Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
By P.J. Huffstutter Times Staff Writer Fri May 6, 7:55 AM ET
CLAY CENTER, Kan. In this rural swath of northern Kansas, where the grass rolls thick and green to the horizon, a white cross dominates the landscape.
ADVERTISEMENT
Kathy Martin, a member of the state board of education, and her family built it on their farm this spring, gathering weathered chunks of limestone from the horse pasture and laying them on a hillside.
The cross is a proud expression of Martin's faith. And as hearings challenging the role of evolution in the state's school science curriculum began Thursday, that cross left little doubt about where she stood in the debate.
"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them . We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity not science."
The hearings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.
Whichever curriculum proposal the board adopts in a vote planned for this summer, members say, it would serve only as a guideline for teachers, thus giving educators more leeway in the classroom. But the standards do determine what is included on statewide tests, and students would be required to learn that material.
"Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is in our schools," said William Harris, a chemist who was the first witness to speak Thursday on behalf of changing the state's curriculum. "This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications."
Dozens of national and state science organizations are boycotting the hearings, which they see as an effort to introduce creationism and "intelligent design" into the classroom. Intelligent design is a concept that asserts that life on Earth is so complex that a higher power must have played a role in its creation.
"Public hearings and votes are not how the 'truth' of science is determined," said Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science. "We don't have to lend the credibility of science to the hearings."
Brian Sandefur, a board member of Intelligent Design Network, a nonprofit organization based in Shawnee, Kan., wondered: "Are they afraid to show up? Are they afraid to defend themselves?"
The debate over Kansas' curriculum, political experts say, reflects a broader effort by conservative Christian groups to move their agendas forward by electing like-minded officials at the state and local levels.
"Now the conservative Christians expect to get things done and they expect politicians they have backed to deliver for them," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio. "In cases where they have more influence, such as the Kansas school board, they're going to do it themselves."
Kansas isn't alone in the debate over teaching evolution.
Local school boards in Georgia and Pennsylvania recently voted to alter their science curriculums and provide for the teaching of alternative theories. Both moves are being challenged in court. And the Ohio
Department of Education passed a measure ensuring that teachers could hold classes that challenged the theory of evolution.
At least nine states, including Kansas, are considering bills that would affect how evolution is taught in their schools, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Kansas has flip-flopped on the issue over the last six years. In 1999, the board of education then dominated by conservative Republicans voted to reject evolution as a scientific theory and erased most references to it from the state curriculum.
Faced with criticism from around the nation, the state's voters changed the makeup of the board the following year, and the policy was reversed.
"After that, people in Kansas felt as if the conservative right had reached its apex," said Allan Cigler, a professor of political science at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. "People were wrong. The far right was just waiting for the next issue to rally around."
It came in 2004, with the debate over gay marriage. Evangelical ministers from some of the Midwest's largest churches mobilized their congregations and encouraged them to head to the polls. (This spring, Kansas voters overwhelmingly approved a far-reaching ban on gay marriage.)
The churches also kept an eye on seats that could be politically helpful on the state board of education, said the Rev. Terry Fox, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Wichita, Kan.
"We encouraged people to elect a conservative school board" to revive the evolution debate, Fox said. "It was a piece of cake. It was such a low-flying election, no one was paying attention."
Last spring the 6th District seat on the board which then was evenly split between conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans and Democrats emerged as vulnerable.
The incumbent, moderate Republican Bruce Wyatt of Salina, was not a strong favorite in the mostly rural region that covers 17 counties.
One point of voter concern was evolution: While campaigning, Wyatt had noted that a routine review of the state's science standards would be held in 2005 and that he supported leaving the standards alone.
Martin disagreed. She is proud of her faith. She believes God created her and all mankind. It's a conviction shared by many in this agricultural town.
The only office that Martin, a teacher for 30 years, had ever held was treasurer of her college sorority. When a fellow teacher suggested she run against Wyatt, Martin said, she was skeptical.
But after meeting with conservative and religious leaders, who were looking for another Republican candidate to upset Wyatt, she changed her mind.
"I prayed, and God helped me decide. Suddenly, I was traveling all over the state, talking to people," Martin said. "I kept running into strangers who were working on behalf of my campaign."
Martin won the August primary with more than 60% of the vote. She ran unopposed in November. Now, she is at the center of Kansas' latest debate over the teaching of evolution.
This year a 26-member team of doctors, professors and schoolteachers studied the state's science standards and wrote a 107-page proposal, suggesting that the curriculum remain largely unchanged.
