News that the Kansas State Board of Education once again is discussing science standards and the teaching of evolution makes many Kansans cringe.
Only a few years ago, Kansas attracted considerable unflattering attention when the state school board decided to remove the theory of evolution from its science curriculum requirements. After new board members were elected, the decision was reversed, and many state residents aren’t eager to see the issue revisited. Unfortunately, at least a few state school board members don’t share that view.
The board received a report this week on common science standards being developed by 26 states, including Kansas, and the National Research Council. The goal is to write standards that will be considered for adoption in the participating states. The draft standards reviewed by the Kansas board describe evolution as a well-founded, core scientific concept.
That seems like a fair enough description, but some Kansas board members weren’t happy with the language. To support his criticism of the standards, board member Ken Willard, a Hutchinson Republican, distributed a letter from a group called Citizens for Objective Public Education, which lists officers in Florida and Kansas. The letter argues that the draft standards ignore evidence against evolution, don’t respect religious diversity and promote secular humanism.
Kansans have heard this argument before and largely rejected it. The job of school science classes is to use the best available scientific evidence to teach about a variety of topics, including evolution. If matters of faith somehow conflict with the scientific evidence, that is a topic for religious instruction most appropriately conducted in private homes or churches.
Instruction in public schools can’t be based on the individual beliefs of students. In math, grammar and most other subjects, there are generally accepted standards of knowledge that should be imparted to students. Two times two equals four; singular subjects take singular verbs in a sentence. Such standards are the basis for education. The same is true in science class. Students can choose not to believe in evolution, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t learn about and understand the well-accepted theory on which much of biological study is based.
Kansans certainly respect a wide variety of religious beliefs in the state, but the argument over teaching evolution as part of public school science classes has proved to be needlessly divisive and embarrassing. After considerable debate and a couple of election cycles, this issue was settled several years ago. Unless there’s a compelling reason to raise it again, the state school board should let that decision stand.
Comments
distant_voice 1 year ago
Like all religious writings, God didn't write the Bible, he didn't write the Torah, and he didn't write the Quran. Men wrote these books, claiming that God was speaking through them. Do you think there's just the slightest possibility that these men might have slipped some of their own thoughts into what God was telling them? Even today, our world's major religions continue to hide such startling discoveries such as the sun doesn't spin around the Earth, our planet is not the center of the universe, creatures no religious book describes were roaming our planet millions of years before these books tell us that God created it; and yes, while God may have created man, he didn't do it with a wave of his magic wand.
An all-powerful God has less reason to demand the obedience of us mortals to these teachings than men who think themselves powerful.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year ago
"Do you think there's just the slightest possibility that these men might have slipped some of their own thoughts into what God was telling them?"
I think it's a dead certainty that God didn't tell them anything.
jafs 1 year ago
How can you know that?
parrothead8 1 year ago
He didn't say, "I know," he said, "I think."
jafs 1 year ago
Thanks, but he said "I think it's a dead certainty".
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year ago
How can anyone "know" anything for certain?
Regardless, I'll always believe that people who claim that omniscient, omnipotent (but usually invisible) beings are speaking to them are crackpots of one sort or another. And the followers of such crackpots are a bit suspect, as well.
jafs 1 year ago
That makes a huge majority of the human race crackpots, according to you.
Oh well.
You can believe what you like, just as religious folks can do the same.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year ago
"That makes a huge majority of the human race crackpots,"
Pretty much-- not that being an atheist/agnostic ensures immunity from crackpottery.
Liberty275 1 year ago
Not that bozo could know, but I know god didn't tell them anything just like the easter bunny didn't.
jafs 1 year ago
Ok - how do you know that?
Liberty275 1 year ago
Gods don't exist. They are pure fiction made up by humans before we understood the voices in our heads were our own and not the voice of some magical being.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php
jafs 1 year ago
How do you know?
jafs 1 year ago
Since people have continued to believe in God well after the second century BC, your conclusion isn't warranted by the evidence.
It is interesting, though, that consciousness may have developed in that way.
beatrice 1 year ago
So a lot of people believing in something counts as evidence to it being true?
