Archive for Saturday, September 24, 2005

Official: It’s evolution or the Bible, not both

Conservative community applauds exclusionary statement

September 24, 2005


— When the chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education told the crowd here that it was impossible to believe in the Bible and evolution - it has to be one, not the other - only one family got up and left.

"It would be very funny if it weren't so serious," Tim Emert, a local lawyer, former state Senate majority leader and former State Board of Education chairman, said after he walked out.

"There are just so many problems in public education, to create this divisiveness over something that when it translates to the classroom is not going to make any difference, I think is just a sad commentary on the State Board of Education.

"I believe that you can believe that God created the earth, and I believe evolution exists and I can't second guess God about how he created it," Emert said.

His comments came Thursday after a speech by current State Board of Education Chairman Steve Abrams, a leading critic of evolution.

Abrams, a Republican from Arkansas City, has led a successful charge by the 6-4 conservative majority on the education board to adopt science standards that cast doubts about the theory.

During a question-and-answer period to a mostly receptive audience of church-going social conservatives fed up with evolution, Abrams said one couldn't believe in the Bible and evolution. You must believe one or the other.

"At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe," Abrams said. "That's the bottom line."

Warm reception

But Emert's response to Abrams was in the minority at this meeting.

The majority of the approximately 75 people who had gathered in a former post office converted to a history museum said "Amen" to Abrams' speech. The meeting was coordinated by a small, local group of Christian men called Open Public Education Now.

Abrams was introduced by fellow conservative board member Iris Van Meter, of Thayer, who urged the crowd to pray for the conservative board members.

Van Meter said the audience could pray for other board members, too, but she emphasized, "Would you pray for six of the conservative members that God will use us to see some life-changing things happen for the children of the state of Kansas."

During his talk, Abrams defended the conservatives on a variety of issues before the board, including a proposed change in the sex education policy and the hunt for a new education commissioner, who will be the top public school official in Kansas.

Currently, on sex education, local districts can decide whether to implement a policy where parents can "opt in" their children or "opt out."

Most districts, including Lawrence, "opt out," meaning if parents don't want their child to participate in the sex education curriculum they can sign a form, and the student will be given an alternative class.

The conservatives want to recommend "opt in," meaning that parents would have to sign a permission slip to allow their child to participate. Health policy experts say this will reduce the number of children getting necessary sex education because some parents aren't involved enough to sign the form. The health officials have urged the board to leave the matter to the discretion of local school districts.

Abrams disagreed. "The one thing that trumps local control is parent control," Abrams said.

Standing ovation

And Abrams said he was "sick and tired of all this second guessing" about finalists chosen by the board for the education commissioner post. He said he had received a lot of negative comments because one of the five finalists, Bob Corkins, a Lawrence resident who is head of a conservative think tank, has no background in teaching nor education administration.

But Abrams asked how many chief executive officers of hospitals were medical doctors.

The audience, a mix of young, middle-aged and elderly people, greeted Abrams warmly, giving him a standing ovation at the end of the evening.

The group sponsoring the talk had offered books titled "The Case for A Creator," and a list of "resources for the case against Darwin." Prayers were said to open and end the meeting.

Dan Delich, a carpenter from Independence, said he wanted students to learn that there was information that debunked evolution.

"We just want equal access," Delich said. He said the theory that life was based on a "random explosion of molecules was like a bomb blowing up in a junkyard and producing a 747."

Tim Holloway, a delivery pilot for Cessna, praised the education board for being "courageous."

He said too often the doctrine of separation of church and state was "used as a club to beat back Christianity. To acknowledge the existence of God doesn't establish a religion."

Tim Nordell, of Sedan, said he believed the public school system started to decline when prayer and Bible reading were removed. Of evolution, he said, "There's a bunch of holes in it," and pointed to several scientific discoveries that were later proven wrong.

A man who declined to be identified because he promised his wife not to spout off, said, "Evolution is a religion of its own that excludes all others. It's a cult of its own."

When asked how they could join in the fight against evolution, Abrams, who had read to the group several angry e-mails he received from evolution supporters, warned that the battle "takes a huge toll."

"You must be prepared emotionally," he said.


Richard Heckler 12 years, 9 months ago

Steve Abrams probaly should consider resigning because he cannot separate personal beliefs from his job. Major conflict of interest.

Evolution is evolution plain and simple.

Intelligent Design was Creationism so as with neocon pattern the name could change again. How is creationism a science?

Wonder if any of these board members own stock in a school book publisher from Dallas, Texas?

fossilhunter 12 years, 9 months ago

Has ANYONE gotten a reply back from e-mailing any of these guys? I've tried and heard nothing but crickets....

Evolve_Kansas 12 years, 9 months ago

I did not surprise me to read the comment by Abrams. However, I believe he did leave out one word. Abrams only want people to believe one Bible, and that bible is his Bible. Those that do not believe his version of the Bible can always be burned at the stake or maybe sent to the gas chambers.

I hope his views are in the minority and that the educated people of Kansas start speaking out and working to make some needed changes to the State Board of Education. I can not believe that the majority of the religious people in Kansas support statements like the one Abrams made yesterday, but by not speaking out it may look that way.

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

The media loves to portray creationists as dumb unsophisticated folk and to get a good story they must emphasize the most emotional statements. I wonder what was said at the meeting that provided logical arguments in the creationists favor. For those interested in logical arguments in favor of creation and Intelligent Design go to: for an article entitled, Is Intelligent Design Science?

bhanson 12 years, 9 months ago

My question is what creation story will be taught in schools. Will it be from the Christian bible? What about the Apache Indian creation story. I recently read a really interesting creation story from a Japanese perspective. The only way that teaching creationism in public schools can be anywhere near constitutional is to find out how may different religions are present in Kansas School Children and teach every one of these creation theories in school. I can't wait to hear what Letterman, Leno, and Stewart have to say about us Kansans now.

