Previous   Next

What is your reaction to the State Board of Education voting to include the criticism of evolution in the school curriculum?

Asked at Borders, 700 N.H. on November 9, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Kassi Robinson

“I’m not really for it, because I think my child should learn about the creation of the world the same way I did - from church and from her parents.”

Photo of James Anderson

“I don’t think that should be included in the science curriculum. It belongs in a social studies class or maybe somewhere else, but not in a science course.”

Photo of Lori Tanner

“The more knowledge they have to decide for themselves, the better off they will be.”

Photo of Kelsey Sewell

“The only way to criticize evolution is to imply creationism. I think that parents should decide what to teach their children, not the school board.”

Related story


Liberty 11 years, 2 months ago

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! Whoops, I guess I won't be now...

BrianR 11 years, 2 months ago

Abrams cracked me up when he stated that "it's good science." It's NOT science, it's only being framed in scientific language; it's creationism. I hope all Kansas schools lose accreditation. Now it's time to wipe that vacant smile off his face at the polls.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 11 years, 2 months ago Whenever I leave this state to go to one of the coasts and I talk with new people, somebody inevitably asks me "How's Dorothy?" or "Do they have sidewalks in Kansas?" Basically, people have no idea about Kansas except for what they see on television. What they are now seeing on television is that the Kansas Board of Education prefers a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to science standards. I'm tired of people who place all of their faith in a creation myth trying to make everybody re-believe that the world is flat.

enochville 11 years, 2 months ago

Well, if nothing else, after the criticisms are raised the science teacher has the opportunity to go back and defend evolution against the criticisms. Kansas students will end up being the most prepared students in the country in defending against Intelligent Design arguments.

I do believe in God, and I believe he can fight his own fights. He does not need believers to create their own theories of how he had to violate the laws of nature every step of the way to end up with the species we have now just so he can stay in the creation story. He could have set up the laws of nature in the beginning and let nature take his course, or he could have done it some other way. Why come up with a man-made theory to support God which may be proved false? You end up inadvertantly making God look bad or non-existant.

I still have questions about how the Creation happened and led to the Fall. I have enough data points to assure me that God is real and is the Creator. But, I will continue to wrestle with the actual mechanics of the process until God reveals more. It is clear that evolution played a role in the development of species and continues to today.

jonas 11 years, 2 months ago

Jane: Not afraid, just pissed off. Consider how you'd feel if some yahoo came barging into your office, told you what you were doing was wrong, because their idea (which didn't have anything at all to do with your job) wasn't included in your work, and made you change the way you did your job. Would you just let it happen with a smile on your face?

neopolss 11 years, 2 months ago

Not to mention they also would refuse to listen to the reasons that "just a theory" is downplaying a significant amount of scientific research. It does seem that many people have been out of the classroom far too long, and honestly have not seen some of the amazing work done in evolution. Remember, something in science is only considered fact if it can be reproduced in an experiment. Until scientists can actually reproduce a big bang, it remains theory - a theory with a ton of scientific backing.

Science is the study of what can be seen and tested.

Religion is the study of supernatural and faith.

Teach ID at home and at church, where it should remain.

Richard Heckler 11 years, 2 months ago

This voucher system,like Creationism, is backed by the Christian Coalition which does not represent the majority of christians in the state of Kansas or anywhere else for that matter. The Christian Coalition is very right wing thinking which is why the 2006 primary and general election is very important. At least Douglas County can send John Bacon packing this time and if we are lucky Jim Ryun as well. However that means voters cannot stay home per usual for this primary election. As far as I'm concerned Ryun and Bacon are bogus republicans like Bush.

trinity 11 years, 2 months ago

some great posts today-enochville, you said it all! wonderfully said.

Kevin_Conrad 11 years, 2 months ago

Intelligent design says the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power. Those who believe that are simply incapable of learning science. Some people are bad at math, others apparantly cannot grasp even basic scientific method. They might as well say:

"I can't seem to understand these complex theories, so I guess they are wrong and a supernatural force is responsible."

It would be comical if not so dangerous to our education system. I am embarrassed that so many Americans believe such nonsense.

crohan1978 11 years, 2 months ago

you people just don't get it do you. The theory of evolution is just as flawed, but you people don't want to see it that way. Just because you can come up with more proof doesn't mean its right, it is just as flawed. I'm not saying either side is right, and I think there is room for some form of evolution on the creationism side, but not to the extent that you people want to say evolution is all about. Why are you so afraid of a different position? If evolution is such a slam dunk, what are you afraid of? People like you are always preaching tolerance, but what happened to tolerance when it comes to Christians? Everyone always seems to forget that there is more to the first amendment than the establishment clause which is that the government should not prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Bottom line is, get a friggin grip, you seem like you worried people might actually have faith in something rather than believe you supposed slam dunk theory of evolution.

sweatpeagj 11 years, 2 months ago

I believe that there is a Higher Power but I also believe in evolution. I would strongly recommend that those who claim belief only in the Creator ask how they have learned to live in society of today. If evolution did not exist I am surprised we all aren't grunting and living in caves. I think both can be taught and understood. Evolution does not take the place of a Creator but work well together hand in hand. Should we be teaching it in school? Definetely not. We, as parents, need to be the ones to decide if we teach one or the other. In my case both.

bankboy119 11 years, 2 months ago

Why is the voucher system a bad idea again? Oh that's right because then the kids aren't forced to live in a liberal setting for 12 years of their lives. Right. The voucher system is a very good idea. If my child is in an environment that does not support my morals, why should they be forced to go? Isn't it discrimination and suppression of ideas when they are forced to go to a school that says there are no absolutes, when there are. They're taught one thing at home and then quite another in public school. They're taught that they cannot speak out and say that they believe homosexuality is wrong, because, well, that's just bigotry. They're taught that it's okay to have sex before marriage, just be safe; it's not. They're taught evolution as fact, which it's not. Now don't get me wrong on that one either. I don't believe in a big bang but obviously evolution does occur. There is just too much scientific evidence to say that is what started the world. You can't try to tell me that cheetahs came from whales, which is in the evolution textbooks in the gradeschools in Lawrence.

bankboy119 11 years, 2 months ago

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"-Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."-*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."-*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."-Charles Darwin, quoted in N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

Richard Heckler 11 years, 2 months ago

No child is forced to go to a public school. There is always home school, Veritas Christian School, St. Johns or Bishop Seabury. However these schools are not subject No Child Left Behind or any other accountability factor.

The largest supportive groups of the voucher system have also been some of the loudest opposition to increased funding of schools and against government meddling in the homeschool or educating our children in general yet will accept government tax dollars. So if more tax money is necessary to support vouchers it will be interesting to note who suddenly steps up in favor of increased taxes. Private schools have some history of being more expensive as does home school(voice of experience).

Gov. Sebelius should veto voucher support or let it lie on her desk to collect dust.

beatrice 11 years, 2 months ago

The more people see how the Christian Coalitian and their ilk are striving to legislate religion, hopefully the more people will actually get out and VOTE against these types. This ruling, as before, will be overturned once the radical right is voted out of office.

enochville: "I do believe in God, and I believe he can fight his own fights." Well stated -- I wish others had the strength in their beliefs that you clearly demonstrate, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

juscin3 11 years, 2 months ago

Echnoville, good post from way up there. There is a God and he is real! Some movies that are truly out of the book of Revelation that you might be interested in is, Left Behind, Left Behind II, and Judgement Day. Those are all Christian movies and they are based on what the Bible says. After you watch them, makes you think about what is or has been going on in the world. Makes me believe that God is coming back...soon. As for the question that is being asked, I agree with teaching my kids what I want them to know. They know about God and how he created the world. We do know that man has done alot of things and we tell our kids that as well. We deffinately don't want our kids confused by what the board wants our kids to know. It something more to try and get one up on things.

staff04 11 years, 2 months ago

Did anyone see that whack-job Jerry Falwell get mopped up by Bill Nye the science guy on the Early Show this morning? I was LMAO.

