Archive for Friday, October 14, 2005

Anti-religion bias

October 14, 2005


To the editor:

In a recent letter, Curtis Bennett said, "The purpose of education is to teach one to think, to consider facts and evidence to form conclusions." This is exactly what is not happening regarding the teaching of evolution. Students are force-fed evolutionist dogma and told not to question the "facts."

The "facts" (evidence) are the same for evolutionists and for those who believe in intelligent design/creation. The difference lies in the assumptions made before interpreting the data. Evolutionists dismiss the idea of any higher power. When starting with this assumption, is it any wonder that they will never be able to discover intelligent design, even if the evidence plainly points in that direction?

Taken as a whole, Bennett's comments reveal a clear anti-Christian bias with no real understanding of what that faith is all about or what its followers have accomplished in science and in society. Mike Cuenca's letter is much the same. Had he actually read anything put out by the ID movement, he would know that their arguments are scientific, not religious, in nature. Instead, he attacks the ID movement based on certain ideas and events of long ago.

Cuenca says science relies on reason and evidence. However, noted evolutionists have admitted they believe in evolution in spite of the evidence, not because of it. This is reason?

Cuenca talks of "the evil perpetrated by those who would force their beliefs on others." I suspect he would have no compunction about forcing his own belief in evolution on our school children.

Steve Larson,



just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 5 months ago

Continually repeating the same tired old lines does not make it so, rtwngr. Evolution is science, ID/creationism is not. That you don't understand the terms "fact" and "theory" in the context of science doesn't change that.

But just because you revel in your ignorance and superstition doesn't mean you should be able to inflict it on the science students of Kansas public schools. You can do that at home and at church to the unfortunate kids who can't avoid you.

Richard Heckler 12 years, 5 months ago

Until Creationism/Intelligent Design can prove itself a science we might should consider putting this discussion on the legislative back burner such as Utah did.

Meanwhile interested families and individuals can find a source such as a coffee shop, bar, church or parochial school and continue discussing the matter. I've yet to understand the logic for demanding it's presence in the public school system.

rtwngr 12 years, 5 months ago

The problem here, Merrill, is that evolution is taught as fact not theory. No objections are ever presented to this theory such as the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Darwinism has been taught as fact because the scientific community has been too lazy to present any other alternative be it intelligent design or whatever. Darwinism was a theory easy to live with so therefore it became the norm.

bjohanning 12 years, 5 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus has hit the nail (very hard) on the head. People don't understand or they don't want to understand the term :Scientific theory." Lets make a deal we will teach ID in the public schools and I will teach Evolution in all of the Sunday Schools and all Sunday school children will be forced to listen to me. After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Spoken1 12 years, 5 months ago

You know, I never had a single teacher teach me that evolution was more than a theory, so I don't know what rtwngr is talking about. Maybe rtwngr can show some valid proof that schools are doing this? My teachers taught me many facts that support the theory, but once again, they never stated that all the facts made the theory anything more than a theory. As a matter of fact, it was never referred to as 'The Fact of Evolution', it was ALWAYS referred to as 'The Theory of Evolution'. I have yet to meet a science teacher that closed the case on any of the facts or theories we know today, they always prompted us to think on our own as well as to question established modes of thought. After all, that IS what science is, questioning to get a better understanding.

Jamesaust 12 years, 5 months ago

"Had he actually read anything put out by the ID movement, he would know that their arguments are scientific, not religious, in nature."

No, ID's FOCUS is upon scientific subject matter, but ID makes NO scientific arguments of its own (that's none, not one, nothing - scientific arguments subject one to disproval, criticism, perhaps even laughter).

To the author: please list one scientific proposal for the origin of life that ID posits. There of course isn't one as ID is - literally is comprised of - the insertion of superstition in place of uncertain or uncomfortable scientific explanation. ID is not (indeed, can never become) science.

BOE 12 years, 5 months ago

" Had he actually read anything put out by the ID movement, he would know that their arguments are scientific, not religious, in nature. Instead, he attacks the ID movement based on certain ideas and events of long ago. "

  • Steve Larson,


If their arguments were based in science, they wouldn't be trying to change the definition of science, now would they?

Change the definition of science to include the supernatural and you can "scientifically" destroy any proof provided in testing of the natural world.

It's political fraud.

The below quotes aren't something from "old events", but May of this year, during the so-called debate.



"Science errs by refusing to look beyond natural phenomena to other explanations"

  • William S. Harris, member Kansas Science Standards Writing Committee that produced the minority report and co-founder of Intelligent Design Network Inc.

Asked where he saw atheism in the Kansas science standards, Harris replied, "I see it between the lines."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.