Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

q (6122)

q
  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of q (6122)

Thursday August 04, 2005
11:01 PM

Kansas State Board

[ #26112 ]

I was very suprised that after writing to each member of the kansas School Board to get a response back. It may have been canned, but I appreciated it none the less.

Thank you for your message. Checkout my response on the FSM website, also know I did not support the hearings nor do I support changing the definition of science to include supernatural explanations; unfortunately, I am in a minority of four on the state board. The six member majority on the state board have held the hearings and seem determined to change the definition of science.

Kansas has a long history of very strong education. Kansas is rated in the top 10 of about anything that is used to measure educational quality nationally. That is one of the things that the minority on the state board finds so troublesome we feel the quality of our education system could be jeopardized as a result of this action to weaken science standards. Unfortunately, our minority of four votes will not stop the six member majority on the board from acting.

In 1999 the state board adopted science standards that seriously de-valued evolution. In 2000 the Kansas electorate removed three of the four members who voted for the 1999 flawed standards. I expect they will do the same in 2006.

Also, if you are not a Kansans' be aware this movement is in your state as well. Are you registered to vote and prepared to keep this element out of positions of authority in your state? Some of the six member majority were elected in Primary Elections with less than a 10% voter turnout.

Four of the six member majority will be up for election in 2006: Bacon, Van Meter, Willard, Morris. I am compiling a list of folks from all over the world who want to help defeat these four. If you would like to help just let me know and I will add your name. Thanks for caring.

Sincerely, Sue Gamble

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • But even I do not think that "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be taught in science class.

    I do think that they need to present "darwinism" in its true light and not as "gospel" this is how it happened. Because there currently is very minute support ($fossil->none or $otherwise->little) for evolution.

    • I agree with you. I do not think we should present darwinism as the gospel of how it happened. I think we should present it in a way which allows for other thought on the issue (although using the evidence which is available, not creationism of intelligent design). I have the feeling we may or may not find something which will seriously change our feelings on how we've gotten here, but it will include the evidence which is already available. Just a different way of looking at the whole thing.
  • Everytime someone talks about pushing creationism in schools, I have just one response for them.

    If they want to teach creationism/intelegent design in schools so our childrens education is 'well rounded', then they should be all for teaching darwinism/evolution in sunday school right? It IS after all for the 'well rounded' ness of our childrens development ISN'T IT? :-)
    • And while I'm stirring the pot, I find it amazing that these groups want to shoehorn creationism into 'science', yet they are against shoehorning same sex marriage into 'marriage'. If they want to label them 'unions' instead of marriage as to not pollute the weaken the sanctity of marriage, then we should also force creationism in school into something completely different than 'science' for the very same reasons.