Kathy Martin and Connie Morris
Posted on 06/13/2005 6:23:59 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Evolution is an "age-old fairy tale," sometimes defended with "anti-God contempt and arrogance," according to a State Board of Education member involved in writing new science standards for Kansas' public schools.
A newsletter written by board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, was circulating on Monday. In it, Morris criticized fellow board members, news organizations and scientists who defend evolution.
She called evolution "a theory in crisis" and headlined one section of her newsletter "The Evolutionists are in Panic Mode!"
"It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution," Morris wrote.
Morris was one of three board members who last week endorsed proposed science standards designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom. The other two were board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, and Kathy Martin, of Clay Center.
Morris was in Topeka for meetings at the state Department of Education's headquarters and wasn't available for interviews.
But her views weren't a surprise to Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, an Oskaloosa educator.
"Her belief is in opposition to mainstream science," he said. "Mainstream science is a consensus view literally formed by tens of thousands people who literally studied these issues."
The entire board plans to review the three members' proposed standards Wednesday. The new standards - like the existing, evolution-friendly ones - determine how students in fourth, seventh and 10th grades are tested on science.
In 1999, the Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards. Elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservative Republicans recaptured the board's majority in 2004 elections.
The three board members had four days of hearings in May, during which witnesses criticized evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes may have created the first building blocks of life, that all life has descended from a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor. Evolution is attributed to 19th Century British scientist Charles Darwin.
Organizing the case against evolution were intelligent design advocates. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are so complex and well-ordered that they are best explained by an intelligent cause.
In their proposed standards, the three board members said they took no position on intelligent design, but their work followed the suggestions of intelligent design advocates.
In her newsletter, Morris said she is a Christian who believes the account of creation in the Book of Genesis is literally true. She also acknowledged that many other Christians have no trouble reconciling faith and evolution.
"So be it," Morris wrote. "But the quandary exists when poor science - with anti-God contempt and arrogance - must insist that it has all the answers."
National and state science groups boycotted May's hearings before Morris and the other two board members, viewing them as rigged against evolution.
"They desperately need to withhold the fact that evolution is a theory in crisis and has been crumbling apart for years," Morris said.
But Krebs said Morris is repeating "standard creationist rhetoric."
"People have been saying evolution is a theory in crisis for 40 or 50 years," Krebs said. "Yet the scientific community has been strengthening evolution every year."
Yes, GR has less experimental support than TOE. Further, it is *orthodox* thinking among physicists that GR is wrong. Not only must it be reconciled with QM, it doesn't account, unmodified, for the observed large scale behavior of the universe. There isn't even a whiff of such fundamental concern with TOW among biologists.
I will even make a prediction: GR will be superceded by a deeper theory within 20 years but TOE will still be going strong.
Good luck to Kansas high school students applying to college next year.
What kind of "true?" "Mostly" true? "Partly" true? "True to his own belief?" It cannot be "absolutely" true, because science cannot and does does not claim to preach as much.
You remain the king of deflection. The question was about the contemporary state of scientist's trust in some theories. Not about the theories themselves. It not a dense ontological quandary, it is a question of what scientists believe, and that is easy to detect.
It is my opinion that science is better able to explain processes of gravity (quantify it, and so forth) than it can the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, I believe it can better predict the behavior of gravity than it can evolution. The Theory of Evolution is less certain about what kinds of species will be found in one million years than how gravity, or the speed of light, will behave after the same period of time.
Einsteinian predictions about outer orbits are off by about a factor of 10, and it's not consistent. The extra force is not uniformly distributed with respect to that created by visible matter. In point of fact, astronomer's predictions of behavior in previously unoccupied space isn't working out nearly as accurately as the predictions of what will be found in the "fossil gaps", based on the species on either side of the gap.
Out of all the data available to reason and senses for quantification and study, how much, on a percentage basis, do you suppose any given observer can experience and comment upon? Enough to make The Theory of Evolution an unquestionable dogma? I don't think so. I don't have that much faith.
Well, fortunately, science doesn't think so either. That, for example, is why science was open to having Einstein radically revise the large-scale nature of the universe, even though Newton's laws were as close to proved as science ever gets.
Looks like a prime candidate for the Kansas school board.
Excellent post. Well said.
It's a good question and there are two possible answers. The first is that one of the brothers died after the episode referred to in I Samuel 16 (when all the brothers were presented by their father Jesse to Samuel to see which one would be anointed future King after Saul died). The son would have to be number 4, 5, 6 or 7 since 1, 2 and 3 are specifically named in both lists. If the son was unmarried and died without posterity, his name would not have been preserved in the later period when Chronicles was composed i.e. since he produced no descendants and contributed no exploits back in David's time, there was no special reason for retaining him in the later enumeration of Jesse's sons. There is certainly precedent for taking this approach with genealogies in scriptures.There is another possible answer and this is the one that I favour. 1 Chronicles 2:13-16 says, 'And Jesse BEGAT his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail.' It should be noticed that in this passage, it specifically states 'Jesse BEGAT... these seven sons; that is, these seven sons were of his blood and came out of the union between him and his wife. In the 1 Samuel 16 passage, it does not say that Jesse 'BEGAT' eight sons, but only that he 'HAD' eight sons. Thus a possible explanation is that he had also adopted a son. He had seven sons of his own, by natural conception and birth, but took another son for his own, as well. If this is the correct explanation, it was probably after he had his first three sons, because as mentioned above, sons 1, 2 and 3 have their names mentioned in each passage. However, it was obviously before David was born, because Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel, and David was called the youngest, and still back in the pasture with the sheep. There certainly is precedent in scriptures for children to be adopted and for them to be referred to as sons and daughters. Scriptures even refer to adopting servants as sons. Proverbs 29:21 says, 'He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son...' Are there other legitimate explanations? Probably and it may even be that there is another passage somewhere that sheds additional light on it.....but this certainly is not the irrefutable error that you are looking for.
