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."

[Sentis]

MM wrote"You can find a lot of interesting, but more importantly recent daggers into the heart of evolution, here: No Nonsense"

I read the entire site what new daggers do you refer to. First there is an admission that crationists not longer use the first, second, and sixth argument because they finally realized those old saws wont cut it.

The arguments that are left

The Third argument is irreducible complexity renamed. Creationists started that argument within a week of Darwin publishing and havent stopped yet even in the Face of a mountian of evidence that refutes the very idea of IC.

They try to use IC to prove evolution can not be tested. Another old saw which they try to resharpen. here is a quote from their site.

"These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. 5 "


All organism are one celled organism at their heart every animal, plant, or even human begins as a one celled organism. Now if the evolutionary process is proved to occur in one cell creatures such as bacteria evolutionary processes are proved to occur in sperm or ova which will become multicelluar creatures.

Your problem is that what you call macroevolution occurs always on the micro scale. Where does genetic change occur that chages the parent creature it occurs in the cellular plasm of its one celled blueprint.

The fourth argument is that scientists doubt evolution. There are two processes at work within this. Firsat is the deplorable state of our educational system which educated these new scientists. They leave the public school system believing all manner of psuedoscientific crap fed to them by half literate liberals who's very existence is to confuse rather than educate. They come into science with a belief in psychic powers, astrology, and all manner of new age spirtualism. Is it any wonder that an increasing number of scientists lack the abiltiy to think rationally.

That however isn't the argument that the web site postulates what they postulate actually contradicts their claim as they admit the more education a person has the less they believe in creationism. I am at a loss I believe what they mean to say is that most people don't believe in evolution thus it must not be true. Again this argument is over one hundred years old and of course as equally false.

The fifth argument is that because scientists argue over how evolution occurs that evolution must be false. This one is the only new one on the page and its not really worth the time to debunk it but I will.


to qoute the web page
"These disputes are NOT like those found in all other branches of science. For example, there was briefly a dispute about cold fusion, but it was quickly resolved because the experiments could not be reproduced, and the “excess heat” that was allegedly measured could be accounted for by experimental error."

These disputes are so common in scientific circles that they are the butt of a million in jokes among scientific professionals. In every scientific field where new knowledge is being assimilated everyday there are almost physical confrontation between scientists over which of their pet theories are correct. It happens in physics it happens in biology it happens in earth sciences. Imagine little bespeckled gentlemen waving their canes at each other menacingly because of a differing opinion on the origin of certain stellar matter.

The last argument is also over one hundred years old "The origin of Life". Creationists spend vast amounts of time harranging evolutionists to give them evidence of the first single celled creature. They do this without once considering the fact that they can not provide any evidence at all for the creationist side of the debate. At least evolutionists can infer how these first creatures arose.
The proper respose is you show the evolutionist the physical evidence of creationism and we will come up with an original cell. Creationists will never have the evidence on their side, evolutionists may just come up with theirs.

the web site says "In fact, they now know many more reasons why chemicals can’t spontaneously form something living than they did in the 1950’s"

This seems reasonable to me. Scientists looking for a way to recreate the origin of life systematically figuring out why something can't happen. If you know how it isn't done that could lead you to how it is done. Why argue that it means evolution doesn't work? It seems the first way evolutionist threw out that didn't work in creation of life was creationism.

MM come up with some new arguments these are old and very very tired.

[keats5]

One can question the Theory of Evolution without relying on religion, you know.

[Condorman]

By the way, looks like I was incorrect with my percentage. It's more like 86% of the entire World believes in a Creator.

So what? Try getting those 86% to come to a consensus. We have people flying planes into buildings over which Creator is the correct one. More creation stories have been told than you can poke with a stick. They make up a wonderful, rich mythology by which various cultures attempt to explain the unknown. That doesn't mean that one, some, or any of them are valid, verifiable, or supported by evidence.

[Junior]

Because, dear sir, evolution works with what's there. The common ancestor of all vertebrates had two eyes and a mouth. Random mutation does not mean the sudden appearance of another eye. It means a slightly modified eye that may or may not allow its owner to spot prey/predators more easily. There is nothing new under the Sun, there are simply variations on a theme.