This is such a disgrace. I told everyone in my office this morning to shut up. I learned science in the science classroom and religion in the church...

neopolss 11 years, 2 months ago

People like you are always preaching tolerance, but what happened to tolerance when it comes to Christians? Everyone always seems to forget that there is more to the first amendment than the establishment clause which is that the government should not prohibit the free exercise thereof. -crohan1978

Tolerance towards Christians. Very rich. The other day I called for a daycare, and was told, "we're a Cristian daycare, and we pray every morning." Now, it doesn't really bother me, but it did make me think how many others like me that aren't predominately Christian bring their kids to the daycare there? I imagine a few like me just didn't mind, which just shows how saturated the religious market is with Christian goodness. Now had she said, "We're a Muslim daycare" half of the people would have run for the hills.

Nobody said you couldn't excercise your freedom, but it also does not gurantee you safety from its consequences in the general public's eye. How can creationism really work in science when it has no scientific foundation? It defies the very nature of the word science! Please, I urge you to bring your flaws of evolution about. As far as I know, it is a far better scientific observable theory than simply decreeing that "God created it" and leaving it at that. You may try to downplay the theories of evolution and adaptation, but the fact is, you shoot yourself with it. Of course it has flaws - it's SCIENCE! Science consistantly challenges itself by the very nature of its theories. Through hypothesis and experimentation, we learn new knowledge that upends the old theory, leading to new hypothesis and observation.

beatrice, I see your point in wanting the people to get out and vote, but it only throws support to a corrupt system that is no longer a true will of the people. I think a lot of the low turnout is simply having no faith in government working for them. Let's face it. Our government doe not maintain the American people as the primary goal. The primary goal these days is pork spending, pleasing lobbyists, and catering to corporate goals. Meanwhile, I'm expected to vote for a candidate when I honestly don't want either to be in office. Therefore, why would I vote when I do not support either person?

Aiko 11 years, 2 months ago

The_Original_Bob- "Well, I guess Jesus did walk with dinosaurs. Glad to have that settled"

That is hilarious Bob. Thanks for the morning laugh. I would have to agree (only my opinion) is that let's keep Science as Science and Religion as Religion.

Ceallach 11 years, 2 months ago

My reaction: I believe trading will be active on the OTS board due to this decision. I'm guessing 110+ comments :) Have a good day guys, and play nice! I may not be able to post but I'll be watching :)

craigers 11 years, 2 months ago

I agree christie that the lawsuits will be coming down the pipe soon enough. And well said enochville. God doesn't need us to fight our fights. However, the scientists that see how complex this world is and the astronomer that studies the stars in the sky, among many other fields should be the first ones to not doubt God's existence. The mere complexity doesn't suggest randomness, but a creator. I hold scientists up very high on the intelligence scales because they know so much and retain that wealth of knowledge. However, I think that a good scientist will also find the most logical conclusions. When the chance that everything happened from randomness is non-existent it shouldn't add fire to the flame of those who don't believe there was a creator, but just the opposite. The debate of the origin of life doesn't hinder what I believe because I know that God is real. Whether or not you agree is your choice. Just like in the "scientific" realm, I choose to believe the evidence that has been laid before me. This is a meaningless debate because all it has done is put those who believe in God and those who believe on different sides of the aisle and nobody wants to cross and mingle with the other. Christianity is reaching out to help, not to slap people over the head with "My God created you, so there." You want to help God out? Start reading your Bible and building your relationship with Him. He will lead you to others to witness to. This decision will be overturned once the BOE changes to a more liberal majority. Merely politics.

sweatpeagj 11 years, 2 months ago

I would have to agree Craigers..but I am not sure that anyone is saying He wasn't the creator. We each foster our beliefs based on what we are taught and also by what we have seen. I don't think that evolution could exist without Him but in honesty, could we exist as we do today without evolution. We need to be more tolerant of others opinions and beliefs. Would it bother me if my children prayed in school? Probably not because my children go to a private school. Do I think that a public school has the right to make others pray if it is against their beliefs? Not at all. We all can choose where are children are educated and what beliefs we want taught. I don't believe that issues should be forced on innocent children because some adults want their own beliefs to be the only right one. Choose carefully what is important to you and your family and decide intelligently on where they will get that education from.

rhd99 11 years, 2 months ago

Talk about worthless JUNK WE taxpayers have to pay for. This is a WASTE of our resources, & this decision will be overturned. Mixing religion in the public school classrooms is WRONG. ABRAMS & MORRIS, enjoy it now, 'cause you two, & your stupid policies are among those going to the woodshed in the elections ahead. DOWN WITH THE BOE OF KANSAS!

rhd99 11 years, 2 months ago

By the way, where did these nut cases who voted for the changes get their info.? Pat Robertson, JERRY FALWELL?!

Marvinlee 11 years, 2 months ago

I think it is important to read the actual language of the Board's decision. It is an exemplar of dishonest writing, replete with evasions, euphemisms, and contrived avoidance of anything that would prevent an unjust and retrograde decision from being successfully appealed. It is the kind of writing that a particularly adroit lawyer might write for an especially bad client.

Kansas is a state with a great and noble history. It deserved better than these latter day yahoos seeking to impose their personal values on children who have no power to resist abuse.

Linda Aikins 11 years, 2 months ago

Liberty I agree with OMB - You win the POTA award (see if you can guess what that is) for the funniest post today. Hint - your name is a clue

badger 11 years, 2 months ago

I'm with enochville. Though faith and good science are not mutually exclusive, faith certainly doesn't require backup from science to be valid and real.

By the way, because I feel it will be a useful thing to know as the day progresses, please allow me to explain a straw man to those of you who don't know:

A straw man argument involves taking what your opponent says, and twisting it into such a farfetched premise that it's unrecognizable, and presenting something that no one in his right mind could support as the crux of your opponent's argument, when in fact it has no actual basis in or relation to what he is saying. For example, saying that all evolutionists want to teach children that apes give birth to humans, when no evolutionist actually says anything of the sort, or saying that all ID supporters want to impose a religious theocracy on the US when that's not even remotely true, is using a straw man argument. It's easy to knock down the straw man, and so you look (to the unintelligent, uninitiated, and ignorant) like you 'won' by discrediting a major premise of your opponent's argument. But it never was part of your opponent's argument, and a naive debater will get bogged down in explaining why the straw man has nothing to do with the truth, and be unable to continue the discussion reasonably.

So, I urge those tempted to set up straw men not to do so, and those who see straw men to ignore them for the distractions they are.

We could all do with a little less hyperbole on the subject, frankly. I will accept the teaching of Intelligent Design in public school classrooms when its advocates start publishing peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and when they can present the case for ID without once referencing the Bible or their specific concept of God. I haven't met the ID advocate yet who could do either of those things, and I've been asking for years now. What I get are articles published on websources dedicated to the spread of Creation Science and Intelligent Design, which don't really count as neutral, respected sources.

