[paul.fr]

Seems strange to post this here, but the sub-heading does say Evolution.

A Mississippi lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require textbooks to include a disclaimer describing evolution as a "controversial theory" and advising students to keep an "open mind" to other explanations for the origin of life.

Rep. Gary Chism introduced the legislation, House Bill 25, earlier this month. The bill has been referred to two committees, Education and Judiciary A.

The proposal, if enacted, would require the State Board of Education to include the 200-word disclaimer on the inside front cover of textbooks that include evolution topics.

"The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles," the opening paragraph of the bill states. "Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations."

"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory," the proposal continues.

"Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things."

The textbook disclaimer would end with the following advice: "Study hard and keep an open mind."

Other states have proposed similar disclaimers.

Alabama is currently the only state that requires a disclaimer on evolution be included in science textbooks discussing the topic. The most recent version of the text was adopted by the Alabama State Board of Education in 2005.

Much of the language of the Mississippi proposal has been adopted from the 1995 and 2001 versions of the Alabama disclaimer, according to the National Center for Science Education, an organization which advocates the teaching of evolution in public schools.

In March 2002, the Cobb County School District in Georgia approved a short disclaimer on evolution for the inside front cover of biology and other science textbooks.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered," the label stated.

The issue went to court after four parents filed suit against the district. A federal district court judged ruled that the disclaimers were unconstitutional. The district appealed the decision. The case was referred by an appeals court to a district court for clarification but the district later agreed in a settlement not to make any disclaimers about evolution

http://christianpost.com/Education/Creation_evolution/2009/01/evolution-disclaimer-proposed-for-miss-textbooks-20/

[DoctorBeaver]

R-soles

[RD]

Y'all aint frrm arand heah: y've only git fhav digits oan each haind.  []

[_Stefan_]

This is the tactic that creationists are using to inject unscientific propaganda into the science classroom.

If people want more information about this issue, they should contact http://ncseweb.org/

[Don_1]

As an atheist and evolutionist, I have to agree that much of the evolutionary theory is indeed just that, theory. But much of the theory does have substantial paleontological evidence to back it up.

Still I would not object to such a disclaimer on one condition, that being that a similar disclaimer on creation should be inserted into all books teaching or professing Creation, including The Bible.

[BenV]

As an atheist and evolutionist, I have to agree that much of the evolutionary theory is indeed just that, theory. But much of the theory does have substantial paleontological evidence to back it up.

Still I would not object to such a disclaimer on one condition, that being that a similar disclaimer on creation should be inserted into all books teaching or professing Creation, including The Bible.

Why just on creation?  A disclaimer on the bible would be great.

[RD]

A geological period is named after Mississippi ...

The Mississippian is an epoch in the geologic timescale or a series of the geologic record. It is the earliest/lowermost of two divisions of the Carboniferous period lasting from roughly 359 to 318 Ma (million years ago). As with most other geochronologic units, the rock beds that define the Mississippian are well identified, but the exact start and end dates are uncertain by a few million years. The Mississippian is so named because rocks from this age are exposed in the Mississippi River valley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian

Will the Mississippians be campaigning to have their state's name removed from this blasphemy ?...

James Ussher (sometimes spelled Usher) (4 January 1581–21 March 1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625–1656. He was a prolific scholar, who most famously published a chronology that purported to time and date creation to the night preceding 23 October 4004 BC, [calculated from a literal reading of the Bible].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

[Don_1]

Why just on creation?  A disclaimer on the bible would be great.

Yes, good point.

'This book is intended as a model for the manner in which individuals should conduct themselves. Persons and events quoted herein may or maynot be factual. Other versions and theories are available.'

[lyner]

I'm waiting for a comment from  Asyncritus about this.

[BenV]

He's been much more selective of late, and admited in another thread that his problem is not with evolution, it's with any science that draws his perception of god into question.

[RD]

A replacement for Asyncritus can be googled from this page ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[lyner]

Same old garbage and the usual lack of understanding of statistics and probability.

[DoctorBeaver]

Why just on creation?  A disclaimer on the bible would be great.

Yes, good point.

'This book is intended as a model for the manner in which individuals should conduct themselves...

Does that apply to the Old or New Testament?

[lyner]

Bits of both, but there's less blood, guts and bollocks in the NT.
Don't throw out the moral baby with the bigoted bathwater. Some of the authors really meant it for the best. It's mostly been the interpreters (=politicians) who've ruined the messages.

[DoctorBeaver]

The OT is full of smiting!

[Don_1]

The OT is full of smiting!

Not that I've read The Bible for a very many moons, but from what I recall, thi-smite be true.

All sex & violence with smiting and begetting all over the place.

[DoctorBeaver]

The OT is full of smiting!

Not that I've read The Bible for a very many moons, but from what I recall, thi-smite be true.

All sex & violence with smiting and begetting all over the place.

And slaves. Don't forget the slaves.

[lyner]

They also had big heads because there are so many "begats".

[DoctorBeaver]

They also had big heads because there are so many "begats".

Someone shoot him - PLEASE!

[Don_1]

They also had big heads because there are so many "begats".

Someone shoot him - PLEASE!

Your wish is my command

'Begats'!!!!!!!!!! Doh!!!!!!!