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."
Actually I have answered this (oh wait a minute, forgot that you don't read the posts so they have to be repeated). There are several possibilities as to why it was important to know the circumference on the inside of the vessel. Since this was a very large fancy bath, it likely had some type of tile or decorative treatment on the inside as opposed to the elaborate engravings that were talked about for the outside. As such, the circumference on the inside would be very important for the builders putting the tiles on. Later on in the 1 Kings 7 passage, it talks about the volume of water that it contained when it was used for bathing (verse 26 - 'it contained two thousand baths'). Since this volume refers to measurements on the inside of the vessel, it is not surprising at all that a reference to an inside circumference is also made. Since the scripture reference doesn't tell us anything else, the above are just possibilities and there are others. However, for you to suggest that a surveyor wouldn't measure the inside circumference or that it was unimportant is nonsense. If anything, the inside circumference would be more important than the outside circumference. On the other hand, the diameter of the outside was important because that defines how big the structure is and thus what the space considerations were from an architectural perspective. You of course won't like my description of the possible reasons why those particular dimensions were selected but that won't be a surprise. It will be a surprise though if you answer the original question.
Take me through an example of what you are talking about. Also, just so we are on the same page, could you give the definition of 'speciation' as you have used it in your last comment - thanks.
It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it is a matter of sticking to the point you brought up. It is a matter of whether what you are offering is conjecture, or not. And, of course, that is exactly what it is: conjecture. You are conjecturing reasons for believing the measurements are not in error, and you are conjecturing a mismatch between the two measurements to do it--which is, itself, erroneous. And it remains the case that your reasoning is extremely far-fetched. When you say you are measuring "round-about" something, you imply you're measuring along the outside. And even if that weren't so, you only need two people to pull a tape along the outside, and so that is what surveyors do. And the fact that the pot is decorated isn't going to deter you a bit. The pot isn't going to be decorated at the rim or the base, except in far-fetched land, where you seem to spend a good deal of your time.
Uh huh, and what fairy tale have you concocted to explain why, given that assumption, they didn't pull the tape for the diameter on the inside, as well?
One thing about God is that He never takes unnecessary steps. Once the circumference of the inside was recored, there was no need to record the diameter of the inside as well since everyone knows that all one has to do to get the diameter is divide the circumference by pi. You don't think that God knows what pi is?
ah, you did concoct something, and it's pretty amusing. There is, of course, no more basis for this nonsense than there is for any of the rest of your far-fetched theories. This is a swimming pool--probably with no walls anywhere near it; there are no critical "architectural" measurements related to the building, or the vessel itself--whichever you mean, and I don't blame you for being vague.
I don't have any concerns in that regard. Your notion of it seems a bit flexible, however: weren't you just recently arguing that the ancients only had whole numbers to calculate pi with?
Um, you mean, like, for instance, creating all the creatures on the earth with one clever evolutionary algoritm, instead of doing the job over and over again, 100s of thousands of times?
Just out of curiosity, why do you imply that there is no middle ground between infallible and wrong?
How coy-- It would be pretty much all scientists of any reputation, and all scientific institutions of any commonly recognized merit, such as natural history museums and universities. It would, in fact, as you know, consist of all scientists except for a tiny handful, with those who are least obviously clownish cranks on the Discovery Institute's payroll.
It is outside of the nature of God to be anything less than infallible. Some posts back, I gave a bunch of references that God can't lie and that should be enough to describe the infallibility of God. If anything less than infallibility is exhibited, he's not God. The mark of a divine message is that it is absolute truthfulness. God Himself spoke in the following passage about how he expected nothing but absolute truth from his prophets concerning the message He had given to them or they were put to death.
Deuteronomy 18:18 'I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.'
God can't lie? Why is that? I thought God was omnipotent.
If anything less than infallibility is exhibited, he's not God. The mark of a divine message is that it is absolute truthfulness. God Himself spoke in the following passage about how he expected nothing but absolute truth from his prophets concerning the message He had given to them or they were put to death.
I'm just curious as to where in the bible God said God can't lie, and how you know that couldn't have been a lie? God certainly engaged in a certain amount of deceit in pursuading Jacob God intended him to put his eldest son to death, so it seems unlikely that a little fibbing is beyond Him.
Ok, I give up...how does this demonstrate that God can't fib?
Being omnipotent doesn't mean that He can do something that runs counter to His character. He can't be the God who never lies and the God who lies at the same time - good grief, you weren't serious with that, were you? On post 643 I referenced a bunch of verses that says that God can't lie. Here is one of them....
Titus 1:2 'In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;'
There are actually a number of things God can't do. Here's a few more.
2 Timothy 2:13 'If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.' ....he can't deny himself.
Malachi 3:6 'For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.' ....He can't change.
God certainly engaged in a certain amount of deceit in pursuading Jacob God intended him to put his eldest son to death, so it seems unlikely that a little fibbing is beyond Him.
And your reference for this is?
He cannot deny himself change.
God was just stating that His demands on the prophets were such that when they spoke the words that God had given to them, the message better not contain anything that wasn't supposed to be there or the prophet would be put to death. Does it demonstrate that God can't fib? Probably not but it does show the lengths that God takes to make sure His message was spelled out exactly as He intended. You honestly think that a God who cannot lie will give a lie to a prophet and then kill the prophet if the lie is embellished at all?
You honestly think there's an iota of logical demonstration anywhere in this thread that because God demands his minions don't lie, that therefore, God doesn't lie?
Sorry, wrong name, I was remembering the story of Abraham and Isaac.
So,...God is omnipotent except that he's limited by his own nature? Apparently you don't know what omnipotent means.
He can't be the God who never lies and the God who lies at the same time
...
- good grief, you weren't serious with that, were you? On post 643 I referenced a bunch of verses that says that God can't lie. Here is one of them....
Uh huh. So a book rendered infallible because it's commissioned by God says God can't lie. That's a logical fallacy called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You have assumed what was to be proved.
Fine, call it what you like. God doesn't expect one to blindly accept anything. He expects that His scriptures will be put to the test to insure that they are error-free. So either assume that it is true and go about proving that it is not or conversely, assume that it is false and set about to prove that it is true. If the former case, you will be left holding an empty bag. If you take the latter approach, you will find that there are many things you can't prove but many that you can - and of the things you can prove, these will be error-free.
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.