On the whole, my reaction is that this, too, will pass. Doesn't mean I'm not horrified, just means that I see this swing of the pendulum not as a 'return to Christian values' for good or ill, but the extreme of the reaction to the glamourized unethical behaviour and immorality brought to us by the late 70s and 80s. This fundamentalism is the backswing from "Wall Street" and "Less than Zero" and Gary Hart and Iran-Contra, which then continued to gain strength through the Clinton years. We can't really get a whole lot less judgmental and intolerant as a society, so I figure we're at the apex of the swing right about now, and we'll turn back soon enough.

rhd99 11 years, 2 months ago

Badger, think about this & all of you think this over as well. The governor herself said that basically to enhance the high tech jobs here in Kansas & bring in more high tech jobs to grow our economy, we must not weaken our science standards. Where are our standards now? Where are the higher paying jobs now? They're in CHINA!

jonas 11 years, 2 months ago

crohan: You're just flat incorrect. There aren't people in the scientific areas suggesting that evolution has no flaws, at least none that really matter. Those flaws are why it is considered a theory and not fact, despite proven observation of evolution taking place. Microev. has been observed, I believe, and it is that observation that creates the theory for macro, but the timeline for macro is greater than the time that we have been observing the phenomenon. ID is not flawed, it simply has no scientific merit. It is not observable, it is not provable or disprovable, and it has to testability. Those are the very basic definitions of science, and it does not fit them. At all.
Tolerance towards Christians does not apply here. What your definition of tolerance is in this realm is allowing Christians to dictate what everybody else does, and that is not tolerance. Intolerance to Christians in this case would be actively denouncing the bible, or perhaps demanding that the flaws in the Creation theory be pointed out towards kids in the Bible School classes. Wouldn't that be fun? No, but, hey, it would be equality, wouldn't it?

Bottom line: this situation is a group of people demanding that their invalid opinions be taught as valid ones, despite the fact that they do not fit the facts, context, or framework of the subject matter, because they feel threatened.

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

why is anyone afraid of children being taught openly? my child can be taught evolution, evolutions flaws, the possibility of intelligent design, and i am not afraid. it's good, it opens her up to possibilities.

darwin was a religious man. he never said his theory doesn't consider an intelligent design.

rhd99 11 years, 2 months ago

Right, Jonas, & because the extremists' views were viewed invalid before, they got their wish. I do say this, this decision reminds me of the "Boy who cried Wolf". In this case, the board says evolution does not help our medical students. Well, look at where KUMC has gone over the years. It has progressed. Where is your wolf now, ABRAMS & MORRIS?!

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago


that was an intelligent response.

darwin actually SAID his theory didn't negate the possibility of intelligent design.

he SAID he was a religious man.

bearded_gnome 11 years, 2 months ago

Hey OTS question writer: finally got a question which provokes intelligent/meaningful discussion!

was taught evolution, high school, college. however, in my education, I remember teachers did a good job presenting that evolution is 'only' a theory, changing over time. many today treat belief in evolution as a faith to stick to. it does have lots of implications for ethics morals and the meaning of life.
I am, however, in the bankboy/crohan camp here. that is, I believe there is a God who directs this universe.

as to intolerance towards Christians, how about those who declare the Bible itself as hate speech, and are simply offended if you carry one? that sure sounds like intolerance.

y'all have a good day, be back in a few hours.

was missing yesterday because I had to spend a lot of money I don't really have. Gnomes don't get payed very well.

every people on the earth has had a creation "myth." you could find about five hundred among the native peoples of North America. once I was in class where creation mythology was discussed, with many natives, and I appreciated that they respected my "creation myth" as I respected theirs.

ms_canada 11 years, 2 months ago

There is an organization called Creation Science in Santee, Calif. They teach that creationism and science do not conflict. There are many books written that uphold this point. If only more people would read some of these books, there would be less rancour on this board or elsewhere. God did not snap His fingers and suddenly there was a big round ball in the sky. He created it all systematically and according the the laws of nature and science. If you would read at least one of the creation science books you would be able to see just how simple and sensible it all is. Some very good comments this morning so far. I do hope that tempers will stay cool on this very controversial subject. Please people. Think before you spout out nonsense and vitriol

Dan Alexander 11 years, 2 months ago

How ironic of an argument from the fundamentalist. The people who blindly follow their god(I think they call it faith),are using the arguement "You all can't prove that evolution is completely absolutely factual." That's the joke, if you missed it cause your too busy being fundamentalist, "Since when do the devout religious folks ever care about facts and truth, your whole lives are about WWJD and the faith that your gonna get some major awards after death."

Think I'll stay here among the living descendants of ape-like creatures, oh I mean scientists. (You know science, the thing that saves you after your coronary malfunctions, that little thing called the industrial revolution, think science and "the method" gets that one, not religion. In fact what has religion helped man do besides go to war, and help us feel better about our mistakes.

Keep reading your verses and reassuring yourself you'll be saved in the afterlife, oh don't forget your never ending conquest to spread your religion to everyone thing else god never created . Good thing our anscestors separated the church and state. What a waste.

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

your guy darwin was a religious man. i think he was catholic.

beatrice 11 years, 2 months ago

anonym2: Children should be taught a wide spectrum of things -- and when it comes to religion, it should be taught at home and left out of the schools. That is why God invented the dining table, to encourage conversation at home.

The silver lining to all of this is that Senator Brownback now has absolutely no chance of running successfully for President. He will never be able to get past the evolution question on a national stage.

Aiko: So glad to see we are on the same page today. Now, lets hug it out! : )

POTA: politicians outwardly targeting atheists?

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Back to the "POTA" name game, what does "point out the asses" have to do with Liberty's screen name? Wasn't that supposed to be a clue.

(Granted, I'm not claiming to have any idea what it means...I just like to tear down other people's arguments and laugh like an ogre from this side of my computer screen..."Mu ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!")

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

i just wonder, what are people afraid of?

i am NOT afraid of my child being taught evolution, or problems with evolution, or intelligent design, or science without intelligent design, or athiesm, or anything.

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

why? why should religion only be taught at home and left out of schools? who said that?

the founding fathers had bible study in school.

and they wrote separation of church and state.

why do liberials always think they are smarter than everyone else.

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

beatrice, god invented the dining room table. NOW you want to credit god?

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

I also agree with enochville and ms_canada. I put this on another article's chat board today. I'm a proud Catholic. I blieve in evolution, and I also believe that this whole thing is God's idea. It only makes sense that something as complex as EVOLUTION is would have to be put into motion by God. I sure as hell couldn't have thought it up myself.

This does not make me an IDer. Remember, IDers believe that, since "transitional forms" are lacking, evolution must not be right. I think evolution is as right as we can get it right now. It IS changing, it IS, progressing, and it DOES get modified as science begins to discover new things.

Sure, there are some scientists who are atheists. And, there are some very religious people who totally oppose evolution, but then there are also those of us in the middle. I, for one, am so glad to have a Church that has openly declared that science is not to be ignored for what it is able to discover.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

anonym2--you must remember that, in the early days of the colonies, every colony, and practically every town had a different way of doing things. I believe that Pennsylvania (correct me if I'm wrong, please) was primarly Quaker. Other states had no general religious overtone to their population. Also remember that evolution was (I'm going to admit that I don't remember when Darwin existed in relation to the colonial era in the US) not on the radar at that time. They had no evidence to believe otherwise (other than that the Bible was the scientific truth) in the colonial era, just as the various writers of the books of the Bible were similarly not educated in science the way we are today.

So, it's basically an apples-and-oranges argument to say that, since the Founding Fathers had Bible study in school, we should teach ID--completely different situations.

onehotmomma 11 years, 2 months ago

Ask the students what they want taught in science class. All the adults are having their say, its time we listened to the students on this hot topic.

Personally, I believe God created evolution so we would survive in the everchanging world.

staff04 11 years, 2 months ago

I totally didn't notice the clue when I first read the post. I just thought Liberty did a good job of pointing out the asses on the winning side of this issue...

enochville 11 years, 2 months ago

Did you guys see this?

