Kansas educators clear way for evolution criticism

By Carey Gillam
Tue Nov 8, 5:52 PM ET

TOPEKA, Kansas (Reuters) - Kansas on Tuesday became the latest U.S. state to introduce criticism of evolution into teaching standards, a move that critics charge was driven by religious zealotry.

In a hearing room packed with high school students, teachers and national media, the Kansas State Board of Education on a 6-4 vote approved a new set of science standards that question the veracity of evolution theory.

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do," said board chairman Steve Abrams, who is on record as saying evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Bible's version of God's creation of life on Earth.

The new public school standards include several specific challenges to evolution, including statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, charges that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and a statement that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not based on direct observations ... and often reflect ... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence."

Although the redrawn teaching standards do not mention religion and Abrams denied the changes were religiously motivated, both local and national science groups charged that the new standards are a product of religious zealotry.

Critics said the standards go farther than any other state to date in opening up evolutionary principles to criticism, and said implementation will lead to more aggressive undermining of scientific principles in other states and will ultimately weaken U.S. achievement in scientific arenas.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said the decision would encourage school districts in Kansas and elsewhere to make similar moves, distracting and confusing teachers and students.

"It will be marketed by the religious right ... as a huge victory for their side," she said. "We can expect more efforts to get creationism in."

LONG-SIMMERING DEBATE

The Kansas vote is the latest development in a renewed debate over evolution that has simmered in the United States before and since the famed "monkey trial" in Tennessee 80 years ago, when that state's anti-evolution teaching law was challenged.

Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania have in the past few years introduced questions about the validity of evolution into their curriculum but Kansas goes farther.

The Kansas vote follows the trial of a Pennsylvania lawsuit brought by parents who sued a local school board after it instructed science teachers to introduce students to a theory called intelligent design. That theory holds that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause, such as God.

The trial ended last week and a decision from the judge is expected in December or January.

Intelligent design is not included in the Kansas standards but nonetheless is rapidly becoming a catch-phase in the debate. Intelligent design proponents say nature is so complex that there must have been a higher intelligence involved.

They claim evolution theory, popularized by British scientist Charles Darwin in the 1850s, wrongly uses only natural explanations for the development of life forms without considering the possibility of a designer.

The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based key backer of intelligent design theory, praised the Kansas effort.

"Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed," said Casey Luskin, a Discovery Institute spokesman in a written statement.

In an effort to fight back against the changes in Kansas and other states, a grass-roots group calling itself Campaign to Defend the Constitution said on Tuesday it was launching a $200,000 online ad campaign "to combat a threat posed by the religious right to American democracy."

"This is a significant attack on science," said Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science. "They really are advancing a sectarian religious view. They're treading on constitutional grounds."
___________________________________

There are a few things about this whole debate over the evolution theory:

Fact: You will not PROVE creationism wrong via evolution due to the fact that even if allowed to evolve, all matter had to have a beginning point. That point may have been a super-small, super-dense, super-hot black hole of a point the size of a pinhead that exploded, but something had to start the pinhead sized bit of stuff. GOD is STILL a possibility

Fact: You will not PROVE evolution wrong by allowing creationism to be taught. There truly are scientific processes at work that can allow for much of the theory of evolution to take place.

Fact: Darwin's argument was never an intention to disprove God or the idea that God created the universe. In fact Darwin's idea was to shed light on a possible METHOD God might have used to create it. His theory would fit in well with the so called "relgious right threat" who believe in the long version of creation (that the six "days" mentioned in Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal 24hr days, but rather an age of time. The word yom (meaning day) in Hebrew (the language of the original Old Testament) has 3 different possible meanings.

Fact: Evolution IS a viable theory, but it has NEVER been proven as fact. There are far too many holes in the theory. The fossil record is incomplete, and at times inaccurate.

Fact: Genetic coding of DNA is so complex that to say it happened by evolutionary processes of mutation and adaption due to random selection of traits is SCIENTIFICALLY STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT!! That means that even scientists have to reject it as a possibility because the chances are so small (even with an infinite amount of tries) that it is rendered virtually impossible to think it would have happened this way. And that's just DNA for 1 cell...let alone the millions of cells of 1 human....let alone the billions more from all various species.

Fact: with the best forms of scientific study we have today, we have been able to find NO observable occurences other than a very few fungi and bacteria, where mutation takes place.

Fact: When the above mutations DID take place, the mutation remains a mutated version of the original. What was in the petri dish was a mutated form of the original in the petri dish. NO NEW LIFEFORM.

Fact: There are NO missing links to explain one single solitary bit of how one species jumped rank and crossed over to another species to connect the two. It just hasn't happened in ANY obsevable fashion, in past or present.