Sorry jafs, but the "How do you know?" argument is what needs to be asked of those of faith who believe in things that cannot be proven. One can never prove that something does not exist.
jafs 1 year ago
We can ask the question of everybody.
The fact that people have continued to believe in God well after the development of the "bicameral consciousness" is evidence that their belief in God was not simply a bi-product of earlier forms of consciousness.
If it were, then when consciousness developed in that way, belief in God would have ended.
Believe whatever you like - that's your prerogative. But, if you (or anybody else) is certain they know God doesn't exist, I'd like to know how that works.
Liberty275 1 year ago
"Even today, our world's major religions continue to hide such startling discoveries such as the sun doesn't spin around the Earth"
Doesn't the sun and earth and the rest of the planets and bit and pieces revolve around the center of mass of the solar system? Also, the sun never has or will spin around anything except it's own axis.
"our planet is not the center of the universe"
Where is the center of the universe?
"these men might have slipped some of their own thoughts into what God was telling them?"
That's not possible. They didn't slip in their own thoughts, they just wrote them down. Giving them the benefit of kindness, they may have been psychotic and thought a god was talking to them and not blatantly lying, but every thought on every page of every book on Earth is man's. Gods don't exist.
DougCounty 1 year ago
"Doesn't the sun and earth and the rest of the planets and bit and pieces revolve around the center of mass of the solar system?"
The center of mass of the solar system that the sun and planets revolve around just so happens to be within the diameter of the sun, as the vast bulk of the mass of the solar system is the sun itself.
"Also, the sun never has or will spin around anything except it's own axis."
First of all, please never use "it's" as a possessive--this is incorrect grammar. It 's only to be used as a contraction of "it is."
Secondly, the sun and the rest of the solar system revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which contains a black hole with several millions of times the mass of the sun.
Liberty275 1 year ago
"The center of mass of the solar system that the sun and planets revolve around just so happens to be within the diameter of the sun"
Thank you. Your accuracy is appreciated.
"First of all, please never use "it's" as a possessive"
Sorry. All the education in the world and my hillbilly/hick background still seems to find it's way through occasionally.
"Secondly, the sun and the rest of the solar system revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy"
He didn't say "revolve", he said "spin". My understanding is that objects spin around their own axis and revolve around other axes. If there is a better distinction, I hope you will share it.
DougCounty 1 year ago
Spin is kinda ambiguous, I agree. The terms I grew up with was that the earth rotates around its axis and revolves around the sun. I could make a case for the sun spinning around either its own axis, the center of the solar system mass, the hub of the Milky Way, or around the center of the mass of the Local Group of galaxies, but I could also go with your definition.
1957 1 year ago
Sigh...
These 2 comments expose that to some evolution is not about science but about disparaging religious faith. They also are just rants without merit written with such certainty and hubris. There is plenty of evidence on the other side, far to much to post here.
I only ask that you treat those who believe with respect and understand that you both just might be wrong.
Liberty275 1 year ago
If you have evidence of god, please post it and prove me wrong.
I don't expect you to know this, but I do support teaching different forms of creationism in school. Creationism needs no god. OTOH, if you want to bring god into the classroom, don't be surprised when the concept is exposed as fraud at every turn.
Also, do not accuse me of disparaging religion. I wholly support religious freedom because it is protected by the constitution and I say nothing negative about any religion. OTOH, god isn't protected by the constitution, therefore I feel no need to acquiesce to the lie of his/her/its (take your pick) existence.
AreUNorml 1 year ago
do we have to treat all believers with respect? how about Westboro? Jonestown? Hitler? AlQueda (if they aren't really just the CIA). Religious belief has the ability to turn into bigotry, hatred and destruction. I see no use in respecting the belief in the invisible man when so many people use him for their own violent agendas.
grammaddy 1 year ago
+10
Liberty275 1 year ago
"do we have to treat all believers with respect?"
You don't have to respect anyone.
"Religious belief has the ability to turn into bigotry, hatred and destruction."
