[Kansas Education] Board member Morris: Evolution a 'fairy tale'

The Wichita Eagle ^ | 13 June 2005 | JOHN HANNA

[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.

Kathy Martin and Connie Morris

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."

[Dimensio]

1. Evolutionists believe life spontaneously began in the "primordial ooze" with no particular cause for no particular reason(pure chance).

This is not part of the theory of evolution. Not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution accepts this scenario. Some who accept evolution even believe that a divine agent created the first life forms and evolution started from there. The theory of evolution does not care how the first life forms came into existence, it only cares that life forms exist and reproduce.

Objections to the theory of evolution based upon abiogenesis are rooted firmly in ignorance.

Most Evolutionists, especially of the academic persuasion, are also rabid dyed in the [red]wool Leftist/Socialist/Marxist/Stalinist/Communist in political nature.

Okay, now I'm convinced that you're just deliberately presenting the top 5 logical fallacies used in attacking evolution.

How can I believe anyone to be credible who also believes in an economic/governmental model which has been PROVEN to be an absolute failure every time it is tried?

1) Proficiency in biological sciences has no bearing on proficiency in economics.

2) Your argument is founded upon an unsupported assertion anyway.

The same Evolutionists as in #2 above also are the prime movers of the Global Warming Hoax.

Another baseless generalization. How can I trust Catholic clergy when so many of them are child molesters

The Big Bang requires us to grant exception to the Law of Conservation of Mass.

1) No it doesn't. Please study the Big Bang theory before attacking it based upon a position of ignorance.

2) The Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution, so why are you bringing it up here?

Very learned cosmologists currently debating the merits of string theory openly discuss the possible existence of parallel universes (the loaf model).

And? This has nothing to do with evolution.

This used to be only the stuff of science fiction writers.

Really? Where do you think that they got the idea?

If some of the "smartest" people on the planet believe it's quite possible that there is much more to this universe than that which we see, including more universes, why is it so hard to believe that part of what we can't see had a very deliberate and causal connection to our origin?

So because some cosmologists are open to the idea of paralell universes, evolution is false?

I'm sorry, but I cannot imagine what twisted crime of logic would lead a person to such a conclusion with that starting premise.

[Dimensio]

My point is that your arguments are primarily ad hominem.

So you make an attack on my tagline?

[derheimwill]

It's late and this thread is going nowhere .. go figure.

[Dimensio]

Genesis 1:1 says 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' What is the evidence that this sentence written thousands of years ago is true? Well, I woke up this morning and looked outside and what did I see? Sky (heaven) and earth. Sure you might say, sky and earth might exist but that doesn't mean that God created them. Ok.... stalemate.

Stalemate? You're invoking a logical fallacy. You're stating "If A then B", then asserting that the truth of B is somehow evidence for the truth of A. That's called affirming the consequent.

However, scripture does contain many other statements that can be proved or disproved as being factual and what I would submit to you is that everything in the Bible fall into two categories: 1. Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its truth and 2. Passages which can not be established as being true or false because there is nothing available that corroborates it (such as the Genesis 1:1 account above).

In addition to failing to demonstrate that things in the Bible are either demonstratably true or impossible to confirm as true or false, you cannot support the truth value of position A simply by showing that position C is true and that it's written in the same collection of books as position A.

Let me offer a challenge to you and if you can provide one example of what's being asked, I'll become the biggest evolution supporter overnight.

Claims like this usually precede a demand to demonstrate the truth value of something that evolution does not claim.

One (but not the only reason) I believe in the creation account in scripture is because the Bible has consistently proved itself to be absolutely error-free in all areas which lend themselves to being proven or disproven i.e. through archaeological and historical evidence for instance. Since it has stood the test of time and proved to be consistently and absolutely true (for category one), why shouldn't I believe it for those areas which don't lend themselves (category 2)?

1) As I said before, you can't support the truth value of one claim by using the truth value of an unrelated claim and saying that they both come from the same source.

2) I'm sure that you'll have no trouble explaining away all of this.

What I'm saying is that there is no category 3 (Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its falsehood.)

You mean that grasshoppers have four legs?

Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period.

Start with the list above. Not that it would matter. Even if every falsifiable claim in the Bible were demonstratably true, it would not lend support to the non-falsifiable claims.

[Dimensio]

It's late and this thread is going nowhere .. go figure.

