Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

Excuse me?

I said that you lied about me when you said I "intend to deny" the inductive evidence used to arrive at common descent (or that inductive reasoning applied to the evidence makes common descent plausible, whichever). I "denied" nor "intended to deny" no such thing, and you can't name a single post to the contrary.

That's what I said. How many times shall I repeat this?

You rapidly dismissed it, all 29 lines of evidence for macroevolution, as evidence for a theory and nothing more.

I didn't "dismiss" all those 29 lines of evidence as evidence for a theory. I said that it is evidence for a theory. Which it is.

When you show me evidence for a theory and I say, "Yup, that sure is evidence for the theory", how the heck is that "dismissing" it? What did you want me to do, applaud?

And why do you think that to call a theory a theory is to "dismiss" it? (Let alone to "deny" it.) You really don't seem to understand what "theory" means. When I say that evolution is a theory, you seem to hear "evolution is false". I am not saying that evolution is "false". I am not "denying" it. I'm saying it's a theory. Which it is.

You really ought not to be so defensive and thin-skinned about the fact that evolution is a theory. What's your huge stake in the whole bizarre self-contradictory Never-Call-the-Theory-of-Evolution-a-Theory campaign, anyway?

You insist that any mere preponderance of evidence, no matter how large, for facts some people don't want to face should not prevent such facts from being publicly branded as somehow conjectural.

What is this "publicly branded" jazz? Do you think that calling something a "theory" is to brand it with a scarlet.... well, "T"? Listen, there are stronger theories than "evolution" which have been labeled theories with no ill effect.

It seems like you're deathly afraid that if evolution is admitted to be (oh sorry "publicly branded" as) a theory, then it will collapse. If that is really so, then perhaps evolution is not so strong a theory after all. You can't have it both ways; if there's such a preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution then what's the harm of telling the TRUTH about it and calling it a theory?

You are doing exactly what I just told Rightwing you are doing.

No, you told him that I "intend to deny" "[c]onnecting the dots [which] is inductive logic". I do not "deny" inductive logic (whatever "denying inductive logic" would mean), let alone "intend to" deny it. And the fact that inductive logic applied to the evidence from biological history leads to common descent as a hypothesis is NOT something I "deny" or "intend to deny" either. So, I am doing nothing of the sort that you told Rightwing I am doing. You are a liar. As I said.

I don't know how else to explain it. If you still have a problem understanding this it can only be because you do not understand the English words you and/or I am using very well. (For example, you seem to think that Calling It A Theory and Denying It are one and the same. You think the word "theory" means "false". This is incorrect; look in any dictionary.)

You've spent dozens of posts just to me chanting your "just a theory" mantra, defending this creationist wedge-strategy disclaimer as fact

Evolution IS a theory, and the disclaimer does state a FACT. Ask ANY scientist. You could even ask any of the (presumed) scientists or mathematicians posting on this thread (Physicist, longshadow, donh...), although you'd probably have to catch them in one of their more honest/sincere/less nit-picky moments when they're not spending all the time dissecting how I'm using words like "true"....

So who's lying?

You are, liar.

I believe that ANY science class should begin with a FULL definition of what Theory is and what that term means. Evolution is a theory, it is the closest theory that fits the facts at hand. Explain what a theory is and it is ALL covered, no DISCLAIMERS needed.

I agree with you, this is what should be done. Explain what a theory is, and then proceed to teach about several interesting and important theories (continental drift, evolution, etc.) That would cover it and any disclaimer would be redundant.

Apparently the textbook in question DOESN'T DO THAT, or the whole issue would have been moot. The textbook in question DOESN'T both properly define "theory" and identify evolution as one such theory; if it did, there would have been nothing to discuss, and people like me would have to shut up.

Now, isn't it interesting and, well, flat-out bizarre that the textbook doesn't do the quite reasonable and proper thing you suggest? It can be reasonably be assumed that the textbook doesn't identify evolution as a (properly-defined) theory.

But why would that be??

In fact, any honest scientist would have to agree that for a textbook not to present "evolution" as a theory is, well, scandalous.

Maybe. Given all the fuss of late, certainly. However, let me point out that one of the things elementary textbooks ought to strive for is simplicity of presentation. An eight-hour dialog on the present controversies regarding the epistimological limits of scientific reasoning, might not be the cat's pajamas for getting an eight year old interested in science.

Personally, I'd be more than content to leave biology off the agenda until high school.

...

By the way, I expect nobody tells you for sure because nobody remembers. When people have chimed in on this discussion whose kids had current textbooks, so far, I don't remember a reported case of disclaimer-failure.

Not generally, of course, but at the time of Galileo it was very much a paranoid church, afraid of everything that could be a challange (remember - the reformation was close).

Actually it was in the middle of the Reformation -- after Luther but before the 30 Years War. Some of links I've checked during this discussion suggested that the harsh treatment of Galileo was a reaction to the anti-heliocentric attitude of Luther.

And apparently heliocentricity was not something only opposed by narrow-minded church types. One link stated Francis Bacon and Tycho Brahé did not believe it.

I've been comparing Galileo to Behe and Dembski. :-)

In such a climate a rational debate on the subject, as it seems, is as improbable as sudden abiogenesis in my cup of coffee.

Miracles happen.

To present it otherwise in the books, to the joy of either side in this debate, would be detrimental to the children we hope will continue mankinds quest for knowledge.

I think I disagree with you on this point. The main reason -- much more so than religion -- as to why I consider myself an anti-evo is the way the theory was foisted on me in high school. I remember watching films declaring the pepper moths as proof of Darwin's theory. Abiogenesis was taught as having certainly occurred. Meanwhile you couldn't even sing a Christmas carol.

