Darwinism Education Evolution

Why student activism is the key to winning this war

Spread the love

Since 1999, Kansas has now swung four times on the question of science standards and whether evolutionary theory should be properly scrutinized or swallowed whole. Below is the latest. This war will not be decided by courts, legislators, or school boards, but by young people as they wake up to the fact that dogmatic Darwinists have been systematically indoctrinating and disenfranchising them. Just as the counterculture of the 60s overturned the status quo, so a new counterculture, with high school, college, and university students taking the lead, will overturn the Darwinian status quo.

Evolution Opponents Lose in Kansas Primary
By John Hanna
Associated Press
posted: 02 August 2006
09:56 am ET

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.  

The most closely watched race was in western Kansas, where incumbent conservative Connie Morris lost her Republican primary Tuesday. The former teacher had described evolution as “an age-old fairy tale’’ and “a nice bedtime story’’ unsupported by science.

As a result of Tuesday’s vote, board members and candidates who believe evolution is well-supported by evidence will have a 6-4 majority. Evolution skeptics had entered the election with a two-person majority.

Critics of Kansas‘ science standards worried that if conservatives retained the board’s majority, it would lead to attempts in other states to copy the Kansas standards.

“There are people around the country who would like to see the Kansas standards in their own states,’’ said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., which supports the teaching of evolution.

Also Tuesday, Kansas Republicans chose a nominee to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in November. With 96 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, state Sen. Jim Barnett captured his party’s nomination with 36 percent of the vote, besting six other candidates.

Control of the school board has slipped into, out of and back into conservative Republicans’ hands since 1998, resulting in anti-evolution standards in 1999, evolution-friendly ones in 2001 and anti-evolution ones again last year.

Late-night comedians have been making cracks about Kansas, portraying it as backward and ignorant. Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show’’ broadcast a four-part series titled, “Evolution Schmevolution.’’

The school board contest was part of a larger effort by the intelligent design movement to introduce its ideas in public schools.

A suburban Atlanta school district is locked in a legal dispute over its putting stickers in 35,000 biology textbooks declaring evolution “a theory, not a fact.’’

Last year, in Dover, Pa., voters ousted school board members who had required the biology curriculum to include mention of intelligent design. A federal judge struck down the policy, declaring intelligent design is religion in disguise.

A poll by six news organizations last year suggested about half of Kansans thought evolution should be taught alongside intelligent design.

Proponents of Kansas‘ latest standards contend they encourage open discussion.

“Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin’s theory,’’ said John West, a vice president for the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based, anti-evolution Discovery Institute.

The standards say that the evolutionary theory that all life had a common origin has been challenged by fossils and molecular biology. And they say there is controversy over whether changes over time in one species can lead to a new species.

Three incumbent conservatives faced primary foes Tuesday, and there was a contested GOP race for the seat held by a retiring conservative. A pro-evolution Democratic incumbent also had a challenger.

With almost all the votes counted early Wednesday, pro-evolution Republican Jana Shaver picked off a conservative incumbent and won the primary for the open seat.

Conservative Republican John Bacon kept his seat by besting two pro-evolution challengers, as did another conservative incumbent, Ken Willard. Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who opposed the new standards, easily defeated a more conservative Democrat who favored the anti-evolution language.

MORE

12 Replies to “Why student activism is the key to winning this war

  1. 1
    Joseph says:

    It is as simple as getting the students to take the 3-Hour ID Challenge:

    Watch two videos- “The Privileged Planet” and “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.

  2. 2
    Smidlee says:

    Joseph
    Watch any videos on TV which deals with evolution (any nature program) and tell us ; if you can without lying, why Darwinism is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrine and faith.

  3. 3
    Mats says:

    How can Darwinism be based on “scientific research” if the mechanisms proposed by the modern synthesis are not able to “do the job”?

    The evolutionary videos you allude are mostly based on speculation and philosophy. Some are quite funny, I must say. There are some which are so speculative and so hilarious that I often wonder if they are not laughing behind the cameras.

  4. 4
    Larry Fafarman says:

    All we’ve got to show for years of fighting this battle are the taunts of the Darwinists that we have never conclusively won anything. We are not getting anywhere with the present tactics, and the Darwinists with their far greater resources — for example, they have the universities, the big scientific societies, and the activist courts behind them — will outlast us.

    The see-sawing that is going on in Kansas is also going on in Ohio. The Ohio Board of Education passed an education standard calling for critical analysis of evolution, deleted it, and is now considering another standard calling for critical analysis of evolution.