[Junior]

He also recently claimed chimps had tails.

[Junior]

One can question the Theory of Evolution without relying on religion, you know.

Except that those questioning the theory come at it from a purely religious point of view. Now, a lot of them will claim that ID does not make a claim on God being the Intelligence behind the design, but that simply sidesteps the issue: who designed the designer? It's either God, or it's turtles all the way down.

[Sentis]

I think the creationists have abandoned this thread. This is the first time I have really debated them do they give up this easily? I would like to hear some actual intelligent critues of evolution instead of these old worn out attacks. I have been told they have some good ones when pressed but I've been pressing them like crazy the last couple of days and they have nothing original.

[Condorman]

Judging by the quality of arguments presented, I'd say the Creationists abandoned creative thought long ago.

[Junior]

Whenever the evidence begins to pile up against them, they ditch a thread and start anew on another. Do a "poster" search on "crevo_list" and you can find them spouting their inanities on other threads.

[Condorman]

Whenever the evidence begins to pile up against them, they ditch a thread and start anew on another Junior's right. FOr a recent example, take a look at the Russian silver fox thread and see what happens.

It's funny (or not surprising--depending on your humor at the time): the opinion threads and public policy debates seem to rage forever, but the threads headed by articles reporting concrete results tend to fade pretty quickly.

[Junior]

…but the threads headed by articles reporting concrete results tend to fade pretty quickly.

As evidenced by the recent threads on the Sea Squirt and Mouse genome. Creationists stay away in droves from threads which show them up.

[gore3000]

gore3000 wrote "As we see in nature, the reproductive viability of species is very narrow and for evolution to be true the whole group has to remain viable through all the changes needed for these supposed evolutionary transformations" -me-

This is a ludicrus assumption. All members do not have to remain viable for evolution to occur in fact all differences in viability account for differences in species.

It is ludicrous however it is the assumption made by punk-eek that a whole isolated group transforms itself into a new more complex species. Indeed for a new transformed individual to be able to reproduce there must be others with the same transformation to enable it to reproduce. So you have a problem here that you need the transformation to arise in more than one individual. Due to genetics and the fact that mutations are not additive among groups but must occur in the same line of individuals carrying the particular mutation (you cannot have a single base mutation in one gene added to by another single base mutation in the same gene from another individual because they will be in two different alleles) such trasformations are well nigh impossible. Since specific mutations occur in individuals, not in entire species, it is ludicrous to say that even a small group in a species will transform itself together into a new more complex species. To say that such transformations occur all the time as evolution proposes is total nonsense.

[gore3000]

You seem to think that certain mutations must occur all at once to account for differces in say mammilian reproduction. This is blatantly not true. Live birth obviously came long before the ability to nurse. Certain reptiles exhibit the ability to give birth to live young. Early mammals could also however a mutation that allows nursing is separte from that mutation that allows live birth neither nessescitates the other.

That some reptiles seemingly give birth to live young is a half-truth that does not solve the problem of how mammalian reproduction arose, those reptiles reproduce by eggs also, only the eggs 'hatch' insided the mother:

Babies and Birth – Eggs or Live?

One of the most interesting things about reptiles is their reproduction. Not only the genetics and gender determination, but also whether or not they lay eggs or give what most call “live birth.” This one factor alone is a major determining factor in where they fall in scientific nomenclature.

Egg laying reptiles are what most people are familiar with since they seem to make up the largest groups of reptiles. These animals are referred to as oviparous. Ovoviviparous is the term used for reptiles that seem to give live birth. We will discuss the differences in these terms first.

Oviporous is the correct scientific term for animals that lay eggs with a shell from which offspring emerge. Not only do many reptiles fall into this category but also birds and even platypus are oviparous. The eggs of most reptiles have a leather-like shell that thins as the hatch date looms near. Some reptiles, such as turtles and tortoises produce eggs with hard shells. Eggs of reptiles come in all different sizes and shapes to best accommodate the size and shape of the offspring.