Atheism can be the same. The worst case of mass murder was overseen by an atheist for an atheistic cause - Communism cum Marxism, aka Scientific (that means atheism) Socialism.
AreUNorml 1 year ago
Atheism means without theism or without god. the worst case of mass murder was definitely overseen by an atheist, but he was a madman and his cause was himself, and his ego; ergo, his cause became a religion unto itself. Atheists are not communists, or vice versa, the only thing any atheist definitely has in common with another atheist is their disbelief in gods. You can point to one man who killed millions, while I can point to scores of religious men who have cumulatively killed millions more.
Alyosha 1 year ago
It's sad that a (presumed) American like the commenter above cannot communicate in English. This comment is meaningless and inane.
Would that citizens actually held themselves to higher intellectual and communicative standards instead of playing the class clown.
AreUNorml 1 year ago
you do know that nobody really thinks there is a flying spaghetti monster? it's kind of a joke on your god believers. Also, no scientist believes the universe is infinite. They do believe that it is currently still expanding, but are unable to determine what it's expanding in to. Also, there are ideas that perhaps we are just one of many universes which "pop" in and out of existence, though each expansion/contraction seems to take at least 13billion years.
Alyosha is correct; the post was sheer inanity.
SnakeFist 1 year ago
How would the private sector resolve this issue? I'll tell you: Maximizing profit would determine what is taught and how its taught. The private sector would do its best to cater to all its customers simultaneously - to provide "consumer choice" - and, in so doing, would destroy the objectivity of science. No, Liberty_Belle, once again your utopia of profit-driven greed is not a place anyone would want to live.
Alyosha 1 year ago
Your comment seems to come close to false equivalency: people who are trying to censor knowledge because it conflicts with their beliefs are not in the same position as those defending knowledge from ignorant attempts to censor it.
As George Washington put it, "In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
Everyone is free to be as ignorant as they like, but, like Washington, those of us who believe the spread of knowledge to be a social good are ethically and morally justified, for the sake of representative democracy, in exerting our political muscles against those like anti-science types who would benighten public opinion.
kugrad 1 year ago
How is this government's fault? Sounds like human nature to me. "The State" doesn't force people away from harmonious living. People do it all by themselves.
One_Faith 1 year ago
As an observer from the UK, may I just say that this issue is not about 'banning evolution' being taught anywhere. Students should understand the theory of evolution, but they must also be allowed to learn about other interpretations of the same evidence. Until the 1960's all talk of geological catastrophism was deeply frowned upon, yet now there is a mounting body of evidence for widespread geological catastrophe in the Earth Sciences. To limit students' exposure to just the ruling paradigm of the day - which could be overthrown in mere decades based upon better research - is tantamount to curbing academic freedom. It cannot be justified! There is an enormous and growing weight of evidence agreeing that the Holy Bible is wholly trustworthy from both both archaeological digs - and cosmogony studies. The secular agenda doesn't want to accept the claim that the Holy Bible (which alone is wholly authoritative) provides verbal, propositional revelation about the real world and its past history. Rejection only began in the 17th century with philosophers like Spinoza, and continued with Kant, Hegel etc. Yet a careful study shows that they were busy cutting off the branch they were sitting on. Nowadays, scientists like Stephen Hawking have to postulate multiple universes (a notion also encountered in ancient Judaism) just to avoid the conclusion that the cosmos was a set up job! The truth will out one day!
Alyosha 1 year ago
This comment makes zero sense to serious adults.
tolawdjk 1 year ago
Every Rock Ridge needs a Gabby Johnson.
""False" "is" ""ours""".
Liberty275 1 year ago
The sheriff is near.
DeckDoctors 1 year ago
Care to enlighten us as to where the Bible contradicts itself oh purveyor of wisdom?
vertigo 1 year ago
1) EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
So is He the God of War or the God of Peace?
2) MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
I guess it's possible Joseph had two gay dads... pretty progressive if you ask me.
3) PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
So God commands you get wisdom... only to increase your grief and sorrow?