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

Mr Abrams says that at some time we all must compare the Bible and Evolution and make a decision. I have done this, and I have found both creation and evolution to be not of science. Teach neither as science.

History, literature, law, stamp collecting are but a few examples of rational and intelligent work that are worthy parts of our society. None are science. Evolution cannot be sufficiently tested. Evolution is not science. Creation is just as far from science as is evolution.

If a class in high school doesn't have a laboratory component, then don't teach it as science. Choose the 4th possible combination of evo/creat. That is, 1) believe in evo, 2) believe in crea, 3) believe in some combination of both, 4) believe in neither on the basis of science.

There, fixed that problem by bending the nose of both arrogant sobs.

ModSquadGal 12 years, 9 months ago

Honestly, will this never end? First of all, the religious nuts had to change "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" so as to justify it as some sort of scientific endeavor. Now they want to say that there is NO other option to believe in? When will the people of Kansas stand up and start beating back this ridiculous notion?

Try telling Buddhists, Jews, Taoists, Agnostics or even Muslims that there is only ONE Bible and ONE way to view how we came into being and you will get a war on your hands... wait a minute... that's how it already IS!

There are MANY viewpoints that are valid and interesting. Teaching only one is paramount to propoganda. Religion is a personal choice, not a classroom subject. If you are going to teach one way of believing, you have to include all others so that RATIONAL decisions and conclusions can be made by students. Either that or LEAVE IT ALL OUT.

Come on people - we need to start pointing out how completely unacceptable this whole thing is. Don't continue to be sheep, stand up and be heard!

laughingatallofu 12 years, 9 months ago

Steve Abrams' comments are truly dangerous. It is said that the difference between wise and being ignorant is that there is a limit as to how wise one can become. Steve Abrams' comments was not a display of wisdom.

Evolve_Kansas 12 years, 9 months ago

ePress suggested a website for "ID" science. Try this website if you are interested science.

Jamesaust 12 years, 9 months ago

I would disagree with Mr. Abrams and go so far as to suggest that if he doesn't believe in evolution then he doesn't believe in God. Mr. Abrams: study evolution and you will find revealed the mechanism used when God decided to create life. Spit upon it if you choose but I warn you, sir, that action comes dangerously close to blasphemy, which arises out of pride (Ps. 73:9-11), hatred (Ps. 74:18), and injustice (Is. 52:5). Do not limit God, sir, with your own limited intelligence!

calvin 12 years, 9 months ago

I agree with you Jamesaust. Mr. Abrams statements show his ignorance about science. Yes I believe that God is the intelligent designer and I also believe he used evolutionary processes in His creation. Many of those opposed to a ID theory think it is not possible because where did the intelligent designer come from? But on the flip side where did the matter that evolved to form life come from? How did it get here? It takes faith to believe either viewpoint. I choose to put my faith in God, it seems the best option to me. I've never been called a right wing religious wacko, but if my belief in God makes me one so be it. One day we will all answer to God.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


There are no logical arguements to teaching or even bringing the subject of ID or creationism in the classroom.

ID is not a science by any standard. Scientists that study evolution and any other discipline related to evolution ALL agree on that point. Only those that tout ID believe ID is a science. Try and find ANY recognized scientific group that supports ID. You won't, none do.

Creationism obviosly is not science.

ID and Creationism are fine for a theology or philosophy class.

You really should research and find out WHY universally no scientists support ID except those that have made this a wedge issue, which by the way was the reason behind the "creation" of ID.

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

Jamesaust said, "I would disagree with Mr. Abrams and go so far as to suggest that if he doesn't believe in evolution then he doesn't believe in God."

If by "evolution" you mean natural selection, then I'm on the same page with you. Remember though, natural selection selects information out of organisms. If your comment about evolution is referring to macroevolution then reveal your evidence.

The unfortunate part of this ongoing debate is that people seldom define their words. Evidence for "evolution" is in natural selection but natural selection is not the cells-to-humans evolution. Natural selection is simply adaptation, not evolution as the public thinks of it.

Christians accept natural selection as a mechanism by which various species of animals were derived from the "kinds" of animals God created. For example, God did not create every breed of cattle; he created cattle with the DNA information included for the diversification for the various cattle breeds.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 12 years, 9 months ago

The real issue here IS education. Many religious fanatics, such as the current crop of board members, fear the real truth. The truth could well be that all their religious fervor is so much fantasy and voodoo. Now does that make me a religion basher?? Definately not! Most all religions will tell you that you are saved by your faith, and there is simply nothing wrong with having a faith in a higher power, no matter what you choose to call the Supreme Diety. But the smallness and bucolic attitudes of these pseudo-religionists makes itself very apparent as they seek to destroy the search for knowledge to defend their religious fervor. They have a lot of help, a significant segment of the population is fooled into believing such claptrap as the "rapture of the church", being totally ignorant of the origin of this falsehood. They seek to calm their fears by attacking and refuting true educational prncipals fully aware that ther REAL truth will show their collosal ignorance and stupidity. If you have ever listened to any of the popular TV evangalists, you will note their common theme, anti-intellictualism, anti-education, anti-science, anything that they perceive as a threat to their narrow-minded views of the Supreme Being. Their way is the only way, they are "supremely stupid" and there are an alarming number of folks in Kansas who embrace their populist views and in so doing threaten the very existance of society on earth by attempting to destroy the search for true knowledge, and wisdom.

