[Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius criticizes State Board of Education's move [new science standards]

Kansas City Star via Kansas.com ^ | 12 November 2005 | DAVID KLEPPER

[PatrickHenry]

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Friday called the state's new science standards a "step in the wrong direction."

Her comments follow a week in which the Kansas Board of Education adopted new science standards Tuesday that portray evolution as being in doubt and change the definition of science to allow for supernatural explanations.

In her lengthiest public comments yet on the controversy, Sebelius said she worries the changes will undermine science education and send the message that Kansas doesn't welcome high-tech firms and research. She pointed to the state's efforts to recruit bioscience companies, while the board votes to move "away from well-known, proven facts in science class."

Her comments also came as more candidates have stepped forward to challenge Board of Education members who approved the standards earlier this week.

Though the standards make no mention of creationism or intelligent design, they were sought by members of the intelligent design movement, which believes scientific evidence shows that nature was designed by a creator.

Four of the six conservative board members who voted to approve the changes are up for election next November. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are aiming to unseat conservatives, take control of the board and remove the new science standards before they go into effect in 2007.

In a closely watched race in Pennsylvania, voters in the town of Dover on Tuesday did what opponents of the intelligent design standards hope will happen here.

Voters there ousted most of that city's school board, which had voted to put intelligent design in the curriculum.

The latest two people to announce campaigns for state school board are Don Weiss, an Olathe resident, and Kent Runyan, a Pittsburg State University education professor.

Weiss will run as a Democrat against board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican. Runyan will run as a Democrat against Republican board member Iris Van Meter. Bacon and Van Meter supported the standards.

Olathe resident Harry McDonald has already announced his plans to challenge Bacon in the primary election. Other candidates have popped up in other districts as well.

Bacon, who hasn't announced his re-election plans, said he's not concerned about his challengers and doesn't believe any political lessons from Dover, Pa., are relevant to Kansas. He said the Kansas school standards do not mandate the teaching of intelligent design like the ones in Dover. And he said he believes most Kansans will support the board's decision.

"There are holes in evolution," he said. "Any good scientist will admit to that."

Sebelius said she was "baffled" by the Board of Education's yearlong debate about evolution, and that as a Catholic who attended religious schools, she sees no contradiction between faith and scientific explanations of nature.

"I was taught that God created the universe," she said. "I was also taught science in science class."

Bacon said Sebelius doesn't understand that the board changed the standards to allow students to make up their own minds about evolution. He said worries about the changes' effects on the economy, public education and the state's reputation amount to "scare tactics."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why are the evo's such shameless liars?"

"Hint: spending every single day here, from morning to night, calling other FReepers liars, isn't a vacation."

Would that you took your own advice.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No doubt, I have stated on this thread that I side on the creationist side, especially with the clintonian type of rhetoric coming from the darwin side."

No, you stated that Darwin and evolution in general isn't about the origins of life. You criticized it for not addressing the origins of life. Those are your words. Live with them.

[Dane]

No, you stated that Darwin and evolution in general isn't about the origins of life. You criticized it for not addressing the origins of life. Those are your words. Live with them.

I am living with them and quite proud of it, it is the darwinists who should be ashamed for using the clintonian rhetoric and being "proud" of it.

BTW, get back to me whn darwin comes back from the grave and states on CNN that his book was not about the origins of life.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

That is the second time I've said that since joining FR years ago. Not only that, I was being sarcastic. Care to do a search to see how many hundreds, if not thousands of times Dimensia has called FR members liars?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

From Wikipedia (The Evo's favorite free encyclopedia)

Chemical evolution

Chemical evolution is a hypothesis which tries to explain how life might possibly develop from non-life (see abiogenesis).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I am living with them and quite proud of it, it is the darwinists who should be ashamed for using the clintonian rhetoric and being "proud" of it."

So you are proud of saying that Darwin's book was not about the origins of life, then turning around and lying and saying it was? I personally don't take pride in being deceptive. That's just me.

" BTW, get back to me whn darwin comes back from the grave and states on CNN that his book was not about the origins of life."

Why would I need to resurrect Darwin when I can READ his book for myself? Something you obviously never did.

Second time now: Where in The Origin of Species does Darwin use evolution to explain the origins of life? Your saying it does is not evidence; please provide a citation.

[Antonello]

It there is one thing in this world that can get Hilary elected POTUS, it is ID.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That is the second time I've said that since joining FR years ago. Not only that, I was being sarcastic. "

Sure. Just happened to call us liars a few posts before you attack someone for calling people liars.

"Care to do a search to see how many hundreds, if not thousands of times Dimensia has called FR members liars?"

I never said there was something wrong with calling someone a liar, if it is the truth.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Chemical evolution is a hypothesis which tries to explain how life might possibly develop from non-life (see abiogenesis)."

Thanks for making our case for us. Abiogeneis is not the ToE (biological evolution). The ToE says nothing about the origins of life.

[longshadow]

Festival of the Flatulent, Tractionless ALS style Trolls

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Okay - so now you're saying Biological Evolution doesn't address the Origin of Life. Gotcha. So - it's the folks who are studying Chemical Evolution that are attempting to address the Origin of Life. I think I have it now.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

All living things evolved from a common ancestor: Origin of life on Earth: Lecture outline No. 18

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

At least they added a caveat:

Almost all of this section is highly conjectural. Read it with this in mind.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Test: Who said this?

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Gone for the day. The golf course calls.

[Dane]

It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Darwin or a Darwinite?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Okay - so now you're saying Biological Evolution doesn't address the Origin of Life. Gotcha. "

The ToE doesn't deal with the origins of life.

"So - it's the folks who are studying Chemical Evolution that are attempting to address the Origin of Life. I think I have it now."

Chemical Evolution is a not the phrase normally used, it's abiogenesis.

The term evolution is a broad term used in many areas outside of Darwinian, biological concerns. In fact, Darwin didn't call his theory Evolution, he called called it transmutation. People use the term now for things totally unrelated to the ToE, such as when they talk about the evolution of car designs, or of a certain musical style.

The creationist lie is to deliberately mix the different usages of the term *evolution*. The ToE specifically does NOT deal with life's origins. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that does. No matter how many times a creationist is told this, they continue to lie anyway. That's all they have left.

[balrog666]

Is dane trying to pick a fight?

That's just the way a three-year-old (or a retard) "debates" on FR.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Darwin said it. He was not talking about the ToE though. It was in a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker in 1871. He was speculating to a friend about a field of science outside of the ToE. You will find no such quotes in his published works.

Can't you do better than this?

[balrog666]

Hint: spending every single day here, from morning to night, calling other FReepers liars, isn't a vacation.

Ah, but some people like shooting fish in a barrel.