Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 21, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You did get your way, Dr Peterson, and you did it very well, indeed.

This is a topic that should be put before us more often. While it is important that religious beliefs be respected (tolerated), it is equally important to separate those beliefs and our tolerance of them from science and how it is presented in our public schools.

I, too, have wondered if these things have affected the ability of Kansas to attract and retain professional people. Thank you for bringing it up in your column.

CAF

Posted by heloves (anonymous) on February 21, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a creationist and a biology major. Science can be taught without the subject of origin as to one way or the other. Flora and fauna exist. Stick to identification(taxonomy, etc.) in the schools. Evolution has been debunked enough and true faith is a gift so the teaching of origins is really moot. Those who want true separation of "church and state" should be happy and if not they are lying to themselves if they don't believe they are trying to push their own "religion" in schools. Both should be taught or neither. Just the facts, ma'am.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on February 21, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, I'm a little confused here... Evolution has been debunked? By whom and when? The reason I always hear concerning why creationism is not taught in the science class room is that creationism does not follow the scientific method. Evolution does follow the scientific method. So, if all science is based on the scientific method, wouldn't it make sense that we only taught things in science classes that met the criteria of science? I have no problem if people want to teach religion in a world religions class, but there is a distinct difference between a scientific approach and faith. The two shouldn't be mixed in the same class room.

Micro evolution is easy to see all around us. Organisms are exposed to changes in the environment (artificially or otherwise) and they adapt. Those adaptations allow the offspring of evolved organisms to dominate their species. Horticulture, modern medicine, agriculture and other organic based fields take advantage of evolution to improve organisms through evolution every day. In nature we see plants resistant to herbicides, bacteria resistant to antibiotics and organisms adapting to man made changes in the environment (all examples of evolution).

Every time science and religion have significantly bumped heads throughout history, religion has reinterpreted scripture to compensate for scientific fact (the Earth as center of the universe, and a flat Earth with four corners come to mind). This is not to say that we should disregard religion, but sometimes we get a little arrogant in our strict interpretation of God's word. If we are truly God's children, do you think that God may have attempted to explain the nature of His works to us as he would attempt to explain works to a child? Through the use of parables or other simplified means (like His son did)? If God tried to explain the universe and our existence by using the language of particle physics or advanced organic chemistry to early man, what do you think the result would have been? I have known religious scientists in my life that accept evolution, not as an affront to God, but as an acknowledgement of one of the wonderful ways in which He works. I think they have it right.

Posted by hjcary (anonymous) on February 21, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think any of those would be reasons for docters to stay out of KS. For one Tiller is a murderer not a dr. The second dr you mentioned was doing illegal things and a dr. not planning on doing illegal things should not worry. and third I don't see what evolution and creationism has to do with whether a dr. wants to practice somewhere or not. I am a nurse in the medical field and I don't know how someone could study the human body and not believe in creationism.

Does KS not offer incentives to new docters? I have a friend that as soon as his residency was up he took a job in Cheyenne WY. The whole state of WY is considered rural and through some grant the grant paid off half of his school loans and the practice he went to work for paid off the other half. I would think offering school loan payments for a contract for a certain number of years of living in the state would be good. Or other incentives. I don't think any of the above items would phase anyone in my opinion. Unless you were a dr. going into the baby killing business or out with the intention of writing illegal prescriptions then sure pick another state.

I agree with heloves, totally with her comments as well. I had an amazing boilogy teacher who also believed in creation. Just because someone is in the medical field or sciences does not mean they believe all the fictional evololutionists stories. They may have actually STUDIED the body and creation and realized that evolution does not make much since.

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you hjcary! To think that those 3 things are the main reasons doctors and science teachers don't want to come to or stay in Kansas is ridiculous. I'd dare to say that the medical profession would probably be most open to creationism simply because I'm sure Doctors witness many things in their "work" that do not follow any scientific theory and they don't make sense, but they still happen. I'm sure there are many other professions we could look at and say "why doesn't 'such and such' profession want to come to Kansas?" - perhaps the weather is too volatile - I mean who really wants to have 4 seasons, perhaps the lack of an ocean, mountains or Walt Disney World has done it. I mean seriously - this article is absolutely ridiculous with zero back up to this "claim". Perhaps we should look at all the people who live in Kansas and instead ask "why do all these people stay in Kansas"? Those answers would probably be more interesting.