Voters came down hard Tuesday on Dover, Pa., school board members who ordered a statement on intelligent design read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

I believe this will happen in our own Board of Education as well. And new curriculum will be written taking ID out.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago


anonym2 and others--I'm not saying that I think ID belongs in schools. It doesn't. It's not science. It might be wrapped in spiffy wrapping paper with globes and double helixes and dinosaur skeletons all over it, but that doesn't make it scientific.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

staff04--I have no idea what POTA is either. I actually LMAO when I saw "point out the asses." EXCELLENT. However, likely also wrong. Too bad, you lose. :)

sweatpeagj 11 years, 2 months ago

I keep coming back here and I am still amazed that free thinking is such a detriment to some people. How can ones belief be infringed upon if ti isn't allowed? Christian or non Christian is NOT the subject of the day. Is it right to de-evolutionize the schools? I find the simple fact that being a Christian is so threatening to some while there are a lot of thought provoking and intelligent comments from people that have honestly thought outside set structures or beliefs to form an opinion that they feel is valid.
Dan.. you seem to be very angry and threatened by anything relating to a Creator. The Glory that is achieved is here and now not at death. Why is it so hard for you to understand that evolution and creation are hand in hand. Not once have I heard here today that anyone is blindly following a particular stance in here but you. Maybe if you thought enough to actually have an intelligent conversation with anyone who dares disagree with your views it would ,in fact, be a day of miracles. Stop being such an angry little person. I am not putting you down for your opinion so be kind enough to stop and think before putting others down for theirs.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Maybe the "P" has something to do with pi$$ing one's pants with laughter...?

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

avhjmlk, i didn't say that. i said they declared separation of church and state. AND they had bible study in school. so, the same people arguing that separation of church and state, based on the founding fathers, means we should never insinuate intelligent design in school, using the founding fathers as the guideline, need to come up with different people to base their opinions on. same as saying evolution and religion don't go together, since darwin came up with evolution, and he was religious, and he believed in an intelligent creator, i guess it's ok to look at evolution a little deeper than strictly scientifically.

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

avhjmlk, i didn't say that either.

i guess i don't know what you're saying. but you seem to be enjoying correcting other people, including me.

my feeling is, i don't care if they teach only evolution, or if they describe issues with evolution, or if they want to say something about ID. i am not afraid of my children hearing these things.

onehotmomma 11 years, 2 months ago

anonym2 - didn't the separation of church and state have more to do with not having a primary religion in the US? I always understood that the separation allowed citizens to be free of a state sponsored church and to avoid religious persecution for their beliefs.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

But I think it's a little disingenuous for people who support ID to claim that it has no ties to religious creationism (aka Biblical creationism in this instance). If we teach a belief that is basically taken out of a Biblical creationism structure, then the state is promoting a religion (exactly what the separation of church and state says the state is NOT allowed to do). The only way to make it acceptable on church-state grounds would be for all religious creation stories (and I mean all of them--all of the ones you read in Western Civ, and even "pagan" creation stories) to be included within ID.

The reason that Bible study was ok in the Colonial period (and remember, I pointed out that it was likely not universal because no state did everything the same way, because they were independent of each other, even in terms of currency) is that there weren't likely any non-Christian religions popular enough back then to have a voice. Sure, they might have studied the Bible, but they didn't recognize the rights of slaves, and therefore likely didn't recognize the existence of their non-biblical tribal religious practices, either.

I also clearly pointed out that I think evolution and religion DO go together, so adding that into your rebuttal of my argument only takes up space, but doesn't add any content.

beatrice 11 years, 2 months ago

anonym2: So what, now you are saying that God can't create a dining table? He is great enough to create all life, but then unable to provide a place for us to eat diner? I just don't understand where you get off making such an outrageous statement, and I think it important that schools teach that God invented not only the dining table, but all tables! (is my sarcasm showing yet?) And all chairs too! (how about now?) It is people like you who think the table just popped into existance from a stick on the ground that are out of touch with reality. (okay, now I've gone too far -- sorry ms_c, I'll try and be civil from here on.)

Now, take a breath acronym2. It is just that most of us don't want strangers teaching our children issues of faith in school. And the fact that this makes Kansas a laughing stock, once again.

pota: pink onions taste awful?

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

anonym2--on the issue of my clarifying that I don't agree with having ID in schools, I just couldn't tell if I made that clear in what I was saying. I also couldn't really tell if you support having ID in schools, or if you're pretty neutral on the idea (which you are, now that I read your last post).

I was just clarifying, but I directed it at you specifically because we were engaging in a little bit of a back-and-forth.

Lib_ee12 11 years, 2 months ago

I have to agree with enochville about this topic. My religion is a whole complex type of agnostic, but why can't this god(s) be so complex as to create the complex sciences that are able to adapt and evolve? I don't want my god to be a big dummy and just spit out some plants and animals. If this god is worth his salt then he created an earth that had lots of room for complexities and details, not just one simple story.

This may just show my ignorance as to how this whole BOE system works, but why don't higher learning institutions like KU, KState, or at least their scientists, etc raise a stink about this decision? I know that the BOE 'listened' to debates, but why can't the schools be more vocal and tell the world what a bunch of crap this is and how no one agrees with these weird 6 people?

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

auck...i'm going to take a breath and leave. no one's listening to anyone else. everyone just wants to show how smart they are.

staff04 11 years, 2 months ago

Enochville--Male Neopolss--Male Merrill--Male Crohan1978--Female bankboy119--Male Juscin3--Male Sweatpeagj--Female Craigers--Female Badget--Male Jonas--Male bearded_gnome--Male avhjmlk--Male

How did I do?

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Hey, anonym2, I was actually trying to repair the rift.

Clearly neither of us made our true stances obvious enough, and we ended up biting each other, though the only thing we really disagree on is whether ID is acceptable in schools or not.

badger 11 years, 2 months ago

rhd99 said:

"Badger, think about this & all of you think this over as well. The governor herself said that basically to enhance the high tech jobs here in Kansas & bring in more high tech jobs to grow our economy, we must not weaken our science standards. Where are our standards now? Where are the higher paying jobs now? They're in CHINA!"

I have thought about it, and it's been discussed here before today. They're not all in China, by the way. They're just not coming to Kansas. The 'all your jobs are belong to us' paranoia is not quite relevant to this discussion, unless companies are out there saying, "Should I put my new biotech research facility in Topeka or Beijing?"

If a company chooses to take its jobs overseas, that has nothing to do with what Kansas has done to its scientific educational standards. However, if a company chooses to take its jobs to a more science-friendly US state, that probably does.

I'm less worried about the outflow of American jobs to foreign nations over this than I am about the flow of money to other states. Kansas, due to its small number of electoral votes, is already a 'flyover' state when it comes to political campaigning and courtship. A burgeoning biotech or science industry would have given Kansas a little more bargaining power on the field, a little more money to give. Instead, Kansas is seen as a faithful bastion of religious conservativism, which the right wing takes for granted and the left writes off as hopeless. Consequently, when the money and the favors and the new projects get handed out, they go to key swing states with more political power instead of coming to Kansas.

This change hurts Kansas educationally, socially, fiscally, and politically. It's pretty likely to reverse itself with the next school board election, and I predict this little scenario will play out another few times before ID gets a Supreme Court challenge and the matter is decided one way or another based on the politics of the bench at that time.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

staff04--WRONG. Sorry. I'm all girl.

Actually, I have a male-type first name though, so even if you knew that, it would still send you barking up the wrong gender tree. (Also, previous posts on other OTS chats have mentioned my husband...considering that same-sex marriage doesn't exist in this state, or across 99% of the country, that would also make me quite XX.)