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

MoreThanUltimate said, "Only those that tout ID believe ID is a science. " Likewise, only those that tout "evolution" believe evolution is a science.

MoreThanUltimate said, "Creationism obviosly is not science." Did you read the article at: Did you know: Two hundred years before Charles Darwin, Sir Isaac Newton said, "It's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature." Other scientists, such as Johann Kepler, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur and Blaise Pascal (to name a few) credited God, not naturalism.

james bush 12 years, 9 months ago

Abrams sounds a too radical according to this article. Even catholics as far back as i can remember , like 1950, were taught that belief in God's creating everything and in evolution could be compatible. Maybe Abrams should step down if he believes otherwise.

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

frwent said, "But the smallness and bucolic attitudes of these pseudo-religionists makes itself very apparent as they seek to destroy the search for knowledge to defend their religious fervor."

This sounds like evolutionists.

frwent said, "Their way is the only way, they are 'supremely stupid' and there are an alarming number of folks in Kansas who embrace their populist views and in so doing threaten the very existance of society on earth by attempting to destroy the search for true knowledge, and wisdom."

Intelligent design and creationism opens the door to true knowledge and wisdom; it does not prevent or hinder secular scientific inquiry. Let's take for example the topic of information. Information is a massless quantity; we use it, sell it and send it down wires. Information does not come from time, chance, or naturalistic sources. Information comes from intelligent sources. DNA is the most complex and dense source of information known to humanity. Now if one follows the evidence to where it leads, instead of forcing the evidence into a particular paradigm, one can see that information is a powerful argument that favors creation and intelligent design.

Now what is wrong with kids learning this kind of argument? What is wrong with them debating the merits of such an argument instead of forcing upon them a single view?

What evidence do you have to support your feeble theory of evolution?

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


People once thought (and still do), the earth is flat and the sun and moon revolve around the earth. Guess you do too, eh?

Your logic is twisted:

"Likewise, only those that tout "evolution" believe evolution is a science."

Not by a long shot when you consider almost 100 science organizations and the National Science Foundation support evolution. Who other than crackpot scientists and people who have no science backround, but only from a religious standpoint support ID?

There are NO credible scientists that support ID. The so called scientists that do have been shown to have flawed thinking everytime without exception. You obviously haven't read more than what you WISH to believe. I have read both sides extensively. No one but a fool could conclude that a case for ID exists. So go ahead and believe what you would like, your thinking is flawed.

G-d may or may not exist, and I do believe in G-d. I just don't buy the BS that ID claims. Proof by manipulation, lies and distortion is not science, it is ID.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


Prove G-d exists.

Prove the bible is G-d's word.

Prove that other theologic explanations of the creation of earth are incorrect and only yours is correct.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

"It's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature"

Correct, it is unphilosophical, I didn't hear anything about science in that. I say it would be unscientific to credit God for the effects of Earth. I believe it was the cosmological argument put forth by St. Augustine or Aquinas that has been proven irrational by modern philosophers. It deals with cause and effect. If the Earth and life is an effect, then there must be a cause. God was credited as the cause. The problem is that God is presupposed in the premise and the conclusion is thusly illogical. It's the fallacy of circular reasoning and that fallacy is at the base of ID. ID proponents do not follow the basic rules of logic and the entire theory is baseless thereby.

Either way the place for this "debate" does not belong in a child's classroom. It is misleading and irresponsible to misinform students that there is any scientific alternative to evolution. There is a reason that scientists avoid the debate with ID proponents. ID proponents don't hold any debate within the correct circles of scientific method and peer review. They attempt to make publicity stunts (The Kansas School Board meetings) in order to appeal to people's belief systems and sway those uninformed and fence-sitting individuals. It's a PR stunt and nothing more, and it's disgusting.

"If your comment about evolution is referring to macroevolution then reveal your evidence." The evidence is the fossil record, where ya think that came from, hmmm? I've heard the devil put it there to trick us into coming up with evolution. Interesting, the devil went to all that trouble to place fossilized bones in the ground hoping one day we'd find em and some guy (Darwin) would come up with a complex theory to explain life on Earth in order to deceive us and lead us away from the idea that God created the world. WOW! Guess it worked huh?

"God did not create every breed of cattle; he created cattle with the DNA information included for the diversification for the various cattle breeds." Where's your evidence for that one? You ask for evidence on macroevolution and then say something like this? This is the essence of what I described above. I could say that aliens brought cows here, hell they brought us too, cloned us in a big electric snake in the sky. It sure sounds like a great story, hell I think it sounds good enough to teach students in Kansas! I'll call up 'ol Abrams and pitch it to him. Anyone can say anything, but to pawn it off as truth and fact and science, that's just academically irresponsible.

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

MoreThanUltimate said, "Who other than crackpot scientists and people who have no science backround, but only from a religious standpoint support ID? ... There are NO credible scientists that support ID." Tell that to more than 400 scientists ( many with Ph.D.s and many professors) are found here:

MoreThanUltimate said, "Proof by manipulation, lies and distortion is not science. . ." Sounds like you are talking about evolutionists. It is evolutionists who do not define their terms so that the public can understand the issues.

Have you noticed that your main argument is an ad hominem attack instead of providing evidence for your view? Provide some evidence for macroevolution.

Trucker_Todd 12 years, 9 months ago

Hey how bout this, Instead of venting on this board email the guy and tell him how you feel. While your at it include the Acting Commissioner">p>

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

ryanjasondesch wrote, "It deals with cause and effect. If the Earth and life is an effect, then there must be a cause."