Evolution is a THEORY. A THEORY is not proven fact. Does everyone understand this? I've never understood why it is acceptable in our school system to teach one theory, but not another. Can you imagine how much time would be wasted on non-proven theories if this were true? Then again - it seems like the only fair way - otherwise someone is showing favoritism to one theory over another. Hmmmm.

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I don't think any of those would be reasons for docters to stay out of KS. For one Tiller is a murderer not a dr."

No. Dr. Tiller has medical degrees, just like any other doctor. He is not breaking any laws. He provides medical services to his patients at their request and in a medically safe way. And nobody should have to deal with death threats on an everyday basis.

"The second dr you mentioned was doing illegal things and a dr. not planning on doing illegal things should not worry."

I don't believe that this issue is resolved. Sounds to me like the doctor was doing his job and his patients were misusing their medication, but again--the issue is unresolved.

"and third I don't see what evolution and creationism has to do with whether a dr. wants to practice somewhere or not. "

This issue is important because it shows how much the general population of Kansas values science--not very much at all. Doctors must value science if they are to perform their job, and to practice in a place that denounces the importance of your profession does not sound very appealing.

I am a nurse in the medical field and I don't know how someone could study the human body and not believe in creationism.

Well, perhaps because "studying the human body" necessitates science, whereas creationism has nothing to do with science or medicine. In order to have a deeper understanding of the human body you MUST understand how it works. If you don't believe in evolution, then you simply aren't sufficiently educated, which is distinct from faith.

"Evolution is a THEORY. A THEORY is not proven fact."

Actually, in science, theory is literally as good as fact. Gravity is a theory. The idea that living things are made of cells is a theory. In science, the theory of evolution is accepted as fact. Creationism, on the other hand is NOT A THEORY. It is a faith-based belief. So, to answer your query, scientific theories ARE taught in science classes. There is no favoritism, just a very misunderstood definition. Again, simply educating oneself would solve this confusion.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Practicing medicine by miracle is sometimes called voodoo. The AMA discourages such practices.

A theory is an explanation of gathered facts. There are theories for all scientific processes. Evolution, itself, is a proven fact. All biology including taxonomic procedures relies upon evolutionary derivatives. Naming a life form requires understanding its relationship to other life forms and that is done by DNA which is a result of a long evolutionary process. Evolution is not theory, it is a proven fact, but there is a theory of evolution.

How you wish to fit that into your religious belief is your business. You may even wish to deny it and I respect your right to do so. However, to insist that public policy be based upon concepts which are scientifically proven differently is a terrible mistake.

Posted by morethenenough (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact OR Theory, bottom line in the CHRISTIAN Faith ..... IS so stated GOD in the beginning created all.....and with all comes science and the ability to USE our God given MINDS and expand and be educated....IN medicines and any other field........
This world is full of twisted non believing, blind hearted, people who in the end will have everything to lose....
ANY Dr. that has the title and degrees to practice medicine....Does NOT mean THEY are correct in moral choice or practices....ABORTION Is stopping a heart beat.....which is murder....and by Gods standards and LAWS are wrong......

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cherry - I am a highly educated individual and not confused at all and I take offense to your flippant remark that "simply educating oneself would solve this confusion". I guess only an education that agrees with you is considered acceptable? Let me guess - science would basically say that is a fact, right? haha Sorry couldn't help myself. A theory is NOT FACT - it is an attempt to explain something, but it cannot be proven or not, so once again and sorry Cafe, but evolution is not a proven fact.

I never said anything about practicing medicine by miracles or voodoo, so please do not put words into my mouth. I simply said that people witness things all the time (doctors included) that go against all scientific fact (obviously not talking about evolution here since it is not fact), but yet still happen. We can't explain everything - some things are beyond our understanding.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

emporialifer - no offense taken and no hard feelings at all. I probably overstated myself about "voodoo", too. my own belief is that the world is entirely logical if we can only comprehend it, but that's just opinion - and hope.

I do think that evolution is a proven fact in this sense: life forms change and do so as a result of environmental pressures or sometimes for reasons unknown. Our flu vaccinations (which weren't very good this year) are always different because viruses evolve very quickly and often unpredictably, they are such simple forms and in such mind boggling numbers. In that sense of change, evolution is obvious and provable.

