Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack

[one...two...tree 2,762]

NYT

KANSAS CITY, Kan., July 29

The Kansas election is being watched closely by both sides in the national debate over the teaching of evolution. In the past several years, pitched battles have been waged between the scientific establishment and proponents of what is called intelligent design, which holds that nature alone cannot explain life’s origin and complexity.

Last February, the Ohio Board of Education reversed its 2002 mandate requiring 10th-grade biology classes to critically analyze evolution. The action followed a federal judge’s ruling that teaching intelligent design in the public schools of Dover, Pa., was unconstitutional.

......

“Can we just agree God invented Darwin?” asked a weary Sue Gamble, a moderate member of the board whose seat is not up for re-election.

The chairman of the board, Dr. Steve E. Abrams, a veterinarian and the leader of the conservative majority, said few of the opposition candidates were really moderates. “They’re liberals,” said Dr. Abrams, who is not up for re-election.

He said that the new science curriculum in no way opened the door to intelligent design or creationism and that any claim to the contrary “is an absolute falsehood.”

“We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence,” Dr. Abrams said, “what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.”

In science, he said, “everything is supposedly tentative, except the teaching of evolution is dogma.”

Harry E. McDonald, a retired biology teacher and self-described moderate Republican who has been going door to door for votes in his district near Olathe, said the board might have kept overt religious references out of the standards, “but methinks they doth protest too much.”

“They say science can’t answer this, therefore God,” Mr. McDonald said.

Connie Morris, a conservative Republican running for re-election, said the board had merely authorized scientifically valid criticism of evolution. Ms. Morris, a retired teacher and author, said she did not believe in evolution.

“It’s a nice bedtime story,” she said. “Science doesn’t back it up.”

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is such a non-issue at the end of the day, though clearly it does indicate a need for a separation of church from state. The proponents of ID are essentially making a political argument that has little to do with the evaluation of any actual empirical evidence.

Personally, I much prefer to think that creation took place according to observable physical laws, rather than the alternative - which is to assume God is some sort of wizard...

[incanada1234 0]

erekose, you said you're Christian, right?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

erekose, you said you're Christian, right?

You are aware there are many Christians who accept the theory of evolution.

The Catholic Church’s position regarding evolution is that its sees no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and the Church’s view of man’s creation by God. Both Pope Pius XII in 1950 and Pope John Paul II in 1996 have stated that evolution, so long as it does not attempt to say that man’s soul does not come from God, is not inconsistent with what a Catholic can believe in.

..................

Liberal Lutherans and Protestants feel that the Bible is a document that is not meant to be interpreted literally, and so see no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and their view of the Biblical creation story.

.................

Reconstructionist Judaism believes that the “Torah teaches WHY G-d created… and THAT G-d created, but not HOW G-d created.” Therefore reconstructionist Jews accept the scientific theory of evolution.

Reform Judaism sees that “unless science comes up with concrete proof that there is no Divine influence in the universe, there’s no reason not to believe in both science and G-d at the same time.” Therefore reform Jews also accept the theory of evolution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

erekose, you said you're Christian, right?

That doesn't mean I have to accept the creation story as literal fact.

As I said, it seems not unreasonable to me that creation took place according to empirical, observable physical laws than simply by 'magic'.

[incanada1234 0]

Poor misguided fools.

Edited August 3, 2006 by incanada1234

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I won't pretend that there aren't extreme 'evolutionists' who actively want to disprove God and faith in general. But as the fact that people generally accept the fruit of man's scientific labours on a daily basis (man makes your heart medicine, not God), arguing that a specific aspect of the physical universe does not obey similar observable physical laws seems a little bizzare to me...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Poor misguided fools.

Respectfully - as I mentioned before in another thread the Bible was never meant as a complete or accurate revelation of God. Among it's books are allegory, metaphor, poetry and prose. The Book of Genesis and especially the story of Creation was handed down through oral tradition centuries before it was ever written down and the ancient Hebrews didn't concern themselves with science to understand the world around them. The story of Creation is a beautiful, allegorical story of God's hand in all of creation, but shouldn't be confused as a literal account of just how God created life.

[incanada1234 0]

God must have been pretty surprised when the big bang happened and the universe was created.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

God must have been pretty surprised when the big bang happened and the universe was created.

incanada1234,

We have got to get you into a Scientific Method 101 class. Science really is a beautiful and orderly way to 'discover' God and his creations.

[incanada1234 0]

God must have been pretty surprised when the big bang happened and the universe was created.

incanada1234,

We have got to get you into a Scientific Method 101 class. Science really is a beautiful and orderly way to 'discover' God and his creations.

Mr. Gupt,

Errr, do you even BELIEVE in God?

edit to add: what can I say? I'm a fundie.

Edited August 3, 2006 by incanada1234

[one...two...tree 2,762]

God must have been pretty surprised when the big bang happened and the universe was created.

With God, all things are possible. Science and God should never conflict because they don't cancel each other out. In fact, science has shown it's finiteness in quantum physics. Science can only go so far ....and at that point, in my opinion, is where science points to God.

[incanada1234 0]

With God, all things are possible.

Exactly.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

warning: off-topic

incanada, you're gonna love this....

Heat wave makes Pat Robertson a global warming 'convert'

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. The Reverend Pat Robertson says he hasn't been a believer in global warming in the past, but this summer's record-breaking heat is -- quote -- "making a convert out of me."

On his "700 Club" broadcast, Robertson said, "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air."

Switching sides on an issue that divides evangelical Christians, Robertson said, "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels."

The religious broadcaster told viewers, "If we are contributing to the destruction of this planet, we need to do something about it."

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=5233194&nav=0RbQ

[incanada1234 0]

Pat R is kind of an idiot though.