My comment about information is far more powerful as evidence for the existence of God then you are likely to provide for His nonexistence or that the universe arose out of nothing. In fact, those who believe that the universe began out of nothing must also deal with the problem of an effect without a cause.

We're back to philosophy. If the philosophy of materialism can be discussed in school why not discuss the potential options for the first cell or the origin of DNA?

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

I'd like to hear from the evolutionists what they think of the quality of the science they espouse? Forget the 100 scientific organizations. This is specious. Forget the creationist, they aren't doing science.

I think the evolutionists have bitten off more than they can chew. The creationists have only managed to provide a straw man to knock down. One of you evolutionists out there 'splain to me how has macro-evolution been tested? Or how will it be tested? NOt more evidence, please. Testing. Are you out there anyone?

ePress 12 years, 9 months ago

MoreThanUltimate wrote, "Prove G-d exists." Why do you refer to God as "G-d"? I provide evidence (not proof) for God's existence at:

Concerning, "Prove the bible is G-d's word." I would like to do an article on that sometime but there are plenty of good sites that provide excellent arguments on this topic. I suggest this site:

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


"This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

'why not discuss the potential options for the first cell or the origin of DNA?' That is discussed in school, in university, where true science is carried out. The theories they might posit can then be presented in a science classroom for high schoolers who haven't the science knowledge to deeply analyze those ideas. It takes many years of college and graduate school to attain a level of expertise to qualify one to pose answers to such questions. That doesn't keep the question out of philosophy circles as they are free to comment on science theorys and deduct their own ideas to the origins of life. But we don't offer those ideas in a science classroom.

The cosmological argument falls flat because it said GOD was the initial cause. I didn't say the universe began out of nothing. I don't know what caused it and neither do you. You have no evdience whatsoever that God exists or that he/she/it exists in any way shape or form that you believe he/she/it does. Of course I have no evidence God does not exist, I never said I did, just like you have no evidence. I can say I have a unicorn grazing in my backyard with a pornstar sitting on top, being led by a hobbit with a cute little evil ring about which he won't shut up concerning his mission to destroy it. To tell you the truth, it's quite appealing, its got an essence I can't neither explain nor deny, I just can't stop looking at it, the ring I mean. Of course, I can say all of that, sure doens't prove anything though. But man, I sure can't get my thoughts off that ring that I can't prove the existence of, the hobbit is right, IT MUST BE DESTROYED!!!

Moderateguy 12 years, 9 months ago

If all our christian folks want to teach their little black comic book of stories in our public schools, then their crowd control BUSINESSES should pay taxes to support said schools. Otherwise, teach your stories in your homes, or your weekly shareholder meetings.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

epress, those links are worthless sites of illogical garbage and word twisting. If you're gonna site sources as 'evidence' then at least try to get credible sources. Illogical arguments are not evidence. And Carl Sagan, if he had been asked to respond to such statements he would have laughed and walked away. Such intelligent men shouldn't have to respond to such crap. Seriously, even the author mentioning Carl's name is disrepectful.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

here, you want links, here's one that illustrates what a joke this has become:

ps, I'm not saying it's 'evidence'. . .

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


Been there done that, still does not provide proof. Again you fail to realize that belief in G-d is FAITH. Belief in the bible as G-d's word is FAITH. Thinking otherwise is lunacy.

Your link fails to prove anything other than the twisted methodology and unaccepted science of proving G-d's existance. Your link to the bible theory is not any sort of proof other than wishful thinking that requires faith. That interpretation is not one that all religions follow universally.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


Using the word G-d is respect to G-d's name. If this collection of bytes were to be destroyed, G-d's name would not. Same way I write it on paper or anywhere else.

Something I learned in Sunday school which to me makes sense.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago

Damn, now I can't be accussed of being an athiest!

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


Ever heard of Project Steve?

National Center for Science Education:

"Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. "

The Steve Project:

The List:

When will you ever learn?

John1945 12 years, 9 months ago

Why is he the voice of reason, because he has the same bigoted perspective of people who actually understand Biblical Christianity as you have? Please.

And Danny, narrow-minded and idiotic. Why because we don't agree with you? Assuming that people who disagree with you are narrowminded and idiotic is what's narrow-minded and idiotic.

Also, you're not associated with "us". You'd have to have a clue of what that "us" is before you can be associated with it, and you're not even close.

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

The best part of Steve is that he can never be wrong. Whatta guy.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

Or is it you that's never wrong, got a 'hot line to God' do you? Or is it Christianity that's never wrong? They sure got it right during the inquisition. During the policy of non-involvement in the Haulocaust? During the Crusades? During the Salem Witch trials? During Slavery? During the oppresion of women's rights? Minority rights? During the conquering of America? During the ruthless slaughter of Indians and Indian children (those godless heathens!)? Look, if you're so insecure that you can't accept the fact that you did in fact decend from an ape-like common ancestor, that you are so psychologically insecure that you cling to a 'daddy-like' figure of a belief in God, that you're world is a static, unchanging paradigm of an antiquated world and are resistant to change and your ignorant belief system, why don't you go and live in Arkansas or Kentucky with the rest of the freakin loons, and quit damaging the reputation of an otherwise fine state? I believe in the freedom to believe whatever you want, but there's a fine line between clever and stupid. You don't even know where that line is.

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

Steve can never be wrong because Steve can't be tested. I went to More arrogant references to things like "fact". Yes, it is fact in the same way that by about 1800 Newton was a scientific god whose theories couldn't be questioned by any "real scientist". Darndest thing about light, though. Was Newton wrong? We test him all the time. Even rely on his theories to live. Is it fact? Only to arrogant scientists who aspire to that god-like status.

