Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Kansas Education] Board member Morris: Evolution a 'fairy tale'
The Wichita Eagle ^ | 13 June 2005 | JOHN HANNA

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.


Kathy Martin and Connie Morris

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; kansas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 721-736 next last
To: cubram
Nah... the difference is the fact that the creation story is based on what is written in the Bible - a book that has been found to be error-free. Evolution has no such error-free book. By the way, you side-stepped a bunch of my questions including 'what the benefits are that the teaching of evolution bring to the table for high school students'.
581 posted on 06/21/2005 8:53:13 AM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: All

Morris is a popular target in Kansas. Shorty after winning her position she spoke out against Illegals using public services -schools included-. Now that this idea is becoming popular her enemies need a new warcry.


582 posted on 06/21/2005 8:59:22 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

The bible has not been found to be error free. I don't want to insult your beliefs, so I'll leave that one alone.

Of course science, including the theory of evolution, is going to encounter errors, this happens when rigorous testing is possible. Evolution is productive for high school students because it reveals how species develop.


583 posted on 06/21/2005 9:08:42 AM PDT by cubram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

No, I'm pretty sure her "enemies" dislike her attack on science.


584 posted on 06/21/2005 9:10:39 AM PDT by cubram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: cubram

I doubt it. Her comments are hardly an attack.


585 posted on 06/21/2005 9:15:20 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
I can't imagine that one could read the original passages in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 and draw the conclusion you've come to in your post. Let's deal with the inside/outside measurements to see if that one makes sense, shall we?. Quoting from the King James, it says '....and a line of 30 cubits did compass it round about.' [It does NOT say if this is the inside or outside...... ..... .... ....

Apparently, you manage to not imagine it, by carefully avoiding reading it.

All you've done is convert a math error into a measurement error. Both are errors. Your first dismissal of this concern, and the rest of your response here, if I may paraphrase, is that the mistaken behavior of humans was accuratly reported.

So, my quesion, as yet unanswered, except to start this argument over again, was: "Ok, so which parts of the bible are infallible in every sense?: the parts where God is speaking in first person? The parts where no humans are involved? It's a pretty bloody simple question, if you ask me.

586 posted on 06/21/2005 9:20:24 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

I would say stating that evolution is "an age old fairy tale" is a fairly obvious attack on science.


587 posted on 06/21/2005 9:25:09 AM PDT by cubram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I don't know why you would deduce such a thing. Astronomy does not need astrology to make progress. Biology does not need evolution (except perhaps on a small scale) to make progress either. All the disciplines can be rationally considered as operating in a universe that has been created, and is sustained, by an intelligent being.

I love the way you don't let logical consistency interfere with your arguments: Astronomy does not need astrology, so we should not teach it. Biology does not need evolution, so we should teach it?

Heightening the laughability quotient here: modern biology does NOT rely on "evolution (except perhaps on a small scale)". Evolution is foundational to almost every modern branch of biology. It is an extremely accurate veterinary predictor of which medicines will work with which animals. It has realigned the Tree of Life at its root, for heaven sakes.

588 posted on 06/21/2005 9:37:13 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: cubram

I read the article. I've also closely followed her career. This latest round of demonization has NOTHING to do with her rather lukewarm "attack" evolution.

"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,"

Nothing wrong with presenting the theory along with critique for an honest debate in the classroom.


589 posted on 06/21/2005 9:46:19 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: cubram
The bible has not been found to be error free. I don't want to insult your beliefs, so I'll leave that one alone.

You can't insult my beliefs. What you can do is try to prove that scripture is in error and therefore the beliefs should be discarded.

590 posted on 06/21/2005 10:20:15 AM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: donh
Evolution is foundational to almost every modern branch of biology.

No. It's an a posteriori construct across small-scale change that is incidental to the ongoing observation and documentation of entities that function as designed from the beginning.

591 posted on 06/21/2005 10:26:55 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: donh
So, my quesion, as yet unanswered, except to start this argument over again, was: "Ok, so which parts of the bible are infallible in every sense?:

One thing you finally have managed to prove (as given by the rather conclusive evidence of your last post) is that you don't actually read the posts you are responding to, do you? The 'infallible' question was answered earlier - including at least once to yourself (post 438). Now back to my last post - what is the technical error that has been made and what part of the explanation in my last post is inconsistent with the Biblical text? I'll check for your reply later tonight as I have to go for the afternoon and early evening.

592 posted on 06/21/2005 10:48:19 AM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
No. It's an a posteriori construct across small-scale change that is incidental to the ongoing observation and documentation of entities that function as designed from the beginning.

Well, as is often said, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it, opinions of working research biologists and the institutions that represent them are at odds with your opinion.