Fact: There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Creationism a.k.a. Intelligent Design is another viable theory. Let's clarify, not to prove there's a God, but to show that in most all of creation there are complexities so fantastic as to say nothing like this could have happened on its own. This is done purely by the scientific method. By using the 5 steps one can observe in almost all forms of organic and inorganic material, that the basic structures are inifinitely complex AND diverse. The chances of this randomly happening via explosion of matter are so small as to render evolution's explanation void, and to say there is REASON TO LOOK FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR.

Fact: Intelligent design never says that we need to introduce the study of God into science classes and try to figure out observable, empirical aspects of an invisible, unknowable-unless-revealed God. It simply maintains that students should be taught to look deeper than one theory that lacks ability to explain all of the universe around us. In effect, this teaches students to use their brains MORE, not less. It will be left up to the student to decide what he/she believes about the beginnings of all that we see around us in the universe.

Fact: Making students think about the DIVERSITY of ideas will not render them scientific idiots. The students will NOT be asked to include the Bible on their book list to purchase.

Fact: If evolution is the right theory in the end, then it WILL PROVE itself to be so. Its proponents should not be afraid of some well-intentioned, well-thought competition. If it is right, it will prove that once-and-for-all under scrutiny. If it is wrong, it will also prove that once-and-for-all under scrutiny. This scrutiny may take several years. This doesn't mean that students will be less scientific or less able to continue the growth of scientific knowledge over the next years, it simply means that as they do, they'll be looking to reinforce one theory by weeding out its competition.

Fact: According to the constitution, I have as much right, as a Christian, to send my child to public school and know that he/she will receive a diverse, intellectually challenging education. Science cannot disprove the religious beliefs of my family, nor vice versa. AND THEY SHOULDN'T TRY IN THE ARENA OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL. Save those attempts for private schools that are unashamedly pushing an agenda. (and a personal note, I went to private school, and I still learned about evolution, and I still learned about The God of the Bible, and I still learned about most every other major religion IN DETAIL that exists in the world today, and I still received scholarship agreements to MANY prestigious colleges and universities, state and private, of a VERY non-religious bent. Nope, didn't make the big ivy leagues, but I wouldn't have gone if I had. You'd have to know me to understand why. I remain extremely intelligent, have a genius IQ, am extremely well-versed in educational topics of dicussion, and all this after that "zealotry" of the awful Christian right-wing school system had their claws into me. ....good grief, the things you get called because you actually BELIEVE IN GOD! How dare we!) The point is, the schools have long been thundering in the classroom that evolution is fact and God doesn't exist. Both remain unproven, one therefore is most certainly a lie, and one is a matter to be decided based on personal belief...I just hope you can afford to be wrong when you die. In a public school, teach the mainline theories and maybe even a few non-mainline. 2 biggies are evolution and I.D. You don't have to teach one particular intelligence, it simply means you don't make evolution say something it hasn't said yet. Don't attribute something to a theory that shows no ownership of the topic to date. Is it possible that something had to create and design life that is so complex??? Even remotely possible??? YES IT IS, much more so that random selection starting the life of even 1 CELL!! That means ID needs to be taught and not taught against and ruled out.

Fact: There is NOT ONE BIT OF ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THE KANSAS RULING WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No separation of church and state, no 'down with God, up with science', no nothing. It's a waste of time, don't look there, nothing to find.

THEORY: 99% of all scientists who reject creationism or intelligent design do so have disregarded it as lunacy without having ever given it a moments thought...yet they would argue against it as if it stood in opposition to science itself. These men and women don't understand the very thing they're trying to fight against, yet they'll argue against it anyway.....doesn't sound like a good scientific method to me.

FACT: SCIENCE AND RELIGION CANNOT, AND WERE NEVER MEANT TO BE SEPARATED. There IS a dual nature of man according to approx. 90% of the world's population. Most people believe in the physical that they see, and the spiritual which they don't see. They believe and can even show evidence SCIENTIFICALLY, that belief in the spiritual increases healing and maintains homeostasis in humans more effectively than not having a belief in God. And yes for all you out there looking for other variables, the studies were accurate, they had tried to eliminate as many other variables as possible.


Folks, the truth is, teaching students to look further than one theory in an honest, open approach, in no way undermines the scientific FACTS that we do know. What it does do is force a greater amount of accuracy on the scientific community. No longer can we simply throw up information and loosely determine that it happened that way due to evolution. Random chances say this this and this, therefore we arrived here! See! Aren't we smart?! No, the scientific community must now admit where the struggles lie, and produce students who will devote themselves to scientifically proving information that will fill in the holes and gaps. Can those gaps be filled? Well, that's what the whole debate is about. But at least Kansas has taken one big step towards making the teams of the debate more equal. Until one side or other shows PROOF of being correct, neither should accuse the other of NEVER HAVING PLAYED A PART IN THE PROCESS.