To ryanjasondesch: I hope you didn't hurt your nose when your knee jerked up so violently. It seems that you missed my points : creationism isn't science, evolution isn't science either. Each because they can't properly be tested. This is a pissing contest between two very lightweight contestants. My life simply does not require any belief in either theory. This is theology, philosophy, but I just can't find where this sort of "Big Question" argument has much hope of being answered in a scientific way. That is, testing for refutation of the conjecture (see Karl Popper). Do I believe in evolution? Do I believe in creation? Both questions are answered in the same way: only if I have to, only if it benefits me.
So far the only way the leap of faith required of either theory benefits me is if they make me warm and fuzzy inside. Fool the other one.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


Once again you display your ignornance and stupidity for all to see. You and others like you wish to follow a cult that tells you something is fact when it is not. You and others like you follow out of ignorance and the wish to have someone tell you how to think. You refuse to accept anything that you cannot understand or comprehend, yet you want to convince us of your intelligence by support of an unintelligent position.

If you had read anything that was presented to you, it would quickly become apparent why ID is completely preposterous. Then again I guess I can't expect you to comprehend any of this since you obviously lack the intelligence to admit how overwhelming the evidence is against ID.

You sir are a perfect example as to why science in the United States is falling behind. If you don't already have children, do us all a favor and surgically fix yourself as we don't need more like you running around sucking everyone else's brains dry.

John1945 12 years, 9 months ago

Reading these comments one can easily picture the gas chambers of Auchwitz again, located just outside Lawrence with a daily quota of Christians being gassed.

All that has been asked is to discuss the flaws of Darwinian theory, but we're not allowed to question the faith of the so-called scientific community. Even suggesting that there are flaws is simply too uppity for the arrogant high priests of Darwinism.

Real science questions everything and Lawrence has once again been shown to be for people of faith what Mississippi once was for people of color.

Get out the firehoses, release the dogs, the Christians want a voice in their children's education.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

Seems you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and science. Evolution IS science. Has been for years. To compare creationism (not even ID) and evolution as 'lightweights' demonstrates that very misunderstanding. Evolution is an accepted, well rounded and observed theory. Studies based on the selectability of fruit flies and numerous plants prove such. Genetic studies provide evidence linking species to species. The fossil record provides evidence for macroevolution. This is fact, it is there, it can be measured and as therefore, measured (thus biostatigraphy). It does not indeed need to be 'tested' so much as measured in the real world. It thusly is. Hence the theory of evolution. And what in God's name do you mean about my nose? It's quite fine I assure you. Are you alluding to some evolved process of knee-to-nose-self-infliction? By what means? Is this some selected-for process that is observed by those who understand the natural process of the world more accurately? If so I haven't heard of it, probably just some other crazy theory proposed by people with no education or basis in true science. Sorry fella, wrong again.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

I of course meant "process that is observed in those who understand"

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

Give me a break John1945, Christians hold the reigns in this country (unfortunately for the good of humankind). The gas chambers of Auchwitz? Are you kidding? Hope so, otherwise I don't know how you could possibly be taken seriously. No one said you couldn't question evolution, though many have doubted the intelligence of those who do. Christians voice for their childrens education is theirs for sure, what about us non-christians? If you want your children to be stupid ignorant jobless freaks, teach em your theory at home. As for my children, when it comes to public education, I don't want them hearing your Christian lunacies. Would you like your children hearing my Buddhist theories? Shove off, and take your theological garbage with you.

John1945 12 years, 9 months ago

Thank you ryanjasondesch for once again stating so succinctly the intolerance and religious bigotry of the Lawrence community. It's unfortunate that a newspaper with the journalistic credentials the Journal World has turns the credibility of its community over to a small group of extremists and their bigoted outbursts.

So, as long as there are folks like you spouting your hateful crypto-Nazi "garbage", I think I'll stay right here until the folks on the staff who agree with your bigotry censor me.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago


Be VERY careful who you call Nazi and references to the Holocaust. You are using it improperly to describe what you are thinking and the parallel you are trying to draw makes no sense.

Not everyone is christian, and you wish for them to follow your way of thinking. True same could be said of us that support evolution. There is a HUGE difference. Unfortunately none of you who support creationism and/or ID understand that evolution is science and creationism/ID are not science by any accepted scientific standard, but indeed faith. Teaching a faith in science class makes no sense. Teaching one faith and no other in any classroom is also wrong. Therefore the logical conclusion is to not teach creationism or ID in science class. Maybe a reasonable solution is to create a class for students to learn about all religions including those that don't believe in G-d. Myself and I'm sure many other people would find very acceptable. That would be a huge step forward in eliminating the bigotry and hate by those like yourself that believe your religion is the only true religion.

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

I speak not for the Journal-World, but for myself. The Journal-World allows us both the freedom to speak, do not fault them, you're escaping the issue fella. You mistake my ideas for religious bigotry, but it is yours that occupies the heart of this issue. Don't pretend to be persecuted for these internet posts, go and ask a Jewish survivor before you post such nonsense. I'm not killing anyone for their beliefs, I only ask accountance for their rational inadiquacies such as yours. You are the one who brought up the "hateful crypto-Nazi "garbage'". Don't try to spin it back to me, I'm the minority here, being Buddhist and all. I don't wish to censor you, I only hope that rational minds see what an illogical mind you are. I'm not the one who equated Christians who irrationally subscribe to ID as Jews under Nazi rule, you did, obviously erroniously. Get with it man, come to terms that you're totally out of sync with reality, get help, go back to school (real school), and then maybe you can have a rational conversation about this. Until you can come up with something intelligent, I will refuse to respond to you. That might take a while, the rest of your irrational life perhaps. . .

