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."
On the part of the interpeter, yes. On the part of the text, absolutely not.
So...in other words, the bible is infallible, unless a human tries to understand it.
Yes, much as in the physical world there exists objective truth, but man is incapable of grasping it perfectly.
We're obviously going round and round on this one but to the best of my knowledge, you haven't produced an error.
You are quite correct. It was me that said it should be discarded - if it is found to not be error-free since it claims to be infallible. Under that claim, one error and the whole book becomes untrustworthy.
Ok... and your point is what? You asked me for the second (or was it the third time?) which parts of the Bible were infallible and all I did was point out that I had already answered the question - 'all of it'. Were you thinking that some of your 'persuasive arguments' were likely to have made me change my mind as to the answer? Or did your short term memory fail you and you didn't realize that you had already asked the question.?
Wow! It didn't take very long for the second example to surface that proved again you don't actually read the posts you are replying to - in fact, you have it exactly backwards. Go back and take a look at post 578 and you will note that I was referring to the circumference on the INSIDE and the diameter on the OUTSIDE. Good grief!
No...I was thinking that you were accusing me of not reading your offerings, which, in fact, I had responded to (and it's not like the evidence can't easily be examined), making your accusation bogus lazy dissembling attempts at distraction. & come to think of it, I still think so. I don't suppose you have an actual relevant answer as to the question of whether or not "thou shalt not kill" conflicts with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"; or have you figured out whether I should obey the old testement or the new testement yet?
Yes,
Well then, what a useful, infallable moral guide it must be, providing I don't read it, or attempt to understand it.
You are absolutely wrong with this statement - it would appear that you are confusing the definition of 'accurate' and 'complete' with the definition of 'infallible'. Infallible means that it is error-free, incapable of erring or failing. If God didn't include sufficient detail so that the reader could figure it out or know something exactly or have it laid out in what is deemed to be a crystal clear manner, that doesn't mean that it is in error. It just means that He chose in His wisdom to not include all the details. And if some of those areas where all the details are lacking give rise to a few potential answers, that has nothing to do with infallibility.
No more than electricity is perfectly capable of adding conveniences to your life, providing you don't use it or attempt to understand it.
It was me that said it should be discarded - if it is found to not be error-free since it claims to be infallible. Under that claim, one error and the whole book becomes untrustworthy.
I'm not as willing to discard such an important document because it is not as infallible as it claims to be. In fact, I value it not for its infallibity, but for the "story of God's love" that it is, as told thtough a collection of parables. I have offered several issues I have with factual accuracy of the text, which you have had a difficult time responding adequately.
To recap: I do not believe Noah (or anyone) lived to be 950 years old, I do not believe Moses parted the red sea, and I do not believe Jesus turned water into wine. Where is the evidence to support these statements?
I see. So while infallible means error-free and incapable of erring or failing, it does not mean accurate or complete, because we all know that inaccuracy and incompleteness are neither an error nor a failing.
Your posts are entertaining, but troubling. It appears that, in your worship of the Bible in lieu of God, you have forced yourself into a position of reliance on patently disingenuous rodomontade. Be careful, my friend. You have placed your faith on a razor's edge.
I can't point to a verse that specifically supports evolution. However, the creation story detailed in Genesis, along with a good understanding of what modern science has discovered, cannot rule out evolution as the means God used to produce the diversity of life. It says in Genesis that God created all plant and animal life. It doesn't really say how He did so.
It does give six days as the time frame for the creation of the universe, however. Six days for creation is not really inconsistent with any of modern science, however. Relativity theory tells us that the passage of time is not an absolute measurement, but rather a relative one. That is, it is quite possible that if two different observers measure the duration of an event, they can and will measure different durations. The relative motion and gravitational fields of the observers' reference frames are the key factors in determining what the difference in time measurements will be. Big bang theory tells us that the universe was very small when it began (it also began with radiation, ie. "Let there be light" and matter was formed later via pair production). Even though small, the early universe contained the same amount of energy as the universe today (conservation of energy), using the relativistic concept of energy, in which mass and energy are equivalent. Now the important point: a large amount of energy in a small space produces an enormous gravitational field. Observers in a reference frame in which the gravitational field is large will observe a shorter duration for a given event than will observers in a reference frame with a low gravitational field. Therefore, from God's reference frame, which includes the entire universe, the early universe had a high gravitational field, and He correctly measures the duration for the creation as lasting six days. We, in our low gravitational field measure the same event as lasting billions of years.