I am convinced that there are those who teach evolution, not to further understanding of nature, but as part of a social agenda. Remember, that for it to be taught properly, the teacher has to understand it. I'm of the mind the whole subject would best wait until college.

Excuse me but mitochondrial DNA tests have already refuted the notion that Neanderthal was an ancestor of homo sapiens.

Not exactly. Mitochondrial DNA tests have failed to show that humans have any mitochondrial DNA from neanderthals. Apparently all creationists have essentially the same package of misinformation and make the same sweeping mistatement on the subject.

A survey of the "ancient DNA" genetic evidence. I'm going to trust you to read it and not make me paste it out on the thread. There will be a quiz question, namely, "How does the status reported in this survey of the studies differ from what you reported above?"

And why is a modern chimp skull in that illustration?

So you can see how close to a modern chimp an Australopithecus was.

I was actually referring to the pictorial progression common in high school text books that sport the crawling modern day chimpanzee progressing up to modern man, along with the piltdown man fraud and the neanderthal giant.

Piltdown Man in high school textbooks!? Here you sink to lying. What does the Bible say about bearing false witness? Or maybe you mean creationist schools?

A more accurate projection would of course show Eve. :-)

Sorry I don't still have my Little Golden Book of Bible Stories to post real science pictures for you. Somewhere along the way it got lost.

The ostrich ought to be the world mascot for evolutionists, as they refuse to even consider the possibility that other unknown forces may be involved in all they observe. Shame on their silly asses.

Oh, how silly can you get? Biological science just revised the root of the tree of life, in such a manner as to cast doubt on the notion of common ancestry. The instant ameba's start giving birth to orangutangs, science will abandon darwinism. However, science will not abandon Darwinism because someone like Behe makes vague, experimentally void claims about the limits of life's capacity to innovate.

Sure. These are your assumptions, not mine. It is you who assume "universal gravity can only be demonstrated by looking at light," all the time not knowing for certain whether there may be more involved.

If you are going to make claims about the universe, it is, I suspect, the universe you must observe to verify your claim. No significant part of the universe beyond our Solar system gets signals here any faster than 4.8 light-years after the fact.

You deny it factual basis. You have done so repeatedly. I have made up no part of this. Your behavior is here on this thread for all to see.

Now, it is possible to deny almost anything a factual basis in total disregard of all evidence. If you're going to spin stories and start wondering about how exactly do we know anything, really, then nothing is solid. Science cannot bend over backwards in such a fashion and neither should science textbooks.

[Furthermore, we know who is pushing the disclaimers and why they are pushing the disclaimers and it's actually not good science education policy to let such witch doctors start scribbling in the science books.]

What I have defended to Rightwing and everywhere else on this thread is exactly the right of science to say that the evidence looks a certain way because this initially controversial idea is obviously true. Only if science is allowed to do that can it ever stop arguing about the phlogiston theory of combustion versus Lavoisier's newfangled chemical reaction theory and move on to the next step. What you are saying, on the other hand, is that any sufficiently organized Luddite group can label anything in science, however well established, as conjecture and By God get a warning label pasted in the front of a science textbook so stating.

I don't blame you for being ashamed of this. But there you are.

Evolution IS a theory, and the disclaimer does state a FACT. Ask ANY scientist.

OK, since you have no problem with evolution, I propose to replace every occurrence of "evolution" in the disclaimer with "plate tectonics." "Origin of life" will similarly be replaced with "configuration of land masses" and so forth. This will make you and the rest of the disclaimer crew just as happy and we'll all laugh about it and go away, right? Because all you really want to do is raise awareness of theory, right?

Why do I get the feeling that this proposal isn't going to fly?

Evolution IS a theory, and the disclaimer does state a FACT. Ask ANY scientist.

Any scientist?

Evolution as Fact and Theory, SJ Gould.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Laurence Moran (Professor of Biochemistry, U. of Toronto).

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world.

OK, I just asked two and they don't agree with you. Evolution is a theory, yes, but it's also a fact and cannot in 2002 be dismissed as a conjecture.

Well, hold on to your banana, because I will freely admit, as you wish, that no theory of evolution addresses the questions of origins and purpose. And I will state that by this omission they have made the fundamental assumption that origins and purpose have no place in science, and in so doing have boxed themselves out of true scientific method, for true scientific method does not a priori discard these questions.

A stunning admission, indeed. You may have the distinct honor of being the first anti-evolutionist to acknowledge this. As you may have guessed, I disagree with the rest of the above. Science must confine itself to those phenomenon for which there is evidence. The supernatual is outside the realm of science. Speculate all you want, but until you have something concrete, science simply cannot comment. I am curious as to your reference to the "true" scientific method, however.

That species originated is true. We currently have gobs of evidence (fossil, genetic, anatomic, etc.) upon which to base a theory. In it's current iteration, the theory of evolution is the most successful at both explaining and incorporating the current evidence, as well as providing a framework to handle future discoveries.

I am absolutely willing to concede that our current explanation may be wrong. It is entirely possible that the next fossil found is the missing link between amphibian and bird. Or ET may drop from the sky and say, "All this? That lion? That daffodil? The tsetse fly? Yeah, I made 'em." So on and so forth.

I don't give those possibilities good odds for a couple of reasons. First, the lack of serious anomolies within the normal science (see Kuhn) of evolution. And secondly, there is no other hypothesis rigorous enough to more successfully explain the class of observations currently handled by evolution, and still provide the same type of quality predictions offered by evolution.

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.