Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Kansas Education] Board member Morris: Evolution a 'fairy tale'
The Wichita Eagle ^ | 13 June 2005 | JOHN HANNA

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.

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."

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; kansas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 721-736 next last
To: PatrickHenry

God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain

61 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by durasell (Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ah, so now you have TWO babes.

Do you still think the next Lysenko isn't one of these? And before you say "It can't happen here", I think you should read (or reread, whatever the case) It Can't Happen Here and remember (learn) where the Big Sellout came from. After all, Lysenko was a nothing agronomist in Azerbaijan when he got his start.

Is Kansas the Azerbaijan of the 21st century? These are the things bad dreams are made of.

62 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mulch
1. Classic Evolutionist - No creator god exists. Man result of evolution - evolution is random.

Evolution is not random. I don't know if any gods exist.
63 posted on 06/13/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT by Dimensio ( <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Carbon Dated a fossil...

Whoops? You were on a roll until there. You can't carbon date a fossil. Fossils are rock, no carbon.

You can carbon date a shell, a bone, even old charcoal if its from a good context, but you can't carbon date a rock.

Before you lecture scientists on science, better bone up on it a little.

64 posted on 06/13/2005 8:23:27 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Says it all...

65 posted on 06/13/2005 8:23:58 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Not many indian traditions can be traced to an authentic source. They are all "tales as told to " and recorded by some white guy. People who regard the Gospels as fabrications (that in the most literate society in the Roman world) will accept this sort of stuff. No many tape recorders in the 16th century when whire first encountered indian cultures. In a sense, it is condescending, ignoring how quickly indians picked up new technology and new ideas.

66 posted on 06/13/2005 8:25:45 PM PDT by RobbyS (chirho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

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

We don't need to be fair. This is not about equal time. There are plenty of other crackpot ideas out there besides creationism and ID that are being ignored. If you don't like it, come up with your own theory and displace evolution. But you can't.

The unfairness is perceived only by those against evolution. That's why IDers need to get the government to impose itself on science. Fortunately, the inmates can't run the asylum and ID will inevitably lose.

67 posted on 06/13/2005 8:36:15 PM PDT by ValenB4 ("Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." - Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!

68 posted on 06/13/2005 8:39:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"Mainstream science is a consensus view literally formed by tens of thousands (of) people who literally studied these issues."

This matters little to creationists.

69 posted on 06/13/2005 8:43:07 PM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Do the same for evolution wise guy.

70 posted on 06/13/2005 8:43:17 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Mulch

I have a fourth theory:

First, there was a giant pile of fat. The giant lugiska creature turned the pile of fat into the universe and all of the plants and animals.

This is why lots of us are fat.

I guess we have to teach my theory now. It is written on the internet, so it must be true.

71 posted on 06/13/2005 8:46:35 PM PDT by Poser (Joining Belly Girl in the Pajamahadeen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DaGman

Everyone else being wrong is no reason to stop being right[eous].

72 posted on 06/13/2005 8:50:55 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Altair333
You don't help the cause of science by posting blasphemy. The impression that evolution is inherently hostile to religion is what is behind this creationism nonsense.
73 posted on 06/13/2005 9:12:14 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Jesus horses are blasphemous?

74 posted on 06/13/2005 9:15:41 PM PDT by cubram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cubram
Perhaps blasphemy is a bit strong. It's disrespectful.
75 posted on 06/13/2005 9:23:38 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Do you actually have a point to make, or do you just spout stupid one-liners?

76 posted on 06/13/2005 9:28:21 PM PDT by Dimensio ( <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
O.K.--my two cents.

I don't believe in random evolution because:

1. Evolutionists believe life spontaneously began in the "primordial ooze" with no particular cause for no particular reason(pure chance). Why haven't those who believe this, with all the best technology the world has to offer, been able to replicate this in a laboratory?

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

3. The same Evolutionists as in #2 above also are the prime movers of the Global Warming Hoax. Again, how can I take seriously so called "academics" who push such balderdash?

4. The Big Bang requires us to grant exception to the Law of Conservation of Mass. Something out of nothing violates this Law of Physics. Isn't a law of physics with an exception not a law of physics? And without Conservation of Mass does not the rest start to fall apart?

5. Very learned cosmologists currently debating the merits of string theory openly discuss the possible existence of parallel universes (the loaf model). This used to be only the stuff of science fiction writers. 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?
77 posted on 06/13/2005 9:30:33 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Predictions of evolution.

Evolution could be falsified by finding a series of Precambrian rabbit fossils, or finding a transposon in whales and cows that is not present in hippos.

The "tests" for evolution are the processes by which the predictions have been borne out, and the processes by which one would hypothetically discover the aforementioned falsification observations.

Now, can you present predictions, tests and falsification criteria for Intelligent Design, or were you not expecting that I'd be able to satisfy your previous demand and thus aren't prepared with a proper response?
78 posted on 06/13/2005 9:32:23 PM PDT by Dimensio ( <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

My point is that your arguments are primarily ad hominem.

79 posted on 06/13/2005 9:32:28 PM PDT by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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.

All very good questions ...... and questions just as good on the flip-side could be asked for which it would be just as hard to produce satisfactory answers. Let's take a slightly different approach as to addressing the credibility of ID (and while ID could mean a lot of things to different people, let's assume it means God for the sake of this argument).

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. The visual evidence that heaven and earth exist is undeniable but that particular statement (Genesis 1:1) can neither be proved or disproved. This is also going to be the case for lots of passages/statements in the Bible. 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).

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. 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)? What I'm saying is that there is no category 3 (Passages for which there is strong corroborating evidence to support its falsehood.) Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period. (My only stipulation is that you don't use some hocus pocus recent version where who knows how things have been translated to please the translator - go back to the King James Version if you will.) You see, if you can prove that, you really have something because a single error means that nothing else can be trusted either including the creation account (because the Bible claims to be inspired by God and therefore is infallible). Should be easy, right? Good luck in your search.

80 posted on 06/13/2005 9:43:09 PM PDT by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 721-736 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson