Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Low turnout

The Secretary of State's office tells TfK that turnout was close to the 23% predicted a few days ago. That's based on calls to Kansas City, Wichita and western Kansas.

Results will be available at the Secretary of State's office as they come in.

In related news, Texans for Better Science Education has sent out an email endorsing the conservatives as "Conservative Christian 'Good Guys.'" They argue that:

The Darwinian "thought police" have resorted to propaganda, distortions, outright lies, and recently, trying to confuse voters into voting for the wrong candidate. (A recent Kansas City Star article even implied that those conservative Christians who support "intelligent design" are supporting an atheistic view of science!) Why would the Darwinists resort to such deception and confusion and why would the KCStar print it? Answer: Because they know they are wrong and can not win against the truth—just as this same group refused to debate or even provide scientific witnesses for their dogmatic view of "evolution is all there is in the world".

They have even brought in their 'big guns' and heeded advice from, of all places, Berkeley California, Northeastern "blue state" liberals, and enlisted the more liberal newspapers' help.

Here are the facts:

1. The current conservative KSBE has passed voluntary science standards for local independent school districts to use. These standards, much like the Texas ones, encourage critical thinking on biologic evolution and other issues, and encourage teaching weaknesses of evolution along with strengths.

2. The challengers have pledged to repeal these "teach the controversy" standards – for most of them this is the only reason they are running.

3. The newspapers are calling the challengers "moderates"…as in being "moderate" like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy or the ACLU would be called moderate – all of whom hold similar views on these issues.

4. The position of the science standards—that of a thorough and critical examination of both strengths and weaknesses of evolution, is one supported by the vast majority of Americans— typically over 80% of your neighbors—including those who describe themselves as evolutionists, support teaching the controversy. Very few, typically less than 20% and often only 10% of people prefer a Godless evolution taught in science classes, and guess what the majority of those people are, religiously speaking?

5. Those who are distorting things now by saying they are for better science, did not even show up at the Kansas science hearings, knowing in advance that well-prepared critics of evolution would be there (and were).

6. The current Kansas science standards have never been challenged in court.

7. The current Kansas standards do not require creation science or even intelligent design theory to be taught.

8. The current Kansas standards do encourage teaching weaknesses of evolution along with the strengths. This would include exposing such scientific frauds as Piltdown man, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, and other hoaxes and bad science. It could also expose students to such concepts as:

The irreducible complexity of biologic systems
The absence of meaningful transitional forms in the fossil record
The fact that mutations are harmful
The origin of both the molecular structure and of the information itself contained in the DNA molecule is completely unexplained by worshippers of Charles Darwin.
Not all 'common ancestor' trees of life diagrams match each other as they should if they are true. Those based on how things look—their morphology, such as humans and apes having arms, legs, etc—do not match trees of life based on molecular clues, amino acid sequences or even DNA.
The difference between variation within a species (like hair color, eye color, or finch beak size, sometimes erroneously called "micro-evolution"), and the generation of new kinds of plants or animals or new features, more properly called "macro-evolution", (which has not been observed).

9. The current Kansas standards do not reduce or eliminate teaching evolution. In stark contrast, the gist of the standards could be paraphrased as "teach more, not less evolution, and let the fittest theory survive". What they do seek to eliminate is the propaganda-like monopoly the teaching of naturalistic-evolution-only-and-as-fact has on the government-run school system.

10. The Darwinists are fighting in both political parties. They cannot tolerate teaching kids that they didn't evolve from apes. They hardly get along with anyone outside the ACLU, the most liberal Democrats, the communist party (literally), and of course, atheist groups.

11. The conservatives have also pushed through conservative Christian reforms on things such as sex education, history curriculum, charter schools, and a general focus on back to the basics. The so-called moderates cannot tolerate parents having power over what their kids are taught or in breaking the monopoly the ACLU and the NEA have had over the schools.

12. Intelligent design does not promote atheism. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. While many conservative Christians view this as more compatible with their beliefs than a godless "molecules-to-man" evolution, ID theory does not take an explicit position on who or what the intelligent cause is—just that scientific evidence is best explained by intelligent causes rather than by undirected random chance processes. Atheists do not believe that ID is compatible with their beliefs.
I hope you all did your part to oust these sorts of liars.