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."

[gore3000]

The part you left out flatly contradicts your claim that the latest study has shut down the debate and closed the question.

Discussion without facts is just balderdash. Scientifically speaking the debate is closed. That evolutionists deny the scientific facts does not mean that there is a scientific debate on the question.

[gore3000]

Any evidence presented is ignored, waved away, or classified as "just a bunch of bones."

That your evidence is so weak that it is easily refuted only proves my point - evolution has no legitimate evidence. I present evidence against it every day on these threads, all you folk ignore it or try to dismiss it with lame excuses as the one above. Back up your statements with facts, not rhetoric.

[AndrewC]

unconscious = unconcious

Adj. -- describing current spell checker.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Everything that has already happened to me cannot change . . .

The fact you are able to express your experiences so well and reflect upon the same attests mightily to the possibility of intelligent design. Even in this simple instance, the amount of intelligent information directed to and from a single source, namely yourself, is astronomical. There's nothing unintelligent about it whatsoever.

Would it make more sense for me to assume a few particles happened to collaborate by chance and make your thinking and statement come about? Or is it more sensible to assume this information is the result of a higher intelligence? The former sounds more like a Cynthia McKinney proposal to me.

[gore3000]

When I turned to various "authorities:’ they seemed to know less than I did—about their own fields, in many cases.

Yes indeed! That is evo-science to a "T"!

[Sentis]

Gore3000 wrote"Absolute nonsense. A species is not 'whatever you want it to be'. That is not science. Science is about specific definitions. The elements are strictly specified for example as is everything else in science."

Your wrong Science has nothing to do with writing specific definitions. By its very nature science seeks to describe processes which have no or little definition. That is the exact reason why Evolution is a theory because if we had those precise definitions it would be called a Fact.



gore3000 wrote "Only evolutionists try to twist and turn definitions."

Actually gore I have seen you do this over and over again are you an evolutionist?


"The definition of a species is a group of organisms which can reproduce with each other and produce viable offspring."

Not true There are lots of species that can breed viable offspring outside their "Species". Species is an artificial idea created by scientists as a convenient way to distinguish between different types of animals but it is not absolute. Your God did not hand down a list of species and the line between different species is often blurry.

gore3000 wrote"The evo definitions that a bird that sings a bit differently or has a different coloring is a new species is absolute garbage and shows the desperation of evolutionists that they have to twist everything to make their theory look legitimate"

Hmm you try to twist things to make your Theory "creationism" and I'll agree creationism is a theory a silly one but its a theory. (That means it isnt proven to be true, if you don't know. I have seen you post that chimps have tails so I'm not certain you know many basic facts.)

I'm not going to get into this argument to deeply with you. You obviously have some mental block when it comes to science that doesn't agree with the Mythology of your choosing but thats ok, you believe what you want. Just remember some of us will always equate you with the illiterate Muslims waiting on their 70 heavenly virgins. Your both equally depressing your both equally indoctrinated.

You said earlier that Evolution is materialistic and religion isn't. Well Capitalism is materialistic, so you should take your highminded religious beliefs and join a Commune so you can be free of us Materialistic Conservatives.

All you extreme religionists are as bad as the socialists. You give the Republicans a bad name sucking away votes with selfrighteousness and often outright bigotry. It is a symptom of those who base their beliefs on something that is fundamentally irrational. Socialists and Religionists, God be thanked that Socialists consider their philosophy a religion becuase if the religionists ever made a pact with them this world would be Hell on Earth.

[f.Christian]

Welcome to the FR...

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age of NEO-conservatism(moles/sleepers)!