Fred Whitehead Jr. 12 years, 9 months ago

Lets set this story straight. Religion and those who wear it on their sleeve is simply an indicator of the class warfare that has been created in our modern society by such dysfunctional entities as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. It is tremendously frightening how many people are hoodwinked by these pretenders to their claim of media outlets. They are not. They are merely trying to inflame the public and sell them their cheap crap to haul the money to the bank.

Those who cry out about their Bible and their God (Who made religion the domain of these most vocal pretenders, anyway?) are guilty of the very sin that Jesus noted in his instructions to pray. He spoke of the people who made their prayers a public demonstration, and admonshed them saying that to pray people should go into their darkets closet and pray to their God in secret. God, who knows their secrets will also acknowledge them in secret. Those who make public display of their "religion" will receive no reward, for their public display is their reward.

It is simply a clash between those who think that since they go to church (and that is a debatable subject, churches have been showing a steady decrease in attendance for some time now) think that somehow they have the right to force their religion and the various sugared-up deceptions of it on the general public and that the government should force these religious notions on the general public schools. What they cannot achieve in their general religious practice, training in the home and in their church, should be, according to these zealots, enforced in the schools. That is it, plain and simple.

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

On behalf of all of the Christians who aren't as closed-minded as these... I apologize. Why in the world some believe that evolution could not be the process in which God created the earth, I have no clue. It could be that evolution is wrong... It could be that the literal "Six Day" creation story is the wrong way to interpret it... We just don't know. However, until evolution is debunked from colleges and universities... We will be severely stunting the potential of the students we are turning out through the public education system.

And, as far as the sex ed. debate... The "opt in" idea is absolutely idiotic. Basically, what this does is gives those parents who pay attention to their kids the option to "opt in." However, studies have shown over and over again that it isn't those kids that need it most. The kids whose parents pay attention to them (and the subsequent paperwork that comes from the schools for them) are the ones who either: a) Don't have sex, or b) Already have safe sex. Whereas the students whose parents don't pay attention to them (or the paperwork sent home from school) end up getting pregnant or getting their girls pregnant... Or, worse yet, STDs.

I think it is extremely fresh that these very same men and women who don't want sex ed. taught to those who need it most, also are the ones who are adamantly against abortion once they get pregnant. I, for one, am more adamant against abortions than anyone I know... However, I also back it up by supporting better sex ed. so that those who will have sex won't get pregnant. In a perfect world teens would be monogamous with one partner... But, this isn't a perfect world... And these men and women should know this better than anyone (considering, I'm guessing they believe in the inherent sin nature.)

Anyway, I digress... All I can say is that I am embarrassed to be associated with these people. Just know that not all Christians think the same way these do. Some have the benefit of being able to think about the consequences of their actions.

--Danny Speicher

ryanjasondesch 12 years, 9 months ago

Thank you Danny, finally a voice of reason I've been searching for here, thank you. I may not agree with every point you made, but dammit, at least a voice of reason has surfaced from the 'opposition'.

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Really, John, because I used to be on the "evolution is wrong" bandwagon. I know exactly who you are. Now, as far as being narrow-minded... When you exclude something that will, no doubt, benefit our children in the universities around the globe, you are narrow-minded. You are focusing in on an issue that you take to be SO important that you are willing to make our kids the laughing stock of their campuses. A basic understanding of evolution (at least) is needed to grasp some of the more complex theories in almost every science course offered in post-secondary education.

Don't get me wrong, John. I think a lot of the evolutionists have swung too far left. They have taken to bashing Christianity on the whole to prove a point. (Which, honestly, I don't believe accomplishes their task.) However, that is a reaction to our swinging too far right.

Let me ask you this, John... Why is this such a big deal to you? Do you believe that an individual child will go to hell for believing in evolution? Do you believe evolution being taught in a science class (without ID) will hinder someone in that class from being saved? Here's what I understand about Biblical Christianity, John. I understand that Christ came as a political reformer (i.e. "Turn the other cheek", "Let the little children come unto me", the woman at the well, "You without sin cast the first stone", etc.) All those issues are issues that dealt with the written or un-written laws and codes of the day. Christ came to reform the way the people thought politically. HOWEVER, every political reform he came to promote he came to promote so that others might be saved through Him.

He understood that those who didn't "turn the other cheek" didn't get the gospel of forgiveness... So, he promoted it. He understood it is important to teach children about Him, so that they might have something firm and stable to stand on when the struggles of the teenage years and beyond come howling later... So, He allowed them to come to Him. He understood that women couldn't be saved on the merit of their husbands... So, He spoke the truth in love to the woman at the well that she might be saved. And, He knew that someone who has sinned can't be saved if they are dead... So, He encouraged the mob to not throw a stone.

(More to continue below)

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Here's what I understand about Christian Theology, John... It is important to DISCUSS issues like this. Just as it was important to discuss other issues facing down Christianity in the first few centuries AD (Gnosticism, Donatism, Arianism, etc.) However, it is important to remember that we should be DISCUSSING them before we deny them as heretical. I have yet to have any proof (and I read a lot of it... Being at a Christian institution and being from Kansas) that shows me that evolution is NOT true. I see a lot of holes in it... But, I see a lot of holes in the "literal six day" creation story too. I believe that it is possible that God revealed the creation process to Moses in symbol just as He revealed the end times to John in symbol.

