By C.J. JANOVY
Not that we'd advocate going back to the days of the not-too-distant past when entertaining wackos like Connie Morris ruled the Kansas Board of Education, but we have to admit we kind of miss the ol' reformed high school slut who pals around with evolution deniers. It's been a couple of quiet years as far as the state school board is concerned, so we've had to look for stories someplace besides the board's attempts to re-create the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Still, we'd be shirking our responsibilities not to point out that several state school board candidates are on the November 4 ballot. And while Pitch political analysts predict that the board will stay safely controlled by reasonable people, Kansans who want to avoid doing any damage (and providing The Pitch with more great stories!) by randomly voting for people they've never heard of can now see what the candidates say about evolution and sex ed.
On Saturday, Kansas Citizens for Science posted the 11 statewide candidates' responses to the KCFS's questionnaire. It's fun reading, if only for the nostalgia of remembering those days just a couple of years ago when Kansas was a national joke:
I have stated publicly and openly that the theory of evolution should be scrutinized along with any other theory that makes its way to the domain of scientific review. I can see no logic in attempting to isolate and protect this theory against the broad range of theories in science, economics, sociology, etc. On this subject, our standards appear to be out of balance. Theories are theories and facts are facts. While some would claim that the theory of evolution is ironclad and without fault, I respectfully disagree, and so do many individuals who belong to the organizations listed above. I know because I’ve visited with them on this very subject. Therefore, it should remain open to criticism, adjustment due to new data and evidence, and overall improvement. -- Dennis Hedke, District 8
Do you support an age-appropriate, medically-accurate, comprehensive approach (often referred to as abstinence plus) to sexual education for the students of Kansas?No – it is up to local boards to determine the program they wish to use if any. If a local board decides to have sex education for students, they I would advise an abstinence until marriage message. -- Kathy Martin, District 6
Thank God, though, for answers like these:
Do you support an age-appropriate, medically-accurate, comprehensive approach (often referred to as abstinence plus) to sexual education for the students of Kansas?Yes. I have always supported children getting the facts. Ignorance is not bliss in this area. --Mary Ca Ralstin, District 2
Do you have any other comments about science education you would wish to share with the voters of Kansas?I believe the theory of evolution should be taught. I also believe in the separation of church and state. Creationism and intelligent design can be taught in social study or religion classes. -- Carolyn L. Campbell, District 4
Here's hoping that the Kansas school board stays boring and we don't have to think about it again until the next election.
Showing 1-19 of 19
It is cruel, you know, that music should be so lovely. It has the beauty of loneliness of sorrow: of strength and liberty. The beauty of disappointment and never-satisfied love. The cruel beauty of nature and perpetual beauty of monotony.
@ Trevor
"red, you do know that Neanderthals are a species of human, right?"
Uh, no.
Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows that homo sapiens (our species) is unrelated to neanderthals. The co-existed with homo sapiens as they were dying off as sapiens came into existence, but one is not a sub-species of the other.
I'm the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death...
Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
God will appreciate it.
Good article, but after reading this thread I think I know less than I did going in.
red, you do know that Neanderthals are a species of human, right? They were not missing links and they used stone tools. The gap I speak of is from ape to man.
I do admire your gravity reference, especially as it nicely, albeit indirectly, supports creationism�and evolution for that matter.
Alas, I do not think folks like Louis or CJ are interested in truth or science. They seem to be content spreading their own concocted point of view and have no interest in even hearing the other side.
Hence we stand sans �analysts� and watch �champions [of] human rights� unilaterally spread their propaganda all the while simply increasing the comment count with hardly a word said reaching a listening ear.
I don't know what gaps in human evolution you could be speaking of. In fact scientists now believe that early humans and neanderthals lived side by side in places in Europe.
Another theory that hasn't been proven that is still taught in our schools: gravity.
I don't know what gaps in human evolution you could be speaking of. In fact scientists now believe that early humans and neanderthals lived side by side in places in Europe.
Another theory that hasn't been proven that is still taught in our schools: gravity.
Actually, Louis, you make the point for creationism as well as anyone. Science has failed many times to explain the initial spark of life. In fact, it has never even come close to succeeding. For example, attempts to simulate lightning in an ammonia atmosphere, in what was deemed to be the best chance to spark the amino acids of life, even in perfect lab conditions, fails time and again despite the complete lack of evidence that there ever was an ammonia atmosphere.
The gaps and questions go on and on. Who caused the big bang? How come there are no immediate links betwixt ape and man? Thus, the re are tremendously bigger gaps are in evolution than there are in creationism and Occam �s razor takes the day for God.
