GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Barnett wouldn’t tell The Topeka Capital-Journal whether he’d rather the conservative majority on the State Board of Education had remained in place. He said: “I prefer that the people of Kansas are engaged in the election process and get out to vote.” Yet Barnett was critical of opponents of the science standards for twisting the other side’s position and being less than factual about what’s in the standards, and he said local districts should be free to teach science as they see fit. “What I think is important is both sides of this story are taught in a factual manner,” he said. For her part, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius seems pleased with the outcome of the Aug. 1 primary, which ensured that evolution critics will lose their majority on the board. “I’ve always believed that science should be taught in science classrooms,” she said.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
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
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- BlueJay on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Franklin on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Regular on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Franklin on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- cosmos_originally on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
45 Comments
It’s kind of funny that the most common response from conservatives is that the local school districts should establish what they teach to children.
Really?
I would think that general education in America would be standard across the board. Science is universal and established by the scientific community. It’s not a local decision on what should or shouldn’t be considered science.
Amen Joe!!
Ill agree with you on that on!!!
Darn it, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a scientist!
STEALTH CANDIDATE ALERT!STEALTH CANDIDATE ALERT!STEALTH CANDIDATE ALERT!
I doubt that Barnett’s medical school professors would appreciate or approve of Barnett’s wishy-washy attitude towards science.
Joe is right having work for five years in the local school district several years ago. I know how it can be sometime frightening the things they can come up with and the direction some try to push it.From a petition that was passed around to get the schools to not teach about Native American history.On the gossip that because their lives and religionist believes were so intertwined, that the schools were going to be teach Native American mysticism. That this was against the communities Christian background and they did not want they children expose to it. But being inside I knew that there was no such planned course.
To the time that the local School board forced a English class at the middle school to take down a banner that they had made. Because the class had named itself the “Blue Ducks” and someone on the board thought that was a brand name of condoms. No I have never heard of them either, in fact no one had but there still was quite a uproar over the name so they had to come up with a new name and banner. It was part of a school competition and because of it the class did not have the time left to redo their banner.
Thank God no one was claimed of being a witch! To the point if left to local districts to decide what is science and what is not. There would be many students from small school district walking in to K-State and proclaiming in class the earth is flat and the Devil had placed the fossils in the ground to confuse man.
Barnett is just another puppett of the right. I heard him speak Saturday in Topeka. He brings NOTHING original to the table. All of his speaking points are straight from Citizens for Prosperity and Club for Growth. His entire campaign strategy is to attempt to portray Kathleen Sebelius as a poor leader. The first question asked of the audience was: “Are you better off now than 4 years ago?”; the second “Is Kansas better off now than 4 years ago?”. The answer to both is YES. Barnett/Wagle are doomed to the trash bin of failed candidates.
To the original pont of the thread, Barnett will not trash the candidaes his masters support. If they tell him to take the “teach the controversy” stance, he will.
And here we go again…
The typical response from the left on anyone who dares challenge evolution is to simply label them as anti-science and basically burn them at the stake.
Nevermind actually debating the issue, nope, you on the left and in the media simply brand anyone who would dare say one word against evolution as some right wing, anti science, Christian fundamentalist.
Now, it appears as if anyone who doesn’t disavow themselves from the now infamous school board will be attacked and labeled.
If you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.
I bet kansan’s couldn’t even get any scientist to debate the world is flat theory. Damn cowards!
The fact is that Sebelius took a stand–”teach science as scientist define it”–and Barnett didn’t.
Sebelius said clearly that she was glad that the conservative majority was out of the school board and Barnett hemed and hawed about “voter choice.”
Well, the voters chose, Mr. Barnett. That wasn’t the question.
Somehow I don’t think Barnett is honest when he’s says he’s going to teach creationism as a myth and evolution as factual, confirmed scientific theory.
Doug,
Exactly how do you “confirm” that evolution is a fact?
I would be interested in hearing your answer.
Last time I checked, nothing in evolution can be confirmed as fact.
Lets see…
How did life begin? Nope, nothing from evolution…
How do you explain the fossil record? Depends on which “theory” the scientists say today, there are several don’t you know?
How do you explain complex biochemical systems? Um… well, over time anything is possible.
Like I said, if you actually want to debate the “science” of evolution it starts falling apart pretty quick.