I have a pretty open-ended view on evolution for two reasons, John. 1) I don't think anyone has enough information either way to make a logical stance that it is true or false (but, I believe it should be taught until the universities drop it from their MO of science.) 2) I just don't see souls being won over in these public forum debates. I see those who are unsaved becoming even more aggitated at the saints, and I see the saints becoming even less tolerant of the unsaved. That's a problem for me. Pardon my bluntness in saying "idiotic", that may have been too harsh. However, narrow-minded fits the mold.

--Danny Speicher

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

People on this issue refuse to admit that science is defined by testing not evidence. ryanjasondesch, you site experiments on fruit flies and the like. No argument. How do you get from a series of infinitesimal tests to the "Big Question" of origin of species? Expand time from days to weeks, to years to millenia, million, billions. Yikes, Have you ever heard of time decorrelation? We engineers use it all the time to separate signals by frequency and time. Hence channels on your TV and cell phone. The biologists have huge gaps to fill. Not only in time, but in the overall quality of research. Ask any scientist, it is dangerous to calculate ten to the 9th by ten to the -9th to get the answer of 1. The bottom line is that biology has a branch devoted to the "Big Question". So does physics. Most physicists and certainly engineers LOL at the fun of science fiction and mythology of it all. Great fun, but of no use other than that warm and fuzzy feeling in the confidence that you are really smart. Pernicious mischief. Arrogance.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago

Posted by devobrun (anonymous) on September 25, 2005 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"People on this issue refuse to admit that science is defined by testing not evidence."

Scientific method is defined by testing AND physical evidence...

scientific method:

A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world.

Hmmmm.... "defined by testing, not evidence"

Ok, so what pray tell are you trying to say?

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

Thanks for considering the argument about science without resorting to knocking down the straw man of creationism. Evidence and theory are common to virtually all learned endeavors. Lawyers gather evidence and form a theory, literature forms hypothesis and requires support by siting evidence in the writing, history is written from original references and is a synthesis of information to tell a story with as much accuracy and nuance as can be gathered from evidence. There's a lot of examples of this type of thinking and knowledge that gather evidence to support a theory. None of them are science. Back in the 50's some folks tried to apply mathematics to history. Utter failure. Does this make history, the law, literature false? No, but don't call it science. The truth in science is approached asymptotically thru repeated extensive testing. If the theory cannot be tested, then it isn't science. Again, this stuff should be taught in a theology class, not a science class. I teach physics and I find the subjects of evolution , big bang, and any "Big Question" easy to teach. I say that there are theories out there that are all very interesting and we can discuss them, but none of these questions have arrived at the point were they can be called science in the same way that is anywhere near say, quantum electrodynamics. I make absolutely certain that all my students experience the fun and satisfaction of measuring velocity, acceleration, capacitance, inductance. We build a doppler radar and measure the speed of a vehicle and compare it to displacement divided by time. I simply don't bother trying to relate time and distance to the big bang. Don't need it. Speculation, conjecture, all great fun, but don't pontificate as if you know that the laws of physics were generated from a "god particle". LOL. I think that biology has done itself a great disservice by insisting that mytosis, myosis, and any other testable science is NECESSARILY tied to some grand scheme of evolution. It doesn't. People like Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking and Steven Jay Gould have actually caused science to be popularized. Is this good? Yes and no. That warm and fuzzy feeling you get inside when you are told that man is incredibly brilliant is a false god. Don't believe your press. Your hat won't fit anymore.
Stay within yourself son, don't go too far too fast because you'll skin your knee.

MoreThanUltimate 12 years, 9 months ago

I think you are a bit confused, there are theories related to evolution that have been tested and proven. Granted there are not answers for every miniscule detail that covers evolution completely. We are still learning. Have we uncovered every fossil that will ever be discovered? No, but again as an example, as we do discover more, we learn more. So far this theory fits every angle that those who study these related disciplines. The only people who don't are those that want to tie the G-d factor in by reading the bible literally and suggesting that we are too complicated to because something/someone created us. Give me a break. So does that mean we stop asking how we got here, where we are going? Should we stop trying to find the answer to the origin and age of the universe because we will never know... it's too complicated so give up?. So far no one has come up with a better theory that can be proven. Evolution has been proven time and time again, so to say it hasn't makes no sense unless you have no knowledge of the subject. By saying to me you do seems rather impossible as if you did, you can't escape the fact that there has been scientific method used to establish evolution. Otherwise, the theory of evolution would not be as accepted as it is today. Likewise ID is not accepted because of the LACK of scientific method that you say evolution hasn't. Sorry, guy you do not make sense.

Your examples don't correlate with evolution. It would if as you say there is no scientific method in evolution. You are not being honest with everyone here, yourself and sadly your students.

Evolve_Kansas 12 years, 9 months ago

I think everyone will agree with this statement. The topic of evolution does get the attention of many people! There is also something else that I have discovered during my more than 50 years living in Kansas. Those, like Abrams, either do not in any way understand science, or they just ignor it, or they modify actual facts in a way to fit their beliefs and then call that science. Many may be smarter than we think. They may understand that most of the general public does not have all that good of an understanding of science. Thus, they can present something like ID and sell it to people that do not know all of the background.

All of us that have an understanding of the scientific method knows that ID is not science. It may actually be how our universe started, but it can not be proved and it is not science and it should never be taught or discussed in a science classroom. However we are not going to change the minds of those that are working hard to force Kansas educators to bring ID to their science classes.