4)EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9 God CAN be seen: "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23) "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11) "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen: "No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18) "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20) "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
etc etc etc
markoo 1 year ago
Would you please present some of this geological evidence you speak of to us? I'm very interested.
markoo 1 year ago
?
Not exactly sure how this demonstrates anything the original post stated. Could you please clarify?
cait48 1 year ago
So many right wing Christians, so few lions....
Catalano 1 year ago
+100 (They really need to get a "like" button on here.)
Carmalee Winebrinner 1 year ago
SuperActivistGirl 1 year ago
I like this comment!
Carmalee Winebrinner 1 year ago
So very true!
Liberty275 1 year ago
What's next? So many jews, so few ovens?
You should be ashamed.
cait48 1 year ago
I'm more ashamed of you for taking it literally. You must be one of those fundy types.
jonas_opines 1 year ago
"The letter argues that the draft standards ignore evidence against evolution, don’t respect religious diversity and promote secular humanism."
While scientific study should certainly be concerned with the first of those three things, it should be actively unconcerned with the last two, which I suspect are the ones that the letter writers are truly concerned about.
geekin_topekan 1 year ago
I assume that we are speaking of Umo N Ho N creation story. It too has archeological and oral history as evidence, some of it a day drive from Kansas.
If we are going to teach one creation story, we must teach them all. The founders of our country saw this nonsense coming and purposefully excluded the Christian God from our founding documents.
Christianity was omitted with purpose.
jkilgore 1 year ago
But that's unwise. Christianity is unparalleled in its influence on modern society. Taxes payers have a right to the education their children receive. An elective Christianity course, taught historically, would be a godsend, pun intended. (I'm not religious.)
Christianity should not be omitted from schools, nor forced.
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
"Christianity is unparalleled in its influence on modern society."
True, but so is science and technology.
markoo 1 year ago
Then set up an elective course on world religions and you can allow Creationism/ID to be taught in it all you like as a taxpayer.
Tax payers may have a right to have public educators teach their children to the best of their ability, i.e. keeping appropriate course content in the appropriate courses and teaching them accordingly. But they don't have any further rights than that because that's all we can ask them to do. If that isn't good enough for the tax payer, he/she can opt for private schooling or home schooling instead.
57chevy 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure this is the most inacurate statement of the day. In KANSAS, the Bible rules. World-wide, the most popular and fervently adhered to religion is, without a doubt, Islam. Lets teach the Quoran in science class, because its the most popular and has the most adherents. Additionally, given our preoccupation with two wars in the Middle East and our ongoing complex relationship with Israel, Islam probably affects american lives right now more than the Bible. I vote for Mohammed as the prophet of the 21st century. If you disagree, then lets let my science be science and I promise to stay away from your religous beliefs.
sunflower-voter 1 year ago
+100
Carmalee Winebrinner 1 year ago
Christianity can be taught, as part of a comparative religions class. It has no place whatsoever in a science classroom.
sunflower-voter 1 year ago
If any school has enough money to offer an elective course in Christianity, it should take that money and offer another science course, or mathematics, or personal finance, or SPANISH, forcryingoutloud.
AreUNorml 1 year ago
"ignore evidence against evolution, don’t respect religious diversity and promote secular humanism." oh do tell.. What exactly IS the evidence against evolution? go ahead, I'll wait...
Additionally, our public schools are not here to respect or promote religion, and they are to be secular. This poor politician doesn't care about education or kids.. he only cares about pushing his religious agenda on the future of this country. he should be publicly shamed.
parrothead8 1 year ago
"...singular subjects take singular verbs in a sentence."
I think that should be, "...singular subjects take singular verbs in sentences."
jkilgore 1 year ago
The way around this rehash of "teaching the controversy" is to add the study of Christianity as an elective. Notice that I didn't offer "religious studies" because that's not what the public wants.
Although I'm not religious, I'm not against the teaching of religion in schools, so far as it does not involve indoctrination such as class prayer or a forced statement of faith.