Also, I think craigers is a guy.

anonym2 11 years, 2 months ago

(ref last post by bob) see what i mean? no ones listening.

badger 11 years, 2 months ago

Well, staff, you spelled my name wrong...

But I give you an A for effort!

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

To respond to Lib_ee12, KU (and probably K-State) did have a big response to the issue. I mean, it came across as a non-political, univeristy-style response, but it was a response. It just happened several months ago when the discussion about changing standards really got going again, more towards the beginning of the semester.

I think Chancellor Hemenway decided to say his piece and then get out of the way...

BunE 11 years, 2 months ago

Science, by its nature, is constantly reviewed and criticized. Bringing the supernatural into science disrupts the scientific method. (unless someone has a little piece of god that we can have for testing purposes)ID-ists consistantly refuse to provide peer reviewed experimentation and rely on vague references to an intelligence.

The BOE is free to enact whatever guidlines that they want. I wonder what will be next?

Like much of America the majority of the BOE has decided that their gut feeling is some sort of rational basis for making decisions. Science is not about democracy, it is regimented methodical research that is constantly scrutinized. As such it cannot be measured by what certain special interest groups feel at any given moment.

Idiot America, more specifically Idiot Kansas

Hopefully the BOE is populated by 6 people that simply lack the ability to understand the basics of the scientific method. Or maybe they slept through class. I am willing to teach them. No Charge.

sweatpeagj 11 years, 2 months ago

very female here but not relavent to this discussion. If I was a man how would that make my opinion be any different than what it is now? Oh..I get it...if I was male I wouldn't fight so loudly about EVERYONE'S opinion mattering. I am not so sure that my husband to be would actually agree with that logic. He, by the way, understands that MY opinion is the only one that matters.. LOL seriously..good guess staff. I know that even in my future marriage we view differently on this subject. He actually doesn't believe in a God per say but strongly defines evolution. So, there it goes to prove that even two widely different opinions can co-exist without forcing views not wanted on the other. We can agree to disagree on issues without making the other feel inferior to ourselves and beliefs.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

In terms of whether ID is a fancy name for Creation, whether the opponents of ID want to admit it or not, ID is seen as creation by most of the general public.

On the post board for the article about the BOE's decision: "Posted by fossilhunter (anonymous) on November 9, 2005 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Laughingstock - YES! The national view: In St. Louis, where I live, the local TV said this morning, "The Kansas BOE yesterday voted to teach biblical creationism in public schools. In criticizing evolution, the BOE wants science teachers to teach intelligent design." "

So, whether it is creation or not, people think it is, and they associate the two automatically with each other, so we are promoting Christian creationism in schools with ID. Espoused intent is not always as important as practical effect, and the practical effect of this is that people believe Creationism is now going to be taught in Kansas science classes.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Well, I'm off to lunch. I'll be excited to see what has happened in my absence.

glockenspiel 11 years, 2 months ago

Evolution is a theory.

The definition of theory varies greatly, but all definitions have one thing in common. They aren't proven fact. They do however have strong evidence supporting that assumptions are true.

"voting to include the criticism of evolution in the school curriculum"

Our school board of education is asking teachers to have their students question ideas that have yet to be proven. Isn't this the very idea that the scientific method was created to promote?

If teachers follow these rules, students will dissect evolution, looking at the evidence between the lines, and most will come to the conclusion that it is a sound theory.

glockenspiel 11 years, 2 months ago

My main concern is, again, with the reporting of the issue by all newspapers. I have looked hard for the actual resolutions that were voted on so that I can more clearly make my observations, but the newspapers, as usual, concentrate more on the issues surrounding the resolutions and peoples opionions, rather than reporting the actual event so we can make up our own minds. Could some one kindly post a link to the resolutions voted on so that we may all educate ourselved more on the topic?

badger 11 years, 2 months ago

Glockenspiel, I'm fine with them investigating criticisms of evolution that are based in real science. It's the inclusion of thinly-veiled JudeoChristian Creationism that ruffles my fur.

There are many criticisms of various parts of the theory of the origin of species that don't rely on or originate from the JudeoChristian Bible. However, the ID advocates aren't really content with simply challenging a theory based on the flaws in its science. They want their alternate theory, that is scientifically unsound and was not developed by accurate use of scientific methodology, taught alongside it.

thomgreen 11 years, 2 months ago

Very interesting tidbit here from Thought it might interest everyone that keeps arguing about Darwin's religious views. I figured some of his own words might help.

Now, there appears to be a common misconception regarding the religious views of Charles Darwin. First of all, Darwin was never an atheist. While it is true that in his later years he was not religious to any extent, he never entirely discounted the existence of god. In his Autobiography, Darwin says he was a theist by the time he wrote "Origin of Species" and that he believed in an intelligent first cause. However, it was his view that the nature of this "first cause" was something beyond man's vision. The death of his daughter, Annie, on 23 April 1851 was a crushing blow to his religious beliefs, and from this time forward he stopped attending church with his family. It was only after a very long and slow process spanning his entire life that Darwin came to be an agnostic.

How did Charles Darwin resolve the supposed conflict between science and religion? Well, for Darwin there never was much of a conflict. He saw religion as a strictly personal matter and regarded science as completely separate from religion. In general, he thought that the question of god's existence was outside the scope of scientific inquiry. However, and this may seem contradictory, he did think that his theory of evolution was compatible with a belief in god, but did not think that the natural laws of evolution imply a purposeful god created them.

Regarding the many reasons for man's belief in god, Darwin wrote during the end of his life: "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." (Barlow, Page - 94)

james bush 11 years, 2 months ago

Glockin, i agree. I'm inclined to think this liberal clamor is much ado about nothing. I kind of enjoy Kansas not being aligned with the left coast elitists.

staff04 11 years, 2 months ago

to all whose gender I missed: I copied and pasted posts from today into the gender genie website that I posted the link to. I did question a couple of them, but I was hoping some of you would try and see what you came up with...

kansaskev61 11 years, 2 months ago

Did anyone read that Kate Hudson is suing the tabloids because she is too thin? Now that's news!

bankboy119 11 years, 2 months ago

In Latin and Greek, agnostic = ignoramus

staff you got it right about me....but I have been talking about my wife and baby and how homosexuality is a hopefully I'm not a completely hypocrite lol.

By the way I have a question for you since you work in D.C. Do you think that the new tax changes that are being proposed will be passed? Well, obviously not all of them will be, so more specifically, do you think they will eliminate the tax break off of 2nd mortgages? Obviously it would be a terrible blow for financial institutions and no here wants to even consider it a possibility.

ms_canada 11 years, 2 months ago

glockenspiel - Your last paragraph - I like it. I like the idea of students dissecting any theory. Is this not what education is all about. Or at the least it certainly should be. Do we want our young people to accept anything that is thrown at them in the classroom as fact? Don't we, rather, want our youth to come out of the system with minds that think for themselves. We would be back in the dark ages if we had not been taught to think about what we are being taught. A number of years back here in Alberta, there was a high school teacher who extensively taught his students that the holocaust was a big hoax, something fabricated by the Jews. He got away with it before parents discovered what was going on. Some THINKING student blew the whistle. Now then, I as a Christian, and a Bible teaching Christian of many years, do not want the Bible to be taught in the public school system. But what happens when, in a science class on evolution, a Christian student would challenge the teacher on some point. Would he be sent to the principals office for a talking to? Would he be silenced? I believe that if this came up, the teacher should mention that there is another thought about the beginnings of our universe. Students have a right to hear both sides of any theory. I am not sure just how far the discussion should go in the classroom. I suppose it would depend on the age of the students. References could be given for the student to pursue further information on the subject. Or he could be told to consult his parents. And with the internet, there is no excuse for ignorance. There are plenty of books. But I maintain that an unqualified science teacher should not be teaching creationism in the public school. Mention the controversy, yes, but not teach.

thomgreen 11 years, 2 months ago

One question that I have, why does everyone always try to make this a divided fight between so called "liberal" and so called "conservative" groups? When did being a liberal (Webster def: Open-minded; favoring social and political reform) become a bad thing? I am a liberal, I do not believe in god, yet I have no problem with creation being taught in school. BUT, teach it in the appropriate class and don't limit it to just the "Christian" version of creation. There is a multitude of creation stories out there, spread across a multitude of religious beliefs. Teach them all. Keep science and religion separate as they should be. Stop trying to legislate science. Political views have no place in the systematic methods of science, and religion doesn't either.

