Are we picking on Kansas Board of Education member Connie Morris too much? Well, maybe. But I can’t help but add one more item here. Ms. Morris has proved herself to be someone who can dish it out, so she ought to be able to take it as well. She certainly dished it out to her fellow board members in her recent Kansas taxpayer-funded newsletter. I use the term newsletter loosely, of course. It really reads and looks more like a gospel tract. Lots of words in upper case, lots of underlines, lots of references to God and prayer. My favorite is this line: "Sue Gamble is continually most disruptive and rude (that was underlined) as she repeatedly ignores statements made moments before as she’s vexed for ways to entangle a discussion or make it about religion and in her view – therefore a fowl." Really, Ms. Morris. A fowl??? Sue Gamble is turning discussions into chickens? One would hope that members of the Board of Education could compose sentences that are a little more, ahem, intelligently designed, shall we say…
Click on the image and see the part of Ms. Morris’ newsletter to which I refer.
Posted by Richard Crowson
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
44 Comments
Where is Connie from? Is there a provision that allows her to be recalled?
Which one of you pinheads posted this. I’m guessing it was Rhonda. She’s got it bad for Connie Morris. This is just another example of fairness and objectivity from the editorial writers.
“Fowl” goes hand in hand with a comment made in an area school newsletter a few years ago by a middle school principal, who asked that everyone “bare with him” in the parking lot problem.
“Is our children learning?”
On another note, after reading the image…
Being a liberal (and proud of it), I hate to diss another liberal (Bill Wagnon), but Wiccan is not “witchcraft, an occult of sorcery”. Wicca is a recognized religion. Dictionary.com gives a poor definition with, “A polytheistic Neo-Pagan nature religion inspired by various pre-Christian western European beliefs, whose central deity is a mother goddess and which includes the use of herbal magic and benign witchcraft.” To be precise, Wiccans (followers of Wicca) believe in the connection between themselves and everything in nature. Some practice witchcraft, but when doing so, they keep in mind the Wiccan Reed, specifically the Rule of Three, as they do in all matters of life.
Try doing a Google search, Bill. Learning shouldn’t stop, once school is out.
Maybe religion *should* be taught in school, but only if it’s *all* relgions. Maybe it would bring about knowledge that would lead to more tolerance of the beliefs of others. Then again, isn’t the teaching of religion a large part of the reason for private schools and homeschooling?
I read the image, and correct me if I’m wrong. It seems that it was not Mr. Wagnon who refer to Wiccan as witchcraft/sorcery, but rather it was Ms. Morris trying to underline her point.
Roo, you may be right, and I may have misread it. If that’s the case, I owe Mr. Wagnon an apology and Ms. Morris a gentle admonishment. Thanks for pointing it out!
(Does this mean I get to diss Connie Morris now?)
Isn’t it fortunate that the Eagle editorial staff has Connie Morris to pick on! Otherwise they might have to actually try and learn something about the real reason that the school board is thinking of changing the standards.
For the last twenty five years there has been a growing revolution in the hollowed halls af academia over the failure of the Darwinian theory of natural selection. There are just too many qustions that it can’t answer as a result of the recent discoveries in molecular biology.
Fact: The scientists that are pushing intelligent design are not creationists! They are mainstream scientists on the cutting edge of research!
One of these days evolution will be in the waste bin of scientific theories along with ugenics and other failed theories that are supported more by politics that facts.
Hank
“Fact: The scientists that are pushing intelligent design are not creationists! They are mainstream scientists on the cutting edge of research!”
No, actually, mainstream scientists on the cutting edge of research develop working hypotheses, scrounge up a little evidence, and write for scientific journals critiqued by other mainstream scientists on the cutting edge of research.
Dear Tara,
An interesting survey would be one that asked of molecular biolgists if they still believed in natural selection.
There are more articles in scietific journals supporting ID than Darwinian evolution.
Hank
Hank,
Please provide us with an example.
Steven
Dear Steve.
Dear Steven,
A very good example of intelligent discussions by scientists on both sides of the issue can be found at the following web site:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Since I am a right wing strict Biblical Creationist I tend to support ID as far as it goes. But you can find enough facts on both sides of the issue here (unlike the pages of the Eagle)to either defend your position or form one.
It also will provide you with other places to go for more info.
Hank
Just like cell division is a theory and gavitation is a theory also.
A theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.
Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged by the mainstream scientific community to fail to comply with the scientific method.
I arrest my case!
Hank,
You contend there are more journal articles supporting intelligent design than evolution. However, a quick examination of the National Center for Biotechnology Information literature search engine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) revealed 20 references for papers containing the phrase “intelligent design”. Five of these were criticisms of intelligent design, and most of the remaining referenced human design of proteins for drug delivery or other functions. In contrast, a search for the word “evolution” revealed 159,715 papers. Just limiting the search to the past 18 months (papers published since January 2004), there were 20,163 papers containing information on evolution. During that same period, nine papers were published that contained the phrase “intelligent design”. Again, 4 of these papers were critical of intelligent design, and most of the others were examining proteins and other biocompounds designed by scientists for research purposes. Your statement that there are more articles in scientific journals supporting intelligent design than evolution is not substantiated by evidence
Dear Joe,
I aggree with almost every thing you wrote! Almost. Well, accept for cell division. I don’t believe that it is a theory. I think it is a fact. I’m not sure it was ever a theory. I think it was probably a discovery, an observed fact.
