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]

All hypothesis are not equally likely. The hypothesis that there are infinite universes for example is totally unscientific because it claims something to have happened about which we know absolutely nothing about.-me-

Yup, just like you said. Your argument there says perfectly that multiple universes are just as unlikely to be fact as religion. After all, "it claims something to have happened which we know absolutely nothing about."

Now that is a pretty ridiculous statement. Are you denying your own existence? Do you hate God so much that to deny him you are willing to say you do not even exist? Are you so far out as to say such a thing?

Perhaps what you meant is that we have no scientific evidence of the Universe? Of course that is totally ridiculous also. So what do you mean then? That what science tells us about the Universe is false? Are you saying that all science is false? This from someone who says his pet theory is scientific? Seems to me you are in a very deep muddle here and really do not know what to say. There are only two alternatives here:
1. the Universe was designed (and therefore must have had a designer).
2. the Universe was not designed (and therefore must be due to random stochastic events).

Now, since you seem to agree with me that the only hypothesis proposed against option (1) is false, then the only logical, observed, and scientifically valid option is option (1).

[PatrickHenry]

Those explanations are from man's perspective of what God Almighty accomplished. BUT, I notice when it came time for God to speak, you completely ignored that book....The Book of Job Chapters 38-41.

In post 1619 I responded to your request for flat earth and geocentric universe verses. Now, what's your response? Are you claiming that those verses are NOT the word of God? It doesn't matter to me how you interpret the bible, really. I just gave you the verses you asked for.

[viaveritasvita]

Why couldn't God make things more obvious? Why not give us a book so clear that honest men and women wouldn't disagree over it? Why couldn't every time someone tells the truth, a halo gleams overhead, and the opposite invokes the Pinocchio principle? Because there is something valuable, something holy in the struggle. We are given sufficient evidence, not coercive evidence. Ward Hill

[Doc Savage]

And exactly which amino acids would they be O'Soliton? And what exactly would they do? I'm not sure where you generate the science fiction you spew, but as a trained biologist I can only say that your imagination has clearly run away with you.(Please no Miller-Urey!)

While it appears there is some scientific validity to micro-evolution within species over great periods of time, there is nothing in the scientific literature that clearly substantiates macro-evolution. What good is a billion year process of random mutations, translocations, and deletions if the vast majority of these molecular changes are detrimental to the host? Even if the mutation had no immediate negative or positive effect upon a chemical reaction, what good is it if one can only "hope" that it is to be followed by umpteen further random molecular changes which "may" ultimately confer a minicule advantage to the cell???

Now that's what I call Positive Thinking. If I just stand here in the Mohave Desert with my thumb out eventually a 57 mint Chevy with 4 (count'em) 4 beautiful naked blond UCLA coeds with a case of ice-cold beer will give me a ride and offer to have my children..........ok, it might happen........! But, I doubt it!

The reason is quite simple. Mutations occur on a molecular scale. The vast majority of molecular mutations (that is to say the end effect they may have upon an individual cell) are usually seen as negative negative and provide no distinct advantage to the cell or cellular process(es) it affects.

The clotting process of blood is an extremely complicated cascade of proteins and enzymatic relationships. One strains to imagine the plethora of random mutations that would have had to have occurred fortuitously to produce such a complicated pathway...especially since any random mutation that did not immediately confer a molecular or cellular advantage upon its host would be deleted.

What is the advantage of a random mutation that will yet require 10 or 20 future random mutations to complete what is supposed to be a pathway of such complication that it took modern science decades to unlock the secrets of blood clotting?

Now if you know of macro-events where say a land mammal, in a sudden and unexplained generational change altered its family or order, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.

It is much easier to see intelligent design in the complexity of life around us than it is to believe that Darwin's theory of evolution clearly, definitively, finally, and totally provides an unambiguous answer to where we came from.

So from a person such as yourself who has firmly predicted the formation of "life" from amino acids within the next 20 years, it comes as no surprise that you would hold Darwin up as your saviour. Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion, as were many of the so-called "great thinkers" of the past who were ultimately shown to be either incorrect or charlatans.

Since you seem extremely knowledgeable re: "life" perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what "life" is? What type of "force" is it? How did it begin, how does it begin, how does it end, how is it created, by whom was it created, how does one analyze it, bottle it, re-create it, define it, capture it??? I, for one, would love to hear your exposition!

[gore3000]

Given the general tone of discourse from evolutionists to creationists, I would say they take delight in bashing religion.

