Re: The Kansas Science Education Standards

From: Susan Brassfield (
Date: Wed Jan 26 2000 - 13:49:32 EST

  • Next message: Susan Brassfield: "Let's Teach Creationism"

    >This is McCarthyism at it's worst. The question should be whether the Kansas
    >Standards are valid, not who supports them or who opposes them.

    A conservative Christian group--The Creation Science Association of
    Mid-America--*wrote* them--that's a huge difference from support or
    opposition. You should check your copy of the Constitution. The first
    amendment guarantees that religion will not be taught with the force of
    government behind it. Conversely, one of the many religions in this country
    can't dictate what *doesn't* get taught in public schools.

    >Are you
    >suggesting children should be blindly indoctrinated with the "truth" of Neo
    >Darwinism, gradualism, "random mutation and natural selection as a known
    >mechanism for macro evolution", merely because religious people are in

    I'm saying that children should be given the results of scientific research
    and not have the results of that research concealed because it seems to
    conflict with the tenets of one religion.

    >Not true!! Once the public is familiar with
    >the arguments of both sides, I suspect they will make up their own minds
    >about who the bigots are.

    I agree with you completely and so does the Kansas School Board and the
    Science Association who wrote those guidelines.

    I know and they know that if the *evidence* for evolution was presented
    clearly and openly, to everyone, then it would be obvious that evolution is
    true. That is why they must attempt to conceal that evidence.

    Australopithecus afarensis has a very apelike head but very humanlike hips
    and knee joints. It is clearly transitional between humans and an apelike
    ancestor. The KSB and the Creation
    Science Association doesn't want you--or anybody else--to know that. Their
    propaganda states that there are *no* transitional fossils. That is a lie
    that they are trying to protect. If *everyone* had enough education to
    examine the evidence then "anti-evolutionism" would evaporate and they know

    >I respect anyone's right to believe in neo
    >Darwinism, for whatever reason, but am disgusted with their tactics to
    >discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them.

    evidence means nothing at all to you, because you have such a strong
    emotional reason to not believe in evolution. However, that is not
    unversally the case. If the *evidence* is not concealed, then the truth is



    For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
    of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
    this one.
    --Albert Camus

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 26 2000 - 13:50:41 EST