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."
Good for you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Try to present it as a viable scientific alternative in a science class, and that will result, quite properly, in your school's science department being dis-accredited.
Insofar as science attempts to teach that an orderly universe popped out of nowhere without inteligent guidance and purpose, it, too, is entitled to its opinion. The schools in question most likely do not have a philosophy department where such thoughts can be presented and investigated. The Newtonian and Eisteinian models demonstrate science as questioning its own bearings. There is no shame in questioning its assumptions under both models, not to mention the so-called "given" of evolution.
Science should not be an indoctrination class.
Ok, so scientific discovery has proved that the writing of Job was correct when he stated that 'He hangeth the earth upon nothing'. By the way, it wasn't 'common sense' at the time but it still turned out to be scientifically true. So, chalk that one up for scripture being proved to be correct - let's move on to your next statement involving an aspect that has science implications and have a go at that since my challenge to you was to find an irrefutable error.
So a piece of work can be inspired by perfection, yet turn out to be flawed? Walk me through that if you will. We have scripture over and over saying that God is infallible and that the scriptures were inspired by God.
2 Peter 2:20 'Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.'
2 Timothy 3:16 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:'
So the very words that God wanted the Bible writers to write were breathed into them. By some miraculous supernatural indescribable means, they wrote down exactly what God wanted said which isn't difficult if you're God and you can supernaturally speak things into existence. Now, hold that thought for one minute while you consider these verses:
Numbers 23:19: 'God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?'
1 Samuel 15:29: 'And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.'
Romans 3:4: 'Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.'
Titus 1:2 'In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;'
Hebrews 6:18 'That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:'
Not only did God inspire scriptures, these verses make it clear that it's impossible for Him to lie. Do you honestly expect Him to allow a flaw, mistake or lie to show up in the Bible? Write off the mark, that is a non-starter because it is inconsistent with God's character - hence if you are able to find an error in scripture, that infers that God is a liar, right? And by what common sense reasoning would one come to the conclusion that an all-powerful and perfect God would want to deliberately lead his creation astray? [As I've said before, most of us are only dealing with translations of the Bible and in order to be sure of the true and unadulterated meaning of various passages, one would have to always go back and check the original documents.]
So inspiration from God demands that the product of that inspiration be flawless? That certainly is a lot of pressure for humans that are inherently flawed! If God inspired me to paint a sunset, I assure you the outcome would be a comedy of errors.
God is infallible, yet the Bible is rife with error. Instead of blaming God, or accepting the errors as fact, why don't you accept the text for what it is and acknowledge the lesson which it imparts? God gave us analytic ability; why would he do this if he didn't expect us to challenge the ideas that came before us?
"And by what common sense reasoning would one come to the conclusion that an all-powerful and perfect God would want to deliberately lead his creation astray?"
You have said yourself it is God's perrogative as to what information he reveals and why.
"Ok, so scientific discovery has proved that the writing of Job was correct when he stated that 'He hangeth the earth upon nothing'."
I haven't spoken to Job lately, so I don't know what he meant by this statement. Was he offering that the earth is free standing, and doesn't rest on large "coathanger?" Well good for him.
Well, as it doesn't teach that, it remains entitled to teach what scientists believe is science in science classes.
The schools in question most likely do not have a philosophy department where such thoughts can be presented and investigated.
Huh, then how come my kids, my nieces, and my nephews all were acquainted with this theory in fine detail long before scientists got their shot at them? Somehow, your pleading of lack of opportunity to present your case does not exactly overwhelm me.
Since science neither supports nor opposes this notion, science class is not the place to address this perceived lack.
The Newtonian and Eisteinian models demonstrate science as questioning its own bearings. There is no shame in questioning its assumptions under both models, not to mention the so-called "given" of evolution.
Science doesn't need to be spurred on to do this--it is institutionally built into peer review publication, and the basic assumptions drilled into science students at their mentor's knees, and for that matter, it is implied in our requirement to endlessly experiment, intead of just thinking our way to science, like a Greeks did. The fact that science theories are provisional does not, by some mysterious magic, automatically make ID a science theory.
