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."
Of course it is relevant Vade. Evolution is materialistic and if God is said to exist materialism is dead. If God exists there is no reason to believe that some mysterious random nonsense created all the species on Earth. If God exists there is no reason to believe that man descended from lower species. Further since you also believe in abiogenesis and random creation of the Universe this would also be totally discredited by the existence of God.
More important really is to consider the reasons for the existence of this axis of evil. The folk that support these theories do not do so for the sake of science, they do so for the sake of justifying their atheism. People do not hold to their views do to their great adherence to science. They do so because it justifies their irreligious views. That is why they claim that any other scientific explanation is a religious one in order to keep other views which allow for the possibility of a Creator out of the schools.
Neither I nor the Bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old. As usual, you and your friends are arguing against a strawman because you cannot argue the facts. It also shows that when people want to argue the science of your theory you turn the discussion to an attack on the religion which you hate so much that it affects all your other views.
This statement and the whole previous post are nothing but an indirect assault on every non-Christian. No wonder nobody misses you when you are not around. You are so arrogant as to believe you have it all figured out, when you simply spout ignorant statement after ignorant statement in an attempt to feel superior. You have absolutely no proof or evidence of your belief, and I do not hold that against you. But when you attack a scientific theory which has evidence (not proof) on scientific levels and demand that your theory is superior on scientific ground, it is mind boggling.
I support evolution to justify my atheism? How do you come up with this? Honestly, I think the idea of evolution is fascinating, but it really doesn't matter much to me. You make the assumption it does. That's like saying plate tectonics is my religion. It is foolish to even think that. It is science, and for those who find such things interesting, it is only science. It is not my livelihood. It doesn't affect my life (except when I spend hours a day reading this 4,000 post thread). I don't pray to Darwin. It doesn't even begin to make sense what you are implying.
To you, this debate fulfills your existence and makes you a good Christian. To me it's a hobby. I don't need it. I'm not defending my entire belief structure as you are. A new theory could come along and I'd be a reformed man if it made more sense. This is the difference between me and you. No matter what evidence or proof comes along, nothing will change your mind. Your mind is closed.
I have reached page 416 of Penrose's Emperor's New Mind and nowhere, nowhere, does he take the position or imply that "consciousness is material". It cannot be algorithmic and all indications so far point toward immateriality. Penrose writes, among many other things, of aesthetics and beauty as indicators of mathematical truth.
Good morning, tpaine! No, I absolutely DO NOT want the government involved in religion. And, thanks to the establishment clause, the federal government IS completely "out of the religion business." But the people need not be; and their voluntary "free exercise thereof" is guaranteed by the Constitution. All the Constitution requires of the federal government is that it stay completely neutral as to faith confessions: It may not favor one or disfavor another. It does not have a mandate to prohibit religious expression. Again, recall that the religion clause of the First Amendment consists of two phrases. On the surface, they may appear incompatible. But if you think them through, using logic and reason, you will find that they are actually complementary.
The USSC's "interpretation" of "separation of church and state" effectively means, translated into actual practice (as we have seen), that the federal government has placed itself in the unconstitutional position of favoring one religion over all other religions. That favored religion is called Secular Humanism.
Most DNA comparisons up to now have been done based only on partial looks at different genomes and without knowing what much of the DNA we were looking at did. We should be able to start making some intelligent comparisons in the next few years.
Indeed, it is a privilege to be a spectator in this era of scientific discovery regarding the genome!
You are a pleasant individual to communicate with - I really appreciate your good attitude (sincererly). That being said, I have a question for you: If morals are absolute as you say, what is their source? A universal moral precept cannot simply exist without a source - this is a non-rational view; the precept "all men are created equal" does not have extension in space. How do you explain the existence of this and other universal non-material realities outside of God? Even Plato knew of their existence but could since he knew not God, he could not explain their origin either.
In reality, moral relativism does not exist because no human being can really live life as if morals do not exist, (except for sociopaths and psychopaths).
Neither I nor the Bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old.
4081 posted on 01/09/2003 9:00 AM EST by gore3000
Contrast that with the opinion of Ken Ham at the Institute for Creation Research: HERE.
Why do we at ICR believe in a young age for the earth? Firstly, if we take God at His Word, it is obvious from Scripture, that when one adds up all the dates from the first day of creation onwards, the world could only be in the order of thousands of years old. In many of our publications, we have also shown that the days of creation have to be ordinary days of 24 hours in length. From my experience, the major reason many Christians don't accept this is not because of what the Hebrew word for “day,” in its context in Genesis means, but because they believe scientists have proved that the earth is billions of years old; therefore they have to insist that the days of creation are long periods of time.Secondly, there is much overwhelming scientific evidence that fits with the earth being young. This cannot fit into an earth billions of years old. ICR books, such as Scientific Creationism [link in original], What is Creation Science? [link in original], and Science, Scripture and the Young Earth [link in original], document these evidences.
First, I want to tell you that I enjoy the exchanges with you. I love civil discourse!
Teaching students how to think - EXACTLY. They are either taught how to think in an atheistic manner, or in a theistic manner. Is there another way to think? Today's schools teach them how to think in an atheistic manner. The U.S. Govt.'s official religion (de facto not de jour) is atheism and that is what is taught in govt. schools.
Just as I have explained to Betty, god CANNOT be used as a causation in science. God can Neither be proven NOR disproven, therefore, using god as a causation is NOT science. It is religion or philosophy.
If God did indeed create the universe and this world and you, would not all concepts of what you call science today be His handiwork? In that case, could you really divorce science from God? No. The reason you want to keep science and religion separate is because you begin with the presupposition that God did not create anything.