In the larger sense, that life evolved through millions of years and did it in this or that way, there are still many unknowns. Whether the beginning event was an act of creation or not, there is no proof which would allege a non-creationist event aside from mathematical theory. Higher math is one of those areas which can be elegant - as in, completely correct - while also being entirely false. It requires experimentation and nobody has been able to figure out how to do that with the moment of appearance. Creation is as likely as anything and the only explanation I have ever heard which attempts to explain motive for existence. The only other explanation has been: stuff happens. That's not very satisfying to most people.

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cafe - I appreciate your thoughtful response and opinions. I was doing some research and found some very interesting sites dealing with the theory of evolution. I'm not a scientist, so when I hear evolution I think of only one thing (the one thing I was taught in science class), but I'm learning there are many types (macro) - some that have been proven. The problem people have pointed out with that is that people are linking the one that is supported by facts to one that is not proven (theory of evolution).

I found a website that is a very interesting read about evolution - this Doctor has had a standing offer of $250,000 to the person that can prove with scientific fact the theory of evolution. Cherry - he actually specifically speaks to your "gravity is a theory" argument from above. He said it best, so I'll quote him "Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous."

It is definitely worth the read, so check it out
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=...

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's actually not true. Evolution is seen in nature over and over again. That's the only way the scientific community would call it a theory--it must be observable and its results must be predictably true, over and over.

When you say "evolution," what you really mean is "abiogenesis" (which is also what the linked article is talking about). That is, the origin of life. Evolution is seen all over the place, even in labs. I can make bacteria resistant to antibiotics in the lab--they adapt to their surroundings, an example of micro scale evolution. Additionally, in science, what is usually valued is the idea that you can't DISPROVE a theory. We see evolution all around us, so the burden is on YOU to disprove its existence, which you won't be able to do.

The theory of evolution is scientifically proven. Period. Again, this is why science calls it a theory.

Dr. Kent Hovind is an evangelical Christian. Don't you think he might have ulterior motives? He believes that the earth is around 6000 years old--do you think he really knows all that much about science? REAL, ACTUAL scientists criticize Hovind for knowing absolutely nothing about science. His doctorate is in Christian education, NOT in the sciences.

The kicker? (from wiki)

"Hovind also believes that HIV, West Nile Fever, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination."

Brilliant.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

emporialifer: Well, you know? I've studied science all my life, majoring in biology in college, and even though I've never worked as a scientist or in the sciences, per se, I feel fairly well informed about it in general and in some specifics.

Reading the link you provided which is Kent Hovind's offer of a quarter million is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that the general theory of evolution includes anything beyond biological life forms.

As for his claims: There is no formal corner of science called "cosmic evolution" to my knowledge. No scientist to my knowledge claims to have any idea of the origin of time, space, and matter, except a few nut cases. It is simply not a matter of science at all at this point.

However, the Big Bang is considered proven, like it or not. It is derivative of Einstein's Theories of Relativity and various and repeated experiments have shown it to be true.

I have no idea what "chemical evolution" means, though Hovind seems to imply that Hydrogen came first and then recombined into all other elements. I have never heard anyone make that claim before.

The Big Bang explains the origin of all objects within the universe, but it is not called "stellar and planetary evolution". Note: the Big Bang "theory" does not address where the stuff of the Big Bang originated. All scientific inquiry halts a micro-second after the Big Bang for lack of data.

I have never heard of anything called "organic evolution".

I have heard the terms macroevolution and microevolution used relative to biological or Darwinian evolution, but I think that most biologists consider the differences moot and not distinct.

It is of these last two of Hovind's categories which is called "evolution" by scientists and, I thought, everyone else. The "theory of evolution" would be the premise explanation of the facts related to evolution of biological life forms. That is what I believed we had been talking about. If you understood differently, I'm very sorry and we should restructure some of what was said, perhaps.

I agree that many people have likened the theory of evolution to the "theory of gravity". You are right that the example is a little silly. Newtonian gravity is pretty much proven, to be sure, but the larger theory of gravity (Einstein's Relativity again) remains full of holes, exceptions, and mysteries. Recent advances in the field of dark matter are adding to our wealth of information but I expect we will not be able to say we really understand gravity well for another century or so.

CAF

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cherry; Thank you for your posting. Apparently we were both replying at the same time and you got there first. I'd have just given some supportive words had I known. What you said made the point well enough.

It had not been my intention to use my own post as a way to hammer home a point already made.

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on February 22, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No worries at all! You addressed tons that I didn't, since I chose mostly to reject Hovind outright, whereas you were much more thorough in your analysis of him specifically. Great post!