First off Nathan if you don’t know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution then it’s clear you haven’t even looked at the issue. So rather than have me give you a college education why don’t you start by trying to get a modest education on your own. The WSU library has numerous volumes and journals on the scientific study of evolution and don’t expect me to indulge you intellectual laziness.
Nathan! I agree with you on most things, but I don’t agree with you there.
When teaching children science, they are not teaching the orgins of life. They are teaching evolutionary biology. They also don’t teach children advance biological processes, that is reserved for college students.
Come on! You’ve probably taken a biology class in high school. The hereditary effects of ressesive and dominate genes. You know! The XX,Xx,xX,xx box. It’s real basic stuff. And the basics are proven facts of science. Theoretical science or theories isn’t taught in public schools. Such as if God really exist or where we came from and why. Evolution doesn’t touch on this.
You can pick up a science text book and you won’t find that humans came from a mass of goop. They don’t say that.
Here is a good read-up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Nathan first off hey! But second even when it was the hot topic and my best friend is a firm believer in the theory of Creationism aka I.D. never have any of them presented any evidence to show their theory is even possible. Never! Instead it is always attack evolution is the answer! Never “here is the evidence that supports my theory”.Every site that is linked leads to a religious site that point to something even they can not directly state is proof then said God did it!
Every debate ends with the supporter of I.D. sounding more a child then a logical person “OH yeah I know you are but what am I?”. The question is and always will be what is your proof. Not what is wrong with the theory of evolution.
Look at this.
I have not said one word about creationism or Intelligent Design or that I think either should be taught.
I want an honest look at evolution.
I have done more studies on the theory of evolution than many of you probably have.
I love how everytime someone questions the beginning of life and how evolution doesn’t explain it they immediately say that the theory of evolution is not about teaching the orgins of life.
Hello? Say what?
Once again, I never said one thing about a puddle of goo either.
My Mom has a degree in genetics and she doesn’t believe in evolution either.
I want an honest discussion about evolution. I am not here to shove creation or ID down anyones throat.
When I question evolution or say what is wrong with it, I don’t have to have a plausable substitute.
If the theory is so sound, then it should stand up to questions.
Which it doesn’t.
Nathan, I commend you for your skeptical mind. I myself have no problem accepting evolution on the basis of the evidence that have been presented to me. For info on evolution I suggest you look at scientific organizations for answers. These websites, specifically the middle link, have a wealth of knowledge on the evolutionary process. If that doesn’t satifsy your skeptism there are plent more where those came from. http://www.aaas.org http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/index.html http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer . I have no problem with people how have questions, then look high and low for answers. However, I have no respect for those who just spew questions for disbelief but never make an honest attempt to find answers
Hope the links Help!
There really isn’t much of an issue here.
Evolution is going to be taught in the schools because it is a scientific fact.
Barnett’s opinion on the matter is really not relevant accept noting for any furture reference in what ever political career he might pusue after Governor Sebelius beats him by double digits.
Badwolf – The question is: What has Sebelius done? The answer to that is: Nothing! You can’t do a lot wrong when you do nothing.
The only thing she has tried to do is raise taxes over $400 million her first year. Then when she some candidates get beat over that issue she backed off. She has also grown government with her increases in spending. She has tried to expand government programs to where they would not be affordable in the future. She has created more bonding for the state so that not only will we be paying it off, out grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will be paying it off.
She pushed for instate tuition for illegals and got it passed. So now we are rewarding illegals. She tried to get drivers licenses for illegals but she was not able to do it (thank goodness). She did not want to answer the call at the boarder (even though we already had troops there) because she did not want to address the illegal issue. But then she said it would be ok and even made a trip down there. Where was she several years prior to that?
She calls herself a Catholic and supports abortion. In fact you could say she has led the way to make sure that Kansas remains the abortion capitol of the world. Just take a look at the dollars Tiller gives to directly and indirectly (as well as her friend Morrison who also calls himself Catholic). So if that makes her a leader in your eyes than there is her leadership.
She did nothing on education. She says it was better for her to work quietly behind the scene. Why would that be best? Is it because she did not have a plan for education? Or was it just her way of leading?
Heh,heh,heh, if she is an example of leadership then we can do without her kind.
