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."
This question was discussed back in post 272. Theistic evolution simple makes it impossible to read scripture without finding problems with every other verse or so and I sited a few examples in the earlier post.
Just a few more points: God could have created everything INSTANTANEOUSLY simply by saying the word. Why then did it take six days?
I think this was talked about it in post 268. He was already creating the structure of the week for us and a built in day of rest amongst other things.
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?
As I said above, theistic evolution creates more problems than it solves. Take this passage from Genesis 1: 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Do you notice that repeated reference to 'after his kind'? In other words, cattle will always give birth to cattle, snakes to snakes, whales to whales, chickens to chickens etc. Within a 'kind', no one is arguing that significant variation won't occur such that after many generations, the offspring will look tremendously different. However, all offspring are still within the 'kind' and the genetic information for that species is still wrapped up in its DNA. On the other hand, dogs and cats don't breed and start a new species. Don't these verses describe exactly what occurs in the animal world? If we make the assumption that a God directed evolution occurred, how would these verses be interpreted to be consistent with both evolutionary concepts and scripture (and wouldn't you consider them to be in error)? And would God call his creation 'good' if it was built on the product of years of mutations and death? By the way, notwithstanding your excellent description of relativity and time and the possibility of the six days actually being billions of years, I've been told that the original Hebrew makes it clear that these are 6 24 hour periods.
Unfortunately that 'story of God's love' only means something in the context of the infallibility of God. If God is not infallible, then his son Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice for the sin of man in which case his death was in vain and mankind has no hope for redemption.
The infallibility of God is irrelevant to the varacity of text that humans wrote. Do you understand the sins for which Jesus died?
When I read this statement from you and others like you, I get the impression that you believe he was sacrificed to "absolve man of sin," in the sense that his death supernaturally washed away responsibility for all past and future sins. This is clearly an oversimplification of a powerful, and truly selfless act.
You may be losing sight of the fact that Jesus sacrificed himself for the greater good; persecuted for his work to lift people up, and spread the word of hope. If we cannot remember this, his death was in vain, and we have no shot at redemption.
What kind of physical evidence would make you happy? The Bible says that there was a flood that covered the whole world. Today we find evidence all around the world that it was once covered with a complete world-wide flood. What did many people at that time believe about what supported the world? Oh, on the backs of elephants and tortoises etc. Meanwhile, Job wrote in chapter 26 verse 7 'He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.' Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. How did he know the earth hung on nothing centuries and centuries before this was found to be true? Since it's too late to make a lengthy list for you, how many fantastic observations like this without error are enough?
AuroraDidit place mark
The Greeks and Roman mytholigists observed planets in the sky and believed they were Gods. They witnessed the world around them and made fantastic observations about it. Should we believe them? How about some physical evidence of an Ark? How about some human fossils at the bottom of the red sea?
That may be the case that others such as the Greeks and Romans made fantastic claims but those turned out not to be true, right? Similarly the fantastic claims about the earth riding on the backs of elephants and tortoises. Yet the claim that 'God hung the earth on nothing' DID turn out to be absolutely true. What isn't important is whether a fantastic claim was made - it's only important if the claim was made at a time when the level of technology was such that there was no way the common person would be able to know or verify that the claim was true (AND simultaneously wasn't spouting off all kinds of other claims that turned out to be false).... and years later it was proved out to be true when the technology existed to verify it.
How about some physical evidence of an Ark? How about some human fossils at the bottom of the red sea?
I don't know if there is currently physical evidence for the ark. Rumors abound (including one that was even featured as a tv special years ago) about carvings that have been made from the wood of the ark and people who have actually seen it. Here's a typical site that discusses this but there are many that turn up when you do a search on Noah's Ark. http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained10.htm Lots of books have been written on the subject. Do I think there is any truth to these stories about sightings of Noah's Ark? Scripture doesn't say it will ever be found so I have to be very very skeptical. Likewise for fossils at the bottom of the Red Sea.
I'd be interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion. Over and over in scripture, we see both the claims of infallibility of God and claims that the scriptures themselves are the words of God as He inspired the writers of the various books to write. How can the text have veracity if the underlying assumption is that the God who was inspiring it is not infallible? Or at least how will you know which parts have veracity and which ones do not? What will be your guide for deciding?
Regarding the rest of your post, I will have to answer later when I get the time.
So called "scientists" like to profess to follow scientific methods (you know, gather ALL the facts and anlyze them)......
that is, until you get to the "mythology" (as they like to call anything they can't see or explain) of evolution -- then they simply IGNORE any facts or evidence that don't fit within into their preconceived conclusion.
science my eye.
Sr. Research Scientist
"I'd be interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion...Or at least how will you know which parts have veracity and which ones do not? What will be your guide for deciding?"
Scientific discovery and common sense. God gave me a brain and I use it. A piece of work can be inspired by perfection, yet still turn out flawed.
Engineering Specialist (engineering = applied science)
I see. So there exists a better translation of this infallible document than what is written in it? So...I presume I may interpret the rest of the commandments in the same light? I may not personally covet, but it's fine for my nation to covet it's neighbor's, or my neighbor's property? I may not personally commit adultery, but it's perfectly ok for the state to commit adultery? I may not personally worship golden calfs, but if the state wants to, that's just fine?
Let me just compliment you on the finely tuned, flexible nature of biblical infallibiltiy.
Suppose my wife and I feel an urge to attend a wife-swapping party. Should I obey the adultary commandment, or the Golden Rule?
It's a very complicated question though and I don't know how to go at it without taking a lot of time
I don't doubt it.
No more than electricity is perfectly capable of adding conveniences to your life, providing you don't use it or attempt to understand it.