Well, and accept maybe gravity. I am pretty sure that gravity is a law. It’s pretty much an invariable, proven fact. We may not know why it works, or how it works, but it meets all of the definitions of a law. Not a theory.
Well, maybe I disagree with you about homeopathy also. It is actually a system of medicine that has been practiced sucessfully for over 200 years. I don’t know how it works, but it does. It’s not scientific but it does have volumes of credible information documenting results. Chinese medicine with its acupuncture (an accepted therapy by the AMA) has no ’scientific’ proof. 1.4 billlion Chinese seem to do pretty well with it though.
Well, maybe I dissagree with you about Intelligent Design. I’m not sure it is a theory. It may be only a hypothoses. Hell, it may not even rise beyond the level of a wild assumption. The problem with ID is that it mainly proposes that Darwin was wrong in his two basic premises. One, that everything living is a result of happinstance. And two, we all got here by natural selection. (Neither of which have been proven.) In fact the multitude of erreducible complex systems discovered by modern molecular biology seem to prove Darwin wrong.
All the school board is proposing is to expose students to some of the problems with the theory of evolution. They are not proposing that we teach ID. They are not entroducing religion into the classroom through the back door.
Well Joe, I guess on second thought I can’t aggree with you on much of anything. I don’t even understand the case you were trying to make.
Hank
Dear McDonald,
We probably need to define our terms. What is meant by the word ‘evolution’. You will recall, I specifically used the term Darwinian evolution. This is basically the fantasy that the text books in use today seem to expouse. Any paper that is published that describes a system in nature that can’t have posibly evolved because it is erreducibly complex supports ID. Any scientist that does research that doesn’t want to incur the wrath of the high priests of evolution are smart enough to not mention anywhere in their paper the words ‘intelliget design’. This doesn’t mean that their paper doesn’t support ID.
Although there are many papers that have the word ‘evolution’ in them, they do not support Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
What is your definition of evolution? Can you name one paper in the last ten years that has scientific evidence that supports Darwinian evolution?
Hank
Hank, with all due respect, we all know what ID is about regardless of ID supporters attempts to deny it. It’s just a back door way of getting religon into the class room. Being a good Christian Liberal myself, there’s no way I would deny the existence of God. But I put to you the same challenge that ID supporters use against Evolutionists. Prove the existence of this Intelligence you credit with creation. And please, not the gobbldy gook about complexity. Prove the existence of a higher being impirically, as in a reproducable and provable theory. Belief in God is an act of faith, something you believe but can’t prove.
Mike,
I dont think Hank is trying to argue for teaching ID in the classroom.
What we are trying to do is stop our children from being indoctrinated by evolution.
It is not taught as scientific theory. It is taught as undeniable fact.
I have been through the education system and have seen it on the college campus. If you dont support evolution you are branded as some religious freak.
I dont even have to talk about faith or God, I will simply talk about questions with the “science” behind evolution and I am quickly dismissed as a lunaitc.
Why do you evolution supporters fear questioning?
If anything it should make the theory stronger if it is true.
Hank,
Please see my posts in either the “God did it” section or the “Evolutionists docs, heal thyself” section for a definition of Darwinian evolution (what is commonly referred to as evolution via natural selection. The application of current knowledge of genetics to evolution is referred to as neo-Darwinian evolution.) Though many IDers and creationists make reference to “macro” and “micro” evolution, these are different only in terms of scale, not process. Both are the consequence of “Darwinian” evolution.
Regarding published articles documenting natural selection, there are no doubt several thousand, but I offer up this very short list, selected for the diversity of organisms and disciplines represented (bacteria to vertebrates, biochemistry to ecology) Most have been published within the past 10 years, but I included some earlier works as examples of work with other organisms.
Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L 2005 Adaptive migratory divergence among sympatric brook charr populations. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Mar;59(3):611-24.
Wayne ML, Korol A, Mackay TF. 2005 Microclinal variation for ovariole number and body size in Drosophila melanogaster in ‘Evolution Canyon’.
Genetica, 123(3):263-70
Farrell, B. D., and C. Mitter. 1990. Phylogenesis of insect-plant interactions: Have Phyllobrotica leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) and the Lamiales diversified in parallel? Evolution 44:1389-1403.