So says the bozo who does absolutley nothing but snipe with inane one-liners without adding anything to the discussion. I'm through with you. Go troll somewhere else.

[vpintheak]

Predictions of Christ coming. Many of the Old Testiment Prophets predicted it. It came true. One God in man form did come, we are justified through the faith in that God in man form Jesus Christ. Now this cannot be falsified, it can be disbelieved, that is many people's choice to not believe. For you all I do weep, I do get angry many times, but that is human nature, debate, argue, anger, all the rest. I am prepared as I will ever be. I am through argueing and playing games.

[derheimwill]

No, seriously, you took too long to reply and I'm going to sleep soon. Call me if you have any other questions.

[Dimensio]

Predictions of Christ coming.

This is a prediction of Intelligent Design? How shall I test for it?

Now this cannot be falsified

Then it's not very worthwhile as predictions go. Do you have anything that is falsifiable, or are you prepared to admit that your position is not, as you previously claimed, a theory?

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Not that it would matter. Even if every falsifiable claim in the Bible were demonstratably true, it would not lend support to the non-falsifiable claims.

A predictable response. So let me get this straight and assume we are dealing with 100 specific statements provided by a witness in a court case. 50 of these are statements that lend themselves to being proved as being true or false and 50 of them cannot be proved or disproved because of the lack of corroborating evidence. What you are saying is that if all 50 of the falsifiable statements are verified as being true, this lends absolutely zero credibility to the witness's veracity concerning the remaining 50 non-falsifiable statements? I'll check in tomorrow as it's up early for me.

[Misterioso]

Cannot resist. "The Great Owens River Scandal" or How Squatter Potter's Daughter Got Her Water

[Misterioso]

Evolution is an "age-old fairy tale,"

I wonder which age she has in mind. Sounds like one of those pre-Darwin evos. Clueless.

[dread78645]

Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period.

Don't go there place mark.

[tahotdog]

5. Very learned cosmologists currently debating the merits of string theory openly discuss the possible existence of parallel universes (the loaf model).

What's the difference between that and the demonology systems of the middle ages?

[PatrickHenry]

Ah, so now you have TWO babes.

According to the rules, now I gotta do this:

Kathy Martin and Connie Morris. In Kansas, they're intellectuals.

[bobdsmith]

"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."

The only people showing contempt and arrogance here are these skool board moronz, Mrs Morris and Mrs Martin. They are ignorant of biology and evolution, but arrogant enough to proclaim themselves better judges of it than life-long biologists.

They have been given a position of authority on this school board to advance education, not to advance their anti-science agenda. They are acting like activist judges of science. They are about as scientifically reliable as a Greenpeace fanatic on global warming.

The only controversy is in their collective dumb-ass heads. They want to spread their "controversy" like thick manure over the field of biology. Are they deluded? Sure. Should this act in their defense? No way. I don't care if they genuinely think they are right, they are still wrong. Delusion is no excuse when they have such a position of responsibility.

[Vaquero]

Fairy Tale????? There is a Fairy Tale and it is fairly obvious that it is not the Evolution people that are perpetrating it.

[Chiapet]

"I post a nice Haida creation story and you call it romantic piffle? Would you prefer Bushmen, Diegueno, Norse, Cherokee, Eskimo, Paiute, Cree, Salinan, Crow, Iroquois, Tsimshian, Dene, Japanese, or Wintu instead?"

OOooo, Japanese please!

[VadeRetro]

"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 implication being that Connie Morris did not? Oh, well! Another hottie gone to the Dark Side.

[VadeRetro]

... Macro evolution has bit the dust due to no transitional fosils in the fosil record and none alive today.

That's such a hoot! We have plenty of transitionals.

Shall I guess in advance the gimmick will be that no one can make you see that what you just denied as existing exists?

So we have another poster spewing the creationist talking points who announces "I am not a creationist." I guess the new Wedge talking points must be out for Spring 2005 and they say, "Lie like hell about who you are and what you're up to." The gimmick THERE will be you'll eventually announce you've "converted" to cretinism because the evos are so dogmatic.

[VadeRetro]

An equal voice that says, "Evolution is a theory, Intelligent design is a theory. There is no proof for either scientifically." Something to that effect.

Because all the EVIDENCE is for evolution. ID is not a theory. It's the unsupported assertion that something somewhere made something else, and someday we may be able to tell what the ID-ist is talking about.