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."

[matthew_the_brain]

you obviously suffer from a deep seated prejudice and bias, which is normal of your kind. Once again, transposing what might happen within certain forms of bacteria onto the human species, is both laughable and illogical. But, if that is what makes you feel like you have the answers, sobeit. I feel bad for your children though.

[stanz]

My kind....I think you better do some reading like another Freeper suggested. Burying your head in the sand is only good for ostriches...so they say.

[js1138]

How do you create Amino Acids from scratch??? (Bear in mind that when we say from "scratch" we mean from absolute nothing).

You are no doubt anticipating this, regarding the Miller/Urey experiment:

He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was how easily they had formed.

[whattajoke]

ALS states: "Anyone with a decent concordance can quickly see that there is no reference to the earth or the universe being created 6,000 years ago. Yes I know so many have been TOLD that, it will cause confusion, and a need to defend what you don't even understand, because none of you have taken the time to check it out. It doesn't matter if you are atheist or fundamentalist. Anyone can still check it out.

The bible clearly says that the earth was perfect in its creation, yet in the 2nd verse of Genesis it says this:

1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The english translation contains the key to misunderstanding by ALL of you. At first glance it appears to be a continuation of verse 1:
1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
________________________________________________________

While there is much to digest here, and while I'm sure ALS has spent of good portion of his or her life studying the good book, my response is, "yeah, so what?" By that I mean, you claim you are above the fray and you have developed the unifying theory of Crevo. Ok... So tell my why god, in his infinite perfectness, screwed up to the point where this argument even exists (I'm talking about the "argument" amongst believers here). oh wait, is that that baddie Beelzebub rearing his head again? Sure it is... Satan exists to "confuse" and mock and put fossils in the strata and infiltrate scientist's minds. And you call us, "Children?!" Go back to your fairy tales cop out explanations.

[PatrickHenry]

How sad is the state of science in America? Look at some of the results of the National Science Foundation's survey of 1,574 adults and recent (2002) report "Science & Engineering Indicators" [1], then judge for yourself.

* 70% of American adults do not understand the scientific process;
* Double digit percentage gains in belief of haunted houses, ghosts, communication with the dead, and witches in the past decade;
* U.S. depends heavily on foreign born scientists at all degree levels, as high as 45% in engineering;
* Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread and growing;
* 60% believe some people posses psychic powers or extrasensory perception (ESP);
* 30% believe some reported objects in the sky are really space vehicles from other civilizations;
* 30% read astrology charts at least occasionally in the newspaper;
* 46% did not know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun (1 year);
* 45% thought lasers work by focusing sound waves (they focus light);
* 49% believe antibiotics kill viruses (they kill bacteria);
* 66% don't believe the Big Bang theory widely accepted by scientists;
* 48% believe humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs;
* 47% don't believe in evolution which is widely accepted by scientists;
* 55% couldn't define DNA;
* 78% couldn't define a molecule;
* 32% believe in 'Lucky Numbers'.

Source: HERE.

[MEGoody]

"In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids."

LOL Is your name Ms. Cleo?

Don't bet the farm on this 'prophecy' of yours.

[LivingNet]

Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia"

I guess you missed my words that from "scratch" means ABSOLUTE NOTHING. This experiment already started with 4 elements and then added heat and light. You didn't answer the question - "How did nothing explode?"

[MEGoody]

"IF we're going to give students all the 'facts' for making a decision, then I suppose that means we should give them all of the creation myths found in the world."

My, my. . .so defensive. I wonder why?

If you have studied the theory of evolution at all, you know there are some issues that have not been addressed, some questions that remain unanswered, some holes in the theory. Those are the things that open-minded people don't mind having shared with students.

Closed-minded individuals have a knee jerk reaction to the thought of opening the theory of evolution to question.

Be careful! Don't let that knee jerk so hard you break your own nose.

[MEGoody]

"No problem creating amino acids from scratch. Decades old technology available to high school kids."

One thing you, nor the high school students, nor any other human will ever be able to do is make amino acids from nothing. You can only use what is already in existence.

I know that totally gauls you, but it's something you'll have to learn to live with.

Have a nice day.

[js1138]

Going back to post #10, I see no reference to "nothing" or "explosions". Are we suddenly talking about the creation of the universe?

[MEGoody]

And they wasted the rest of their lives trying to make themselves the Creator instead of the created.

[js1138]

One thing you, nor the high school students, nor any other human will ever be able to do is make amino acids from nothing. You can only use what is already in existence.

The original proposition was "from scratch". Perhaps your mother never taught you to bake a cake, but in my household, "from scratch" means from the simplest available ingredients. My mamma could bake a cake from scratch without having to create the universe first.

[MEGoody]

"Anyone who reads and is knowledgeable in matters of biology accepts evolutionary tenets as the basis for the development of life on earth."

This is a very broad statement, although quite untrue. But of course, you've set up your premise so you can disclaim any name provided to you as an example. You will simply claim they don't understand it. What it really means, however, is they don't have the same faith as you. :)

[MEGoody]

I never said you couldn't use what currently exists to make something else. In fact, if you read my post, I said you might be able to do that very thing. I merely said that you can never create something from nothing. Don't get all upset. LOL

[The Grammarian]

IF we're going to give students all the 'facts' for making a decision, then I suppose that means we should give them all of the creation myths found in the world. But isn't that why we have separate books for biology and mythology?

You realize that one of the definitions for a "myth" is a story that is unverifiable, correct? Explain to me how one can reproduce evolution, empirically, such that it is fact, again?

[whattajoke]

Ok, let's quit looking for the answers through science and throw up our hands and quit and turn our minds off and begin believing is some silly fairy tale about some old man in the sky.

Kinda gauls YOU to have it put so bluntly, no?

You have a nice day too.

[js1138]

I merely said that you can never create something from nothing.

Why would you expect me to be galled (re:post #50) by my inability to do something I never claimed to be able to do? The issue was never about the creation of the universe and the basic chemical elements. The issue is about the process by which life comes about and is modified. Arguments about process are not arguments about the existence of God.

[stanz]

Faith is not my domain. Science/inquiry is out there for everyone. Evidence is evidence- - - and in order to dispute it, you have to have something testable and quantifiable. If you want to refute evidence, you have to prove its invalidity.

[The Grammarian]

Ok, let's quit looking for the answers through science...

Science is empirically demonstrated. Show me the process of evolution empirically, and you'll have proved that it is scientific. Hypothesize, and you'll have proved that it is a belief system taken on faith. (Galls you to have it put that way, doesn't it?)