[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."

[derheimwill]

Be specific and discreet (i. e. poiniant and germain)!

[PatrickHenry]

So everything that lived back then ...

Well, just about everything. Not counting bacteria, some worms, etc.

[malakhi]

"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."

How long before she calls for blasphemy trials for those who disagree with her?

[Dimensio]

I am a person in search of the truth and the truth is neither creationist or evolutionist can prove or recreate their theories.

The evolution side is the only one that has a theory. And no theory is ever proven.

[Dimensio]

How would you know, unless you could see what the distant descendants will look like?

Er, are you saying that there are fossils that are alive?

[Dimensio]

All you evo's need to do is let a fair and equal voice be heard.

What "equal" voice?

[185JHP]

BTTT

[Dimensio]

To an Evolutionist, typically, there is little to debate because they believe their theology is above reproach based on the idea that it is, of course, immune from the "fallacies" of religion and therefore the only true science.

Why do creationists invent such bizarre "explanations" as to why evolution is still accepted by biologists in the futile attempt to pretend that the only reason that it still stands is that no one has brought forth a credible challenge to the theory? If they spent half as much time doing real research as they do coming up with tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories on a secret cabal of scientists dedicated to support what is allegedly the biggest and longest-running hoax on professional biology (often claimed to be a direct attempt to destroy religion and, with it, all of Western Civilization), they might actually have a real claim to bring to the table.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Morris said she is a Christian who believes the account of creation in the Book of Genesis is literally true.

Which would explain why the Kansas board hired Moslem Fundamentalist Mustafa Akyol as a witness.

[RobbyS]

Have the original autograph do you? This is romantic piffle.

[Dimensio]

This is romantic piffle.

Why?

[RobbyS]

A Muslim could explain how life appeared from the primordial soup as well as any scientist can. First, you have nothing and then you have something. But the something is all we know.

[Mulch]

Always three types of folks here on these evolution-creation discussions:

1. Classic Evolutionist - No creator god exists. Man result of evolution - evolution is random.
2. Classic Creationist - Creator god exists. Man created intentionally and as is.
3. Evolutionist/Creationist - Creator god exists. Man result of evolution - evolution follows rules established by creator god.

Can these three philosophies be represented in school?

[TitansAFC]

Why did you even respond to the post?

In just a few posts (#44-#48), you've managed to corroborate evErything I just said.

Challenged the motives of those who dared question you, rather than the science. Declared all challenges to your beliefs "uncredible." Ranted on about how nobody has done half as much research as you or they'd obviously have no disagreements (a very funny claim in my particular case). Declared no other theories as "equal" to your own. And, as is unusually common at FR on this topic, you have declared that you've read my mind and found tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

You have just made everything I said true.

[vpintheak]

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. Myself having fairly recently been forced to sit through a biology class in college, I can tell you that there is no equal footing. It was, "Evolution is the way it is." Nothing else. And this from an institute of higher learning. I found the science classes allowed the least amount of critical thinking than anyo fmy other classes. Including history.

[edsheppa]

If by scientific analysis, the TOE can be shown to be flawed in one or more areas then why are evolutionists not willing to discuss it?

They are. The fact is that, contrary to creationist propaganda, evolutionary theory has been tested repeatedly and, in a few cases, found wanting and subsequently modified. Here are a few examples. Darwin's original conception of genetic blending was wrong - replaced with Mendelian genetics. Natural selection isn't enough to explain all diversity - augmented with neutral drift. Strict common descent found wanting - added endosymbiosis and lateral transfer.

Of course the number of tests that it has passed are far more numerous. Scientists consider the theory very reliable because it is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.

[Dimensio]

In just a few posts (#44-#48), you've managed to corroborate evErything I just said.

Yes, I'm sure that I have. Somehow conspiracy-theorist creationsits manage to construe anything with which they don't agree as supporting evidence for the massive conspiracy.

Challenged the motives of those who dared question you, rather than the science.

In what post did I do this and how did I do it? Be specific.

Declared all challenges to your beliefs "uncredible."

Got a credible challenge to evolution that you'd like to bring to the table? Do so, and I'll point out exactly how it's been addressed before.

Ranted on about how nobody has done half as much research as you or they'd obviously have no disagreements (a very funny claim in my particular case).

Woah, now you're reading things that just aren't in my posts. I never compared anyone's research to my own. I simply pointed out that many creationists don't do any research at all. It's true, they don't. A cursory look at the creationists who regurgitate the same tired and refuted arguments -- such as the second law nonsense, the false claim that no transitionals have ever been found, the "explanation" of how the Grand Canyon was carved by the great flood by comparing it to completely different geological structures -- is solid evidence that a great number of creationists "think" that they know better even though they're just repeating arguments without actually doing any research into the matter themselves.

Declared no other theories as "equal" to your own.

If another theory had been presented, I wouldn't speak as I do, but thus far I've heard nothing but claims that there are other theories. When I press for details, I either get silence, or I get an explanation that is not consistent with a scientific theory (for example, I ask how "Intelligent Design" theory is falsifiable, and thus far the only explanation I got back was from someone who admitted that not only was his falsification criteria "lacking", but even admitted that ID is totally unfalsifiable, meaning that it isn't science).

And, as is unusually common at FR on this topic, you have declared that you've read my mind and found tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

You're the one coming in here and making sweeping claims about people who accept evolution as if they all have some hidden agenda to keep the "truth" out. Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but you're not going to score any points for accusing me of claiming that you do exactly what you're doing.

[Dimensio]

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

1) No theory in science is ever proven.

2) A theory in science must meet several specific criteria. Explain how Intelligent Design meets the criteria. Among things, explain what Intelligent Design theory predicts, how it can be tested and offer a hypothetical observation that would falsify it.

[Coyoteman]

This is romantic piffle.

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? I have all of these in stock for quick delivery.

Or are all of these creation stories romantic piffle too, all but your own version which is gospel (if you'll pardon the pun)?

Do you see the point I am trying to make?

Probably not. So, without further ado...

Creation of the Earth

The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.

Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.

When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.

Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California

[Coyoteman]

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. Myself having fairly recently been forced to sit through a biology class in college, I can tell you that there is no equal footing. It was, "Evolution is the way it is." Nothing else. And this from an institute of higher learning. I found the science classes allowed the least amount of critical thinking than anyo fmy other classes. Including history.

And your religious training? How much equal footing did you get there? Or, is that different!