    Also, the courts have been stringing us along for years, tantalizing us with the hope of some modest success and then dashing that hope. For example, the Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish (2000) decision banning an evolution disclaimer came within one vote of being granted an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and within one vote of being granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court. An appeals court looked like it was leaning towards reversing the Selman v. Cobb County (2005) textbook-sticker decision but after months of stalling finally remanded the case to the district court because of missing evidence — 16 months after the case was decided. Right now there is no pending court case that offers any prospect of providing near-term relief from the total censorship of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools. The Freiler case is discussed on —
    http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....-show.html

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    I hope this will erase the complacency on this web site that ID is winning the war on the teaching of evolution in the US. If a state like Kansas cannot elect people that support the mild criteria that were part of their science standards, then ID is now losing the battle. We can tell ourselves all we want how the Darwinists are disassembling but I see nothing out “there” that confirms this. I know no one of my personal acquaintances except my wife who doesn’t think Darwin is the received view and is probably the correct view. This includes all my children and is a topic we do not discuss because they prefer not to. Now my children and my friends do not know very much about it but if you start discussing evolution you are looked upon as a loony and humored.

    The Darwinists are definitely winning the PR battle.

  6. 6
    idadvisors says:

    “There are people around the country who would like to see the Kansas standards in their own states,’’ said Eugenie Scott

    Perhaps many of these people understand the insufficient evidence for Darwinism (both logical, H–D?, and empirical, “you don’t know science”? Futher, some might even understand the next paradigm’s premises that intelligence causes CSI, and DNA contains CSI. That was simple.

  7. 7
    scordova says:

    Just as the counterculture of the 60s overturned the status quo, so a new counterculture, with high school, college, and university students taking the lead, will overturn the Darwinian status quo.

    And God willing they will. It’s inspiring to see them winning the fight class room by class room. They are no longer intimidated to challenge their teachers and before their peers: New Tactics

    Nearly 30 years of teaching evolution in Kansas has taught Brad Williamson to expect resistance, but even this veteran of the trenches now has his work cut out for him when students raise their hands.

    That’s because critics of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of “10 questions to ask your biology teacher.”

    The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.
    …..
    But if reluctance to accept evolution is not new, the ways in which students are resisting its teachings are changing.

    “The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal,” says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School.

    It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says – one that he doesn’t like. “I don’t want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids … I find it disheartening as a teacher.”

  8. 8
    scordova says:

    Part of the quote got cut off:

    “The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal,” says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. “Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they’re all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents].”

  9. 9
    John A. Davison says:

    Everything now being disclosed in the laboratory favors a predetermined evolution. Gene families once thought to be mammalian inventions are being found in very primitive organisms. Points of breakage and recombination of chromosomes are being found not to be random but occur or occured at “favored sites.”

    There is no longer a creative role for allelic mutation and probably never was. Random mutation, natural selection, population and Mendelian genetics, all have been entirely conservative and anti-evolutionary. None of these elements ever played a role in ontogeny either.

    “Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
    Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

    One of these decades, or more likely centuries, they will be discussing Bergian rather than Darwinian evolution. Trust me. Of course you can’t unless you can hear what Einstein called the “music of the spheres.” I hear it loud and clear. So did Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Robert Broom, William Bateson and Otto Schindewolf, all evolutionists and not a Darwinian mystic in the lot.

    Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”

    Everything has been driven from within with no other role for the environment than possibly to act as a stimulus for endogenous predetermined potential.

    Most important of all we must accept the fact that creative evolution is no longer in progress. Once that occurs everything else will fall into place, and with it Darwinism will become a mere footnote next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.

    “If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
    Oscar Wilde

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  10. 10
    Smidlee says:

    Joseph
    Opps.I fail to mention I was being sarcastic.
    Evolutionist which has the view that man and apes had a common ancestry uses similiarities between the two as evidence of common descent. Then Behe compares similiarities between man-made machines and (IC) machines find in a cell which to point they both have something in common; intelligent design. One is label as a religious view while the other is overwhelming scientific evidence yet both uses similiarities to make their case.

  11. 11
    Joseph says:

    Smidlee:
    Watch any videos on TV which deals with evolution (any nature program) and tell us ; if you can without lying, why Darwinism is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrine and faith.

    I don’t know of any videos that demonstrate that, for example, bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. I don’t know of any data that supports the claim that single-celled organisms can “evolve” into anything but single-celled organisms. Note- colonies are no more of an “evolutionary” step than cities are.

    I watched the PBS series “Evolution” and the best they could provide was speculation. IOW all they have is faith that some sort of evolution occurred but they cannot demonstrate it nor can they verify it nor can they even tell us how to objectively test the premise.

    Come to think of it if Darwin had known what we know today I would doubt he would publish hos book “On the Origins of Species…”.

    What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    IOW when Darwinists can demonstrate what makes an organism what it is, then we can test their claims. Until then all they have is faith.

    Note to Jerry:

    Push the 3 hour challenge- truth, ie reality, wins PR battles…

  12. 12
    John A. Davison says:

    “But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick’s central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true.”
    Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organsms, page 224, his emphasis.

Leave a Reply