We can do something, however. As stated before, concerned citizens must get involved and work to replace a few of the Kansas Board members with people that will work to improve education in Kansas rather than turn our public schools into something that will teach their specific beliefs.. Also, we need to write letters, send email, and encourage the press to ask each and every member of the Kansas Board to comment on the statements Abrams made a few days ago. I know a lot of people that are very religious and also understand evolution. They are the type of people we need to encourage to become more involved. As I said, we are not going to change the minds of those that are set on bringing ID or other forms of false science to school classrooms.

dosmall 12 years, 9 months ago

The "diversity" expressed in the comments I read here is amazing . "If he does not agree with me, or if he has religious views, Steve Abrams does not deserve to speak and certainly does not deserve to hold a public office?"

If someone simply asks to be able to question a naturalistic theory you label it religion and call him unqualified?

The best question to ask is, "Should one of the worst science education programs in the world, U.S. government educaiton, which is based on evolution, not think seriously about its base. At least seriously enough to allow questioning it?

How about lets show our diversity and let parents decide where to send their children to school, with equal financial support for all. If these right wing nuts are really hurting children, then it will only hurt their own children. Incidentally, it has repeatedly been proven that children in systems that teach all ideas of origins are much better science and math students than those who are taught closed science.

Neither evolution nor creation are science. The origin of nothing was observed nor can it be falsified in a laboratory. If anything, ID is the closest to science of the three. You can calculate the probability of something. You can see the complexity of organisms and study the principles that cause them to work. You can measure decay rates of atoms and magnetic fields to determine if millions or billions of years are involved. But science education is not the question. Control over childrens minds to establish contol over the money is the goal.

Don Small Burlington

Daniel Speicher 12 years, 9 months ago

Well, I somewhat agree with you, Don. However, I don't think it is the government's responsibility to pay for private (i.e. non-public) schools. If the school isn't, on some level, controlled by the tax-payers, it shouldn't be funded by them either.

And, fortunately or unfortunately, evolution is science when you are talking to most of the post-secondary institutions. Therefore, it is a very bad idea to take this education away from those who are in Junior High and High School. That is, if they are planning on going to college. Otherwise, I suppose it doesn't matter much one way or the other.

--Danny Speicher

dream 12 years, 9 months ago

Don, please don't even try to go there.

WHY is it that so few (aprox. 400) "so called scientists" support ID when the vast majority (we are talking aprox. 10,000) scientists say ID is bogus. Most of the 400 have EXTREMLY questionable credentials at best. In fact no where does anyone at any credible science facility say... "Gee that Dr. Behe is a genius! Or any of the other Id squad scientists. No peer paper has been presented in support of ID that anyone except those in ID accept as valid scientifically or otherwise. It took the ID camp 15 years to get the first one out after announcing the sci-fi thriller known as ID. Why did it take so long? ...Spell checker broke or couldn't get God's permission for a bibliography? If you read the history behind ID it was developed as a wedge issue to get creationism in the classroom, not as a discovery or hypothosis of real merit. To believe otherwise is just naive.

After reviewing these peer papers,it becomes VERY clear to anyone with a real science backround, why ID is simply faith restated in scientific jargon using lies and twisted scientific methods to make the uneducated believe ID has been scientifically proven as valid. Gimme a break!

I personally don't have a problem if you believe in ID, the fairy princess or Godzilla, just don't teach it in science class. Keep ID in church or faith based schools and everyone will be happy. If you wish to espouse on the legitimacy of ID, you will always be laughed at by the rest of the scientific community until something is published that actually can be supported by those other than the few nutjobs masquarading as scientists at the Romper Room Discovery Fiction Lab.

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

Well, MoreThanUltimate I am confused. By your response. I agree that there are theories in evolution that have been properly tested. And I agree that not all of the theories which are necessary and sufficient for macro-evolution to achieve the level of QED are yet tested Yes we are still learning. The remaining areas are not miniscule, and the overall connections of all the theories have not been tested. That is, start with a complete set of all the amino acids needed and build an elephant starting at say, an amoeba. Need a million years? Too bad. "so far this theory fits every angle that those who study these related disciplines." Isn't a sentence, but I think I get the drift. More pernicious mischief. Selective science. Reject the science that doesn't fit.
I reject any reference to creation as setting up a straw man so that you can knock him down. Specious. We should never give up trying to learn as much about us and our world as possible. But, don't become bigoted and imperious about it. "So far no one has come up with a better theory." This is such a non-scientific statement that I think you may want to take it back. "Evolution has been proven......" Wow, this notion of scientific proof is right out of 1920. Bertran Russel tried to prove that 1+1=2 using logic back in the 20's. After 42 pages of work he had to admit that he had failed because the chance that he had made a mistake was so great that he didn't believe what he had done. Proven, hahaha. No such thing. THe establishment of microevolution is sound. But until you test macro-evolution stem-to-stern you have pre-science, conjecture without refutation. Yes, keep trying, but don't write checks your ass can't cash. And that's where we are in this argument. You invite the wrath of spiritual people all over the world when you claim that you have the ultimate knowledge. You come at this argument as a man of science. Believe me if you think that your macro-evolution is stirring the ire of civilized christians in this country, don't go to Pakistan! I laugh at both evo and crea. To this engineer who built radars for NASA for over 20 years you all play in Romper Room. Time to grow up, show up, and do something that has meaning to this guy who is tired of seeing time and $ wasted on mythology. In the beginning there were two tiny amoeba, and they loved each other very much.......

Get a job.

devobrun 12 years, 9 months ago

I have a job, and I must go do it. So long 'till next weekend. Now it's time to go do some science... save some lives.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.