Lib_ee12 11 years, 2 months ago

avhjmlk: Okay, so the universities want to remain politically unaffiliated. I would think this would be a huge exception. This could affect their recruitment of students, professors, and researchers. I watch the news slightly more often than the average voter, and I didn't see any of their statements on the issue. I assumed they would be more vocal. Private schools usually have a more conservative political stand, but at least they don't have to worry about funding, or lack there of, quite as much as a public university. I guess I just expected more. Thanks for answering me.

thomgreen 11 years, 2 months ago

So are we to take that being an ignoramus is a bad thing? Ignoramus is an ignorant person. An ignorant person is someone that lacks knowledge. Last time I checked being an agnostic is someone that admits they don't know (lack of knowledge) everything. So admitting you don't know everything and therefore not trying to pretend you have all the answers is a bad thing?

craigers 11 years, 2 months ago

staff04, wrong. avhjmlk, correct!! I never knew I had a female name for my screen name. The slowly our anonymous description is falling apart. :)

Linda Aikins 11 years, 2 months ago

avhgiveitanothertryjmlk - POTA - Liberty - Statue of....

willa 11 years, 2 months ago

POTA in reverse is ATOP?

I grew up in another state where evolution was taught in science classes. Like many here today have said, it was taught as a theory, meaning that the gaps in human/biological development that weren't well-explained by evolution were taught as well. I can't really believe that there's much of an issue for teachers the BOE to decide here, and even after having lived here for 5 years, I'm still surprised by the uproar in this state over this issue.

angelofmine 11 years, 2 months ago

Post Of The Afternoon?

LOL....the board is blowing up today. Now I see why my grandfather always said that gentlemen do not discuss religion or politics.....and here we are mixing the two on one issue in our government. LOL

Really I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On one hand, every other state state school is going to see "Kansas" on applications and chuckle after this whole deal. I think evolution is something that needs to be taught, because it is something that every science 101 course touches on. On the other hand....evolution is considered a theory, right? They don't know for sure. Nobody was there, and it wasn't recorded. I don't see any monkeys driving around talking on cell phones....oh wait a minute....maybe I have? How bout the ol' flying spaghetti monster theory? Then the creationism theory....which sort of upsets the whole separation church and state issue. I don't know.

beatrice 11 years, 2 months ago

Okay, is it me, or does James Anderson (pictured above) look like Cliff Clavin from Cheers?

I am not trying to be mean or say anything negative about Mr. Anderson, I'm just curious if others have recognized the similarity.

staff04 11 years, 2 months ago

bankboy-- to answer your question: Nothing has actually been proposed in Congress yet. The proposed changes you are referring to are only the recommendations of a panel of tax experts...I doubt that a Republican majority would allow such a significant change to tax law. Most agree that it is insanely complex and should be simplified, but they will never give up their individual deductions in the name of simplicity.

As I understand it, the panel made a couple of different recommendations, both of which would greatly simplify the tax code for individuals and business alike while only affecting the amount people are currently paying minimally.

ms_canada 11 years, 2 months ago

good point thomgreen - about agnostics. So many times people get agnostic mixed up with atheist. Look at the root of the word. Take the a away from the beginning of the first word and you have gnostic from the greek and meaning of or having knowledge. Add the a and you have unknowable. A person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Now, atheist, from the greek again - a person who believes there is no God. Take away the a and you have theist - an adherent of theism - the belief in a God. The agnostic does not say there is no God, he simply states that it is impossible to know. The aheist states that there is no God.

Linda Aikins 11 years, 2 months ago

post of the afternoon is a good guess!

Statute of Liberty Charlton Heston

willa 11 years, 2 months ago

I got it! Planet of the Apes!!!

Posts of the Apes?

hottruckinmama 11 years, 2 months ago

this is what i think: i think it is time for all this bs to be over. its much ado about nothing. i don't care what they teach my kids in school about this. i can teach them what ever i want about it at home. most of the time i just feel lucky if they teach them much of anything at all in school.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Is POTA supposed to be some play on PETA? (I know, stupid idea, but the Charlton Heston thing made me think of the NRA and shooting animals--which my husband does--which made me think of PETA). I still don't know what POTA is supposed to stand for. "Pride of the Americas"?

Also, Lib-ee12, I left out a critical word in my response to you...Chancellor Hemenway attempted to be non-political in his press release/speech/whatever it was about the proposed science standards, but it was not at all unclear which side of the debate he (therefore the University) stands on. Sorry for the screw-up.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Ooh! I like the "Planet of the Apes" idea!

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

"People Originated from The Animals"?

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

Or "Apes"

(sorry, obviously digesting my lunch too slowly)

jonas 11 years, 2 months ago

acronym: But the point is, there ARE institutions already for both ID/Creationism, and for scientific principles. One's the Church, the other is the School. They are seperate for a reason: they should remain free of each other's direct influence. And if you don't want to call it religion, you can call it philosophy (which is what religion really is, anyway) but those are two totally seperate disciplines as well. What if Cartesian Doubters started a lobby to say that all scientific disciplines are invalid because there is no way to prove that they exist, because there's no way to prove that ANYTHING exists?
What we have in this case isn't one side pushing for equality of viewpoint, but one side that wants to influence the other side without the other side wanting to be able to influence them. (Or is there a movement to start teaching alternatives to Creation theory or ID or even god's existence in church education that I'm not aware of). I would hope that you could see the inherent hypocricy in that viewpoint. Can you?

jonas 11 years, 2 months ago

enochville: By the way,I must admit that I misjudged you. I would have assumed you would come down on the other side of the fence. Thank you for humbling me.

/sorry, couldn't resist

baby_girl 11 years, 2 months ago

I never thought I'd be ashamed to call Kansas home. This is absurd. The thought of idealism being taught in school? Come on now, isn't idealism the same as creationism and other religions out there? That we stem from a god or many gods? I am agnostic and I came to that decision myself. My mother and father offered me the chance to go to church, of which I did attend, but after realizing that I cannot understand the thought of one person making so many, I chose to become agnostic until someone can show me otherwise. I believe the teaching of idealism in Kansas schools is a violation of church and state. I really hope that someone can prove this in a higher court and get that notion out of Kansans heads. I'm ashamed. When my children are old enough to go to school and I'm still in Kansas, be assured that they will not attend school any longer in this state at that point. I will find a state that believes in the true meaning of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. What happened to a person's rights ending where another's began? This is an infringement upon my rights. Kansas state board of education, I am ashamed of you. You make me loathe calling Kansas home.

thomgreen 11 years, 2 months ago

The only thing I'd disagree about is that though church and schools can be similar, they are inherently two different things, therefore they can't be compared or used in an argument about each other.
The Church is a private entity established, maintained and attended by like minded people for the furthering of that like minded philosophy. Public schools on the other hand are a service provided by a community which is made up of a multitude of religions, races, and socio-economic situations. It is to provide a service that neither impinges nor pushes any belief over another. I want my kids to know about the multitude of belief systems out there. Just because you have a class that discusses different belief systems doesn't mean you are pushing that belief system. I believe that my kids will be better off and better people for appreciating and knowing about why some people believe one set of ideas and another group of people believe another set of values. I'm not afraid of my kids having knowledge. They will be here long after I am, so it is not my job to think for them. It is my job as a parent to try and provide them with as rounded an education as possible so that they can think on their own.
So, in general, why are people so scared of their kids learning about different beliefs? Are they afraid that their kids will believe something different than them? Food for thought.

badger 11 years, 2 months ago

Ms_canada said:

"Now then, I as a Christian, and a Bible teaching Christian of many years, do not want the Bible to be taught in the public school system. But what happens when, in a science class on evolution, a Christian student would challenge the teacher on some point. Would he be sent to the principals office for a talking to? Would he be silenced? I believe that if this came up, the teacher should mention that there is another thought about the beginnings of our universe. Students have a right to hear both sides of any theory. I am not sure just how far the discussion should go in the classroom."