Willam of Ockham
I've referenced quite a bit of Genesis 6 below in order to answers one part of your question 'why did God destroy almost all of what he had created'. The simple answer is that it had become evil that was out of control and the only practical way to deal with it was to destroy it and essentially start over. Elsewhere in scripture, it says that prior to and while he was building the ark, Noah preached to all the world to try to get them to repent and he did that for one hundred years. The point here is that God always makes a way to escape the destruction - the question is whether people will accept it or reject it. With respect to the ark, the door was open right up to the last minute and nobody seized the opportunity - so while you might think think all the death and destruction was appalling, the well publicized escape route was open until the last second with every warning possible. So, why didn't God just blink out the old? He was giving them a chance to repent of their wicked ways. The second part of your question is 'why did he not get rid of it all then including Noah. The answer to that one is easy - Noah was a righteous man and when God makes a promise to someone, you can always count on it that He will keep it. So Noah was preserved along with his family since God always looks after the ones He considers righteous. There are promises that go back even further of course to Adam and Eve. If God had of just blinked out the old, that would have meant that He would not have been in a position to fulfill any of those promises - and that would have turned Him into a liar, something that is not possible. Genesis 6:5 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.'.....11The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth....... 17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. Genesis 7:1'And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.'
Willam of Ockham Didit place mark
I tend to think of it as a dense ontological tautology.
Well, fortunately, science doesn't think so either.
If I remain the "king of deflection," you remain the king of definition. "Science," as you are so willing to summarize as both in accord with itself and reality, is not of one thought in these things. Yes, there are elements of science that may be in accord with your own assumptions, but that hardly merits using its name in support of one small segment of thinking that is based purely upon reasonable conjecture.
It remains a source of amusment to me that suddenly the once certifiable "givens" like gravity, are non-verifiable except in limited environments, but the history of the universe is more certain even though it must be conjectured and extrapolated from evidence of past events. Well, when one's fundamental assumptions have no basis other than in what meets the senses and is spun out of reason and imagination, one might expect as much.
"Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't evolution believe that all living matter originally stem from the same bit of biological somethingorother that formed in a primordial ooze somewhere?"
Once again, you are thinking abiogenesis. That's not evolution. Thank you for showing that you don't know what evolution really is, and that all you are doing is trying to knock down a stawman.
"One (but not the only reason) I believe in the creation account in scripture is because the Bible has consistently proved itself to be absolutely error-free in all areas which lend themselves to being proven or disproven i.e. through archaeological and historical evidence for instance."
In I Kings, 7:23, the Bible clearly states that the value of Pi is 3. ("He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.")
Absolutely error-free?
Is that quote real? Man he had some zingers!
100% real. Google it and see.
So how come you skipped the 4 legged locusts?
I see. You must be truly baffled by questions like: "Do children enjoy playing?" and "is milk white?"
"Science," as you are so willing to summarize as both in accord with itself and reality,
That is exactly, dead on target, what I was NOT willing to do. I pulls 'em apart, you clang 'em smack dab together. Whether science "accords with reality" is a dense quandary. What scientists currently believe is a matter ofr mundane news reporting.
It remains a source of amusment to me that suddenly the once certifiable "givens" like gravity, are non-verifiable except in limited environments, but the history of the universe is more certain even though it must be conjectured and extrapolated from evidence of past events.
All the interesting, galaxy-girdling astronomic stories since Hubble's "must be conjectured and extrapolated from evidence of past events". Are we going to be throwing 20th century astronomy in the crapper?
Well, when one's fundamental assumptions have no basis other than in what meets the senses and is spun out of reason and imagination, one might expect as much.
What do you suggest, other than "what meets the senses and is spun out of reason and imagination" we might employ in developing science?
Well, science seems to have difficulty proving 1 + 1 = 2, and noticing the universe is intelligently designed, so I reckon I'm in good company if I'm baffled by questions such as the above.
What do you suggest, other than "what meets the senses and is spun out of reason and imagination" we might employ in developing science?
A simple text, reported from the outside, to assist in laying a foundation from which to make observations and interpret them. As it is, your understanding of science has neither a foundation nor the ability to admit the absence thereof. But that's okay. I can see why one would have such confidence in evolution, and how any evidence can fit the science when the underlying assumptions are both baseless and unrecognized.
Where do you get this "suddenly" stuff? QM has been a quandary for Einsteinian physics practically from the get-go, at least since the Mach-Einstein slapdown, and the dark matter problem has been on the table for about 3 decades.
but the history of the universe is more certain even though it must be conjectured and extrapolated from evidence of past events.
What do you think Ruben had to go on, other than "extrapolating from evidence of past events"? What do you think the crux of the Einstein-Mach debate had to chew on, other than pure thought experiments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.