I think that the willfullnes with which evolutionists hold their views, is ample proof that there is more involved in their adherence to evolution than mere scientific reasons. Heck, the evolutionists other than shouting the mantra 'evolution is science', 'evolution is science' constantly seem to have very little knowledge of the science involved here. Certainly you do not hear people getting all riled up about other scientific theories. In fact almost any other theory can be quietly and rationally discussed, but not evolution.

What then is one to think of this? They do not really like to discuss science, but like to bash religion. Clearly, to them they are using what they claim to be science as a crutch for their atheism and as a spear to attack the Christianity which they abhor.

[viaveritasvita]

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.

"I don't much care where," said Alice.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you go."

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
(forgot author's name)

I'm seriously asking: Where is evolution supposed to be taking us? It's my understanding that we are supposedly "evolving" to a higher state physically and in our behavior. If this is a correct (albeit elementary) explanation of evolution, then what is the ultimate end?

No matter what the age of the earth, from approximately 4,000 to 6,000 years old (which is my belief) to upwards of 10 million years, exactly how long do evolutionists think it should take us to evolve into highly intelligent, absolutely compassionate beings who've eradicated hate, war, disease, and cruelty? I'm seriously asking: How long? Can you look me in the eye (or whatever the equivalent would be in cyberspace!) and tell me that 4,000 years is not enough to see significant evolution??? How long do you think it's going to take to get to...where is it again that evolution promises to take us??

[js1138]

I don't believe God is a cruela nd unmerciful dictator. Neither do I believe the Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God.

You seem unwilling to accept a clear difference between allowing people to sin (free will) and proclaiming a law that makes a behavior acceptable. The passages I cited are clearly statements of law, and define acceptable behavior for the time in which they were proclaimed.

[viaveritasvita]

In The God That Failed, novelist Arthur Koestler wrote of his initial excitement and belief in communism and his ultimate disillusionment in it in these biblical terms: "I served the Communist Party for seven years -- the same length of time as Jacob tended Laban's sheep to win Laban's daughter, Rachel. When the time was up, the bride was led into Jacob's dark tent; only the next morning did Jacob discover that his ardors had been spent not on the lovely Rachel, but on the ugly Leah."

[viaveritasvita]

Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was one of the greatest physicists of all time and the man who laid the foundations for...Einstein's relativity theories...Newton was a devout Christian believer. He and virtually all the other major scientists of his day confidently explored the mysteries of the solar system, the fundamental properties of matter, and the structure of physical laws because they believed that God's laws were both [unchanging] and knowable....

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German philosopher 1770-1831) completely rejected the Christian [and Jewish] faiths – and their message of hope – as the basis for any effort to restore the human being...Without Hegel [and his ideas], there would have been no Marxism, no Leninism, no Nazism, and the entire tragic history of Communist Party rule in the 20th century might have been averted...Before Hegel and his followers, great thinkers were all generally on the same page about God...But after the 1840s, a huge shift in intellectual attitudes took place in Europe...Karl Marx's collaborator Friedrich Engels did not exaggerate when he wrote in 1844: "The question has always previously been: what is God? And German philosophy has answered the question in this way: man is God." It is striking to note that Germany, the starting point of the Protestant Reformation [Martin Luther] and the soaring upsurge in Christian hope that fueled so many good things in Western history, should have also been the starting point of so much of mankind's darkness. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), whose work contains the most sustained attack on the Christian view of life of any of the anti-Christian German writers, wrote: "God is dead." Marx and Sigmund Freud sought not just to banish traditional Jewish and Christian faith in God but to replace it with completely new systems of belief....

Four major sources of hope arose from the ideas left by Hegel and his followers: (1) the emergence of atheism ("God is dead" and "man is God") into politics; (2) the emergence of optimism about the power of science to solve human problems; (3) the emergence of the belief that psychology held profound insights into the workings of the human mind; and (4) the introduction of Hindu and Buddhist ideas into small but influential circles in British and American society. All four of these sources of hope have proved to be false, yet all are still influencing major areas of American life....

Humanism is a descendent of Hegel's ideas. Humanist Manifesto II, signed in 1973 by so-called intellectuals of American politics, thought, education, etc., affirms that humanists believe that "humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." The original Humanist Manifesto was signed in 1933, a heartbreaking year to be so upbeat about human potential for good. It was in 1933 that Adolf Hitler came to power. Yet, 40 years later, the second of the two humanist policy books speaks as though nothing in human experience has modified the belief that, by making decisions without God, somehow there is assurance of human progress and hope. Humanists believe that humanity will simply die out, the chance victim of the law of death and decay. Yet, it clings to an entirely irrational hope that human beings will somehow get it right in the end. Humanism offers a hope hinged to optimism about human nature in the face of relentlessly accumulating evidence that human nature is truly fallible and truly "fallen."