But in March, eight people on that committee submitted a 19-page minority report to the state education board, suggesting that teachers discuss alternative theories with their students.
In a crowded meeting hall across the street from the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 100 onlookers and members of the news media listened as the first of the hearing's 23 expert witnesses explained why the theory of evolution was flawed.
Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker's position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate.
Afterward, she was curious and confused.
"I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?"
That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.
"If you want to know about science, ask a scientist. If you want to know about faith, ask a minister," said Robert Hagen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas. "If I were to go into that hearing and tell them why the 'science' of intelligent design is wrong, I'd have to get into such detail that most people would just glaze over."
Although the issue has yet to be decided, some teachers said they have seen subtle changes in student behavior.
"We're just getting to evolution now, and I have one student who puts his head down on his desk to show he's not paying attention," said Brad Williamson, a biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kan., about 20 miles southwest of downtown Kansas City, Mo. "Others say they're not comfortable. It's very difficult, because you spend months and months gaining their trust to even broach the subject, and now they're shutting down."
There is a growing sentiment that, no matter what is said during the hearings, the board of education has already decided how it will vote.
"I respect all viewpoints and I will listen to their ideas," Martin said this week. "But I don't see me changing my mind."
Times researcher John Beckham in Chicago contributed to this report.
WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - A pastor of a small Baptist church led an effort to kick out church members because they didn't support
President Bush, members said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The nine members were voted out at a Monday meeting of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. WLOS-TV in Asheville reported that 40 other members resigned in protest.
"It's all over politics," said Selma Morris, the church's treasurer. "We've never had a pastor like that before."
Pastor Chan Chandler had told the congregation before last year's presidential election that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen.
John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said Lorene Sutton, who said she and her husband were voted out of the church this week.
"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," she said. "He's real negative all the time."
Morris said some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October.
Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS that the actions were not politically motivated.
North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.
"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Meek said.
Here's my question for Kansas--which religion are they going to require be taught as part of science, and what happens when the other 3249235345 of them sue for the right to have their theory included too?
Why do some people insist on mixing their religion with politics? Are we really that against a secular state?
Funny thing is we're out promoting secular democracy in the Middle East, and yet they pick up the paper and see us doing the opposite here at home. Great example we're setting. Bah. Ireland is looking nicer and nicer every day.
Here's my question for Kansas--which religion are they going to require be taught as part of science, and what happens when the other 3249235345 of them sue for the right to have their theory included too?
I think that ID is a fairly far reaching notion, that would have to underpin any religion that assents to a creator.
"We're just getting to evolution now, and I have one student who puts his head down on his desk to show he's not paying attention," said Brad Williamson, a biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kan.,
I don't know about you, but I slept in biology class too.
Quote:
I think that ID is a fairly far reaching notion, that would have to underpin any religion that assents to a creator.
and what happens when the other 3249235345 of them sue for the right to have their theory included too?
They'll get burned at the stake for being heretics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkCajun
Why do some people insist on mixing their religion with politics?
Because they feel the need to tell others what to do, because they know better than anyone else what is wrong and right and people need to be saved from themselves. Freedom of Will?? Irrelvant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkCajun
Are we really that against a secular state?
You aren't, they are. You will either conform or get burned at the stake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkCajun
Funny thing is we're out promoting secular democracy in the Middle East, and yet they pick up the paper and see us doing the opposite here at home. Great example we're setting. Bah. Ireland is looking nicer and nicer every day.
Middle east project isn't about secular democracies, it's about installing friendly regimes. Unfortunately, most of the native religions aren't exactly friendly towards the US, so hence the move to secular "democracies", if those people could be forced to convert to the "true" religion without launching WW3, then this would be done in a hearbeat.
*De-activating snarky answer mode*
Case you haven't guessed it, I'm not particularly fond of folks like that. I hold them in as much disdain as I do the Mullah's of Iran or the Afghani Taliban or even the KKK. If these folks had their way, we'd be right back in the Dark Ages with them in control.
It's folks like that who make me question whether or not we're even going to survive the next 200 years as a species, or that we'll go the way of the dinosaur, with the sole difference being. The Dinosaurs didn't kill themselves off by being stupid.
It's folks like that who make me question whether or not we're even going to survive the next 200 years as a species, or that we'll go the way of the dinosaur, with the sole difference being. The Dinosaurs didn't kill themselves off by being stupid.
