Kansas Board Holding Evolution Hearings

Peoplepc news ^ | 5-7-05 | People pc

[followerofchrist]

TOPEKA, Kan. - Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views.

Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also have acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members.

snip

Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it.

Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."

[followerofchrist]

Evolution= the study of God's mysterious ways...

[Shortwave]

Well said and so true.

[gobucks]

"Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages."

And the folks emitting these 'groans'? Why, the poor masses hungering for the continued liberation provided by the preaching of evolution theology of course!

[GarySpFc]

“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.

“My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.” William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

[GarySpFc]

That the theory of evolution is atheism:
" First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source. Not that the whale was derived out of the hummingbird, or man out of the mosquito, but that both are derived by a slow process of variations continued through countless millions of years. Such is the theory with its scientific feathers plucked off...

A second remark is the theory (evolution) in question cannot be true, because it is founded on the assumption of an impossibility. It assumes that matter does the work of mind. This is an impossibility and an absurdity in the judgment of all men except materialists; and materialists are, ever have been, and ever must be, a mere handful among men, whether educated or uneducated...

Thirdly, the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand. God has revealed His existence and His government of the world so clearly and so authoritatively, that any philosophical or scientific speculations inconsistent with those truths are like cobwebs in the track of a tornado. They offer no sensible resistance. The mere naturalist, the man devoted so exclusively to the study of nature as to believe in nothing but natural causes, is not able to understand the strength with which moral and religious convictions take hold of the minds of men. These convictions however, are the strongest, the most ennobling, and the most dangerous for any class of men to disregard or ignore.

In saying that the system is atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist. Nor is it meant that every one who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense...His theory is that hundreds or thousands of millions of years ago God called a living germ, or living germ, into existence, and that since that time God has no more to do with the universe than if He did not exist. This is atheism to all intents and purposes, because it leaves the soul as entirely without God, without a Father, Helper, or Ruler, as the doctrine of Epicurus or of Comte." Charles Hodge, Princeton Theologian, Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15

[konaice]

Ah the third rail of FreeRepublic once again.....

[Oztrich Boy]

"Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages."

And the folks emitting these 'groans'

The Creationists realizing their champeeen has feet of clay, and they're scrood.

[BlueDragon]

...elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages...

Actually, as the article states, it was the evolution-friendly proposal that was "scanned", as opposed to having been seriously read, or studied. The groans were more likely to have come from the evolutionary theory supporters, you boneheads!

[Oztrich Boy]

it was the evolution-friendly proposal that was "scanned", as opposed to having been seriously read, or studied.

I knew that.

Again: Church Lady is arguing all different theories should be considered, then admits she doesn't bother to do so.

Not good.

[BlueDragon]

All right, got it. Now what about "gobucks"?

I thought you were echoing the sentiments of that poster.

[mlc9852]

Was there ever any doubt?

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 270 names. See the list's description at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[mlc9852]

And what happens, professionally, to those scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution?

"Nancy Bryson, a biology instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, said having life appear from chemical molecules is "utterly impossible." Bryson came under fire for giving a public lecture in 2003 criticizing evolution and eventually lost her position as division science director at Mississippi University for Women."

And we wonder why more scientists don't speak up. There obviously is a lot of bias in the scientific profession in this country. Can anyone explain that, other than to say any scientist who DOESN'T believe in evolution isn't a "real" scientist?

[Dimensio]

Ah, and here we get the chanting of the lie that evolution=atheism from creationists who quote everything but the actual theory itself, because the theory itself says no such thing.

Anyone, atheist or theist, who claims that evolution is inherently athiestic is either lying or woefully ignorant.

[PatrickHenry]

From the article:

Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. ... Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."

Kathy Martin, creationist cutie!

[Dimensio]

Nancy Bryson, a biology instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, said having life appear from chemical molecules is "utterly impossible."

Okay, but what is her position on evolution?

[mlc9852]

Why is your response always that someone is lying? EVERYBODY who doesn't swallow the theory of evolution is a liar? That's not much of a comback, IMHO.

[RadioAstronomer]

lying or woefully ignorant

I would go for the latter.

[Dimensio]

Why is your response always that someone is lying?

I said "lying or woefully ignorant".

EVERYBODY who doesn't swallow the theory of evolution is a liar?

I was not speaking on people who don't "swallow the theory of evolution". In fact, my statement could easily apply to people who do accept the theory of evolution.

Once again, you fail to read for context and demonstrate that you have no interest in truth.

[mlc9852]

And again your response is I'm a liar.