Hughes A, Packer B, Welch R, Bergen AW, Chanock SJ, Yeager M. 2005 Effects of Natural Selection on Inter-population Divergence at Polymorphic Sites in Human Protein-Coding Loci. Genetics. May 23
Nakajima T, Wooding S, Satta Y, Jinnai N, Goto S, Hayasaka I, Saitou N, Guan-Jun J, Tokunaga K, Jorde LB, Emi M, Inoue I 2005 Evidence for natural selection in the HAVCR1 gene: high degree of amino-acid variability in the mucin domain of human HAVCR1 protein. Genes Immun. May 12
Zink RM 2005 Natural selection on mitochondrial DNA in Parus and its relevance for phylogeographic studies. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 7;272(1558):71-8
Rice JF, Menn FM, Hay AG, Sanseverino J, Sayler GS 2005 Natural selection for 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid mineralizing bacteria in agent orange contaminated soil. Biodegradation. Dec;16(6):501-12.
Kelly, M.G., and D.A. Levin. 2000. Direction selection on initial flowering date in Phlox drummondii (Polemoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 87: 382-391
Levin, D.A., and E. Brack. 1995. Natural selection against white petals in Phlox. Evolution 49: 1017-1022
Donohue, K. 2002. Germination timing influences natural selection on life-history characters in Arabidopsis thaliana. Ecology 83:1006-1016.
Mitter, C., B. D. Farrell, and D. J. Futuyma. 1991. Phylogenetic studies of insect-plant interactions: Insights into the genesis of diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6:290-293
Úbeda, F. and D. Haig 2004. Sex-specific meiotic drive and selection at an imprinted locus. Genetics 167: 2083-2095
Dear Mike,
With all due respect, we all don’t know what ID is about. I aggree that there are many biblical creationists that support ID. They know where the intelligence comes from. However, the many scientists that are promoting ID are not biblical creationists.
All you have to do is read the editorials in the Eagle, the letters to the editor and all of the posts in this blog and you have to come to the conclusion that not one in ten has any idea of what ID is about.
As a Christian I don’t have to prove anything. I just have to believe. I am ammused with science and its denial of the existance of a superior inteligence when it comes to evolution. Then spends billions of dollars seaching for it elsewhere in the universe!
If you take ID to its obvious conclusion you will find the hand of God. None of this has anything to do with quesioning Darwinian evolution in the classroom as the school board legitamately wishes to do.
As a biblical creationist I have the luxury of being able to look at the ID/evolution debate with an objective view. No matter which side is right there is the hand of God behind it. However, there is more evidence to support biblical creation than Darwin!
Hank
Thank you thank you for posting Connie’s horrendous attempt at writing… not only did she screw up the foul vs. fowl issue, but if you notice at the end she used ‘analizing’ instead of ‘analyzing!’
Is this REALLY the sort of person we want in charge of teaching the next generation of Kansans? Evolution & Intelligent Design aside, she can’t even write or spell well!
Dear McDonald,
Did you read the abstracts of any of these articles, or did you just do a GOOGLE search for evolution and natural selection? None of them support Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L 2005 Adaptive migratory divergence among sympatric brook charr populations. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. Mar;59(3):611-24.
This paper was published in Molecular Biology. It talks of divergence within a species. Nothing to support Darwinian evolution.
Wayne ML, Korol A, Mackay TF. 2005 Microclinal variation for ovariole number and body size in Drosophila melanogaster in ‘Evolution Canyon’.
Genetica, 123(3):263-70
This paper talks about natural selection as to variations within a species. Nothing to support Darwinian evolution.
Farrell, B. D., and C. Mitter. 1990. Phylogenesis of insect-plant interactions: Have Phyllobrotica leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae) and the Lamiales diversified in parallel? Evolution 44:1389-1403.
This paper discusses the diversification within a species of a beetle and plant together. Nothing to support Darwinian evolution.
Hughes A, Packer B, Welch R, Bergen AW, Chanock SJ, Yeager M. 2005 Effects of Natural Selection on Inter-population Divergence at Polymorphic Sites in Human Protein-Coding Loci. Genetics. May 23
Talks about “Natural Selection” but not in the Darwinian sense that would result in evolution from one species to another.
Nakajima T, Wooding S, Satta Y, Jinnai N, Goto S, Hayasaka I, Saitou N, Guan-Jun J, Tokunaga K, Jorde LB, Emi M, Inoue I 2005 Evidence for natural selection in the HAVCR1 gene: high degree of amino-acid variability in the mucin domain of human HAVCR1 protein. Genes Immun. May 12
This paper assumes primate evolution as part of its thesis. Then using the assumption suggests that the evidence supports natural selection. Although scientific sounding, if you question the assumption you must suspect the suggestion! Does nothing to prove Darwinian evolution, only assumes it exists.
Zink RM 2005 Natural selection on mitochondrial DNA in Parus and its relevance for phylogeographic studies. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 7;272(1558):71-8
Robert M. Zinc in most of his publications on avian diversity and genetics are based on the assumption that evolution from one species to another is a fact. His data is cataloged and analyzed based on this assumption. This particular paper does nothing to prove Darwinian evolution.