Science should not be an indoctrination class.
Yes, it should. Before high school, it's a history class. In high school, it is, quite rightly, an indoctrination class, much as algebra is. You can't understand a disciplined form of thinking without being indoctrinated into that discipline.
I guess it runs in the family. "Acquainted in fine detail" is an oxymoron. Your children were taught by grade school scientists? To the extent science classes indulge in hopeful reconstructions of history they are indulging philosophy in the name of science. So, your right. There are philosophy classes in grade school, intoduced, of all things, through science classes.
The fact that science theories are provisional does not, by some mysterious magic, automatically make ID a science theory.
No mysterious magic about it. Provisional underpinnings attend to all pursuits of human knowledge, including ID. Some disciplines are more willing to admit to their provisonal status than others. Astrology and evolution rank among those disciplines most abhorrent to admitting a lack of substance and exactitude. But that's okay. There's plenty of hind tit to go around.
Yes, [science] should [be an indoctrination class].
As long as evolution and astrology are kept out and Christianity put in their place, I wholeheartedly agree.
The concept that the Jewish people are God's chosen people is taken from the last book of the Torah...
Deuteronomy 7:6 'For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. 7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.'
As explained in the verses, they were chosen because of a promise to their fathers - primarily Abraham which is discussed in Genesis 12:2 'And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.'
They were chosen for special service, responsibilities and worship, and to enjoy special privileges and benefits, both civil and religious - but they were not chosen to special grace…or eternal glory any more than the Gentile race. The Jews were chosen to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth (Genesis 12:3) and this reference refers to the fact that Jesus would be born to them.
Your post would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that you got it (my post 619) exactly backwards (not surprisingly given your last few responses of reversing what I've said). The ten commandments were to be applied personally, as opposed to the 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' which was applied by the authorities; not the other way round.
You have a real talent for being obtuse. I did not "reverse" what you said, I rejected your nonsensically unlikely interpretations, repeatedly. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is not a subject of the analogy. The 10 commandments are. You said, since you appear to need reminding, that "thou shalt not kill" applies to me, but not to my government. I asked if I could interpret the other commandments the same way. Your response is conspicuously lost in this flurry of irrelevance.
No...they were taught by their classmates, their classmate's parents, half the teachers in their schools, the ubiquiteous television.
To the extent science classes indulge in hopeful reconstructions of history they are indulging philosophy in the name of science.
What sonorous codswallop.
What, exactly, would be the "hopeful" part of, say, the story of the first glimpse through a telescope of Jupiter, or the first glimpse, through a microscope, of a microbe?
So, your right. There are philosophy classes in grade school, intoduced, of all things, through science classes.
That is your silly, paranoid opinion, bizarre as it is, and you are welcome....oh, the heck with it, you ought to be sued for slander, were science teachers a single person who could sue.
Your logic remains a wonder to behold. The fact that "all pursuits of human knowledge" have provisional underpinnings, still has squat to do with whether ID qualifies ID as a science. There is a distinct difference in the quality and quantity of painstakingly rigorous scientific effort behind evolutionary theory, and ID. ID is not a science, until, like evolutionary theory, it does science that stands up to the crucible of sceptical analysis, and repeated field verification--lots of it.
No, it is not. Google the phrase "intimately acquainted". But your acquaintance with etimology is certainly the equal to your acquaintence with the nature and depth of the scientific endeavor.
I don't know. Since that is not a theory established scientific disciplines support, I also don't care.
What is the underlying physical theory? It assumes among other things the constancy of the" laws" of time and space.
Since there is no such scientific theory, I'll assume this is irrelevant gobbeldy-gook.
Every speculation about the past, including the origin of life, is anachronistic.Evolution is a creation myth.
I assume we may eliminate geology and galactic astronomy from consideration, as well. About time astrology, flat-earth, and pyramid power theories got their day in court.