For better or worse, isn't it strange that the separation of church and state is so pronounced that students are not allowed to even have Christianity discussed? What I've found in 28 years of public education is that a stunning number of my students have only a very sketchy idea of what Christianity is in any way. To me, that's ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the idea of teaching intelligent design in biology class.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year ago
Which version of Christianity should they learn? Phred Phelps's version? Christian Identity? Catholicism? Amish?
jkilgore 1 year ago
That's a very good point. Let's call it "normal Christianity!" I'm kidding of course. Why not let a ministerial alliance put together a curriculum that they could adopt that gave each branch its due? Does this sound reasonable?
First off, historically, the church was Catholic and should be taught this way. Then the reformation with Martin Luther. At some point, the branches start evolving, and you get as many churches as Protestants deem necessary from those who wear special underwear to those who charm snakes. It's not my call, but theirs.
Humor aside, taxpayers have the right to see to it that schools represent at least in part their view of the world. As an American, that's a sacred obligation, wouldn't you agree?
jkilgore 1 year ago
Oops, a problem with number in sentence two. It should read "it" instead of "they." As an English teacher, I'm searching for the whip of flagellation.
jafs 1 year ago
Why?
If people want their kids to learn religious precepts, they can just take them to the church of their choice.
Your version is overly complex - imagine a serious course like the one you describe - it would be a very long and tedious course, I'd think.
And, if we're going to offer religion in schools as electives, we should really offer other religions than Christianity, if we want to be fair.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year ago
Christianity is certainly an important factor in the development of American society. But rather than a separate class for Christianity alone, the subject matter you suggest could be covered in US history, social studies, surveys of religion classes.
jafs 1 year ago
Good point.
cait48 1 year ago
I completely and totally disagree. No class of that sort should be taught any lower than the college level. If parents wish their children to be grounded in the faith of their choice then take them to Sunday School and church or send them to a parochial school. Public school is no place for religion classes of any sort unless it's within the context of a history or social studies class, I don't mind religion being brought up in the teaching of history. The Middle Ages and the Reformation happened and they had much to do with the shaping of Western civilization. But to my mind that is far different from what you are proposing.
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
It's called sunday school.
SuperActivistGirl 1 year ago
Would forcing people to learn about other religions be a better option? If they have no idea about their own religion, how little must they know about other beliefs?
Reduce hate based on misconceptions?
Geiiga 1 year ago
My education also gave me a really hazy idea of what Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hindi are all about. Although, since I went to a private Christian school, it did give me a good idea of what Christianity was about and why I didn't want anything to do with it.
JJE007 1 year ago
Hearts pump blood. Hearts pump voodoo. Hearts plump up the indignation of "mass" hysteria within worshiping tribes. I see what I can see, every moment that I am alive. I see very little and believe I see much more than most. I do not see the magical, mystical heart as anything but a scheme used to end study and ease the senses to put the mind at rest. Minds should receive no rest or comfort in this world, as the world has no ready answers within our comfort zones. We are all here and wrong. We are all destined to live futile, and traditionally destructive, lives within our ignorance. Hearts pump blood. We blend voodoo into our doctrines of truth and blindness. I see what I see, every moment that I am alive, and I see both evolution and revolution being televised within rigid frames of reference. And so we see the gibberish lives within us all, while few seek to explain why it presents itself as god.
JackMcKee 1 year ago
sadly, when these morons manage to reproduce normal offspring they run away from crazy eyed parents and the State of Kansas as soon as they can open a bank account.
It's not taxes driving people away from Kansas. It's these people.
Catalano 1 year ago
Aw, Jack...it's part of Brownie's new economic development plan, they just forgot to give the BOE guy the right talking points. Didn't you notice the Florida connection (yet, again)? Brownie's going to make Kansas the new Florida...retiree heaven. Wow, I think I just created the new state slogan: Kansas, the new Florida. Or, maybe, Kansas, as Floridian as you think. Oooh...maybe ljw can have a poll!
SuperActivistGirl 1 year ago
Florida minus the Bush?
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
The lack of education and the willful ignorance of the anti-science zealots is truly embarrassing.
KillerKitten 1 year ago
Evolution should be presented in science classes, as should opposing views. There's no reason there needs to be a debate. What gets me is that these so-called educators cannot trust their own children to weigh the evidence and make their own decisions.
I was raised Catholic. I went to after school Bible study classes until I was 12 years old.
In high school, I remember having one lecture dedicated to Darwin and following evolutionary scientists. I remember the mention of intelligent design and I remember the mention of creationism. We focused on evolution because there is heaps of scientific evidence supporting evolution. It was science class.
In high school I also learned a ton about the history of Christianity in my European history class. Having gone through Catholic Bible classes, I had a head start on some other classmates in understanding the doctrine. In college I've studied parts of the Bible multiple times as well. I see the tremendous value Christianity has in the lives of people who follow those teachings. I see religion in general as an extremely valuable part of humanity. There are so many different religions in the world however that to try and force a single religious view on such diverse people is ludicrous.
I made a decision in my life to follow the science of evolution instead of the doctrine of Christianity in regards to human origins. I made a choice. I was not indoctrinated either way. Evolution makes more sense to me. I have friends who received the same education that I did who chose to believe the Christian doctrine.
My point is, your beliefs are ultimately a choice. These legislators do not trust that their children can make their own decisions, and that scares me. Human beings are intelligent creatures. I believe being educated involves being exposed to as much as possible. I feel like these board members are unconsciously forcing Kansas children to be uneducated and single minded.
Another point: Unless these kids choose to follow a scientific or religious career path (oh look, there's that pesky "choice" idea again), where humans originated is not going to make a difference in their day to day lives, just like calculus has no bearing on my day to day life.
Ultimate point: Trust our children. Teach everything which is relevant.
JackMcKee 1 year ago
right. just spend 99% of the time in science class discussing different religious theories on the origins of the Universe. Who needs to learn about those pesky other things like gravity, atomic structure and Newton's Laws. Balderdash!
Carmalee Winebrinner 1 year ago
Then the parents can home-school them.
I don't want my children to hear "GOD made it, the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!" in their science classroom.
bad_dog 1 year ago
"Who but their parents has their best interests at heart?"
"Get in the Suburban kids, we're going to Walmart for some rope, duct tape and tarps. Then it's off to Arizona, the end times are coming."
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
"Evolution should be presented in science classes, as should opposing views."
Which opposing views? Those based on religion? Which religion? Which views?
I ask because there are no scientific "opposing views" when it comes to evolution. Sure, there are arguments over exact mechanism and details, the the theory of evolution, a theory derived from science and the scientific method, is as iron-clad a theory as any in science.
JackMcKee 1 year ago
exactly, it's not theology class. It's not debate class. It's "science"
KillerKitten 1 year ago
Hm, good point. I guess I was just trying to be fair. I suppose it matters how it's presented. If you're talking about "Human Origins" then there's room for multiple viewpoints. If the subject is "Evolution", then it's evolution only.
I staunchly believe in evolution. Unfortunately, in situations like this where there are such extreme views, the only way to resolve the issue is compromise. Teaching creationism/ID in conjunction with evolution is a compromise and should make everybody happy.
This country is so rich and powerful but ironically so far behind so many other first world countries in education standards. We need to compromise in order to shut up and let our kids learn.
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
"Teaching creationism/ID in conjunction with evolution is a compromise and should make everybody happy."
Science is about data and hypothesis testing and building theories based upon data and reality. It is not about compromise.
Creationism/ID is a religious idea that has been solidly rejected by scientific data and experimentation.
The true compromise would be to teach science in science classes and religion and philosophy in other types of classes such as sunday school or comparative religion.
Carmalee Winebrinner 1 year ago
+1,000!
JackMcKee 1 year ago
Sure thing Kitten. Toss in the flying spaghetti monster and a few others and it won't be "science class" it will be religion. We'll need a separate science class to teach actual science.
jafs 1 year ago
There's no need for compromise here.
Schools should teach science, and churches can teach religion.
Any parents that want their kids raised in a religious tradition can bring them to church, and/or teach them those concepts themselves.