Rice JF, Menn FM, Hay AG, Sanseverino J, Sayler GS 2005 Natural selection for 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid mineralizing bacteria in agent orange contaminated soil. Biodegradation. Dec;16(6):501-12.
This was a very interesting article and although it had the words “Natural selection” in its title it had absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Kelly, M.G., and D.A. Levin. 2000. Direction selection on initial flowering date in Phlox drummondii (Polemoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 87: 382-391
An interesting article by Donald Levin. Had nothing at all to do with evolution or natural selection in the Darwinian sense.
Levin, D.A., and E. Brack. 1995. Natural selection against white petals in Phlox. Evolution 49: 1017-1022
Another very interesting article by Donald Levin published in the publication “Evolution” It is about variants in a species of phlox. It has nothing o do with Darwinian evolution.
Donohue, K. 2002. Germination timing influences natural selection on life-history characters in Arabidopsis thaliana. Ecology 83:1006-1016.
This article talks about the effects of environment and other factors on the germination timing within a species. It is in no way related to Darwinian evolution.
Mitter, C., B. D. Farrell, and D. J. Futuyma. 1991. Phylogenetic studies of insect-plant interactions: Insights into the genesis of diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6:290-293
This article was interesting, but again assumes that evolution is a fact. Does nothing to prove it.
Úbeda, F. and D. Haig 2004. Sex-specific meiotic drive and selection at an imprinted locus. Genetics 167: 2083-2095
OK, here is a challenge for you. Please tell me exactly how this particular article supports your belief in evolution. It does nothing for me.
Hank
Gee, Hank! You disappoint me, I thought all you have to do is believe and not prove anything. You actually went and research all those papers?
Anyway, amusement aside, to my understanding the the majority report on the KS BoE, despite emphasizing that evolution theory is the cornerstone of modern science, does not forbid discussion of it in classrooms. What I believe is that the current conflict deals mainly with the definition of science itself, whether to allow supernatural explanation for natural events or not. To me, that’s not “natural” science, but philosophy. Add to that the confusion over semantic differences between science and general populace. It adds the confusion indeed.
Personally, I like evolution theory. It’s easier than having to believe multitude of Creation stories taught by the religions in the world. I enjoy ID theory because it gives comfort for those seeking a hands-on God. I’m scared of the corollary, what if She wishes us out of the picture?
Like any scientific theory—ever notice that they’re now called theories, not laws, like Kepler’s Laws, Newton’s Laws?—evolution theory is still evolving. It IS a fact, can you deny the existence of the very theory? However, scientists are still finding out new things, whether it is to fill up the gaps, or to punch new holes in the theory. Newton’s Gravitational Law was found invalid at extreme conditions, it was superseded by General Relativity Theory, which in turn may be superseded by another theory due to its incompatibility with sub-atomic particles. Who knows what future discovery will bring to the body of knowledge.
So, can we get back to the initial issue here, that is to make fun of Connie Morris’ bad language skill?
Dear Roo,
Of course I didn’t research any of those papers! I just read the abstracts to see if there was anything to McDonald’s claims. There is a lot of ridiculous research done in academia that is paid for by government grants. They may have “natural selection” or “evolution” in the title but have nothing at all to do with Darwin’s fantasy.
As far as disappointing you, sorry, join the list. As far as proving anything, I was responding to Mike who for some reason seems to think if I question the theory of evolution, I have to prove the existence of God. The BoE is not trying to allow a “supernatural explanation for natural events”. Just because they would allow the problems with evolution to be discussed does not mean we have to start bringing our prayer rugs to school.
As far as ever changing laws and theories, why not let the theory of evolution change and evolve instead of preventing any intelligent discourse by trying to confuse criticism with religion?
Unfortunately, if you get all of your information from the Eagle editorial staff, you would think that Connie Morris is the issue. Concentrate on style instead of substance. Just because your grammar is correct doesn’t mean your thoughts aren’t crap.
Hank
Just take Science out of the classroom. There. All solved. Sheesh!
Hank! Why the fury, mate? Calling my thoughts “crap” doesn’t help much, or does it?
The point is, clear grammar and correct spelling of words help get things across to the world. To prove my point, take a peek at Mr. Brownlee’s “The lighter side of rollovers” where a little typo can change the meaning of sentence completely, or how recently when the world was stunned by the US’ reports of nuclear tests in Sudan in the 50’s until it was discovered that it meant to refer to the “Sedan Project.” As for grammar clarity, I have been having trouble on occasion to understand the president’s speech. Doonesbury has even made it a sport to collect quotes that may have unintended consequences when parsed critically. Even the Bible, having been translated and updated numerously, has not been immune to the problem. The issue of “two creation stories” in the first 2 chapters of Genesis alone have been discussed and argued over the years. But that’s not my field, I just mention it for example.
I can’t emphasize more on the importance of clear grammar and word choices in our daily communications. There’d be far fewer disagreements over trivial matters, like this one over Connie Morris’s newsletter, don’t you think?
Dear Roo,
My crap comment was directed at the Eagles editorials. There is no fury in my heart.
