Posted on 08/02/2006 3:46:10 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Darwin won.
Moderate Kansas State Board of Education candidates pulled off a victory Tuesday, gathering enough might to topple the board’s 6-4 conservative majority.
A victory by incumbent Janet Waugh, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Lawrence, and wins by Republican moderates in two districts previously represented by conservatives left the tables turned heading into the Nov. 7 general election.
“If we change the board around, we’ll be able to make decisions that we think are right for our students,” Lawrence school board member Craig Grant said.
Grant had worked to defeat the conservatives who attracted international attention and ridicule for the state after adopting science standards critical of evolution.
Waugh held onto her seat in District 1, rebuffing a challenge from conservative Jesse Hall who, according to the last campaign finance report, had raised about three times more money. But Waugh collected 63 percent of the vote.
“Obviously money can’t buy elections,” she said. “I think the people of Kansas are tired of being the laughingstock not only of the nation but the world.”
Not all the conservatives were defeated.
Conservative incumbent John Bacon held his seat in District 3, which includes parts of Johnson County. Bacon won by a slim margin, with 49 percent. Challengers Harry McDonald, Olathe, the former president of Kansas Citizens for Science, and David Oliphant, also of Olathe, split the remaining vote.
Bacon faces Democrat Don Weiss in the general election.
In the District 5 race to represent a large part of western Kansas, conservative incumbent Connie Morris trailed moderate challenger Sally Cauble who at midnight had 54 percent of the vote with 556 of 609 precincts reporting.
Conservative Ken Willard held his seat in District 7 by a wide margin. He faces Democrat Jack Wempe in November.
And with few votes still to be counted at midnight, moderate Jana Shaver appeared to be the favorite for the District 9 seat. Shaver ran against Brad Patzer, son-in-law of outgoing conservative board member Iris Van Meter. At press time, Shaver had 58 percent of the vote. The winner faces Democrat Kent Runyan in the general election.The five races have attracted national attention as both sides battled for control of the board.Many wanted a shake-up after the 6-4 conservative majority altered the state’s science standards, rewriting the definition of science and adding criticism of evolution.
Proponents of Kansas’ latest standards say they encourage open discussion.
“Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin’s theory,” said John West, a vice president for the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based, anti-evolution Discovery Institute.
The conservative board majority changed the rules on sex education, requiring parental permission before students participate in classes, though districts including Lawrence opted not to change their ways.
And the conservative majority pressed the issue further, considering an “abstinence-until-marriage” approach to sex education.
It also filled the state’s top education administrative seat with Bob Corkins — a conservative activist with no educational background who lobbied against increased school funding.
I am curious what this evidence is. Most evidence I have read about from various sites on the net is not at all. For example, modern skeletons were unearthed in layers of rock near Moab that dated to hundreds of millions of years old. Sounds like we got a winner right? Well... no... because the skeletons were hardly that old. They were Indians (Anasazi) and they were probably caught in a cave in while mining (which they did a lot of).
Now... of course many sites and books won't point that out.
Oh and by the way, when a theory has been around for quite sometime it is normally taught as a fact, especially if it has tons (both literally and metaphorically) of evidence to back it up.
I suspect that very few people have a clear and concise understanding of cellular reproduction, DNA, RNA, etc., and yet feel themselves well qualified to pronounce the THEORY of evolution as proven and peer-reviewed fact.
May I suggest asking each board member to take a 100 question test on cell genetics and molecular biology. I doubt if any of them could achieve a passing grade.
I am afraid you seem to be avoiding my question. I did not ask if creationism is a theory. I asked if it is a scientific theory.
BTW, you might be surprised to learn that there is scientific evidence that supports creationism.
I think you might be underestimating my familiarity with the literature of creationism. Yes, I would be surprised if there were scientific evidence that supports creationism, but that is not because I have not been exposed to claims that such scientific evidence exists.
Thanks for the ping!
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. It can be observed experimentally in species that replicate much faster than we do. Bacteria and fruit flies come to mind as a couple of examples.
Such repeated observations across multiple species make it fair to say that evolution is not just a theory, but also a fact.
Now if you are limiting the population under discussion to humans, I can see why you would say that evolution is a theory but not a fact. The problem is that there is no scientific basis to limit the discussion to humans when discussing evolution.
Mustafa Akyol (Turkish creationist) testifies in Kansas "Monkey Trial".
Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol. Exerpts:
Muslims should also note the great similarity between the arguments of the Intelligent Design Movement and Islamic sources. Hundreds of verses in the Qur’an call people to examine the natural world and see in it the evidence of God. Great Islamic scholars like Ghazali wrote large volumes about design in animals, plants, and the human body. What Intelligent Design theorists like Behe or Dembski do today is to refine the same argument with the findings of modern science.In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it.
Only one thing to say: Good News!
Why, when they have no training in critical thinking?
You forgot to condemn us all to Hell. Isn't that usually the next sentence in that diatribe?
Ah, sorry! I had not seen this new theory, surplanting intelligent falling as ID to creationism.
I wonder if we could apply the theory to human relationships. Schools could also teach intelligent attraction wherever they teach sexual education. The parsimony of a good theory!
I can admit that for a large number of theories that exist today; many of which can be applied in building the electronics for cell phones and personal computers.
One thing I do know is science doesn't attempt to answer phenomena with "an unknown intelligent being" like Intelligent Design does. If science did, we would be in very big trouble for we would think that lightning strikes, tornadoes, aerodynamics, and many other studies to be the simple work of God.
For example, let's say you lived near a dormant volcano but recently it has started to vent steam. Now the US Geological Survey sends out a volcanologist and after some studying the town asks him/her "is it going to erupt?". And he/she answers, "Well... it depends on if this town has been faithful to God or not."
I would think you would want another volcanologist.
Are you serious? Is he even still alive (come to think of it, does he even really exist to begin with)?
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.