I don’t want to know this guy more than what he’s trying to accomplish.
“Local” decision on science standards, bull! What goes in textbooks should be a national theory and every state equal in providing that information.
Religion doesn’t belong in Science class at all. Let both beliefs have unanswered questions about what created life and humanity existing on this planet.
Just for his waffling on the topic, too shaky in Kansas since we have a political storm every election on that education board and being laughed at nationally harms this state.
STS, you have been reading the Barnett/Wagle campaign brochure to much. Kathleen’s record defends Kathleen. The hollow Republican attacks mean nothing. Hell, there are many moderate R’s legislators in the Wichita area who won’t support Barnett/Wagle, what does that tell you? Take the prediction JR gave; a double digit loss for Dr. Jim.
JR,
What part of the theory of evolution is scientific fact?
If it is such “fact” as you claim then perhaps you can tell me how many times they have revised their theory on the fossil record, how many times great discoveries which were used as fact were actually found out to be fraud…etc…etc…
It is not fact.
If we can have an honest dialogue about it instead of the simpleton thinking that IT IS FACT…yada yada yada…
And then you say those who question evolution are the ones who are fanatics?
Who is more fanatical? The person who wants to have an honest dialogue and discussion about it or the one who can only keep saying IT IS FACT and pretend like anyone who says different is a wierdo?
I am sorry that scientific fact conflicts in your eyes with your faith Nathan. But scientific fact is not required to reorder itself to suit your whims. Given your use of punctuation and caps in your last it is clear that emotion also clouds your judgement as to this matter. Again, this is not my problem.And a productive debate is of course not possible.
Evolution is a scientific fact that has, is, and will be taught in the public schools.
Indeed, JR hit the nail on the head. If you refuse to look for evidence that answers your own question, then the problem lies with you. If you choose to believe that evolution is just a conspiracy of athiest scientists, then thats your problem. If you want to prove that something that is accepted by virtually 100% of scientists is a lie, then the burden of proof is on you. The thousands of evolutionary biologists don’t owe you and explaination. If you intend to unseat the bedrock of biology that is overwhelmingly supported by every branch of science, then back it up or shut up. No one wants to hear the same ignorant questions that have already been answered online, in books and in journals.
Badwolf – perhaps you can enlighten us on what Sebelius has done? I follow the legislature pretty close and have yet to see her take a lead on anything. Even the Eagle in 2004 disputed the $1 billion she says she saved. So if you have some facts then let’s see them.
Nathan you appear to be clueless about what a scientific theory is. Of course it’s revised with new data, unlike religion, science doesn’t begin with a conclusion and pray that there is evidence to support the conclusion. What is a proven fact is allele frequency does change and genetic drift between populations happens.
Have you ever wondered why there are populations of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics? If there was no such thing as evolution then we wouldn’t have to worry about that, or even have to worry about getting colds anymore. We wouldn’t have to worry why some species of frogs in Alaska can hibernate and survive an Alaskan winter while the same species of frog from the lower 48 die out when brought to the same climate.
Where is the alternative theory to evolution? There is none. Lamarkianism was refuted a long time ago and despite how much the Soviet Union tried Lysenko’s work proved absolutely useless. It must take a large amount of effort on your part to still accept Lamarkianism and want that to be taught in the schools. It was mentioned when I went to school but only as a refuted theory that has been soundly disproven because of discoveries in genetics.
Thank you Courtney and as I’ve not seen you before, welcome to the forum!
Aw you “hit the nail on the head” with your last far better than I. I just hit Nathan on the head. I know Nathan and as you come to know him you will find that any one “fact” he posts bests any thousand any other poster throws at him…..at least in debate according to Nathan.
Hey so? I’m no great fan of Sebelius. One thing I DO love about her is her capacity to give you righties fits. She trounced the nut Shallenburger and she will do the same with Barnett.
I have a question for the supporters of Lamarkian theories (i.e. Nathan). Why is it when fish swim their bodies move side to side while when a whale swims their bodies move up and down?
I’m just curious how your Lamarkian theory supports that.
You only further prove my points!
I have yet to say one word about religion and yet that is your witty reply?
Lets bash him about faith and religion!
You demand an alternative theory…
Like I said, with people like you, you are the fanatics. You are so blindly obsessed with saying it is true without actually engaging in an honest discussion.