Developing...

Comments or Thoughts?

Athosxc

Addisonrd's personal testimony

I found this posted at www.addisonrd.com under "why I believe what I believe". It's a great post and personal testimony. Read on...

Nobody needed to tell me that I was profoundly broken. I saw it in the intent and motivation of every action. A persistent understanding of how I ought to be, of the perfect instantiation of myself, stood in sharp contrast to the person with whom I was well acquainted, the person whose every action was motivated by subversive intent and consuming appetites.

Willpower failed to overcome and correct the self-failings. Whatever brokenness I had inherited extended to my self-control, and made me a thoroughly ineffective authority over my own self.

Community failed to overcome and correct the self-failings. Whatever brokenness I had inherited extended to those around me, so that our common efforts to correct it became the well-meaning but fumbling efforts of untrained children, blind to their goals and unskilled in their methods.

Institutional religion failed to overcome and correct the self-failings. It offered a measurable standard of conduct, and a well-constructed worldview standing in support of that conduct, but failed to affect the heart, the emotional center of the broken desires and consuming appetites. It promoted a tension between the internal reality and the external forms that could only yield exhaustion and failure.

I lived in the growing tension of a certain knowledge that I was created to be a better sort of person, a more perfect example of human experience, a completed expression on the part of the creator, the certain knowledge that the goal of my existence extended well beyond simple self-subsistence and self-gratification, and yet the certain knowledge that I had failed on every account to exemplify those things. I was built to be a part of a greater project, but my brokenness made me unfit to discover it and participate in it.

In the person of Jesus Christ, that perfect example of human experience found perfect expression. In his life, I found the evidence of the person I knew I ought to be. In his death, I saw the tragedy of my own brokenness carried out to its inevitable and inescapable conclusion. I saw in his teaching the expression of that great project that made human experience worthwhile.

I was made to be perfect as he was perfect. No manner of self-discipline, community support, or institutional religion was sufficient to allow me to live out that example. His death assumed the consequences of my brokenness, and in some profound and mysterious way repaid my irreparable debt to my creator. His resurrection gave proof to his promise of my own renewal, my future escape from the current tragedy of my own brokenness. His kingdom, his great project of transforming the world to a place of justice, compassion, mercy, wisdom, and truth gave shape to the project of great consequence that I knew with certainty I was created to participate in. His ongoing communion with me gives real and present confidence in the reality of this new life.

_______________________


Thoughts or comments?

Athosxc

Runner's Log 11-06-05

Well, it has been a while since I posted here, but not due to lack of running. Training has been well, and maintaining and taper to prepare for the big day. In 7 days, I will be running my first marathon. For any who read this blog, please say a prayer for me around 7:30am Central Standard Time in the USA. That's when I begin. I'm really hoping my old knee injury doesn't show itself in the race. I'm in great shape and am looking forward to a good run and a good finish if at all possible. I'm so excited to be able to finally run this race. The training has been worth it thought to get back into shape to really compete again.

God, Please give me the strength, endurance, and lack of pain from injury to be able to run this race well from start to finish. Thank you Lord for the opportunity. Amen.

Also looking forward to my parents coming into town to see me run. They've been to all of my races from the time I started running in high school. My dad was a marathon runner before I was born and as of a year from now, will be again as we compete in Utah. I'm looking more forward to seeing them again than running, but I'm itching for the competition. It's an itch only competition will cure, as any athlete understands. I pray I can run to potential. Whatever the outcome, I will do my best. Godspeed!

Athosxc

Archaeologists Unveil Ancient Church Site

MEGIDDO PRISON, Israel - Israeli prisoner Ramil Razilo was removing rubble from the planned site of a new prison ward when his shovel uncovered the edge of an elaborate mosaic, unveiling what Israeli archaeologists said Sunday may be the Holy Land's oldest church.

The discovery of the church in the northern Israeli town of Megiddo, near the biblical Armageddon, was hailed by experts as an important discovery that could reveal details about the development of the early church in the region. Archaeologists said the church dated from the third century, decades before Constantine legalized Christianity across the Byzantine Empire.

"What's clear today is that it's the oldest archaeological remains of a church in Israel, maybe even in the entire region. Whether in the entire world, it's still too early to say," said Yotam Tepper, the excavation's head archaeologist.

Israeli officials were giddy about the discovery, with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon calling the church "an amazing story."

Vatican officials also hailed the find.

"A discovery of this kind will make Israel more interesting to all Christians, for the church all over the world," said Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the Vatican envoy to Jerusalem. "If it's true that the church and the beautiful mosaics are from the third century, it would be one of the most ancient churches in the Middle East."