See, and in this case, I think that the teacher should answer factually based questions regarding evolution, and leave it at that. If that Christian student brings up opposition to evolution, let those questions be based in science (in other words, "What you're teaching contradicts the Bible" is right out, but "Don't some data seem to contradict the carbon dating conclusions?" is fine) and let them be answered with science ("Yes, there are flaws with carbon dating, and these are those flaws. However, most of the information validated with carbon dating is also verified by...") and not with antireligious dogma ("The Bible is wrong"). It's not that teacher's place to bring 'the other theory' in, because there is no one 'the other theory.' There are any number of 'other theories' out there. Many people seem to think that the only two theories are evolution and Intelligent Design, but frankly there are hundreds if not thousands of different ideas about how the world came to be.

No one needs to go to the principal's office for respectfully questioning the facts of what they've been taught. However, I regret to say that most people who teach their children to question evolution in the classroom fail to teach them to address their elders or their peers with respect. Having sat through a seventh-grade science class with a few of them once, I can say that their attitude and behaviour doesn't at all advance the investigation of alternative theories to evolution. It just gives others more reason to doubt that fundamentalists of any variety can be reasonable, intelligent, rational people.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

I think the big problem here is that ID only pushes one specific belief system.

I learned about all the famous creation myths when I was in high school. I specifically remember reading from the King James for it's literary value (it was a breakthrough for the use of descriptive language when it was published) in 9th grade.

Kids ARE taught about different belief systems in school--either in Western Civ, History, Mythology, Philosophy, or like classes. They are not and SHOULD not be taught about belief systems in science class...

badger 11 years, 2 months ago

Thomgreen, I think you're missing a point that's been made ad nauseam around here.

Most opponents of this decision have absolutely no objection to the full variety of belief systems from Anabaptism to Zoroastrianism being open for children's education and awareness.

We just think science belongs in science classes, and philosophy belongs in philosophy classes.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago

BTW, badger, do you happen to be a Wisconsin fan? Aren't they the badgers? Is someone's school mascot the Badgers?

Aiko 11 years, 2 months ago

I am curious where we will stop on whom and how people worship (if any). I mean, it seems to me that this is a personal choice and that is the way we should keep it. Let's educate children what all is available but again, where do we stop and at what level? I may want to worship roundabouts. Then at that point I have wrapped religion within engineering. Now there is a debate!

Linda Aikins 11 years, 2 months ago

Yes - it is Planet of the Apes!

I didn't think about the connection with Charlton Heston and NRA. I couldn't think of a clue that wasn't so obvious so I could drag this out. Maybe I should have said "creatures that are intellectually designed and still evolving".

willa 11 years, 2 months ago

But then everyone would have thought you were referring to gnomes...

Linda Aikins 11 years, 2 months ago

I love the gnome story. Is that for real, or did was it created / did it evolve from the depths of your wonderful imagination, TOB?

glockenspiel 11 years, 2 months ago


I'm fine with them investigating criticisms of evolution that are based in real science. It's the inclusion of thinly-veiled JudeoChristian Creationism that ruffles my fur.

If these resolutions include creationism, then I am right with you. The Topeka Capital Journal reports that "Religion" is not included in what was voted on. It does not state whether creationsim or ID were mentioned. I have still yet to find out the actual wording of what was passed.

There is no question that the Christian "right" wants creationism taught in school. Everything that I have read indicates that these wants have not been included. For the first time in a long time I kind of feel that a perfect compromise has been reached.

If some one can show me what the BOE actually voted on, and if it says specifically that ID or Creationism must be taught in schools, I will concede my argument and hop on the gravy train. I unfortunatly don't have enough time during my breaks to scrounge this up. Maybe tonight...

badger 11 years, 2 months ago


Nope. I just really dig badgers.

They're fierce, and kind of cute, and in stories they're either wise, or eating someone's face, or both at the same time, and that just entertains me.

avhjmlk 11 years, 2 months ago


"Badgers? We don't need no stinking badgers."

Sorry...had to...couldn't resist...

Aiko 11 years, 2 months ago

Who would win in a fight between a badger and a wombat?

BunE 11 years, 2 months ago

Badgers are bigger than wombats and are pretty freakin awesome. They are named Trufflehunter.

Wombast are skinny and while hard on cobras, they go by the names like Riki Tiki Tavi: not hard core at all.on

Bonus: Badgers will attack a freaking group of armed men in a field.

Not smart, but pretty hard core

thunderbuns 11 years, 2 months ago

Genesis 1:1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It doesn't say how He did it.

Genesis 1:26 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:.

I don't think God was a monkey or a whale or whatever. (BTW, when He said "Let US make man:.." who was He talking to?)

There hasn't been enough information revealed from God to tell us mere mortals how He created things. We, as humans, are still in the discovery phase. Within each species, there is certainly some evolution occurring. But to get a tiger from a whale is a stretch! It just doesn't seem right. At some future date all the missing pieces of info that we don't have will be revealed. I believe that God will yet reveal many great and important truths pertaining to the creation (and many other subjects too!). I believe Enochville will agree and understand where I'm coming from. (Wink, wink)

Nevertheless::.none of this should be taught in a science class. It needs to be taught to kids in the home and in church, not public school.

thomgreen 11 years, 2 months ago

I haven't missed any point. But thanks for looking out for me.

EvaTrujillo 11 years, 2 months ago

There are three things that folks find repulsive about intelligent design:

First, the concept of their god will be reduced to a theory (not even a scientific hypothesis or scientific theory)!

Second, the concept of creator who is intelligent is subjective because there has been some stupid design going on. The most obvious stupid design is men with nipples who can not nurse their babies. Sorry to insult your god but like I said, intelligent is subjective. A more correct term would be intended design.

Third, the definition of intelligent design has always implied a single creator. Can't be true, because when you shop for spirituality in the yellow pages, do you pick a place whose god allows prostitution, or thinks aborted children will come back as part of the cycle of life only more enlightened, or that divorced people should sit in the back, or that women have to sit separate from men because their hips distract from prayer? Obviously, there might be many gods or goddesses. So to be thorough, the definition of intelligent design theory must now be plural.

So really the whole intelligent design theory belongs in a philosophy class. In the science classroom, any 9th grader will blow holes in the intelligent design theory as it pertains to scientific hypothesis or scientific theory. It'll be like mindlessly reciting the Pledge day after day; eventually the concept of god, gods, goddesses or spiders spinning the earth will have no meaning because there is no material to substantiate Intended Design Theory or the intelligent/stupid design theory.