Why are evolution proponents so scared to actually discuss evolution except for when they are saying it is a fact?
LOL
Sotheysaid,What has Barnett done?
On the subject of giving illegal aliens in state tuition. Wagle voted for it too so lay off Sebelius on that issue.
What could Sebelius do with the education debate? She is a democrat governor in a republican state. The possibility of anything she proposes getting passed has about as much chance as a snowballs chance in hell.
Nathan?
Did you miss Courtney and Doug? Your last seems directed only at me.
JR, whenever I ask someone who rejects the fact of natural selection often I’m met with silence. Nathan just doesn’t have any facts to promote his ideology, whatever it may be.
I doubt anyone could have a degree in genetics and reject evolutionary theory. Mendel’s initial work on genetics proven heredity was passed along through genes was what proven Lamarkian theory to be wrong and Natural Selection to be correct. Maybe Nathan’s mom slept through that part.
I don’t know what Nathan is talking about.
I gave him 3 sources for massive amounts of information on evolution in my first blog. We have all tried to direct him to answers to his question, since we are not bioiogists (atleast im not). It’s no that evolution supporters are unwilling to answering nathan’s questions, we have tried. He is just obviously not interested in understanding evolution, as he claims. Who is more fanatical, someone who claims something, then directs non believers to a wealth of info supporting his point; or someone who claims disbelief, disregards any evidence that doesn’t support his view and is unwilling to do any research.
The main point of this thread is that Barnett is dancing around the subject of what he would have taught in Kansas classrooms.
Barnett’s current non-answers to these questions remind me of Kerry’s efforts during the 2004 race to remake himself into an image starkly different from his decades-long Senate voting record. Barnett is facing the same type of inconvenient contemporary political demands. He can try all he wants to remake himself into a mini-Susan, it is not going to work, and I don’t think his heart is really in it.
How well did that make-over strategy work for Kerry? Much better than it’s going to work for Barnett, IMO.
We need to comply with 3 Kings 7:23 and mandate that PI = 3.0
“I don’t know what Nathan is talking about.”
Truth be known: neither does he.
Courtney, your post gets to the essence of why “debating” with someone like Nathan is an utter waste of time and a sure sign one doesn’t have enough to do.
Having figured this out so quickly, Courtney, you can spare yourself the pain of beating your head against the wall which is the experience of discussing anything with Nathan.
I have always thought “debating” a matter of faith - religion - is about the most absurd thing one can do…
You’ve definately got that right!!!!
I wasn’t trying to debate. nothing is up for debate. I was only trying to give info to someone who says he wants to understand. And yes, I now realize that Nathan doesn’t ask question because he is curious. Instead he is sitting in a corner with his hands over his ears saying lalalala hoping the big bad evolution boogeyman will go away.
I wasn’t going to vote for Barnett in the first place. I don’t see Sebelius in the paper very often, which to me, mean that she hasn’t done anything stupid. For my money, I would perfer to stick with a candidate who “does nothing”(not my words) than risk voting in someone who might pull a ‘city councel’( my words) on us.
Courtney, sorry, wasn’t accusing you of trying to debate religion. That is Nathan’s ploy for engaging in is trolldom. I was impressed that you sniffed out his stuff so quickly
Indeed
Courtney “got it” lots quicker then most of the rest of us about Nathan. Very perceptive!
Keith – Wagle is not running for Governor Barnett is.
Are you saying that it does no good for the state to have a Democrat Governor? Because she is a Democrat she cannot lead and get anything passed? Seems like she signed a lot of laws over the past four years and she had a lot of Democrats standing by here for photo opportunities that took credit for those laws so Democrats must be able to get something passed.
Now Sebelius did lead the charge on getting the in state tuition for illegal’s passed. Most of the people in Kansas see this as wrong.
So if she can’t lead why should she be Governor?
Get over it STS
“So if she can’t lead why should she be Governor?”
1. The people vote for her.
2. Her challengers are much bigger jokes than she is…
STS,Wagle is running for Lt. Governor. So she has no say in what happens in the campaign? In your mind Wagle can vote for giving illegals in-state immigration but Sebelius can’t nice double standard.
Wasn’t it the job of the legislature to get school funding passed. All Sebelius did was put pressure on the legislature to get school funding passed.