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."
As I recall, this is not the phrase you used orignally. There's nothing wrong with an oxymoron anyway. It is a colorful way of speaking when employed by someone who knows how to use it.
. . . highly confirmatory by morphological continuity of existing data with new data.
Since when does morphological continuity demonstrate cause and effect?
. . . we don't consult loud civilians with an ax to grind on this subject--we consult scientists about how science works.
Whether convenient for you or not, there is a lack of scientific consensus here, with certain "loud civilians" arrogating the name "science" for themselves when it is no such thing. Positing a history of biology from amoeba to man and interpreting the evidence to support such a claim places certain evolutionists right up there with astrologers in terms of veracity.
Extrapolating a million-year biological history based upon two millenia of observation yielding little, if any, morphological advancement that would cause one to deduce with certanty that a new species has arisen, is an exercise in vanity. Science has yet to learn how many species are present in the biosphere, let alone whether ones we claim as extinct are truly extinct. Science cannot even get its act together as to what constitutes a species.
Static is the stock in trade of both evolutionists (here I mean those who insist all biological entities must be derived from a common ancestor) and astrologers. Fuzzy science has a name. It's called "philosophy."
Meanwhile, find an object to which mathematics and logic cannot be applied and I will declare you the first to scientifically discard intelligent design as a factor in universal affairs.
So by what logic would an all-powerful and all-knowing God repeat over and over in scripture (hundreds and perhaps thousands of times) that He is infallible, that He can't lie and that His message came directly from Him through the supernaturally inspired writers of the Bible.....and then at the end of the day allow serious errors to be recorded by the writers? The bottom line is that either the Book is absolutely true and can be relied on in all regards or God is a liar or the whole thing was made up by an incredibly well orchestrated group of writers (many of whom lived in different times) and there never was or is or will be a God - it was just an 'interesting coincidence that dozens of writer over centuries and centuries just happened to all produce writings of absolute consistency and that absolutely corroborated each other. (For this conspiracy theorists out there, that would be the ultimate.) As far as your thought that it was 'a lot of pressure for humans that are inherently flawed' - it was no pressure at all as the words of God just flowed through them.
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?
Rife with errors, eh? And we are still waiting for you to produce that one example - or you going to go back and regurgitate the 30 over 10 is not pi routine again? As far as your comment about acknowledging lessons which it imparts, that I do - and can accept them totally because I know the whole Book is absolutely true (something that I would never be able to do if it was abundantly clear that there were lies and mistakes contained in it).
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.
Funny.... you want to make such a big deal out of the 30 over 10 is not pi business (when the text allows much room for possible explanations as to why that is correct) but when it comes to a simply, straightforward but fantastic statement (given that this was likely written before 1000 BC) like 'He hangeth the earth upon nothing', you want to pretend that it means nothing. Uh huh.
Ok, once and for all walk me through all the statements in all the verses that refer to 'exactly the pattern of the vessel reverenced in the bible to arrive at the 5% gap in the vessel's rim' you are so fond of regaling us with. Lots of details instead of conjecture on your part would be very much appreciated.
Funny.... you want to make such a big deal out of the 30 over 10 is not pi business (when the text allows much room for possible explanations as to why that is correct) but when it comes to a simply, straightforward but fantastic statement (given that this was likely written before 1000 BC) like 'He hangeth the earth upon nothing', you want to pretend that it means nothing. Uh huh.
It was not me that pointed out the error calculating pi, but now that you mention it, if the source of this error "had God flowing through him," why didn't he get it right? I'm still waiting for evidence of Noah's lifespan, Moses parting the Red Sea, and Jesus turning water to wine...
"So by what logic would an all-powerful and all-knowing God repeat over and over in scripture (hundreds and perhaps thousands of times) that He is infallible, that He can't lie and that His message came directly from Him through the supernaturally inspired writers of the Bible"
As I have been saying, the writers made this claims, and I do not doubt them. I do question the perfection of the writers themselves.
So just out of curiosity, can you give me an explanation as to why you would 'value the story of God's love' even though the story is in what you consider a book that is not infallible?
Really? Must have missed the notion that I was having a 'difficult time responding adequately' with the issues you offered. There may be a few items for which I've said 'that will take a little time', but for most I think the responses have been adequate(which is no necessarily synonomous with you accepting the answer).You sure that the explanations provided wouldn't pass any kind of test of scrutiny by a group or independent observers?
Look since when has anyone claimed God can't make mistakes? Does it say God is infallible in the Bible? no it doesn't. Just because he can create the world, mankind and the like doesn't mean he never makes the odd mistake. So what if he made a triffling error with the circumference of a circle? I am glad you never marked any of my exam papers.
Oh so the fact that Job offered this tidbit is trivial because ...... his real message was about some other bigger picture theme that had nothing to do with time, space, gravity and so on? Are you suggesting this as a general criteria for selectively discarding portions of the Bible? What if Job's passage had of said 'He hangeth the earth on the back of a tortoise'? Would you still hold that same view? On the other hand, if you are suggesting that Job just 'lucky' on this one by getting it right, point all the passages where Job was unlucky if you will.
Actually you are wrong. The Bible says that God is infallible in numerous places - it may not use the word 'infallible' but whatever word it does use means the same thing. I think I may even have referenced a number of Bible verses when this question came up earlier but I don't have time to refer you to a post now as company is coming soon - I know that posts 388 and 643 deal with related topics of inspiration of scripture and statements that God can't lie. Here is one of the many:
Jeremiah 32:17 'Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:'..... So tell me, do you think that a God for whom 'nothing is too hard' would make a mistake?
As far as your comment about 'making a triffling error with the circumference of a circle', go and join forces with cubram and donh and provide what I asked for in post 663.
Sorry about that - one loses track of who says what after a while. But now that you said that 'he didn't get it right,' walk me through the details why it is wrong like I asked donh in post 663, ok? I'll have to check back later as it is too nice (and busy) a day to be on a keyboard.
"Oh so the fact that Job offered this tidbit is trivial because ...... his real message was about some other bigger picture theme that had nothing to do with time, space, gravity and so on?"
Yes and no." There is no question that some of the writers were some of the most prolific thinkers of their time (a subset perhaps of all times), which lends to the Bible's timeless quality, much like the framers of our constitution. Neither should be construed as scientific text.
This is rubbish. This lady belongs in the "Flat Earth Society."
Hey calculating the circumference of a bowl given its dimensions isn't too hard for me either, but I am sure I could make a silly error now and again. Just because God is all powerful (and it doesn't say that in the Bible either I don't think) doesn't mean he can't make mistakes.
So explain to me again why a statement made in approximately 1000 BC (and very likely much earlier)that was absolutely accurate about how the earth was supported in space has no scientific significance of note?
Let me get this straight... you do a cut and paste from my post of a Bible verse that says: Jeremiah 32:17 'Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:'..... and then you make a statement that it doesn't say in the Bible that God is all-powerful? Good grief... what are you thinking while you are reading? lol What on earth would you offer as the interpretation for 'nothing is too hard for thee'? Like perhaps that is another way to say 'all-powerful'?
Lest you think that the above Jeremiah verse is the only reference to an all-powerful God, here is another one for you ......Revelation 19:6 'And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.' Check your dictionary for the meaning of that word omnipotent. And here is one more.....Matthew 28:18 'And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth'
And the silly mistake is what?
Assuming this is what he meant (and I'm not convinced), was this contrary to popular opinion? I've haven't heard people ever believed this.
How does these verses fit with your theology if you think what was said earlier was an 'oversimplification'?
John 3:17 'For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.'.....Jesus coming to earth was all part of a master plan made in heaven to allow fallen sinful man a way of redeeming himself.
Romans 5:8 'But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.'.....the plan required that Jesus die because sin requires punishment and by Christ's death, He could be a substitute for the sinner.
Romans 3:23 'For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;'......which means that everyone requires His death to escape the punishment of God.
Acts 3:19 'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.......'.... so the process of salvation for the individual begins by repentance for sins.
John 11:25-26 'Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?'......so once the individual repents, believes and accepts what Jesus has done, they are forgiven of their sins and will live forever with Christ when they die.
John 10:9 'I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, ......'.... and Jesus says that this is the ONLY way.
1 Corinthians 1:18 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.'....... oh, and one last thing. There will be lots of people who think the whole thing is foolish but reject the plan of redemption and you will perish in the fire that never stops burning.
I can't say I've truly studied earth legends of various ancient cultures other than one comes across stories about these from time to time i.e. sitting on elephants, fish, tortoises or poles and so forth. I don't ever remember that the Jewish people had a legend along that line which is not surpising since the people would have had access to the book of Job.
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.