The disagreement over Connie Morris’s newsletter has nothing to do with her grammer. My point was to ignore her style. Concentrate on the substance.
As far as the president’s speech goes, he is the most plain spoken, straight shooting president in years. If you can’t understand him, you aint trying.
Hank
Roo,
The Bible is not prone to the errors you describe. At least the example you use has nothing to do with poor writing or poor grammer.
There are not two creation stories, but one creation story told in two different ways.
They are not conflicting nor an example of bad translation over the years.
It seems that the only people who seem to have a problem with the scripture you mention are those searching for ways to attack the Bible.
Hank, you got that right! Bush is the most plain spoken president we’ve ever had, he’s also plain stupid!
Hank,
Yes, I have read these papers (abstracts for all, text for several). You claim that none of these papers support Darwinian evolution. I believe the discussion is handicapped by you not providing what you believe the defintion of Darwinian evolution to be. In other posts I have provided the definition of Darwinism(aka neo-Darwinism)and natural selection, as well as the basic mechanisms by which these processes occur. I suggest that you provide an equally detailed interpretation of your definition of Darwinian evolution, as well as what you believe to be the different definitions of “Darwinian” evolution and “evolution”. As you claim the references I quoted do not support natural selection or Darwinian evolution, it would also be helpful if you would describe what you understand the process of Darwinian evolution to be, and the biological mechanisms that prevent evolution by natural selection from occurring.
Go for it, Hank! I’d like to read what you have to say.
I can’t speak for Hank, but I am guessing that his contention is going to be that there is natural selection at work in variations over time within any given species. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in studies of organisms in the natural environment and in laboratory experiments.
Natural Selection is the basic foundation of Darwinian evolution theory. There was a common understood process during Darwin’s time of “Breeder Selection” – it was known that farmers/ranchers could select desirable traits in animals and breed for the expression of those traits in offspring. Hence, this is where Darwin got the term Natural Selection -i.e. the natural environment selected those phenotypes (expression of genetic inheritence) that ensured fitness with the enviornment (most likely to survive and pass on those successful traits).
In keeping with most creationist thought, I think that Hank will tell us that no known case of one species giving birth to another species has ever been demonstrated. As far as I know that would probably be correct. But, I don’t think Darwin ever proposed that, so it would be disingenous to say that he did.
Surely, Hank accepts that some animals become extinct. To use an example, there is ample fossil evidence that there was an earlier buffalo than the one that is here now. The extinct buffalo was bigger, but in many ways similar to the current buffalo. It seems reasonable to assume that the current buffalo came from the earlier bigger buffalo and that the species change was in response to environmental factors – maybe the arrival of man or changes in fauna (plant life). This change in speciation proposed by Darwin is where most creationists get their internal organs in a peeve. Are there holes in the fossil record in terms of proving this speciation? Yes. Does this hole in evidence prove that evolution is incorrect in asserting this change process and thus require proposing intelligent design? No.
Another false assertion implied in the usual creationist spin is that somehow the current taxonomy of species is perfect – there are distinct boundries between species – this is decidedly not the case.
The God I worship created a brilliant system of self-correcting life. Hank likely sees it quite differently, but that does not diminish the appreciation I have for the world and life. Darwin did get some things wrong – he did not know about dominant and recessive traits – even though Gregor Mendel wrote to him about it (there was no evidence Darwin ever read or understood the inmplications of Mendel’s work).
The time it took me to compose this, I am sure Hank or someone else provided the points I do above. I don’t think I will change anybody’s mind about what they want to believe concerning science education, evolution, intelligent design, etc. That whole can of worms is a political argument, not a scientific one. And to claim it is a scientific argument is shameful in my opinion.
In response to many of the posts placed on here.
First, Hank, YES the underlying issue here is Connie Morris’ ability, as a leader of our educational community, to correctly convey an opinion. Your contention that it is not an issue how she does so is entirely incorrect. If our educational leaders cannot, in a public statement, use correct grammar or spelling, what kind of impression does this give outside society of our educational system? A wholly negative impression! Our concern should not lie with what our students are learning as much as with how they are learning it! If our leaders cannot even use basic grammar or spelling skills, what can we expect of our children? I, for one, fear the decline of our educational system as long as people like Connie Morris man the helm.
Another thing that concerns me is the blatant disregard by the board of the arguments offered. The fact that Ms. Morris, among others, freely admits that she didn’t even read the whole argument placed before her greatly alarms me! These are people that are supposed to vote on a decision about these issues, and are going into it wholly uninformed, and not because they were not given the opportunity to inform themselves, but because they CHOSE not to? Hello! How stupid does this state want to make itself look? We are appointing individuals who are charged with making decisions about our children’s education. The fact that they are going into this sort of situation with an obvious bias, and completely uninformed to boot, scares me to no end! I, in the past, have disagreed with the concept of home schooling, because it limits a child’s much needed social interaction, but with recent developments in our state’s educational system, I am beginning to distrust our schools more and more.