David Aikman, Ph.D.
"Hope: The Heart's Great Quest"

[VadeRetro]

Strange. You show me pictures of different skulls, but when you get down to show me transitional stages you resort to "DRAWINGS". Why is that. Surely, with the millions upon millions upon millions of "transitional" species, that you could at least show ONE REAL PHOTOGRAPH of ONE TRANSITIONAL SPECIES AS IT CHANGED FROM ONE SPECIE TO ANOTHER? JUST ONE. SHOW ME JUST ONE IN PHOTOGRAPHS. JUST ONE. JUST ONE TINY EXAMPLE. OK?

Did I show you pictures or not? You mention that I showed you skulls. That's a picture, this picture right here.

What do you see in the picture?

I also showed you a sirenian with legs, including a picture of a skeleton. Sirenians today don't have legs, they're fully aquatic.

How is that not a picture? I gave you articles to go with everything so you'd know what the pictures mean. You don't show much evidence of absorbing anything.

I also gave you skeletons of cetaceans with legs, non-acquatic whales. Today whales, like sirenians, are fully acquatic and generally don't have legs.

Want a new one?

Transitional fossils leading to the spherical plankton Orbulina. For a discussion, go here.

So what's this pretense that you haven't been answered? As far as the Transitional Vertebrate page goes, it's meant to be a comprehensive list. You pick a name out of there and then Google on it if you think it might be imaginary. (But I'm sure of scholar of your depth has heard of all the specimens named in there.)

[PatrickHenry]

I'm seriously asking: Where is evolution supposed to be taking us? It's my understanding that we are supposedly "evolving" to a higher state physically and in our behavior. If this is a correct (albeit elementary) explanation of evolution, then what is the ultimate end?

I'm glad you asked, because your question reveals that your teachers have done a real job of professional malpractice in teaching you. Evolution isn't "taking us" anywhere. It's a description of how populations change over time. The population changes because individuals (some of whom have mutated genes) either die without offspring (thus taking their genes out of the pool) or they survive long enough to spawn a new generation (thus keeping their genes in the pool). That's it. That's the whole ball of wax. Over time, we get the world of various species that we see -- including us. We, however, are intelligent to decide for ourselves where we're going, so the evolution process is going to be radically different where we're concerned.

[VadeRetro]

(A lot of ranting and dumb-dumbing.) Now grow up and answer the question.

Hmmm?

You have not addressed the content of 1637 at all. Silly to pretend that you have, isn't it?

Remember when I said:

Want to speed things up? Don't forget to click on the links so I don't have to link every sub-page for you. For once in your pig-ignorant life, anticipate an argument!

I guess you showed me how little you can assimilate or address, didn't you? You didn't even click on the top-level link I gave you.

Am I supposed to sit down with you and read it to you? The refutation of evolution is that no one can make you learn enough about it to spell it right?

You may stay stupid for all I care, but don't expect to impress anyone.

[f.Christian]

few more mice and another layer of skin gets shedded...snakes!

[gore3000]

How about a response to post 1922?

Are you sure you want a response to it?

[gore3000]

So ends another incarnation of Ted Holden

Another victory for the Dark Side. Of course you and your friends will hypocritically say that you had nothing to do with it while you dance on the ashes of another silenced voice.

[lasereye]

So far the score for grasping the relevance of that link (post 2275) to the evolution/creationism debate is:

Would-be sharpshooters = 0
Broad side of the barn = 1

I guess I missed the point. He's saying Muslims don't believe that there are cause-effect relationships which can be analyzed without a direct reference to God and that hurts Muslim science. I don't know of any Christians who think that way (although we would all say God put those relationships there). Certainly Chuck Colson doesn't think that. And as I said, I doubt he believes in evolution.

[gore3000]

The original discussion was related to the origins of communism, which is obviously a far older concept and practice than Stalin's corruption of the ideal.

Aaaah, spoken like a true Communist. It has been tried dozens of times, but it is always getting corrupted. Now a rational person, instead of a Communist would say to themselves how many tries do these folk need to get it right? How many mass murderers must we put in power before we get one single Communist who will do what he is supposed to do?

[gore3000]

I could miss the guy if he'd stay gone long enough.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[gore3000]

if you guys are wasting any more of the moderator's time than that with your little censorship campaigns

Yes, that is what it is all about - silencing opponents. That is why they fight so hard to indoctrinate children, that is why they slime opponents, that is why they get people fired in universities and schools that dare say that evolution is false. Evolutionists are thugs, the same kind of thugs that all ideologues and totalitarians are. They complain when they are told that their theory is akin to Communism, but they feel no shame in following the most depraved tactics of Communism.