Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)
ABC49 ^ | January 9, 2007 | Scott Rothschild

Posted on 01/10/2007 7:06:45 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Just minutes after a new moderate majority took control of the State Board of Education today, the issue of evolution came back up.

The board voted to hear about proposed science standards that support evolution later in the day with a possible decision on them next month.

The issue produced a long line of speakers both for and against evolution during a public comment period.

Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

But supporters of evolution urged the board to change the current standards that include criticism of evolution and were put together by proponents of intelligent design.

Those standards were adopted by the 6-4 conservative majority in 2005. Now the board has a 6-4 moderate majority.

In other action, board members elected Bill Wagnon, a Democrat from Topeka, as their new chairman.

Carol Rupe, a Republican from Wichita, was voted vice chair, and Sue Gamble, a Republican from Shawnee, was elected legislative coordinator. All three are considered moderates.

After taking the chair, Wagnon urged members on the often contentious board to work together to improve the public school system.

“There are ways of promoting effective change without undermining confidence in it,” Wagnon said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: antiscience; commonsenseprevails; crevolist; evolution; evosareantiscience; idjunkscience; idlosesagain; intelligentdesign; superstition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321 next last

1 posted on 01/10/2007 7:06:47 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



Now, everyone. Be nice.
2 posted on 01/10/2007 7:07:43 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bump


3 posted on 01/10/2007 7:09:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Those standards were adopted by the 6-4 conservative majority in 2005. Now the board has a 6-4 moderate majority.

Funny how this gets presented. Conservatives versus moderates.

4 posted on 01/10/2007 7:11:04 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

Now there is someone highly qualified to talk about science, let alone biology, or even evolution. < / sarc>

5 posted on 01/10/2007 7:14:57 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Funny how this gets presented. Conservatives versus moderates.
And wrong on so many levels. Evolution is established science. ID is radical quackery.

The most conservative choice you can make in biology is to side with the 99.9% of all biologists who see evolution as established biological theory against a radical fringe (composed mostly of non-biologists) pushing the pseudo-scientific non-theory of ID.

6 posted on 01/10/2007 7:18:08 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc30

he needs to evolve.


7 posted on 01/10/2007 7:28:38 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Those standards were adopted by the 6-4 conservative majority in 2005. Now the board has a 6-4 moderate majority.

This and all the other places should be a warning to Republicans everywhere, trying to replace Science with mythology is a loser every single time

8 posted on 01/10/2007 7:35:35 AM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Would you say Kaufman was unqualified to comment if he said they should just teach science? Or would you applaud him for speaking the truth because he agrees with you?


9 posted on 01/10/2007 8:02:26 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Would you say Kaufman was unqualified to comment if he said they should just teach science?

If a science teacher criticized Kaufman for the way he expounded theology would you give the critic much credibility?

10 posted on 01/10/2007 8:04:47 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; doc30

Moot question. You know nothing of this man's scientific acumen, and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.


11 posted on 01/10/2007 8:13:30 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Do I need to remind you of all the mistakes, fakes and frauds that "the majority" has pulled and/or has been fooled into supporting?


12 posted on 01/10/2007 8:28:29 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Moot question. You know nothing of this man's scientific acumen, and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.

Based on knowing he is only a physicians assisitant and a pastor does not indicate he is a scientist. The term "highly qualified scientists who are creationists," particularly for YECer's, is oxymoronic.

13 posted on 01/10/2007 8:46:20 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

But it does stand up AS pure religion.

14 posted on 01/10/2007 8:48:03 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Do I need to remind you of all the mistakes, fakes and frauds that "the majority" has pulled and/or has been fooled into supporting?

If you can provide bonafide evidence for this, I will be genuinely surprised. And don't bother with piltdown man. It was biologists that found that one and were initially suspect because it didn't fit with the model of human evolution. I should also remind you that most of the arguements comming from creationists are disingenous.

15 posted on 01/10/2007 8:50:25 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

Now there is someone highly qualified to talk about science, let alone biology, or even evolution. < / sarc>

A pastor? If he subscribes, for example, to the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research Society he may indeed be unqualified to speak on matters of science.

See my post #127, upthread for details.

16 posted on 01/10/2007 8:53:37 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doc30

A person does not have to be a scientist to have scientific knowledge. You are impugning that knowledge sight-unseen, a very unbecoming form of slander.

Your "oxymoron" comment merely demonstrates my point for me. Thank you.


17 posted on 01/10/2007 9:20:13 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Archaeoraptor, Java Man, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, Cro-Magnon, Nebraska Man and yes, Piltdown Man. It doesn't matter who discovered the fraud; the fact is, scientists were taken in by this discovery for decades.

I am not asserting these are all intentional frauds put forth by evolutionists to fool the public. (They couldn't get away with that today anyway.) I am saying they were fooled by all these.
18 posted on 01/10/2007 9:30:35 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doc30; DaveLoneRanger
And don't bother with piltdown man. It was biologists that found that one and were initially suspect because it didn't fit with the model of human evolution.

Except that it took over 40 years to expose that one.

It doesn't matter that *biologists* found that one. So what? It was perpetrated in an act of deliberate deceit by those who wanted to provide evidence to support the ToE beyond the shadow of a doubt.

That strongly suggests that those who adhere to the ToE are well aware of the weaknesses in the theory it they felt that the only way left to bolster it was by fraud. The length of time it took for the Piltdown Man fraud to be exposed also suggests that scientists wanted to believe it was true, and so didn't challenge it for a long time, until it absolutely couldn't be ignored any more.

19 posted on 01/10/2007 9:55:31 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Moot question. You know nothing of this man's scientific acumen...

Actually I do. I know people who know him, and he's has none.

...and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.

And you, obviously, disregard the opinions of the many more highly respected, highly qualified scientists who believe that the evidence supports evolution theory. Now what do we do?

20 posted on 01/10/2007 9:58:46 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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