And finally, the fact that we would seek to discredit a scientific theory in our schools is ridiculous. I attended Kansas schools my entire life, right up through college. I disagree with the comment that you are made to feel like an idiot if you don’t believe in evolution. First of all, you have a right to believe whatever you want – and if you feel like an idiot for believing it, then it is more a problem within yourself than with the system. Secondly, while I was taught the concept of evolutionary theory in school, I was also taught if the concept of ID at home, and in my church community. My belief of the concept is a mix of both. While I believe that man did NOT evolve, that we were created by God (or your choice of “Designer”), there is also too much evidence out there supporting the concept of evolution of other creatures for me to discredit it. Our children deserve to have the right to form their OWN opinions about these things! And it is not the job of the schools to teach them religious theory, it is the job of the parents, if they want their children to learn it! This is the point of “learning” after all, is it not, to teach our children concepts and also how to determine those concepts, and let them “learn” how to prove or disprove said concepts on their own? Nothing in life is absolute. There is not a single idea out there that someone cannot say “No, that’s not the way it is!” This is what creates the desire to learn in our “scientists” – the opportunity to disprove someone else’s theory. Since when has it become our right to limit our children’s education? If you don’t want your children to learn about something, keep them home and teach them yourself. Otherwise, give them the information and let them decide for themselves. This close minded attitude is what breeds things like racism and discrimination. By not letting our children hear both sides of the story, without dispute for either, we do not give our children the opportunity to MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS or FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS!!! Is this not the land of the free, where people have the right to believe what they will? In effect, by doing what is proposed our educational system do, we are taking away our children’s right for this. I think it is time we all take a serious look at what the real issue is here – whether or not we are taking the way the rights of our children by limiting what it is they may learn in our schools.
Dear McDonald,
I apologize for ignoring your earlier posts on evolution in the other threads. I got bored with them and quit following them.
I’ll respond when I get home from work tonight.
Hank
PS Thanks, Steven, for the help in the mean time!
I like Hank’s attitude, maybe we should all adopt it. I’m an evolutionist and I don’t have to prove anything, it just is. Wait, I forgot that isn’t allowed in science.
And if what Hank and others are implying is true (though by utterances by the majority of the board, this isn’t the actual case), and the whole purpose of this dog and pony show was to question the science in science, then I’m extremely miffed that they wasted my hard-earned tax dollars to keep the status quo. They should be recalled.
Boy! Take a day off and you really get behind here!
First of all the main reason I post here (other than a cheap source of amusement) is to point out the intellectually dishonesty of the Eagle editors and reporters. Based on the response of most of the people posting here the Eagle is failing to accurately report the news in an unbiased way.
As for mcdonald, he wants to know my definition of Darwinian evolution. It is the same as the mainstream nitwits in academia. (and I have posted it before) Modern Darwinian evolution theory has two main points: 1) Life on the earth began by pure happenstance. 2) All species that exist today are a result of natural selection.
Oh, I know that it gets much more complicated when you start explaining the details, but any research or facts that tend to illustrate the ridiculousness of these two premises are immediately attacked as the ignorant ramblings of a biblical creationist. Interesting ploy. Never debate your position, just engage in name calling.
As far as mcdonald’s definition, it’s no definition at all. In 1 – 5 he lists a group of observable facts that he claims to provide proof that species can evolve to new and better species. He talks of changes in the genetic composition. This is merely changes in the characteristics of a particular species. All of these changes can be reversed over time. He then jumps over to 7 and claims this is the process of speciation. Then he makes the wild assumption that. “The process of speciation by evolution is currently the only scientifically valid explanation of both the current and historical diversity of organisms.”
Nothing in what he claimed is any proof or demonstration of speciation! I could use the same evidence to support ID! What a wonderfully omniscient God we have that can put enough intelligence in the genome of a species that it can adapt to different conditions!
I have two comments for Wendy. First, I agree, anyone in public life that has to do with education policies ought to have a workable command of the English language. Their grammar shouldn’t detract from their message. That said, the editors of the Eagle shouldn’t use mispelled words and typos as an excuse to make dishonest and disingenuous comments about the context of the message. If Connie Morris is honestly trying to address an issue with which the editorial staff of the Eagle disagrees they should concentrate their remarks on other than her spelling.
Second, I agree that children ought to be able to form their own opinions. Why not let them have all of the facts? Have you read the science standards as they now exist? Evolution is being taught as a fact. Is that being honest with the children? Should we be teaching them to form an opinion that is different from facts? We should be teaching them evolution is a theory. Scientific theories exist for only one reason. They exist to be challenged in order that we may determine the facts! We should be teaching them that evolution is a theory and we should be teaching them the questions that it isn’t able to scientifically answer. That is what the proposed changes to the standard do. (Oh, by the way, although Wendy’s grammar is much better, and she obviously uses a spell checker, has anyone but me noticed how similar Wendy’s writing style is to that of Connie Morris’s?)
Now, for roo. God Bless you man! What’s happening?
