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

Skip to comments.

State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)
The Wichita Eagle ^ | August 1, 2008 | LORI YOUNT

Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.

A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.

Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.

In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.

This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...

(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; education; election; elections; evolution; intelligentdesign; kansas; schoolboard; scienceeducation; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,153 next last
Time to put solid conservatives back on the board who are willing to vote for curriculum that includes scientific evidence for and against Darwin's ToE. Get out the vote, Kansans!
1 posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; metmom; Alamo-Girl; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; ...

ping!


2 posted on 08/18/2008 9:37:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What will Kansas high school graduates do when more of the top tier American universities refuse to accept students who have been been taught science based on Creationism?


3 posted on 08/18/2008 9:43:36 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This seems a little pie-in-the-sky. The evolutionists will never allow falsification to be discussed openly.


4 posted on 08/18/2008 9:50:22 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


5 posted on 08/18/2008 9:50:44 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

==What will Kansas high school graduates do when more of the top tier American universities refuse to accept students who have been been taught science based on Creationism?

What kind of wussy quesetion is that? What would you do if a publically funded university refused to accept you because of your race, religion or political philosophy?


6 posted on 08/18/2008 9:51:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Actually, if you read the article, the margin between conservatives and moderates/liberals is so thin, the science standards have changed four times in the last eight years. Moreover, currently there is a 6-4 split on the board in favor of censoring the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin’s ToE, but there are 5 SEATS up for grabs! So in this particular case, wresting the science standards back from the libs won’t be nearly as difficult as one might think.


7 posted on 08/18/2008 10:00:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What kind of wussy quesetion is that? What would you do if a publically funded university refused to accept you because of your race, religion or political philosophy?

You won't get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits.

Why do you think your personal idols and demons are any more suitable than those in a scientific setting?

8 posted on 08/18/2008 10:00:42 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What would you do if a publically funded university refused to accept you because of your race, religion or political philosophy?

A public university could not refuse admission bases on race, religion or political philosophy however, they could deny admission if a person graduated from a high school that taught them that 2+2=7

For now, the University of California has said that it will not accept students who were taught with Creationist texts, and I would expect that University of Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, Harvard and Yale will do or are doing the same thing. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2061218/posts

Thus, Kansas high school graduates will find themselves hitting the book at S.E. Bufford County Community College.

9 posted on 08/18/2008 10:03:48 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.

Well shoot, we allow evolution into the science classroom, even though it's a bunch of question-begging, circularly-reasoned, assumptions-required, philosophical-substantiated hocus-pocus. What's the problem?

10 posted on 08/18/2008 10:07:04 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==You won’t get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits.

Then how did Darwin’s RM+NS god ever find it’s way into the science classroom?


11 posted on 08/18/2008 10:07:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; Coyoteman

And how about when it is raining while the sun is shining? How does science explain that?


12 posted on 08/18/2008 10:14:05 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

==A public university could not refuse admission bases on race, religion or political philosophy however, they could deny admission if a person graduated from a high school that taught them that 2+2=7

The fact that they are teaching Darwin’s discredited “theory” means they are teaching 2+2=7 right now. If the students are also taught the scientific evidence that falisfies Darwin’s ToE, then they will be taught 2+2=4 and 2+2=7...and then the students can make up their own minds re: Darwin’s fairytale.


13 posted on 08/18/2008 10:16:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
It's not that they were taught with creationists texts, but that they weren't taught with bona fide SCIENCE texts.

I'm used to creationists' lies, however, and your distortion is par for the course. It's also curious that the people with the strongest religious faith are not at all threatened by science.

14 posted on 08/18/2008 10:16:54 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

==Well shoot, we allow evolution into the science classroom, even though it’s a bunch of question-begging, circularly-reasoned, assumptions-required, philosophical-substantiated hocus-pocus. What’s the problem?

That’s precisely what the evos fear the most—exposure!


15 posted on 08/18/2008 10:18:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

How is science “based on” anything other than the scientific process? Can science be “based on” either creationism or evolution? If so, how do the two versions of science differ? What has evolution-based science given us that any other kind of science hasn’t?

Would you prefer that those who believe in a Creator just shut up and hide in a closet?


16 posted on 08/18/2008 10:20:55 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
That’s precisely what the evos fear the most—exposure!

Yeah, that last 150 years of biology has been reaaaaal stealthy.

17 posted on 08/18/2008 10:22:17 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Now that you covered that. Could you please answer one more math question?

How is it that when I go hiking in the Texas Hill Country that I find 90,000,000 year old rocks on an earth that is only 5,743 years old?


18 posted on 08/18/2008 10:23:16 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

“You won’t get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits.”

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!

Show me ONE scientist who advocates I.D. who has said anything even remotely close to this.

The facts (circumstantial as they are) that support the concept of evolution don’t come close to being on par with a mathematical certainty like 2+2=4.