Plus, it really does smack of promoting a religion that believes in a single deity who happens to be smart. Remember, the majority does not rule, folks, it's to protect the minority. The minority of Fundamentalist Christians and other religions are better being protected with their respective theories of intended design in a philosophy classroom.

bearded_gnome 11 years, 2 months ago

Good God! the board just exploded, and I only now finished reading all the comments since 11am!

first: Staff04, am definitely male, the "bearded" is not a verb."

bearded_gnome 11 years, 2 months ago

Original_Bob... darn those guys, they discovered our Gnome Stonehenge of kansas, and what they call BBQ, we call burnt sacrifice--ever smalled[smelled] a garden nymph burn...its great at first sunrise.

yeah, ya' think adults were involved in that betcha'.

darn them, now I'll just have to turn the old Farmland plant on the east edge of Lawrence into my next secret sacrifice'll see, or rather, you won't! muhahaha

bearded_gnome 11 years, 2 months ago

okay, since we're getting our 'special' news up here, here's something I know you all care about.
being from California, I follow the news from there closely.
recently protesters against Arnold's reform measures from "breasts not Bombs" were arrested in Sacramento because they defied orders of the CHP and 'breasts were displayed' and two ladies[?] were arrested, may be put on the sex offenders' registry...and: this is what's important: a california state legislator announced she will offer legislation to decriminalize bare breasts in public.

I think we need this legislation in lawrence, too...

I was really hoping three of the reform measures would pass...but these are [say it slow:] CAlifornia--voters!

juscin3 11 years, 2 months ago

WOW I leave for a while and look at all the posts! Hey staff04, about the guessing on what sex we are...for me, you are wrong. :)~

bearded_gnome 11 years, 2 months ago

149 comment, this is amazing.

on the topic, I should have added above, that saying something is a "creation myth" does not negate its value. "creation myth" is kind of a technical term. I believe my Christian creation myth.
I also believe evolution should be fully taught in schools, with the full theory and the weaknesses/alternatives.
for most it seems on the KU campus and other universities, "evolution" is actually their creation myth now.
Y'all have a nice afternoon...I gotta go find some gnomes to start over...all that work...and gone when discovered...

jayhawktownie 11 years, 2 months ago

didn't bother wasting an hour reading all of the above so excuse me if i am being redundant.


I can handle someone being pro-life, i can handle someone wanting smaller government, i can even understand the motivations for going to war.

What i cannot fathom is how people believe in this ridiculous hoo-hoo-dilly (intelligent design) and attempt to argue for it based on scientific merits. Apparently our education system and society is failing because our adult citizens are completely and utterly unable to recognize the difference between fact and fiction! Think people! Think! Put down your bibles and THINK!

As for the guy up there who was spouting about tolerance for Christians...stop, think about what you are saying and if you still believe it, stop.

ms_canada 11 years, 2 months ago

Badger - thank you for your answer to my comment above. I am well pleased with your comments about the situation with a Christian student and a teacher. As I said earlier, I am totally against the teaching of the Bible in the public school. I leave it at that. I have to be off to the airport to pick up my daughter. Good night to all.

b_asinbeer 11 years, 2 months ago

God Loves roundabouts...prevents crazy Lawrencians from running stop signs and killing innocent people.

killjoy 11 years, 2 months ago

I just checked with God for clarification. He hates roundabouts He suggested we take a poll and ask the citizens.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 2 months ago

One thing I know for absolute truth...

Fred Phelps has definitely NOT evolved!

jonas 11 years, 2 months ago

Staff04: I should tell you, I am male, but I am actually a monkey.

. . . although I am a highly evolved one. . . .

JacksonD 11 years, 2 months ago

Having left Kansas 30-odd years ago in the Vern Miller era, the current debacle is no real surprise. Yes it's true, there's no news on the left coast about Kansas except this story. To my old friends here, I can try to explain the bonehead Kansas politics via the demographics of a largely empty state, but no need, really.

Rather, I've decided I like the quaintness of it. After all, the world is moving pretty fast- primitives and their myths are in jeopardy everywhere, so it's fun to see a tribe fighting for their old ways.

Too bad, though, if your kid has to compete throughout life with superior out-of-state (and especially foreign) candidates because they're entering this technical world without confusion about reality.

If he's around somewhere, Vern must be smiling too.

Curious 11 years, 2 months ago

A college professor once said, "Don't believe anything you read or hear! Go to the source with an unbiased mind." Your arguments, both anti and pro, are based on falsehoods. But check it out!

1) There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" 2) There were NO science standards teaching evolution prior to the first BOE go-around. The conservatives wanted it in but with the standards indicating there are other theories. The "scientists" (from KU?) said it was evolution all the way or nothing -- after all they have books that must be sold. 3) "Science" did not exist until the knowledge of a Creator God and the purpose and order, rather than randomness, that presented was fully understood. 4) The intentional study of God's creation led to many scientific discoveries. The earth is not the center of the universe as a start. 5) Many working scientists (as distinct from teaching scientists) are religious people who believe in a Creator God. 6) Just in case Galileo gets brought up. Capernicus wrote the theory of the earth as "just another planet" one hundred years before Galileo and was printed in the church (not Roman Church) press. At the time of Galileo the Roman Church was under great distress. The thirty years war with the protestants, losing power as a result. They were doing all they could to keep political and economic power. Galileo was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time -- when the Church was doing all it could to maintain power.

bearded_gnome 11 years, 2 months ago

160, is that amazing or what?

again, thanks OTS writer(s) for getting the sort of question we have been hoping for!

"bring out your gnomes!"

gnomehenge is building.

Ceallach 11 years, 2 months ago

Woweee! You all have certainly looked at the topic "from all sides round, from inside out and upside down."

I've come to the conclusion that I don't have enough faith to be either an athiest or an evolutionist. That being said I do not think creationism should be taught in PUBLIC schools. Public being the keyword for me. The theory of evolution should be presented -- warts and all. Unfortunately, as some posts have demonstrated -- there are those who place all their faith in evolution. That agenda is too extreme for me.

(And occasionally extremes have to even out to be heard :)

katrina 11 years, 2 months ago

80 years and emotion vs logic is still on the dockets. While India requires 2 years of biomolecular biology (evolution in action) students to graduate high school and China requires one year of biomolecular biology for graduation, we are still stuck in the 1920s. Madison and Jefferson's writings should be mandatory reading, especially their rationale for separation of church and state. Too bad we think their logic no longer applies in an ever increasing diverse and complex society.

killjoy 11 years, 2 months ago

اÙÙسÙÙ٠٠رضاعة, Ùص,

craigers 11 years, 2 months ago

thunderbuns, the us He is talking about is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is why God is refered to as the Triune God. That is why Jesus referred to always being in His ministry. Before the foundations of the earth, He was and so was God and the Holy Spirit. That is the us in this situation.

Hope that helps.

optimist 11 years, 2 months ago

Evolution is a theory. There is plenty of evidence to support it however there are still many things we don't know. There is little doubt that creatures changed over time as a result of their environment. I'm not promoting any specific theory here. My only concern now is that some are defending evolution so vehemently because of a disdain for religion and the religious that a scenario may be set-up where any criticism, even "real scientific" criticism may be disregarded in the process. If the theory of evolution is above reproach with all of its unanswered questions then we aren't talking about science but evolution as a pseudo-religion.

For what it is worth I believe there is plenty of room to criticize aspects of evolution especially the theory regarding humans evolving from the same predecessor as primates. Whether intelligent design or creationisms are involved in the critique is irrelevant. No scientific theory should be above criticism. Questioning science can only lead to better science. Good science should be able to stand on its own.

Those opposing criticism of evolution are just as radical in their faith of evolution as those favoring intelligent design and/or creationism are in theirs. I caution both sides to rein it in as neither extreme is demonstrating an open mind.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.