So...are you agreeing with me? Do you consider this a refutation? If so, in what manner?
I carried over your sarcasm. Change the word "capable" to "incapable" to remove it. My point is that capacity for electricity to do what it does is not necessarily dependent upon those whom it effects. The infallible nature of biblical texts is inherent. So is the fallibility of all who read it. This in no way renders the texts as useless, any more than electricty can be rendered useless by those who abuse it or misunderstand it.
You miss the point. First of all, evolution tells us that organisms DO reproduce after their kind. The theory would be falsified if we ever saw a cow giving birth to anything but a cow, for example. So as far as what a human could observe in his or her lifetime, the Biblical verse that says that animals reproduce after their kind is certainly not in error. We will indeed never observe organisms not reproducing after their kind, but evolution is perfectly consistent with this.
As far as creating the structure of the week for us, it was unnecessary to use a six day creation to do so. Why not just say that a week will be seven days, and that we should use one as a day of rest and worship? Why use a creation PROCESS to do this. I think that's totally backwards. The creation didn't last six days so that we'd have a sabbath; we have a sabbath because the creation lasted six days, and God rested on the seventh. Why should a week be seven days anyway? God gave us natural phenomena we could use to measure other time periods, such as the rotation of the earth to measure days, the orbit of the moon to measure months and the orbit of the earth to measure years. Where is the natural pheonmenon that corresponds to a week?
As far as death and mutation goes, why wouldn't God say that a system involving change is good? Why must something be eternally unchanging to be good? Why can't death also be good? For example, if there were no death, as the Bible claims was God's intention before the fall, then assuming a relatively low birthrate of just over 2% and, of course a 0% death rate, then given 10000 years or so since creation, there would be a human population of ~1 x 10^100 people on earth! Assuming an average weight of a human being to be 50 kg, this would yield a weight of 5 x 10^99 kg. This weight is much greater than the weight of the earth, by a factor of ~10^72! Even given an earth-like planet orbiting each star in the universe, we still would have a population of ~10^42 people on each planet. Clearly death is a good thing. Note that even if you assume a lower birth rate, you don't solve the problem, you merely postpone it. Eventually, without death, the population will become too great for the universe to support. When the Bible says that death began with the fall, I believe it meant that the spiritual death of hell began then, so I still believe that the Bible is inerrant.
As far as six literal days goes, you again miss the point. It very well could have been six days from God's reference frame encompassing the entire early universe and still be billions of years from our reference frame. Your statement that it really was six literal days simply doesn't make sense physically. The whole point is that six literal days is correct, but so is 15 billion years. If that doesn't make sense, then you are still stuck thinking of time as an absolute quantity. Time is subjective, so when we say creation took 15 billion years, we say so from our refernence frame, and we are correct in saying this. When the Bible says it was six days, this is the case from God's reference frame, and it also is correct to say this.
So, in spite of your obtuse demurral, you do, in fact, agree with me: the text is infallible, but there is no possible way to get what it says into my brain, except by fallible means.
"absolutely wrong" is a foolish claim to make in this argument. I am not "absolutely wrong". I can be in circumstances where 3.0 is good enough, or I can be in circumstances where 3.0 is a blatant error.
- 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.
I see. So if someone chose to build a round vessel, following exactly the pattern of the vessel reverenced in the bible, that person should regard the 5% gap in the vessel's rim as non-existent. An approximation is an error that we choose to tolerate, for various earthy (fallible) reasons.
That is not a tenate of scientific reasoning, or much of any kind of useful reasoning outside of some obscure branches of pure formal math. Science proceeds on hazy inductive reasoning about a tiny sampling of ALL the possible evidence.
that is, until you get to the "mythology" (as they like to call anything they can't see or explain) of evolution -- then they simply IGNORE any facts or evidence that don't fit within into their preconceived conclusion.
All natural sciences suffer from the same problem--they have anomolies of observation they cannot satisfactorily explain, and it is not a matter of deception, it is a matter of the universe being quite a complex place. Evidence that does not "fit" the pre-conceived conclusions does not knock out any generally accepted natural science automatically, because of the tremendous weight of the confirming evidence. Science tries to weigh the totality of evidence, in a universe it recognizes as chock full of possible reasons, not readily apparent, why the dis-confirming evidence may be incompletely understood.
Science apologizes for not being the crystal palace of perfection the bible is, such that you can dis-embowel entire branches of it on the basis of a few anomolous results--something that occurs most anytime anyone does any actual experiimentation or field research, in any field of science--but, then, that's not science's job.
I am much in agreement with you in ways you may not imagine, but the matter is not as simple as you lay out here.
Yes, the text is infallible, and there is every opportunity for it to be misunderstood and abused, much like electricity. The means by which the text "gets into your brain", whether properly or improperly, is outside of reason and is properly the subject of theology.
The effect seems to be dichotomous wherever it is presented, not unlike positive and negative, physical and spiritual, Newton and Einstein, yin and yang, hot and cold, life and death, and so on. And yet even this is too simplistic, because the biblical texts themsleves testify to the ultimate involvement of the Creator in the physical world, even to the point of taking up human flesh to draw human flesh to Himself, even to the point of enduring death.
The texts will either be properly recognized for the authority they carry and thus be handled with care, or they will be subject to rejection and ridicule and thus have the effect of a raw lightening bolt. When, how, and where the text is properly understood, and especially why, is not my prerogative to investigate.
It has not been a matter of deep concern to me to realize there are areas of both science and theology where I must throw up my hands and say, "I don't know." But this I know, both by reason of biblical texts and intuition: an orderly universe does not pop out of nowhere without inteligent guidance and purpose.
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.