Which is worse:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the laws that govern them.

With no cause the universe appeared out of no where for no reason and gave rise to sentient beings who think this is plausible.


19 posted on 08/18/2008 10:23:55 AM PDT by ks_shooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Let the teachers decide and have educational freedom. A real open mind is not one that attempts to support one dogma or another. There are scientific studies that support the concept of ID through the study of the inherent complexity not just of biological organisms but also the universe. This would not be an issue if Scientists were not constantly trying to write atheism into Science and making stupid comments about how some such and such finding rules out the concept of God.

Society has been hurt by the idea of secular reductionism on origins not just of our species but also of our universe. I personally think it is good for people to believe themselves the product of divinity and thus aspire to that. The positives far out weigh any quaint ignorance that results and it surely is better than the bitter message that distilled calls the young to not think of themselves much better than animals. Are we surprised that they often behave worse.

Human exceptionalism I believe is important. Humanity even by the analysis of someone who sticks strictly to scientific analysis and avoids the best they can the philosophical debate can clearly see that Humanity arose under very special circumstances. It was not simple modification but radical change that resulted in modern humanity and we still do not know what caused that radical change from a strictly Scientific standpoint. We know that several groups of genes involved in the development of the complexity of human brains were the product of a “special event” and that also now the evolution of genes in human brains have slowed to a crawl. There are other interesting things. Humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48. It appears that in humans a special event occurred which led chromosomes to fuse.

http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html

There is no reason for scientists to take such a hostile view to human exceptionalism. If they did not take such extreme views not supported by the evidence in an attempt to purge a God they see in a negative light then the current battle in schools and society would not be such a divisive one. They can no more disprove God than a fool can blot out the sun by putting a bucket over his head and it is not their job to do such a thing. Their job is to present their findings and leave it at that not to prove an atheist dogma or a religious dogma. Yet I can not count the times I’ve seen them go off telling evolutionary stories as if to provide some primer on atheism to young minds.

That said I do not see any great threat from belief in a creator. The foundations of all the modern sciences were the result of the pursuits of mostly religious men. Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and on and on all managed to make scientific progress all while to their deaths holding a belief in a Creator. People of faith can always take comfort that people of much greater intellect and study than they were believers and are believers.


20 posted on 08/18/2008 10:25:37 AM PDT by Maelstorm (John McCain is ready to be commander in chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

You mean 150 years of Darwin’s ReignOfError? I quite agree, it’s time to pull Darwin’s discredited theory down and reopen the debate re: origins/biological change.


21 posted on 08/18/2008 10:27:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

==How is it that when I go hiking in the Texas Hill Country that I find 90,000,000 year old rocks on an earth that is only 5,743 years old?

You sound very confused. The rocks are either one or the other.


22 posted on 08/18/2008 10:28:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Would you prefer that those who believe in a Creator just shut up and hide in a closet?

Simply because I accept Evolution as fact does not mean that I am an atheist. I also understand that the School House and Church House have two very different functions and I would prefer what is taught in your church not be taught in school.

Moreover, I would prefer that my kid's be educated with a science curriculum that will not bar them from being accepted in America's top universities.

23 posted on 08/18/2008 10:31:13 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Very well said. And it should also be noted that it is the Temple of Darwin who fears a presentation of the evidence on both sides, not the other way around.


24 posted on 08/18/2008 10:31:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So, how old are the rocks on earth?

Less than 10,000 years old or millions or billions of years old?


25 posted on 08/18/2008 10:33:06 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rudder; GodGunsGuts
they weren't taught with bona fide SCIENCE texts.

Oh, and we know how great those are.

26 posted on 08/18/2008 10:36:20 AM PDT by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

==Less than 10,000 years old or millions or billions of years old?

I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.


27 posted on 08/18/2008 10:37:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

If a Creator exists, then He indeed created “all this.” In fact, in truth, historically and otherwise. And such truth should be taught in both school house and church house.

Do you advocate, then, that those who believe in a Creator should not be accepted “in America’s top universities”? Do you believe in the existence of a Creator, but deny that He ever actually truly created anything?

Truth is truth.


28 posted on 08/18/2008 10:45:05 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Do you believe that man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time?


29 posted on 08/18/2008 10:46:31 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Sorry, but I replied to you when intended to address a “creationist.”


30 posted on 08/18/2008 10:46:34 AM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; valkyry1
"You won't get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits."

But apparently you can claim to have a PhD and advocate aliens coming to earth to create life, humans discovering time travel to go back and create themselves and any other wacky notion you can come up with.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061218/posts?page=650#650

31 posted on 08/18/2008 10:50:35 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Yes I do. Do you believe that random chance plus natural selection created all life on earth?