593 posted on 06/21/2005 11:13:44 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

I think you've made my point for me. My point is that the Bible isn't really intended as a detailed science text. If it were, then it would not imply that pi=3, that the earth really is a sphere even though this is incorrect, or that insects have 4 legs, etc. Given that the Bible is not intended to be a science text, using it to argue against any scientific theory really doesn't make sense. The creation described in Genesis, with some interpretation and figurative language, really is not inconsistent with evolution. Why then do people use the Bible as a means to argue against evolution?


594 posted on 06/21/2005 11:27:46 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

I did not say the spirit of the bible and the belief systems it unspired should be discarded, quite the contrary. I do not believe the bible should be the foundation (or any part of it) of science. Unsubstantiated accounts simply do not qualify as evidence of anything.


595 posted on 06/21/2005 11:28:26 AM PDT by cubram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: cubram; Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

Not to mention that evolution occupies a place in biology similar to that occupied by atomic theory in chemistry or by quantum mechanics and relativity in physics, namely that of the unifying principle that allows for a full understanding of the discipline. Without atomic theory, chemistry would just be a catalog of different reactions with no explanatory or predictive ability. Without QM and relativity, physics (and Newtonian mechanics which served the same purpose previously) physics would just be cataloging different observations with no unification to the discipline. Similarly, biology would be entirely descriptive, lacking any explanatory power, without evolution. It is the core principle of biology, without which nothing else in the discipline makes much sense.


596 posted on 06/21/2005 11:33:07 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
One thing you finally have managed to prove (as given by the rather conclusive evidence of your last post) is that you don't actually read the posts you are responding to, do you?

Well now, since I responded to post #438, in detail, I'd say the shoe is on the other foot--when it isn't jammed into your mouth.

The 'infallible' question was answered earlier - including at least once to yourself (post 438).

Your feeble post 438, which I responded to, as pertains to this argument, is simply a restatement of your opinion that the bible is infallible. Do you really think you are doing God a favor this kind of tissue-thin bluffing?

Now back to my last post - what is the technical error that has been made and what part of the explanation in my last post is inconsistent with the Biblical text?

Give it a rest. The number is in error, regardless of why it is in error. 30 over 10 is not pi, and it isn't going to become pi, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue, and stamp your feet imperiously. The bible doesn't say they pressed the tape into every little crenelation, it doesn't say they measured the inside diameter and the outside circumference, and it doesn't say they were falling over drunk at the time, or any other such fabulation. And even if the bible did say any of this, it matters not so much as a fart in a hurricane to this argument. It cycles right back to the question you keep ducking: clearly this value of pi is an example of fallibility. Please rescue your contention that the bible is infallible by telling me which parts are actually infallible, and which parts are capable of forwarding claims that are easy and straightforward to understand as contending such things as that pi=3, which is clearly a fallible statement, regardless of the excuses you can come up with for it. Is the bible completely infallible only when God is talking, only when humans aren't involved, or what?

I'll check for your reply later tonight as I have to go for the afternoon and early evening.

Why bother, if reading my replies with your brights on, or your memory buffers enabled, is too much effort for you?

597 posted on 06/21/2005 11:46:44 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
Now you might not like that interpretation of the passage but I fail to see how you could not acknowledge that this is a suitable possibility

A "suitable possibility" is not the same thing as an infallible claim. If you are admitting to "possibility", you are admitting to fallability.

598 posted on 06/21/2005 12:24:02 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
And since you chose to be so rude about post #438, let's just relive it in all its splendid glory, apropos to the apparent contradiction between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Here it is:

Sure, and I suppose you could put the criminals that were put to death in this class too, right?

What "class"? How is this responsive to the question asked?

There really isn't a good 'one size fits all answer to your question'.

What kind of mealy-mouthed nonsense is this? Either the two phrases are in contradiction, or they are not, and you have some reason to offer as to why they are not, yes?

While the 10 commandments are the most well known instructions from God, they aren't the only ones as you point out with your witch example.

So?

There is also a theological concept of the time before Christ as being 'living under the law' while the time after Christ as 'living under grace'.

Which has what in tarnation to do with this argument? Are you contending now that the old testement and the new testement are at odds with each other? How does that help your argument for the bible's infallibility?

...

Offhand, I'd suggest that, at this point in post 438, you have simply blown a gasket, and are no longer coherent. And you preen over this? Where is your head at?

599 posted on 06/21/2005 12:36:54 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
One more point about measuring the outside circumference and the inside diameter. That means that the measurement of the outside diameter would have been larger than 10 cubits had measurements appropriate to the calculation been taken. Run that thru your calculator, and you will see that that produces a value of pi in the 2.9xxx direction, not in the 3.1415xxx direction.
600 posted on 06/21/2005 12:48:54 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 721-736 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson