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."
Let me get this straight--nowhere in the text in question does it say they measured the circumference on the inside, and radius on the outside--which is a rediculous assumption about how field surveying works--but you are willing to assume it because it improves your thesis--and I am the one who's conjecturing? You're full of hot air.
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.
The fullness of thy hot air is only exceeded by thy capacity to continue to bluff with a bust hand.
Since when does morphological continuity demonstrate cause and effect?
Since before the invention of Newton's Laws, and inductive reasoning. On what basis does NASA predict where lunar orbiters will emerge from behind the moon, do you suppose?
Whether convenient for you or not, there is a lack of scientific consensus here
No, there's not, no matter how many times you say it. Morphological continuity of new finds is accepted pretty much universally amongst scientists as powerful support for the theory of evolution.
Science cannot even get its act together as to what constitutes a species.
Speciation is, to a large measure, a human classification scheme, not a clearly fixed law of nature. Speciation as it is actually practiced is a partial affair, with separated breeding populations becoming slowly less and less able to interbreed--there is no instantaneous, discrete line of separation. You are trying to hold a somewhat arbitrary bookkeepping scheme up to standards that far exceed what it aspires to.
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,
Science's main business tool is induction, not deduction; since science is largely not in the deduction business, nor the certainty business, the second part of your statement, while boldly offered, is based on the notion that any attempt to draw inductive conclusions about history based on historical records is automatically invalid as scientific evidence. This not in accord with scientific practice, or common sense.
Do you think courtrooms should operate that way?--should the court only accept evidence that develops during the process of a trial, since historical evidence is less verifiable than spontaneous open court confessions?
Static is the stock in trade of both evolutionists
Apparently what you mean by static is referring to historical data. Here's some more logic as compelling as this: "most criminals learn to drive, therefore, driving must cause crime.", "Most drug users drank some form of milk while growing up, therefore, drinking milk causes drug addiction.". Welcome to the world of creationist logic.
(here I mean those who insist all biological entities must be derived from a common ancestor)
That is not the current opinion of the scientific community. The tree of life does not now converge in a single common ancestor.
and astrologers. Fuzzy science has a name. It's called "philosophy."
All natural sciences are philosophies, and all are "fuzzy".
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.
1) An individual quantum event. 2) A true Godelian theorem which cannot be proved. Both of which actually exist, by the lights of current scientific opinion, and neither of which, your contention notwithstanding, are taken by current scientific opinion as "discarding" ID. Science does not "discard" ID. It merely assumes, quite rightly, that it isn't a science, because it doesn't behave like a science.
Evolution is still a creation myth. As the ID people have tried to point out, there are in favct two notions of evolution: the scientific theory which depends on evidence and Evolution, the myth which presumes things for which there is no present evidence.
How does the theory of evolution "presume things for which there is no present evidence?"
They certainly don't consult the writings of Ernst Mayr. They make computations on the basis of a gravititational process that is ongoing, consistent, and predictable, just as it should be in a universe that is intelligently designed. They certainly do not refer to the fossil record or the Theory of Evolution.
Morphological continuity of new finds is accepted pretty much universally amongst scientists as powerful support for the theory of evolution.
When one assumes the Theory of Evoluton to be true it is a simple matter to shoe-horn the evidence into the theory, and even make way for exceptions. To the extent the philosophy attempts to reach back into unrepeatable history it is not falsifiable, and therefore . . . you know the rest. I shall assume "pretty much universally" means those scientists who happen to agree with your point of view.
You are trying to hold a somewhat arbitrary bookkeepping scheme up to standards that far exceed what it aspires to.
Don't you suppose a "science" that purports to explain the origin of species ought at least have a grip on what constitutes a species? If species are arbitrary, undefined, human constructs not subject to "bookkeeping," as it were, how does it differ from astrology? Well, I understand. The more fudge room, the better. That way the evidence is better able to fit the assumptions.
Science's main business tool is induction, not deduction; since science is largely not in the deduction business, nor the certainty business . . .
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The fact is, science operates with varying degrees of certitude and makes use of both inductive and deductive reasoning as needed. I can understand why proponents of the Theory of Evoluton would rather squirm out of the "certainty" business, as the theory is founded primarily upon unobserved history over an indefinite period of time.
Do you think courtrooms should operate that way?
You mean with indictive reasoning? Only a certified bonehead would compare the certitude of courtroom processes with the Theory of Evolution. Besides, even forensic crime labs operate with a historic, static record, as opposed to presently observable phenomena. Courtrooms err in criminal cases and are hardly capable of meteing out scientific accuracy (as if that were their purpose to begin with!). How much more the fossil record (for example), for which its interpreters have conveniently avoided setting forth any logical rules for their interpretation, unlike those who practice courtroom forensics.
An individual quantum event. . . . [a] true Godelian theorem [are two objects to which mathematics and logic cannot be applied.]
I hardly consider a single quantum event as having neither cause nor effect, both of which together are logical, mathematical, entities. As for a "true Godelian theorem" you'll have to explain why it is not subject either to math or logic.
Science does not "discard" ID. It merely assumes, quite rightly, that it isn't a science, because it doesn't behave like a science.
Unmitigated doublespeak. Science deals specifically in the areas of mathmatics and logic. It also deals exclusively with phenomena that are intelligible, and therefore it deals impicitly with material that accomodates apprehension by reason and senses.
Furthermore, there are sciences that deal with aspects of personhood, immaterial forces, and the like. "ID" is simply swept under the rug by a few as "not science" out of irrational concerns; a type of political correctness that yields to fear as opposed to where the evidence leads. As it stands, every instance of cause and effect is further evidence of intelligent design.
But that's okay. I've known for a long time that the world has an element of irrational thinkers on board.
Since you are the one who has had nothing to say about the matter at hand except 'it's not pi', yes.... you are the one who is conjecturing. It was a simple question on my part but it appears you are not up to the task of answering it. Sigh... maybe somebody else would like to take up the torch of proving the fallibility of 1 Kings 7 23-25 since it appears you are incapable of doing so.
Here's a few thoughts for you:
1 Corinthians 15:41 'There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.'....... How did this writer know that every star was unique?
Ecclesiastes 1:6 'The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.'..... you'd almost think this ancient writer was looking at satellite shot on the weatherchannel, no?
Job 28:25 'To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.' ...... Hmmmm, it was established approximately 300 years or so ago that air had weight but the book of Job was written approximately 1000 to 1500 BC. How did the writer know that air had weight?
Job 30:5,6 'They were driven out from among men, They shouted at them as at a thief. They had to live in the clefts of the valleys, In caves of the earth and the rocks.'....... The Bible talks about the existence of cavemen.
Job 36:27-29 'For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy?'
Job 26:8 'He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it.'
Job 37:11 'Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds; He scatters His bright clouds.
Jeremiah 10:13 'When He utters His voice, There is a multitude of waters in the heavens: And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, He brings the wind out of His treasuries. .............Bet you didn't know that phases of the hydrologic cycle were described in the Bible. You don't think it noteworthy that a book written 1000 to 1500 BC had the correct cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation? And that writer knew that the clouds held an enormous amount of water?
Ecclesiastes 1:7 'All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again........Sounds like this writer had a pretty doggone firm grasp of the concept of the recirculation of water in the environment.
Job 38:16 'Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?' ............Hmmm... the writer knew that the ocean had hydrothermal vents in it. How did he know that? These weren't discovered until the 1970s.
For one thing, how do we know the exact conditions that gave rise to life appeared on earth? We do know that the great bulk of living matter on this earth is microcosmic Why should simple forms give rise to more complicated ones? In other words, why evolution at all?
I am quite aware of the preposterous thesis that you can't consider historical evidence scientific. It is beneath contempt.
You haven't done me the courtesy of explaining why in the world any surveyor would measure the circumference of a vessel from the inside, so I believe I'll return the compliment.
What gall you have to suggest that scientists can predict the orbit of an object they can't see. You've obviously been taken in by those confidence artists who claim orbital mechanics is a science--astonishing that anyone believes that with such huge orbital gaps plain for anyone to see.
That's just ignorant twaddle. Every time a "fossil gap" is filled, it is filled with a fossil whose morphology is predicted in fine detail, from the consistency of fossil morphology on either side of the gap. Scientists can, and have, quantized this morphological consistency with a better track record, by a big margin, than, for example, exhibited by calculations of the outer orbits of stars in galaxies by Einsteinian mechanics.
What we know about the beginning of life on earth is hardly "historic." All we have is speculation based on unknowable senarios.
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, it is not shared by quantum physics, or formal mathematics.
As for a "true Godelian theorem" you'll have to explain why it is not subject either to math or logic.
What would you call a theorem that's true, but that cannot be proved? When you say a theorem is "subject" to logic, what might that mean, other than that you have a logical proof of it?
The "beginning of life" is not a subject touched on by Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin repeatedly made this point.
is hardly "historic." All we have is speculation based on unknowable senarios.
Fossils are historic. Geological strata are historic. Speculation is all any natural science is, at base, and all scenarios are "unknowable" in the sense that you can't prove them. Science can tell you how to bet with a better reliability record than any other competing technique presently available, and that's good enough for science.
Unmitigated doublespeak. Science deals specifically in the areas of mathmatics and logic. It also deals exclusively with phenomena that are intelligible, and therefore it deals impicitly with material that accomodates apprehension by reason and senses.
Science is not inviting you to lecture it on what science is, for extremely good herewith demonstrated reason. Kindly show me that exhaustive record of ID experiments that produced predicted field or experimental results, even when conducted by doubting, antagonistic peers? Claiming ID is a science has exactly as much observable credibility as claiming pyramid power, or astrology, are sciences.
This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is not a commonly accepted scientific theory, amongst scientists. Causality is is not so much a law of nature, as it is a convenient way of emphasizing what part of an interaction is of particular interest to the observer. Did the bat hit the ball, or did the ball hit the bat? Did the proximity of money cause the bank robbery, or the poor upbringing of the bank robber?
It depends on whose pig is gored, which is the cause and which the effect.
...here's another example. Any behavior smaller than the Heisenberg limit.
Perhaps you can show me where you explained to me why, since the State is exempt from "thou shalt not kill" the State isn't also exempt from, say, the adultery commandment. Or perhaps you can show me where you explained what to do when the Golden Rule conflicts with a Commandment? Your memory on the subject of who is responsive, and who not, is, well, selective.
The point is that "kinds" that seem to be vastly different are really not all that different. Organisms, to the best of the ability of ancient societies to observe their reproduction, do indeed reproduce according to their kind. Even when speciations do occur, I have heard repeatedly creationist arguments that "it's still just a fruit fly" or whatever "kind" that is speciating. You will never see anything other than organisms reproducing according to "kind". If you look backward far enough, however, you will see organisms that are ancestral to different "kinds", and that the "kinds" really are not all that different.
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.