Science is not atheistic, it just never asks the question. If you ask a scientist if there is a god, he will most likely tell you yes. If you ask him to use god in a theory, he'll tell you that you are off your nut, because god cannot be used in a SCIENTIFIC theory.
Atheistic/naturalistic Science answered the question before asking it. It has said, "there is no God" and based all subsequent discoveries and interpretations on that presumption. As I already stated, many of the pillars of modern-day science (Newton, Kepler, etc.) were able to make their discoveries only becuase God was in the equation.
Science is not atheistic, it is secular, because it cannot prove, NOR disprove the existence of god, therefore it never asks the question. if it were athiestic, it would say, "there is NO god" Science does not do that, because it cannot have an opinion on such a question. Because again, the question can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore it is not for science to say.
Do you really believe that naturalism is neutral on the idea of a creator? Let's dig deep and really examine that claim of yours. If we do, I believe you will find that naturalists are almost without exception "anti-theists," and my experience on FR threads and in many other forums is proof of that.
Again, god cannot be proven nor disproven, therefore it is not a part of science, science is based on facts and suppostion with those facts. God is not a fact, nor is the nonexistence of god a fact, therefore it is not a part of science.
You are right - God cannot be proven. However, naturalism assumes from the get-go that God does not exist, and all of its theories, including darwinism, assume He doesn't. Face it, science today is not neutral at all - it is anti-theistic. By the way, using your reasoning, I can say that evolution cannot be proven, so it is not a part of science.
Now, if a science teacher stood in front of a class and said that there is no god, I want his ass fired pronto, because that is his opinion, NOT science. If he said that there is a god, I want his ass fired pronto, because again, that his opinion, not science. Science cannot answer the question, therefore, science has NO opinion.
What if the science teacher does not explicitly state "there is no God," but every one of his theories has that underlying implicit assumption? Should he not be fired in that case as well?
I don't think determinism has nothing to do with it. Wolfram and others have demonstrated that great complexity can arise in systems that have very simple rules (laws) and initial conditions. "First Cause" would have to consist of very simple rules and initial conditions.
I was speaking to Physicist yesterday about Bell's Inequality experiments, and I asked him "where do each of the photon pairs get their 'instruction set' from?" And he corrected me, saying that the entire point is that the photons do not have an instruction set. I got to mulling that over. Then realized that maybe they do have an "instruction set" of a certain kind -- the instruction set is the summary of how each proton goes about satisfying all the rules and regulations placed on its behavior by natural laws. That is, the instruction set isn't "in" the photon. But the photon has no choice but to follow it, once its state has been "measured." (Which sounds deterministic, but the initial observation that causes local state vector collapse is itself a stochastic event.) Once measured, the nonlocality rules (part of the totality of physical law) specify what the state of its photon twin is, wherever that twin might be in the universe.
That "instruction set" -- physical laws -- is analogous to the Aristotelian First Cause.
I still may not have mastered these concepts. But Physicist (hopefully) will correct me if still haven't achieved clarity on the issue.
BTW Wolfram, as you probably know, thinks that the role of natural selection is overstated in accounting for all the complexity we see in biological forms. He suspects that something else is going on besides. What that is, I don't know. Maybe he doesn't either. But I gather he thinks we ought to look for it.
It has been brought to my attention that there seems to be unfair discrimination against christians in America today. If this is the case, than it is a travesty. As well it is abominable if atheism is taught and preached to the public. But evolution is no more atheistic than the theory of continental drift. They both require millions/billions of years to witness the effects and therefore negate a young earth. It does not mean that there cannot be a God. What if I proposed a new religion which states implicitly that my God created the Earth and then used evolution to guide his hand in the creation of humanity (which many Christians do). This is an absolute refutation of a connection between atheism and religion. They just aren't in the same category. Simply because it does not fly with your definition of religion, does not make it an atheistic theory.
Your connection to Secular Humanism may be warranted, because that usually does indeed imply atheism. If this is true, and I will have to research, it is wrong. But not evolution.
It is always interesting to hear that ideas, in and of themselves, can be evil. I suppose the list of evil ideas includes doubt, skepticism, curiosity (wasn't the desire for knowledge the original sin).
The source of morality (and liberty as a moral code) is self-evident (too cliche?). Ok, then think of it as this: Freedom, and the morality behind the right to be free, is my God. Until another shows to be more powerful, more right, or more just, this is what I believe. Absolutely agree that moral relativism is ridiculous, it allows those who do not want to be judged to infringe on others' rights without punishment.
Materialists have considerably expanded the notion of what matter is and can do. There is no definable operation on matter that is impossible, and you had best hold your fire in asserting what is improbable.
This is the type of bigoted remark that is typical of Creationists. Lacking the ability to do scientific research, they resort to attacking the motives of people who actually are doing science.
As for Wolfram's view of natural selection, he's not alone. Evolutionists attach widely differing amounts of importance to natural selection. It's overstated by some, for instance, by Dawkins, and understated by other evolutionists, for instance the whole evo-devo crowd. I'm more closely aligned to the evo-devo researchers. So, Wolfram critiques one end of the spectrum and ignores the other.
Has Wolfram heard of genetic drift? There are a number of prominent evolutionists, like Kimura, who belief this is a major force of evolution. (Drift powered by the 2nd law...) Transposable elements are, also, considered a major force in the evolutionary shaping of genomes. Is Wolfram aware of this? (Those physicists like to expound on their idea of biology without an awareness of, say, the last 10 years of biology literature.)
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.