32 posted on 08/18/2008 10:52:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Do you advocate, then, that those who believe in a Creator should not be accepted “in America’s top universities”

Under no circumstances should a person be denied admission into a university based on his faith. However, a university does the right to deny a person admission if their high school curriculum does not meet the admission their admission standards.

Therefore, an Alabama Bible college can deny admission to a person whose high school science background is based on evolution and Harvard and Yale can deny admission to a student whose high school science background is based on creationism.

33 posted on 08/18/2008 10:53:04 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Oh, there “are no scientists” on the other side of the debate.

The evo/atheist/billions of years crowd defines them as “not scientists”, avoiding, therefore, any need to address the debate.

In dating rocks, what ASSUMPTIONS are made, fellas?
Are those assumptions valid? Do you know the starting conditions, absolutely?


34 posted on 08/18/2008 10:54:59 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Alabama Bible college can deny admission to a person whose high school science background is based on evolution

The guns of govt through the court system and instigated by the ACLU would prevent this.

Harvard and Yale can deny admission to a student whose high school science background is based on creationism.

Ironically, these institutions wouldn't exist without creation believing Christians.

35 posted on 08/18/2008 10:56:54 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.

The issue has been debated and settled.

(Your side lost. You guys are worse than Al Gore! "Just one more recount, pretty please!")

36 posted on 08/18/2008 10:58:36 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Evolutionist wacky hypotheses bump!

And remember folks, Coyoteman says that TOE works equally well under any of those scenarios.


37 posted on 08/18/2008 11:01:39 AM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
What kind of wussy quesetion is that?

You go get 'em tiger. The ACLU could use the money. Kansas has more than Dover.

38 posted on 08/18/2008 11:02:31 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

All I know is that as a child when I watched the Flintstone’s I knew it was fiction.

As for what force or entity tipped over the first domino which led to the current array of life on earth, I will never be wise enough to know. However, I do know that what ever those forces were it all began billions of years ago.


39 posted on 08/18/2008 11:03:02 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.

Is there any evidence they haven't been allowed to present?

40 posted on 08/18/2008 11:04:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ks_shooter

sentient beings who are sentient by some sort of random mutation process that accidentally adds information to the genome that in some way is beneficial enough to make the organism survive better than its competitors (others of the same species),

yet for some reason develops a common set of values that just happen to line up with the last 6 commandments of a religion that such a theory is said to debunk,

yet for some reason also, even if these values are “beneficial to survival”, somehow at the same time retain a desire to go against this beneficial drive.

And we’re to believe that the reasoning of the minds developed by this process is correct?


41 posted on 08/18/2008 11:06:17 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

I can say with certainty that EVERY science text throughout history has been wrong about something.


42 posted on 08/18/2008 11:07:08 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Never hire the ACLU to fight a conservative fight. You’ll just be empowering and enriching communists.

Go to the ACLJ.


43 posted on 08/18/2008 11:09:05 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

==All I know is that as a child when I watched the Flintstone’s I knew it was fiction.

Then why can’t you apply the same logic to Darwin’s discredited fairytale?

==However, I do know that what ever those forces were it all began billions of years ago.

Faith statement.


44 posted on 08/18/2008 11:10:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
However, I do know that what ever those forces were it all began billions of years ago.

Present your evidence of this faith. What assumptions is it based on, and do you even know?

45 posted on 08/18/2008 11:11:32 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
But apparently you can claim to have a PhD and advocate aliens coming to earth to create life, humans discovering time travel to go back and create themselves and any other wacky notion you can come up with.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061218/posts?page=650#650

As usual you either didn't understand the post, or you lied about it. Here is my post #650:

The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question. Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those.

Lie: claiming that I advocated any of these. They are hypotheses.

Lie: claiming that I don't have a Ph.D. You know nothing about my educational background.

Lie: claiming that the theory of evolution depends on any of these. The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations.

46 posted on 08/18/2008 11:13:23 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==Is there any evidence they haven’t been allowed to present?

Haven’t you been paying attention? The Temple of Darwin teamed up with the Communist ACLU to prevent students from learning about both sides of the scientific debate.


47 posted on 08/18/2008 11:13:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrB

We are in the majority. If we ever got our act together, all the definitions in the world wouldn’t save their state-enforced hold on power.


48 posted on 08/18/2008 11:15:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
... both sides of the scientific debate.

Within science there are not two sides to this issue, nor is there a debate.

The "debate" is creationists attacking science in an attempt to get their particular brand of superstition taught in place of science--and having the nerve to call it science! What a joke!

49 posted on 08/18/2008 11:16:27 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations.

If that had any truth to it Darwinists would not be in fits over ID. Perhaps Darwinists themselves are unaware that the TOE is independent of origins.

50 posted on 08/18/2008 11:17:09 AM PDT by Hacksaw (Deport illegals the same way they came here - one at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,153 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