Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Slate article on the evolution debate

Slate: What Matters in Kansas

The author would certainly fall into the pro-evolution camp, but he reaches a tidy conclusion about the debate:
It's too bad liberals and scientists don't welcome this test. It's too bad they go around sneering, as censors of science often have, that the new theory is too radical, offensive, or embarrassing to be taken seriously. It's too bad they think good science consists of believing the right things. In the long view—the evolutionary view—good science consists of using evidence and experiment to find out whether what we thought was right is wrong. If they do that in Kansas, by whatever name, that's all that matters.

A note from Americans for Progress...


About the science standard’s hearings…I have a Bachelor of Science degree and have had an appreciation of the study of science. I attended part of Thursday and all of Saturday’s evolution hearings and heard a lot of scientific evidence from many very credible PhD scientists that conflicts with the theory of evolution. However, not one article in the media mentions any of those facts, only attempts to discredit by misrepresentations of attendees and the process.

Please make sure to note that this was the stated strategy of the Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) in an internal memo from their media contact and is quoted in Dr. Abrams’ letter, below. It is quite enlightening and explains why we are not going to read in the media what really happened in the hearings. There would be no embarrassment for Kansas on this issue if the opposition was not purposely arranging for it, as they say they also did in 1999. This media bias is reprehensible and shouldn’t be unchallenged.

I understand that none of the 4 “moderate” board members attended the meetings; Bill Wagnon, Carol Rupe, Janet Waugh, & Sue Gamble. How can they vote on the proposed standard revisions when they refused to view the evidence? The media is saying the 6 “conservative” board members already had their minds made up; funny, shouldn’t they say the same for the 4 who didn’t show for any of the testimony?

  • A call is needed to express appreciation and support for the State Board for holding these hearings to give Kansans the scientific evidence for the proposed changes to the science standards. They are being unjustly maligned in the media here, nationally and internationally. The SBOE website link is and the State Board’s number is 785-296-3203.
  • We also need anyone who can to attend on Thursday, May 12th, in Topeka at Memorial Hall, 10th and Jackson at 8:30 a.m. for the oppositions’ statements.

Please pass this on….


Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Democrats, Christians and Social Issues

A break from the evolution debate as David Limbaugh once again pens a great column, "Democrats, Christians and Social Issues."

You may recall that Mr. Limbaugh was in Topeka a few short months ago and gave a terrific speech. He's one of my favorite columnists.

Some excerpts are in order:
"...the national Democratic Party's approach to Christians is analogous to an abusive husband in complete denial, seeking reconciliation when it suits his purposes, but otherwise engaged in a pattern of abuse."

"The popular culture does routinely mock and demean Christians, who are the only group not protected by the selective "tolerance" of political correctness, but mere derision is not our primary grievance. We cite it mainly to demonstrate the antipathy of the secularist culture toward people of faith.

More troubling are the discrimination against Christians at the hands of the government -- mainly the courts -- and the consequent suppression of their religious liberty, and the scrubbing of Christianity from the public square, as if it were a contagious airborne disease."

"I don't highlight these abuses for the sake of whining, to evoke sympathy, to incite counter-abuse against the perpetrators or to portray Christians as helpless victims. My purpose is to wake up the dormant, naive, oblivious and apathetic among us. As Christians we will only lose our religious liberties and be defeated in the Culture War, if we permit it to happen."

"While many secularists seem to believe otherwise, Christians want neither a Christian theocracy, nor the suppression of religious liberties of any other group. Christianity stands for freedom, and we will vigorously defend the religious liberty of anyone, regardless of his faith or lack thereof. But we must demand an equal seat at the table of religious liberties."

"Most Christian conservatives are not single issue -- or even single category of issues -- people. But they do care deeply about social issues and believe in electing executives who will appoint constitutionalist judges and legislators who will confirm them -- and who share and will promote, within the law, their values.

For liberals to woo Christian conservatives, they must stop the pattern of abuse and get on the right side of the Culture War. Pretending to do so just won't be enough."

Remember the words of Jesus: "The people of the world will hate you because you belong to me, for they don't know God who sent me."

Monday, May 09, 2005

The revenge of the nerds

Scientists Make Case to the Public

"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."

The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.

"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."

It IS too bad that they have dodged this debate. If their cases are so strong, why duck the opportunity to make it? I'm happy that we at least get a chance to debate this issue instead of having a theory blindly accepted as fact and pushed down our students' throats.

The reason they don't want to engage in this debate is they look down their pointy noises at us "rubes" who think we didn't evolve from sea scum. We're under their birkenstocked feet, unworthy of being in the shadows of their tweed, elbow-patched jacketed frames. If they graced us with their debating prowess, they would need to acknowledge that there IS another side to the issue.

All they can do is send Pedro to make their case for them. ~sigh~ We get a chance for a REAL head-to-head debate, and they sit it out. They'd rather stand outside to the adoring media masses and rant and rave about the dolts inside. It's all so much nicer when they can go to their classrooms and fill their unsuspecting students with whatever malarcky they personally feel is scientifically correct.

Well, excuse us taxpaying citizens for putting a crimp in your plans.

Evolution Debate, part tre

I found a solid quote today from an anonymous source:
It's an odd 'science' that will not endure investigation, criticism and scrutiny, but that is exactly what the evolutionist wants. A science class would be a poor one indeed that did not present the theory of evolution to its students. But that same science ought to be a search for truth. Closing the door to debate is the sure way to see that never happens.
Amen. Evolutionists everywhere are decrying the idea that a school would even DARE tell a student that there is controversy surrounding the theory of evolution. The unmitigated gall!

Friday, May 06, 2005

WorldNetDaily article on the evolution debate

This from Jack Cashill, who is also one of my favorite contributors to Ingram's Magazine:

Explosive Memo Reveals Darwinist Strategy for Kansas

From the media director from Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS):
My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999 ... notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray [the school board majority] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc.
In other words, the goal is to make anybody who thinks Darwinism as a theory of origins falls short of being a proven fact, and therefore shouldn't be taught as such, is a religious whacko who wants to impose religion on science students. AND...of course...they want to make it seem that even having this debate is going to bring embarrassment to the state.

Well, among people with little Darwin fish (the ones with the legs) signs on the back of their cars, I guess having this debate IS an embarrassment because they are sold out to the belief that their ancestors were amoebas. The only people who should be embarrassed are the media hand-wringers, the academic elite berkenstock wearers, and the few people who can't possibly grasp anything as big as a created planet with divinely inspired life-forms.

I'm glad there's a debate. The more the merrier. And I'm glad it's in Kansas. We have a state where debate is still allowed!!! At least those with opposing views to the academically correct theories that are taught as fact can be heard here.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Kansas Evolution Debate, part deux

From the NY Times:
In the first of three daylong hearings characterized here as the direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified today about the flaws they find in Darwin's theory of evolution, transforming a small auditorium into a forum on one of the most controversial questions in education and politics: How to teach about the origin of life?

The hearings by the Kansas State Board of Education- one part science lesson, one part political theater - were set off by proposed changes to Kansas's science standards intended to bring a more critical approach to the teaching of Darwinism. The sessions provided perhaps the highest-profile stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it. Critics argue that intelligent design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism.


But the debate was as much about religion and politics as science and education, with Mr. Irigonegaray pressing witnesses to find mentions of the theories they were denouncing, like humanism and naturalism, in the state standards, and asking whether they believe all scientists are atheists.

"These people are going to obfuscate about these definitions," complained Jack Krebs, vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for Science, whose members, wearing "I support strong science education" buttons, filled many of the 180 auditorium seats not taken by journalists from as far away as France. "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make science stand for atheism, so they can fight atheism."

Doesn't science stand for atheism? I thought that, since they can't see or touch God, true scientists can't believe in God nor can they pose the theory that God exists. Of course that must mean that Nero didn't exist either since we only read about him in books.

Oh well. Like I said earlier, I don't want our public schools teaching religion in the classroom, but most people believe that everything was the result of a master creator...that's not fiction or religious dogma. If God is a fact, and he in fact created the world, why would we teach otherwise? You have to at LEAST mention that some people believe that the world was the product of an intelligent designer while others believe we evolved from sea scum.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

The Monkey Debate

Sorry, it's been awhile since I've posted. I've been busy and, at the same time, there's not a lot going on to talk about.

That said, the evolution debate has begun again at the state board of ed.

Read the CNN article.

The one thing I'd like to see prevented as evolutionary theory of origins presented as FACT.

You can go through this blog for months and you'll find my thoughts on it repeatedly. Yes, everything adapts to its environment. Yada yada yada. But show me where one species has evolved into another species.

To me, it takes more faith to believe that all of the amazingly complex life forms on this planet (humans especially) developed from various types of pond scum than it does to believe in a Creator God. Call me crazy, but even if I didn't believe in God, I'd believe that we were placed here by a species from another planet before I'd buy the concept of mutating from species to species, somehow forming organs that work wonderfully and mysteriously (like the eyeball, for instance). How stupid.

I don't want our public schools teach religion, other than as a matter of historical fact (because they would undoubtedly screw it up), but you have to at least mention that another leading theory is that everything was designed by an intelligent creator.