and by the way, PROVE it's ALL a bunch of BS, I would really like to see you try, or did some church elder tell you that and of course you believed him blindly? Never mind, I think I know the answer.

Good little sheep that I believe you are.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No. Just happy that you decided that Bryan had been proved wrong.

[js1138]

Is Leslie, by any chance, your mother's maiden name? That's how I got my middle name.

[Aric2000]

I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class.

This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing. It would not go well with their religious agenda.

[Tribune7]

If you don't feel the Bible is a science book, then what did you take my words "scientific evidence" to mean?

[AndrewC]

and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats.

I read that you home school your children. How can anyone shove anything down your throat in that context?

[Aric2000]

The bible is NOT a science book, it is a religious book, a philosophy book if you will. It is definitely NOT science.

God is not a part of science, God cannot be. god cannot be proven nor disproven, therefore it is a question for philosophers, NOT scientists. Therefore the bible is NOT scientific.

The most you can say for the bible in a scientific type fashion is that it is a history book, but science? COME ON, give me a break.

Sorry Tribune, thanks for playing.

[Tribune7]

The bible is NOT a science book, it is a religious book, a philosophy book if you will. It is definitely NOT science.

Hey, you're arguing with the wrong guy. Tell Doctor Stochastic.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Disclaimers for Group Theory,

"Group Theory" is mathematics. It's not a scientific theory. Not applicable.

the Theory of Equations,

What's that? Which equations? Anyway, also mathematics.

Analytic Number Theory, Graph Theory, Multiplicative Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, K-Theory, Complexity Theory, Information Theory, Queueing Theory, M-Theory, Set Theory, Class Field Theory, Represenation Theory, too?

Ditto, ditto, ditto...

These are all mathematical (not scientific) theories, so this list is a total red herring. The word "theory" is not being used in the same way in mathematics as in science. Don't you know that?

What is there to disclaim in these theories?

Well, one could (and should) say that they are subject to whichever mathematical axioms apply....

But they're not scientific theories, and therefore (despite the apparently confusing-to-you fact that they have the word "theory" in their names), not even relevant to this discussion in the first place. Sorry, you seemed to have tried so hard on your post too. Have a nice day.

[Aric2000]

And that is why I homeschool, because of a bunch of crazy zealots that try to shove their religious dogma through as science, and when they can't, want a disclaimer for the offending science.

Public schools have been turned into an indoctrination facility for governments and whomever else can get in there with their agenda. Me, I decided that I would not allow my children to be a part of that. PERIOD.

I will teach them what they should know in order to THINK.

I will teach them science as science, without disclaimers, because if you are sure of the definition of THEORY, there is NO need for one.

I will give them some knowledge, but most of all, I want them to learn how to THINK, not just spout facts.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class. This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing.

Speaking only for myself:

I would definitely agree to such a thing. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Aric2000]

My apologies, sorry about that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The claims of WJB, which, as you pointed out, have been shown to be false.

[Tribune7]

I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class. This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing.

I don't have a problem with this. I can't think of anyone who would. So, why isn't being done?

[Doctor Stochastic]

In what way is the word theory being used differently? Certainly many people doing math or physics or chemistry or biology or geology use theory in the same way. I do.

Perhaps you should learn a bit about how the word theory is used. You seem to miss the concept completely.

[Tribune7]

No prob.