To Bob Schmeidler, read the standards as they are now. Read the proposed changes. That’s all this dog and pony show is about!
Hank
Hank,
Welcome back. The definition I provide of evolution is an operational definition which appears in virtually every high school or college general biology text. I have yet to see evolution defined as you have indicated (Evolution = “1. Life on earth began by pure happenstance. 2) All species that exist today are the result of natural selection.”)
You have claimed that evolution and the mechanisms of evolution, in particular natural selection, do not or cannot occur. Given that these biological process are accepted as accurate by established scientific organizations, I believe the burden is on you to provide evidence, rather than your opinion, that the process of evolution cannot occur. In previous posts you have indicated you would supply references to published scientific literature that indicates the biological processes that result in evolution cannot occur. I would still like you to post these references so I may study them.
Your suggestion and the suggestion of many ID supporters, that students should “have all the facts” sounds fair and good, but is problematic. First, who decides what is factual? In science, that process occurs through the peer review and publication process. To that extent, the facts of ID and the anti-evolution crowd are virtually non-existent. On the contrary, the scientific organizations which publish peer reviewed journals are virtually unanimous in their determination that evolution is an established scientific fact.
I believe what you are inferring in your statement that students should “have all the facts” is that students should be exposed to several opinions. I agree that being presented with several opinions is appropriate, even necessary, in an academic setting. However, not all opinions are equal, nor do all opinions deserve to be considered valid in an academic setting. You claim that many scientists are of the opinion that considerable scientific evidence exists which demonstrates evolution does not occur. However, none of the major scientific organizations (Sigma Xi, American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc.,) have issued any statements supporting that claim. The statement that support for evolution among scientists is waning is often, and loudly, stated, but is not supported by evidence.
Clearly, some guidelines for establishing the validity of the opinions to be presented in classrooms must be established. For example, there are many individuals who have the opinion that the Holocaust never occurred. This group includes some credentialed historians, some of whom are in academia. However, none of the established societies of historians agree with the statements of the Holocaust deniers. Despite their comments that they have “facts” and “evidence” to support their claims, the arguments of the Holocaust deniers have not been published in mainstream history research journals. However, they do have opinions based upon what they refer to as “facts.” Would it be reasonable to accommodate demands by Holocaust deniers that their “facts” and opinions should be presented in high school history classes, in order that students might make up their own mind as to whether or not the Holocaust occurred? If so, should any opinion that anyone wishes to have voiced in a high school classroom be permitted? (Astrology in psychology, new age “crystal energy” in physical education, every nutty conspiracy theory in political science, the list could go on and on.) I suggest that if established professional societies (science, mathematics, history, or whatever) indicate that particular “facts” or opinions are unsupported or invalid, these should not be placed into an academic curriculum. What criteria do you suggest should be used to evaluate which opinions should or should not be presented in the classroom?
Hank,
Actually, if you had read my entire message you would have seen that I stated that I went to school here in Kansas and that I was taught that evolution was a THEORY. I’d like you to find me the name of a science teacher here who does teach it as fact.
Secondly, no, I do not use spell check. I am intelligent enough, and was well-educated enough, to know how to spell and use correct grammar all on my own, thank you very much.
As for comparing me to Connie, perhaps you just need to justify in your mind that she actually is intelligent, and therefore you feel the need to compare her to someone who is.
And do you not understand what the meaning of “editorial” is? It is not their job to report unbiased information, it is their job to express their personal opinion on a subject. If you want to criticize the Eagle’s Newswriting staff on being unbiased, do so, but don’t criticize the editorial staff for doing their job.
Fellow blog commentators (especially Hank!),
It’s been educational, invigorating, and entertaining reading and responding to posts. But with only a few weeks left in my summer break, I’m turning off the computer (and TV!)and getting outdoors. I wanted to let you know I am not ignoring you (well, I guess I am!), but I won’t be posting any longer!
Best wishes
Dear mcdonald,
Wow! Talk about smoke and mirrors! I appreciate your efforts in responding to my poor misguided creationists ramblings, but it would be a lot easier for you if you just responded to what I said. Instead, you claim I said something and then you argue against what I supposedly said. For instance:
You wrote, “You have claimed that evolution and the mechanisms of evolution, in particular natural selection, do not or cannot occur.” When did I claim that? Wrongo my friend, never claimed it. What I wrote in response to your seven step ‘working’ definition was, “Nothing in what he claimed is any proof or demonstration of speciation!” In other words, it is no definition at all.
You wrote, “In previous posts you have indicated you would supply references to published scientific literature that indicates the biological processes that result in evolution cannot occur.” Again, wrongo. In a previous post I gave a very good website that gave arguments on both sides of the issue. It also had some very good links additional info and bios of reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. It would be a very good place for some one interested in the conflict between ID and evolution proponents to start their research. You and others have asked me for other examples, but I don’t think I have ever indicated I would supply further references. If I did, never mind. I aint doing it. (Sorry Wendy, poor grammar, but I intentionally used it for effect.)