Just a few more points: God could have created everything INSTANTANEOUSLY simply by saying the word. Why then did it take six days? Giving it a time frame suggests that creation was a process, so why couldn't evolution be a part of that process. You admit earlier that the Bible is not a detailed science text, so the lack of mention of evolution does not imply that evolution couldn't have occurred. The Bible doesn't talk about relativity or quantum mechanics, but I don't see Biblical literalists questioning these theories.
Finally, for the sake of argument, please grant the assumption that evolution is absolutely true as described by modern biologists. Given this assumption, which Biblical passage contains an indisputable error? If God created the universe by whatever process, created life by any given process, then allowed the diversity of life to arise via the introduction of variation and the differential survivability of different variations of life, which Biblical verse now is in error?
Yes, essentially you are correct - although... do I detect just a tad of sarcasm in your reply? If I made the statement 'I went downtown after dinner and stopped to buy gas along the way', that would be an error-free statement. If I said 'I went downtown after dinner' that statement is just as error-free. The fact that I chose to leave out some of the additional information in the second statement doesn't make it any less error-free, does it? I mean, if you want play that game, where would one stop in providing additional information in order to arrive at some destination called total error-freeness? Giving details of the time I left, time I stopped for gas, time I got going again, time I arrived downtown, which car I drove, what speed I drove, what I was wearing, who I saw along the way, what the weather was like, how many traffic lights I hit green, how many red etc etc etc?
Your posts are entertaining, but troubling. It appears that, in your worship of the Bible in lieu of God, you have forced yourself into a position of reliance on patently disingenuous rodomontade. Be careful, my friend. You have placed your faith on a razor's edge.
If I have given you any indication that I'm worshiping the Bible instead of God, I deeply apologize. That would be absolutely wrong and so let me go on the record as saying that I worship the Triune God and Him alone. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that by His death mankind can personally seek forgiveness for their sins. The Bible though is God's Word and his message to mankind. All I see myself doing (as this thread has evolved at least) is offering my view that the Bible is absolutely defensible as being infallible - and that includes in the area of science (to the extent that the Bible provides details on 'science subjects'). Can you give me an example of where you identified patently disingenuous rodomontade? Hmmmm.... glad you are at least finding the posts 'entertaining'.
I think I answered you on this one earlier, cubram. Noah, Moses and Jesus are written about extensively in a book which I'm sure you've heard of - and even though no one would be able to produce the physical evidence today for the things you've asked, the book in which these stories are documented has been proved to be error-free in so far as no one has ever found an error. Therefore, I would submit that since the book these stories were found in has been found to be absolutely error-free with reference to everything else that it contains, I think it would be foolish to believe that these stories are false. To believe otherwise would be to bet against something that has a 1.000 batting average.
You have stated repeatedly that the book is error free, but how can this be substantiated without physical evidence? If you cannot support the validity of the text, how can you say that it does not contain errors?
A better translation of 'thou shalt not kill' is 'thou shalt not murder' - a commandment in the second group of five commandments as to how people were to relate to each other on a personal level (the first group of five having to do with how people were to relate to God). As God's chosen people, the Children of Israel were given many other instructions and commandments as God instructed (primarily speaking to their leaders and the prophets) - the instruction of 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' was not something that an individual took to heart and acted on at a personal level. It was something that was acted on by the leadership or court of the time. As far as your question about whether you should obey the New Testament or the Old Testament, the answer is both. It's a very complicated question though and I don't know how to go at it without taking a lot of time since there is much background information needed to do justice to the question. If I find a link for an article that addresses this, I'll send it because I'm afraid I don't have the time right now.
So God's chosen people were assigned special rights?
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.