Ovoviviporous is the correct scientific term for animals that carry the eggs internally and upon delivery of the offspring the entire shell structure has thinned to the point that only the thin mucous membrane remains from which the offspring emerges. Because no whitish shell structure is seen and the membrane is sometimes broken through by the time the baby is fully delivered by the mother, people often assume that these babies are born live.

True live-bearing animals are called viviparous and the major difference is that no internal egg structure is present at anytime during the development of the offspring. Mammals are viviparous, as are some fish. From: Eggs v "Live" Birth .

Note the last line - this fantastically difficult change from eggs to live birth has taken place more than once - a clear disproof of evolution (homology and all that nonsense). You have also failed to explain how a species can continue to reproduce while developing a new mode of reproduction. In short, you are wrong, absolutely wrong.

[gore3000]

gore3000 wrote "I have perhaps the most important credential of all, a credential which almost all evolutionists lack. It is called common sense."-me-

Is that the same commonsense you share with those Muslims waiting on their 76 virgins in Heaven.

I do not consider Muhammed a religious figure. I consider him a barbarian misusing religion to justify his barbarism. So this charge is totally baseless when it comes to me. As to the rest, I have been speaking science throughout. It shows your desperation that you are trying to change the subject to religion because you are completely lost in the scientific discussion.

[gore3000]

I get so tired of Bluemans mantra, we refute and refute

And what have you refuted? Nothing at all, that is why you descend to insults instead of discussing the facts. That is why you cannot support your statements. And no, you have not refuted Behe in any way, nor has anyone much smarter than either one of us. Your attempts at refutation have been decisively shown to be false on this and other threads.

It is typical of evolutionists to claim victory long after a discussion has been over because they could not refute the statements of opponents.

[gore3000]

BTW - your failing to give evidence and using the excuse that it has already been given (seems that is all the evos can do on these threads) is totally lame.-me-

We all have our opinions. My opinion is that you hope, by deliberately refusing to exercise your memory, and pretend arguments haven't been presented...

Another lame excuse. If you say that something I have said has been refuted, give the refutation and a link to the post. It's that simple. Clearly you cannot do that. Let me note this, a response is not a refutation. A refutation has to be based on clearly established scientific facts which contradict a statement made. The words 'could be', 'perhaps', 'possibly' and 'maybe' in a response, automatically disqualify a response as a refutation.

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote ". Since specific mutations occur in individuals, not in entire species, it is ludicrous to say that even a small group in a species will transform itself together into a new more complex species. To say that such transformations occur all the time as evolution proposes is total nonsense."

How may times do I have to say siblings I mean can you even read the word siblings. Can you understand that mutations occur at the singular cellular level not in the adult multicellular creature. Im sorry I have given you proof and you continue to saw away with the same argument. Argue something new or dont argue can you do that say something that is actually intelligent. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

[Sentis]

gore3000 "And what have you refuted? Nothing at all, that is why you descend to insults instead of discussing the facts"

and your such a paragon. You insulted me first long before I decided what a fool you are. You refuse to discuss the facts you continue to ignorte the Mountains of evidence we provide then say "NO IT ISN'T"

[gore3000]

The Tree of Life was officially revised in 2000. -you-

That is a joke!-me-

NSF, amongst others. What a colossal display of ignorance.

The NSF does not speak for all scientists. They can revise all they like since drawing a tree is proof of nothing at all. I can draw all kinds of trees and they do not prove anything either. Here is a tree which disproves evolution and is based on the true facts of the Cambrian explosion:

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote "Note the last line - this fantastically difficult change from eggs to live birth has taken place more than once - a clear disproof of evolution (homology and all that nonsense). You have also failed to explain how a species can continue to reproduce while developing a new mode of reproduction. In short, you are wrong, absolutely wrong. "

I can look at that definition of egg laying and live birth you gave and any half literate person can figure out that a gradual loss of egg membrane occurred in mammalian species. Your own definition is the Basis to dispute your lies.