You wrote, “Your suggestion and the suggestion of many ID supporters, that students should “have all the facts” sounds fair and good, but is problematic.” I think you are referring to my response to Wendy. I wrote, “Why not let them have all of the facts?” It is a question. You ramble on about the definition of facts and get all balled up in implying that I want to introduce my opinions and other opinions into the classroom as facts. What I wrote was pretty strait forward. “Evolution is being taught as a fact. Is that being honest with the children?” Just because you and several societies accept it as a fact does not mean it is a fact. It is still a theory. Theory exist for one reason in science, they are used as a mechanism to find the truth. They exist to be challenged and tested. They beg for criticism. When you teach evolution as a fact, you discourage academic discussion on its merits. When you have a standard to teach science that basically ignores the facts you are being dishonest with the students.
The school board does not wish to include ID into the standards. I don’t want to include ID into the standards. I don’t currently have any opinions that I think would help the teaching of science to grades 1 through 12 and I have never proposed any should be included into the standards. What I wrote in response to Wendy was “We should be teaching them evolution is a theory. Scientific theories exist for only one reason. They exist to be challenged in order that we may determine the facts! We should be teaching them that evolution is a theory and we should be teaching them the questions that it isn’t able to scientifically answer. That is what the proposed changes to the standard do.”
You on the other hand have said some things as facts that are no more than your opinion. For instance, “Though many IDers and creationists make reference to “macro” and “micro” evolution, these are different only in terms of scale, not process. Both are the consequence of “Darwinian” evolution.” Actually, macro and microevolution are very different, not only in scale, but in fact. There are many examples of microevolution. Macroevolution-continuous evolutionary development through the selection of random mutations-is not supported by findings in any area of biology. It is not supported by any empirical evidence nor has anyone ever been able to ’scientifically’ support it as a viable mechanism for speciation. There is no empirical evidence of transitions nor has anyone ever been able to reconstruct a plausible series of hypothetical intermediates. And yet, you and your cohorts in academia still insist that evolution is a fact.
You write, “I believe what you are inferring in your statement that students should “have all the facts” is that students should be exposed to several opinions.” (Come on Wendy help me out here! You are our resident expert on grammar here. Or do you only grade the papers of the ones that you disagree with?) With this statement I was responding to Wendy. The standards teach evolution as a fact. I wasn’t implying anything. My meaning was simple and straightforward. Teach evolution as a theory.
As far as your whole last paragraph on the holocaust and “crystal energy”…. Where in the hell did that come from?
Hank
Dear Wendy,
I did read your entire message. I don’t care if you were taught that evolution was a THEORY. (See, I too can emulate the style of Connie Morris!) The point I was making is; THE SCIENCE STANDARD AS IT IS NOW WRITTEN TEACHES EVOUTION AS A FACT! What good would it do for me to find you the name of a science teacher here that does teach it as a fact when the SCIENCE STANDARD AS IT IS NOW WRITTEN says to teach and test it as a FACT?
The scientific method for discovering the truth in nature starts out as an observation that turns into a hunch. Further work might discover more facts or empirical data that might eventually be developed into a hypothesis. Then with more work and evidence the hypotheses turns into a theory. A good scientific theory can be used to discover the truth and facts of a natural occurrence.
The theory of evolution has developed into a paradigm. It is now part of the philosophical scientific orthodoxy. It cannot be challenged! Yea, verily I say to you, there are scientific societies that now exist for no other reason than to prevent school boards, like ours here in Kansas, from inserting into their science standards that evolution is a theory!
And yes Wendy, I do know what an “editorial” is. I am also sharp enough to recognize when someone is condescending to me. (I’m referring to you, not the editorials) My complaint with the editors is not their opinions. It is their intellectual dishonesty. It is their ad homonym attacks on people they disagree with. It is their focus on a person’s style of writing vs. the substance of their arguments. I am not criticizing the editorial staff for doing their job; I am criticizing the editorial staff for NOT doing their job.
Hank
Hank, what the hell exactly is “intellectual dishonesty?” That sounds like political gobbledygook to me; a way of using language to obscure what you REALLY want to say.
As far as I’m concerned, focusing on Connie Morris’ writing abaility is EXACTLY what needs to be done. Why put someone who seemingly HAS no education in charge of overseeing the education for others? That’s a little too much like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!
Oops, that’ll teach me the value of hitting PREVIEW before hitting POST…
Sorry, I meant to type ‘ability.’
Sorry to disappoint you with my short absence, Hank! Been out at a family camp-out for a few days, enjoying the weather a bit, and chasing the kitten out of the kitchen and all over the backyard. Summer vacation is coming in two weeks, and I may travel for some weeks. I’ll try to put some posts in before then!
Hey Roo,
Didn’t miss ya a bit. Went to a herding trial over the weekend and didn’t get back until last night.
Then worked until dark trying to get the garden caught up.
Going away for a week over the Fourth, more herding.
Hank