Razilo, who is serving a two-year sentence for traffic violations, was one of about 50 prisoners brought into the high-security Megiddo Prison to help excavate the area before the construction of new wards for 1,200 Palestinian prisoners.

Razilo was shocked to uncover the edge of the mosaic. The inmates worked for months to uncover all the parts of the mosaic — the floor of the church, he said.

"We continued to look and slowly we found this whole beautiful thing," said Razilo, who used a sponge and a bucket of water to clean dirt off the uncovered mosaics Sunday.

Two mosaics inside the church — one covered with fish, an ancient Christian symbol that predates the cross — tell the story of a Roman officer and a woman named Aketous who donated money to build the church in the memory "of the god, Jesus Christ."

Pottery remnants from the third century, the style of Greek writing used in the inscriptions, ancient geometric patterns in the mosaics and the depiction of fish rather than the cross indicate that the church was no longer used by the fourth century, Tepper said.

The church's location, not far from the spot where the New Testament says the final battle between good and evil will take place, also made sense because a bishop was active in the area at the time, said Tepper, who works with the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The inscription, which specifies that Aketous donated a table to the church, indicates the house of worship predated the Byzantine era, when Christians began using altars in place of tables in their rituals, Tepper said. Remnants of a table were uncovered between the two mosaics.

The building — most of which was destroyed — also was not built in the Basilica style that was standard under the Byzantines, he added.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar and professor at the Holy Land University, said the second and third centuries were transitional periods where people sought to define their religious beliefs and modes of worship. Iconography and inscriptions found in Nazareth and Caperneum — places where Jesus lived — show that people went there to worship, although most did so secretly.

"This was a time of persecution and in this way it is quite surprising that there would be such a blatant expression of Christ in a mosaic, but it may be the very reason why the church was destroyed," Pfann said.

The dig will continue as archaeologists try to uncover the rest of the building and its surroundings, including what they believe could be a baptismal site, Tepper said.

Joe Zias, an anthropologist and former curator with the antiquities authority, questioned the dating of the find, saying there is no evidence of churches before the fourth century. The building may have been in use earlier, but most likely not for Christian religious purposes, he said.

"They're going to be hard, hard-pressed to prove it ... because the evidence argues otherwise," Zias said.

_______________________________________


A few things come to mind:
1) The fish symbol can't predate the cross. The cross upon which Jesus died is the reason and symbol of why we have Christians today. The fish is the symbol Christians used to identify themselves to other Christians after the church started. They were persecuted and had to have a way to determine friend or foe without giving themselves away.

The only way the fish would predate, is if they are saying that Christians didn't use the cross as a symbol until later. If this is the intended meaning, the article should say so for historical accuracy. However, the cross has also been a symbol of Christians from the time of the early church's beginnings. Either way, the statement would be inaccurate.

2) The writers of the story are pc cowards because they said "god, Jesus Christ" instead of "God, Jesus Christ". That capital G would get them in deep doo-doo and they know it, so they take the easy way out.

3) It should not be so surprising that Christians were blatantly willing to worship in a time of persecutions. While protecting personal security, they were in no way ashamed of their corporate worship, or of bearing witness for Christ when the opportunity presented itself. This is why during the greatest times of martyrdom, the church still flourished. Christians had guts to get involved because they understood that they would never suffer more for their Savior, than He had suffered for them out of love.

4) Zias' comment is arrogant, ignorant, and so biased it is really very sad. His automatic response is to disregard any chance of Christianity laying claim to the find, because he doesn't want it to be true.

First, we wouldn't have a fourth centure had it not been for Christ. Lest we forget, we count time DOWN up to the point of the Christ's birth, and only started counting up after His birth. In fact, without his birth, there would be no BC, AD, or the more politcally correct BCE or CE or any other letters to distinguish by. He so impacted the world that they started time over. Isn't it just like God to put things in proper perspective? Only after God came to earth did mankind to look at lives as a progression...so much so that they dated everything with Christ as the reference point.

Second, the church has existed from the time of about 33 A.D. This isn't hard to prove, he just has to look at ALL the documents of the time....he can't leave out the ones that talked about Jesus. How frustrating it must be for him to be an atheist and unable to intelligently argue points, because he has to disregard evidence without study or chance proving himself wrong. O the heights of human pride. We just refuse to be wrong.

2 Tim.4:3 -"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the the truth and turn aside to myths." Yep, sounds like our day.

Even more our day, check this one out: 2 Tim.3:1-5 -" But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, tracherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have notyhing to do with them." Yes, this sounds like our day and time.

Notice Paul's warning to Timothy..."have nothing to do with them". So how much attention should we pay to the "learned and educated" speeches of Zias?

Comments or thoughts???

Athosxc