If you already have these answers defined in sound science, but are just certain that creationists would shoot it down, then you should question your soundness, your faith in science, and perhaps realize that your basis in the belief of evolution is just as sketchy as a belief in creationism.
Your interpretation of creationism and the first amendment is where your ignorance seems to shine brightest. Where in theory of creationism is Alah, Jesus, Mohammad, or some reincarnated cow defined as the creator?
Your claim to be champion of human rights is empty. You wish to shatter the beliefs of the majority to cater to the will of the Godless. What�s worse, you do so using a very twisted application of the scientific method and making obvious untruths such as �LACK of science� and �The Bible does not seem too concerned with human rights�. And that, my friend, is a very poor guide to any living.
Trevor, If you are indeed a scientist, then you should know very well the LACK of science behind "so-called Creationism." Yes, their are gaps in human evolution - some gaps have been found - and as soon as they are found, the "Creationists" want to have the gaps between the gaps filled. As to your Constitutional argument I think it falls flat as the 1st Amendment prohibits religion being taught in public schools. If you wish to study this issue with children it should be done in the home or church. There are approx 2000 religions in the US alone (according to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State). How can we justify the teaching of one religious dogma over all the others? That would amount to tyranny of the majority, also prohibited by the Constitution.
As to your second point, I am not trying to be a "good Christian" and I certainly don't believe the supernatural stuff written in the Bible. I am a self-admitted secular humanist who champions human rights. The Bible does not seem too concerned with human rights as is evidenced by the atrocities committed in the name of God, wars, rapes, etc. I don't find it a very good guide to moral living.
Here�s my point, Louis. Despite the apparent difference betwixt gay rights and teaching creationism, they are indeed very similar. Both are ideas that are despised by the masses, but both are excellent examples of the ideas of a small contingent benefiting from the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution.
Being a scientist myself, I am quite aware of the scientific value of the theory of evolution. I am also aware of the tremendous gap in the theory in explaining human evolution. Because of this gap and the failure of science to create life, I personally see the value in both the theory of creationism and evolution and do not see why they need to be mutually exclusive. To me, it seems that providing education in both of these theories would enhance education, whereas limiting education to a single choice also reduces the education of the student.
A similar argument could be made as to how one should accept homosexual rights in order to be a good Christian.
Hi Trevor, I surely don't recall saying that I "dismiss the human right to believe in God." We do have freedom of religion in this country and you can certainly believe anything you wish. However, I have to disagree with your thoughts on evolution. Evolution is the basis on which biology is taught and there is a great deal of evidence to back that up. As to gays not being able to procreate - so what. I don't really care. I have been married for 36 years and have no children because my wife and I can't have children. Does that make me unacceptable to society? Quite frankly, I don't grasp your point.
Louis, they are very much similar issues from both a human rights and scientific perspective.
You claim that human rights should be a cause for political action to support homosexual rights, then immediately dismiss the human right to believe in God.
From a science perspective, you dismiss creationism despite the gap of evidence proving human evolution; yet in some unsaid way embrace the scientific impossibility of two members of the same sex reproducing.
I am not sure how you can claim these to be �incomparible[sic]�.
Woops, my final sentence above should read:
We are already so far behind the rest of the western world in science education and you would support making the situation worse?
In the first comment Trevor says:
"Why is it OK for you to ask that we accept homosexuals, but it is not OK for you to be asked to accept creationism?"
Trevor, seems to me that these are two separate and incomparible issues. Gay rights are human rights. I am baffled why so many people feel that granting rights to the gay community is bad. It will NOT affect you or I. However with "so-called Creationism," schools would be required to teach psuedo-science (mythology if you would). We are already so far behind the rest of the western world in science education and you would support making the situation first.
Even Stevens, please don't tell me that you are like a mouse wrapped in Kevlar fighting a porcupine...you don't get the points and have a very weak offense.
"Pitch political analysts? You saying you have political analysts is like saying Lindsay Lohan has etiquette coaches."
Wow, Trevor. How much does it cost to hire Jay Leno's gag writers for a day?
Pitch political analysts? You saying you have political analysts is like saying Lindsay Lohan has etiquette coaches.
Who are these political analysts?
Why is it OK for you to ask that we accept homosexuals, but it is not OK for you to be asked to accept creationism?
Does the will of the people matter? If so, then in most places homosexuals and creationism would BOTH be shunned.
If what is �scientifically right� matters, then again both are shunned until 2 dudes or 2 chicks can make a baby and they find the missing link.
But, I suppose you subscribe to some elitist version where you and your analysts �get it�, but everyone doesn�t. Good luck with that. When you are ready to get back to reality, let us know.
like
dislike