Questions like those exist by means of the thinking you've demonstrated above. The crux of the argument is an assertion made that evolution is the only model taught in schools. This is a true statement - evolution is taught as the primary model to answer the question "where did we come from". You have erred in assuming that this question was not based on objectivity, but rather a partisan religious attack. A model of ID is also extremely relevant to be taught in the classroom, alongside evolution. For my part, I don't see their incompatibility. In this case, those arguing for ID happened to be Christians. As a philosopher, I would insist that ID be taught in the system as well, as children have a right to know ALL of the options. From my perspective, reason leads us inexorably to intelligent design. One need not profess a particular religious creed in order to draw that conclusion. This issue is not about church and state, but about intellectual honesty and integrity in the education system.
I guess I had the privilege of being taught ID since I went to a catholic high school. I agree that alternative theories should be available because like AoA said, we have a right to know all the options. However, it is important to separate ID with evolutionary theories as ID cannot be studied in an objective, systematic way. Also, the intended interpretation of creationist theories can be disputed; people two thousand years ago had a different way of analysing and absorbing information to us.
If schools in certain states do begin to teach theories of intelligent design along side evolutionary ones, undoubtedly this will be taught from a christian aspect on creationism. If people have a right to know all of the options however, then creationist theories from all religions should be taught... I certainly know that I would have been much more interested in my religious education lessons if we had been learning about gnosticism. But then you have to look at the schools curriculum from a realistic view - there is simply not enough time to teach alternative theories. This does not only pertain to religious alternative theories as well, for example, as well as learning about global warming, we would learn about global dimming as well. I think an intellectual integrity can be maintained be simply making such theories available to be learned outside of the classroom - those who are interested will take it upon themself to learn these things and benefit from the knowledge.
Questions like those exist by means of the thinking you've demonstrated above. The crux of the argument is an assertion made that evolution is the only model taught in schools. This is a true statement - evolution is taught as the primary model to answer the question "where did we come from". You have erred in assuming that this question was not based on objectivity, but rather a partisan religious attack. A model of ID is also extremely relevant to be taught in the classroom, alongside evolution. For my part, I don't see their incompatibility. In this case, those arguing for ID happened to be Christians. As a philosopher, I would insist that ID be taught in the system as well, as children have a right to know ALL of the options. From my perspective, reason leads us inexorably to intelligent design. One need not profess a particular religious creed in order to draw that conclusion. This issue is not about church and state, but about intellectual honesty and integrity in the education system.
ID is not a science, so it doesn't belong in a science class.
And in case you missed it, Mrs. Martin mentioned in the Article, decided to run for office, because God helped her decide, and because she disagrees with evolution and believes the Bible to be right. If that's not the equivalent of a partisan religious attack, than I guess the threat of ex-communication against Gallileo Gallilei wasn't one either.
However. This whole ordeal about teaching creationism in schools instead of evolution isn't about it at all. It's about crowd control. It's about trying to plant the seeds of hate against scientists. Creationists are never going to prove to scientists that evolution is wrong.
What the creationists are trying to do is trying to pick political fights where "average" people who believe in the idea of that you should teach all theories versus the intellectual class, aka the scientists. If you start to question scientists regarding this, they will eventually pull rank on you. "Look, I have a PHD. I'm a scientist. And I know right from wrong because I'm an intellectual." That is backlash gold for creationists.
This isn't about creationism. This isn't about evolution. This is just a battle in the war against science and scientists.
ID is not a science, so it doesn't belong in a science class.
The problematic enters the picture when evolution is projected as being *the* method of mankind's proliferation and existence. This is connected with an ideology of origins. The problem is that ID is excluded. If science as you regard it can only deal with concrete proofs, it should not maintain the notion that evolution is the cause and continuation of life, as that has just about as much "proof" as ID, from your perspective.
Quote:
And in case you missed it, Mrs. Martin mentioned in the Article, decided to run for office, because God helped her decide, and because she disagrees with evolution and believes the Bible to be right. If that's not the equivalent of a partisan religious attack, than I guess the threat of ex-communication against Gallileo Gallilei wasn't one either.
I had attempted to steer you towards objective foundations for the argument. In this case, Mrs. Martin has about the same basis for objectivity as those "scientists" who boycotted the event. Bringing an ad hominem into the argument does nothing to further it. Re-read what I posted earlier, about what's truly at stake in this. It's not about religion, although there are proponents who would base their views on it.
Linear Mode