So if it wasn't a special creation, where did all the species that we have on earth come from if 'we will indeed never observe organisms not reproducing after their kind'? Are you saying that you don't believe that speciation occurs? You know, every once in awhile, we have to step back and make sure we are on the same page with the same language. From an essay by Laurence Moran entitled 'What is Evolution?'on the Talk Origins website, I've copied the following definition:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
Do you agree with this definition? I don't think many who believe in a special creation would disagree with it either.... until we get down to that last little bit where gears are shifted from talking about general changes and changes that are 'inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next' to where he is talking about 'the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.' Are you going to tell me that this last part of Futuyma's definition is fully in line with your statement that 'We will indeed never observe organisms not reproducing after their kind, but evolution is perfectly consistent with this?' Clearly there's a disconnect here. If your statement is true, explain to me the origin of all the species we have today. Are you saying that you believe that all the species we see today did not descend from a common ancestor? As time progressed, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments as well under other influences but only within their own species? Thus for you, evolution is not a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species? What then? Is your theory that each species had an original set of parents that appeared in the ocean soup and there was no common ancestor for all the various species?
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?
Here's a thought for you. God was so adamant about observing a day of rest once a week for worship that He modeled it for mankind. He worked for six days and then he rested. Read the commandment that refers to this. Exodus 20: 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.' You have produced some good reasoning as to why the 'days' could be much much longer than that but when you read the above in conjunction with the original Hebrew that refers to the days of creation as 24 hour periods, it gets tougher and tougher for me to swallow anything longer than a 24 hour day as a possibility. So I suppose an answer to your question as to 'why 6 24 hour days is simply that God treats the Sabbath so seriously that He Himself modeled directly how we are to live our lives. I'm in part speculating but I don't have a better answer than that.
It's a good one to muse about but there really is no answer for it because it's all purely hypothetical. At the time the earth was created, it was before the fall of man so the creation was perfect. It was a different world and it operated under a different set of rules. Beyond that, the Bible doesn't give many clues about how the population scenario would have been handled.
The hopeful part is in constructing from these observations a cause and effect history that begins with unguided chemical combinations and results in intelligent, self-aware entities.
"Intimately acquainted" is an oxymoron, too. "Etimology" should have two "y"s. It has little to do with recognizing figures of speech but much to do spelling. But I digress.
You remain a champion of the vapid pursuit of knowledge, as if evolution is real science. A fraction of the theory is scientifically demonstrable in real time. The bulk of it is like astrology: It'll say anything you want it to. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, too. You are entitled to believe in a consensus of science that will rule at all times and in all places. Reality will become apparent eventually.
Science doesn't adhere to any such theory, so your concern is misplaced.
Two dictionaries yield the example "fully acquainted", which isn't a whit different. The degree of aquaintence is not implied in the dictionary definition. Why don't you do some research before your foot disappears into your mouth down to the knee?
You remain a champion of the vapid pursuit of knowledge, as if evolution is real science.
We don't consult loud civilians on the subject of what is a science, and what is not--we consult scientists.
A fraction of the theory is scientifically demonstrable in real time.
The exact same thing is true of geology, and most of astronomy since Hubble.
The bulk of it is like astrology: It'll say anything you want it to.
Hogwash. Critical tests of astrology reveal it's predictions to be random noise. Critical field tests of evolutionary theory (like what one of those "missing links" is found) Have been highly confirmatory by morphological continuity of existing data with new data. You can't make it true that peering into the past isn't acceptable science, just by finding an endless supply of new ways to say it. Again, we don't consult loud civilians with an ax to grind on this subject--we consult scientists about how science works.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, too. You are entitled to believe in a consensus of science that will rule at all times and in all places. Reality will become apparent eventually.
Yea, well, except for the entitled part--which I'm sure will disappear as soon as you and your ilk gain enough political power--I'm sure the Inquisition said the exact same thing to Galileo.
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.