We are behind in education, but the remedy isn't to include religious dogma in science class, I'm pretty sure.
Geodge 12 months ago
"Teaching creationism/ID in conjunction with evolution is a compromise and should make everybody happy."
Just to be sure everyone knows this: it is now (and has been for the past 25 years) illegal in all 50 states to teach creationism in the public school system. Just like it's illegal (and has been for 45 years) to ban the teaching of evolution in any public school system.
Gareth 1 year ago
Science flies rockets to the moon.
Religion flies airplanes into skyscrapers.
Gareth 1 year ago
Atomic weapons have killed 220,000 people. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 140,000; the one dropped on Nagasaki killed 80,000.
Not "Millions."
You should try reading some books other than the bible.
hujiko 1 year ago
The impetus and justification for many wars has been religious.
How many wars has science started?
booyalab 1 year ago
Bull. Egos start wars, religion is just a handy excuse.
Gareth 1 year ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
Exactly. A very handy excuse that justifies war and flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people.
Let's do away with the handy excuse.
catfishturkeyhunter 1 year ago
Wouldn't this fall into the whole seperation of church from state amendment? Im not bashing religion by no means and I do believe in Jesus. He was a real person just as most of the charachters in the Bible most likely were. But the story of the Bible is only a couple thousand years old. Planet earth is 4.5 billion years old and its a proven fact that there were living creatures (some resembling modern day man) on this planet way before anyone ever thought about writting the Bible. That doesn't make the Bible entirely false either. Theres alot of facts supporting the Bible.. I guess I just choose to look at both sides of the story.
KillerKitten 1 year ago
For me, the Bible is a fascinating historical document that chronicles both physical history of ancient MIddle-eastern society and also describes the evolution of their religious beliefs. Early Judeo-Christian beliefs are constantly changing, and modern Christian beliefs should do the same. Holding so tightly onto outdated tradition is ridiculous to me, especially if it causes tangible, wide-spread negative effects.
Eride 1 year ago
I went to a catholic school for elementary school.
We were taught evolution as a core scientific theory. I cannot fathom why the school board members continue to insist on making our state look foolish.
Carmalee Winebrinner 1 year ago
Ken Willard believes the current science standards "ignore evidence against evolution, don’t respect religious diversity and promote secular humanism."
Other than the Bible, there is even less evidence supporting creationism than there is supporting evolution.
Science should not respect religious diversity, since the two areas are so very nearly mutually exclusive as to be approaching infinity.
Science does not promote any type of "ism." The one thing that science promotes above any other is curiosity.
The biggest questions one can ask in science are "why?" and "how?" Since the biblical literatists believe that both of those questions are tantamount to heresy, it's no wonder they don't want evolution taught.
SuperActivistGirl 1 year ago
I don't hear about Hindu's arguing that Evolution hurts their children?
What about the other religions that are in America? Why do we have to recognize just one?
If we are going to throw out science, why favor one myth over another?
Stop being selfish people and think of our future - THE CHILDREN.
I don't want a holistic healer to treat me in the ER, just because modern medicine conflicts with some childhood story they grew up with.
blindrabbit 1 year ago
And Kansas is trying to attract high-tech industry! I'm sure the possibilities are mounting! This coupled with the negativity Kansas already has to the rest of the country, is a great selling point.
Kinda like the opposite of "Field of Dreams" concept "Build it and they will come", Kansas's take "screw it up and they will leave (Boeing) or never come"
yourworstnightmare 1 year ago
Aren't you embarrassed by what you wrote? I am embarrassed for you.
cait48 1 year ago
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." -Barry Goldwater
JJE007 1 year ago
YES! The bible teaches that the boomtown money lenders are the Yah WAY of the world! The angels of mercy are all billionaires! Long live the thieves.... Go TEEM! Breed the minions of thugs! lawrenguy40, You are about as "Christian" as "Dior". Go buy a broach!~[ I hope it's not the subject you wished for....
beatrice 1 year ago
God can supposedly create life itself, yet the best God can do to reward Kansas for being so godly is to get it placed on a CNN top five list?
