To the editor:
The constant whine of the evolutionists against the Kansas State Board members has had a never-ending theme. They point the finger and call, "Creationism is religion. How dare you teach religion!" This board doesn't seem to hear them. It might just be because they know something these people won't admit.
When the "Balanced Treatment Act" in Arkansas sought the courts to present both evolution and creation to school children, Michael Ruse convinced Federal Judge William Overton that teaching Darwinism was scientific because establishing its validity required no philosophical assumptions. All other views required assumptions and were, therefore, not scientific. The Balanced Act was struck down.
The ironic thing is that Ruse's conscience bothered him. So much so, that he gave a speech in '93 saying that he had come to a different position on the philosophical issue. There he stated, "an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as ...some creationist." He went so far to say that "evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion."
Now the fanatical fight against a fair layout of origin models becomes a little clearer. The evolutionists are religiously defending their faith (and political agendas). They are intellectually dishonest if they deny it. Maybe now they will quit their bellyaching and name-calling. The word's out.
So a bad law was passed a long time ago. Now is the time for the pendulum to swing back to the center for balance. Both models have a philosophical base. One claims total naturalism (atheism), and one claims an "intelligent designer"(God).
Our state board members are wise enough to know our students should be given a choice to consider both sides -- dependent on the science that supports the different models. At the very least, the students should be allowed to hear the problems associated with macroevolutions assumptions turned "facts." After all, evolutionists clamor for Darwinism to be a "fact" so as to close all discussion about its validity. And this board knows that is censorship in its slyest form.
To the editor:
I take exception to the opinion of Leonard Krishtalka on June 8. I suppose I can admit to being a yokel, idiot, simpleton because I believe God created man from the dust of the Earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and gave him a soul. Thus, he was distinguished from the other animals. I do resent Mr. Krishtalka denying the right of my children to study creation.
Mr. Krishtalka clearly states it is theoretical science that he is teaching. He resorts to belittling and name-calling yet puts forth no proof of what he espouses as fact. I recall when his department had a skull on the wall at Kansas University labeled as the missing link between monkey and man. It was called Piltdown Man. It was quickly taken down when proved to be bits of monkey, dog and man skulls.
I know of no one who denies science has been necessary to our well being. I know of no one who maintains research should be ended. I know of many who do not practice swinging from the trees and looking for their grandparents.
We idiots, yokels and simpletons do manage to earn money to pay your salary, Mr. Krishtalka. We still believe the right of religion given to us by the Constitution. That Constitution that gives you the right to teach your theories. Where is proof that Creation did not exist?
You write of the dinosaurs as if it is a fairly new discovery. I find in my Bible that, "there were giants in the Earth in those days." That was prior to the time of the great flood which destroyed them. You referred to the "proverbial pillar of salt" I presume you took that from your Bible about Lot's wife.
The Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, it does give a guarantee for freedom of religion. I don't believe Mr. Abrams is trying to ban science from school books the way you wish to ban creation from school books.
God created the heavens and Earth, fitly framed so that scientists could discover that comets would appear at fixed times, that certain weeds would produce medicines. He did plan it all, but bear in mind, it is written that to God a thousand years is as one day. I do not deny your statement that the Earth is millions of years old, but you cannot prove it except in theory.
811 N. 1710 Rd.