[gore3000]

Species is an artificial idea created by scientists as a convenient way to

No it is not artificial, it means something. Matter of fact, lions and tigers are the same species they can interbreed. Problem evolutionists have is that they cannot prove their theory using science so they distort science to prove their theory. Science is not 'whatever you want it to be'. Scientific definitions are not 'whatever you want them to be'. They are very rigorous. It is for that reason that gravity was considered 'disproven' because it was just little bit off in the calculation but applied fine in 99.99% of the practical uses. Further, the definition of species I gave is the only truly objective definition and that is why it is the scientific definition. It can not be manipulated which is what evolutionists want to do - to call whatever they want a new species.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'm curious about the "Dr." in your screen name. If you have a doctorate, in what field did you earn it? I don't think this is too personal a question, as you are quite open about displaying the "Dr."

It's my "screen name".

When one signs up to post to FR, they choose a sequence of typographical symbols as their "login". Here's the one I chose:

Dr. Frank

Hope this helps,

[Aric2000]

Discussion without facts is just balderdash.

You said it, I didn't.

Remember that.

You CLAIM that ID is scientific fact and should be taught in Science class, in order for ID to be FACT, it must be PROVEN. The ONLY way to PROVE ID, is to PROVE that god exists.

So, CAN YOU? Scientifically? PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS?

DO NOT WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION!!! ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

CAN YOU SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS?

If you can, then we will talk about teaching ID in science class, if not, then it will remain where it is, on the fringe and laughed at by REAL scientists.

Evolution still remains the best THEORY to explain the facts and evidence that we have found thus far.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is non science...it is a lot of dumb ideas to make stupid people think they are important---jobfare/farce!

[Aric2000]

Poor f.Christian, did they forget your medication again?

[f.Christian]

Reality/Truth suspension...

washed out---floating away...EVOLUTION bs!

[titanmike]

Evolution still remains the best THEORY to explain the facts and evidence that we have found thus far.

If that's really the best somebody can do, they need to hang it up. That's like walking down the street butt naked and telling people that's the best your tailor can do.

[Aric2000]

If that's really the best somebody can do, they need to hang it up. That's like walking down the street butt naked and telling people that's the best your tailor can do.

Then you have a VERY small understanding of the theory of evolution.

That is like saying, "If that's all they can do with the theory of electronics, then they need to hang it up", or, "if that is all they can do with the theory of aerodynamics, then they need to hang it up", or, "if that's all they can so with the theory of Astrophysics, then they need to hang it up."

Get real, you fundamentalists that keep repeating the same old refuted garbage, or things that truly have NOTHING to do with the ACTUAL theory of evolution, you scare me, makes me think that I went back in a time machine to the dark ages.

Are you guys REALLY this clueless?

[f.Christian]

What exactly does evolution and science have in common?

[Aric2000]

What exactly does evolution and science have in common?

I am NOT going to answer that question, for some reason your answer interests me very much, because I am sure that you are going to tell me, so tell me oh, medicated, (or is it unmedicated?) one.

[f.Christian]

Nothing...

science is stable(never changes/evolves)---

evolution is FLUX---mush/muck...

your mind is polluted...

spinning out of control!

[Junior]

Nice try. Your post 19 (and 18 before it) didn't address the point, which is your claims that all genetics disproves evolution. The biologists doing the work seem to think otherwise.

[Junior]

Your claiming the evidence is weak does not make it so. Someone recently posted an entire piece on the evolution of bacterial flagella -- a piece which showed the flagellum could have arisen naturally. You completely ignored it. I posted an article showing that genetics supports evolution, and when I point that out to you (in contradiction to your claim that all genetics disproves evolution) you go off on some rant about cellulose. I guess, in your warped little mind, you addressed the point. However, none of the rest of us can see that. You make wild claims (evolution destroys information, life could not have arisen naturally) but you never support those claims. It's been pointed out to you time and again where your reasoning falls short (no observation has shown evolution destroys information -- in fact observations bear out the exact opposite; Pasteur did not ruel out life arising naturally, he ruled out the spontaneous generation of germs. These are not exactly the same thing, but you can't understand that because you have an extremely limited grasp of the subject you choose to address).

It's true. Your brain does reset to zero at the end of each thread.