notaubermime 1 year ago
The CNN top five list wasn't the reward, silly. The oil was. Because God only gives oil to his favorite children. Praise Allah.
mikekt 1 year ago
And God so loved the Canadians ( better than us ),.... that He gave them His only huge deposits of OIL SANDS! By the way, this is temporary boom town of drillers that are High Pressure Fracking that land, in one county, in Southeast Kansas ( in an attempt to get oil. that was deemed too costly a while back, to produce ) in an area which is currently under Major Drought Conditions ( because God is mad at them! ) & the frackers are using up all of the available lake held ground waters to do their dirty works ( because GOD is in a hurry to smite the local evil doers with dehydration! ) all of which may very well one day fill their local water wells with a mixture of water, explosive "odorless" natural gas ( hey,... that will make it a boom town,.. for sure! ) along with poisonous fracking fluids for all to drink & get cancers from, alike!!! Yep, that's a miracle all right..... but frankly it reminds me of a mini-version of the ten plagues of Egypt which was a miracle!!!! Maybe God has it in for these folks?
mikekt 1 year ago
Are you sure that they weren't talking about Johnson County, if they were speaking of boom-towns in Kansas?
mikekt 1 year ago
Or how about western KCK,.... as a boom town?
mikekt 1 year ago
CNN makes just slightly more sense than FOX........ and that's not much!!!! Their like a news "puppy mill". They just create more & more 24hr low cost news ( like coverage of Kansas ) to fill time & sell adds. Their idea of news is usually aimed at the slow learners because their own people are resting on their one time rep. of being ahead of the curve, which they aren't anymore. They make their bucks stirring up both sides of a political issue, as opposed to revealing anything insightful! Sad for them to have to stoop so low as to just doing 24hr a day "pimping" of public discord while presenting it all as news that has insightful value.
mikekt 1 year ago
CNN = Certainly Not News!
mikekt 1 year ago
OMG!!!!. The Loonie-Toonies are back!!! Or maybe they never went away???
beatrice 1 year ago
I do not believe 1 + 1 = 2.
I believe 1 + 1 = something other than 2. I don't know what it actually equals, nor do I have any proof at all that 1 + 1 = something other than 2, but I have faith that the true answer is something other than 2.
As such, I demand that this opposing view be taught in school, and if they don't teach my belief than I am being persecuted for my beliefs.
Oh, and if you don't believe 1 + 1 = something other than 2, you will burn in hell for all eternity. That isn't me saying this, it is my faith saying it. Hate the math, love the mathemetician.
mikekt 1 year ago
You got that one right!
beatrice 1 year ago
You are reading comments, not listening to them. Also, it isn't a lie. We really are smarter than you. ; )
mikekt 1 year ago
Oh Lord,.... Save Us........from this same old tired evolution debate! And Lord,....Find us something better to spend our time, attention, money, etc..,on! Thanks! Ahmen.
Geodge 12 months ago
It's a shame that the religious opponents of the teaching biological evolution have to resort to lying about the subject to win support. There is no scientific evidence, at all, against the theory of evolution. None. Those that claim otherwise are either purposely deceived or purposely deceiving others.
And it's a shame to see atheist supporters of the teaching of biological evolution misrepresenting it. Evolutionary science is not a scientific theory showing there is no God. Those that claim otherwise are either purposely deceived or purposely deceiving others.
Evolutionary theory is no different than germ theory. If people want to believe they see God's hand (or Satan's) in leprosy, polio, AIDS or rabies, that's their prerogative. But it is not their prerogative to deceive others into believing there is an active scientific debate over what causes these diseases. It is not their prerogative to promote a "God dunnit" theory of disease in a public school science class. These school board members' notions about evolution have no more scientific merit than do astrology or divination. These two members are manifestly unqualified to hold their positions.
Smartyr 12 months ago
I've seen lots of Christians propose that schools be required to "compromise" and teach creationism, but I've never seen even a single Christian propose that churches be required to "compromise" and teach evolution.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.