Anti-evolution standards a key issue in Kansas school board races, The Kansas City Star, Jul. 21, 2006 ... JOHN HANNA BURDETT, Kan. - After a potluck lunch in one of many hamlets dotting the Great Plains, candidate Sally Cauble confronted a key issue in Kansas politics: whether schools should teach students to doubt evolution. Cauble wants to oust incumbent Connie Morris from the State Board of Education in the Aug. 1 Republican primary. Five races this year could remove half the board's members, undo its conservative majority and doom anti-evolution science standards that brought Kansas international criticism.
Cauble hoped to pick up a few votes in Burdett, a prairie town of 240 people, about 130 miles northwest of Wichita ... When asked by Cleo Gorman, a 68-year-old nurse, about "the science issue," Cauble said she would not have supported the anti-evolution standards. "To be a scientific theory, it has to be tested. It has to be measured, and then other scientific data is tested against that," Cauble said. "The science of evolution has gone through that, and it has been tested." But Gorman disagreed and is inclined to vote for Morris, who once wrote in a constituent newsletter that evolution is an "age-old fairy tale." "Evolution is not proven as much as they thought it was," Gorman told Cauble.
Later, Cauble said she wished evolution weren't an issue. Yet the former teacher and ex-school board member from Liberal contends the conservative-led state board has damaged Kansas' image. "I believe they've lost their effectiveness because they have lost respect," she said. Morris, an author and former teacher from St. Francis, sees criticism of the board generated by the media, not most Kansans. "I may not win the election, but at least I spoke for the people," Morris said recently before preparing a booth at the Ellis County Fair in Hays. Ryan Cole, a 26-year-old Smith County farmer and horse trainer, has no problem with teaching intelligent design. "I feel like if you give two sides of something, most people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds," he said.
The Discovery Institute is waging a Web campaign to build support for Kansas' science standards. "I think that people just agree that the theory of evolution needs to be challenged," she [Morris] said. "It makes sense. It's good science." When Cauble visited Burdett, she brought a copy of a Time magazine story headlined, "Reconciling God and Science." She told one audience member she's a committed Methodist. "There are many of us who believe that God created the heavens and the earth - and I believe that very strongly," she said. "But I believe that you can believe that, and you can still believe in evolution." [Either this Sally Cauble is being duplicitous (i.e. "marked by duplicity: contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action"), or she is being a "useful fool" (Lenin's contemptuous term for those idealistic liberals in democratic capitalist countries who unwittingly worked against their own interests by supporting Soviet communism because it seemed more liberal!) of the Darwinists (those who maintain that God did not use evolution).
Because if one really believed that God created through evolution, then why would one be opposed to: 1) science standards that question fully naturalistic "evolution," i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis):
"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)
and 2) intelligent design, when one of the leaders of the ID movement, Mike Behe, actually maintains that God created through evolution, i.e. "evolution occurred, but was guided by God":
"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.' Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal `Cell': `More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human' [DeRosier D.J., Cell, Vol. 93, 1998, p.17]. Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?" (Behe M.J., "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science, dEbate, 7 July 2000)
Darwinist historian William B. Provine once `spilled the beans' on what Darwinists really think of those who claim they "believe that God created the heavens and the earth - and ... believe in evolution" (i.e. fully naturalistic "evolution", "evolution" in which "God had no part in [the] process") which is what modern science means by "evolution."
Such a "God [who] started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both) ... is worthless" and is "equivalent to atheism." "A God [who] merely starts the universe" and then "works through the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable" (my emphasis):
"Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works through the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism." (Provine, W.B., "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution." Review of "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution," by Edward J. Larson, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Academe, Vol. 73, January-February 1987, pp.50-52, pp.51-52)
Provine observed that "the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that" yet for "pragmatic" (not intellectually dishonest?) reasons they may "publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion" (my emphasis).
Provine continued, "Liberal religious leaders and theologians" and politicians too, "who also proclaim the compatibility of religion and evolution, achieve this unlikely position by retreat[ing] from traditional interpretations of God's presence in the world to the extent of becoming effective atheists" and "simply refus[ing] to understand modern evolutionary biology and continue to believe that evolution is a purposive process" (which the latter denies):
"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood. Scientists also collaborate with prestigious religious leaders to work for nuclear disarmament and other worthwhile causes. The support of Pope John Paul II is not to be spurned lightly. And scientists work closely with religious leaders to fight against the introduction of creationism into the classrooms of public schools. Liberal religious leaders and theologians, who also proclaim the compatibility of religion and evolution, achieve this unlikely position by two routes. First, they retreat from traditional interpretations of God's presence in the world, some to the extent of becoming effective atheists. Second, they simply refuse to understand modern evolutionary biology and continue to believe that evolution is a purposive process." (Provine, 1987, p.52)
Provine pointed out that " Evolutionary biology, as taught in public schools, shows no evidence of a purposive force of any kind" and so we have "the specter ["spectacle"?] of atheistic evolutionists and liberal theologians" the latter's "understanding of the evolutionary process is demonstrable nonsense, joining together with the ACLU and the highest courts in the land to lambast creationists" (and by that Provine, like all Darwinists, would include anyone who denies fully naturalistic, unguided, "evolution" including ID):
"We are now presented with the specter of atheistic evolutionists and liberal theologians, whose understanding of the evolutionary process is demonstrable nonsense, joining together with the ACLU and the highest courts in the land to lambast creationists, who are caught in an increasing bind. Evolutionary biology, as taught in public schools, shows no evidence of a purposive force of any kind. This is deeply disturbing to creationists. Yet in court, scientists proclaim that nothing in evolutionary biology is incompatible with any reasonable religion, a view also supported by liberal theologians and religious leaders of many persuasions. Not only are creationists unable to have their `creation science' taught in the schools, they cannot even convince the court system that evolution is in any significant way antithetical to religion; thus the courts are effectively branding their religious views as terribly misguided. No wonder creationists (somewhere near half of the population!) are frustrated with the system and want equal time for their own views, or at least to be spared bludgeoning with evolution" (Provine, 1987, p.52).
Note by the way how Provine saw the compulsory teaching of "Evolutionary biology in public schools show[ing] no evidence of a purposive force of any kind" to "somewhere near half of the population" (actually more like 90% of the population) who reject that, as "bludgeoning with evolution" (my emphasis)!
But then that's why Jesus commanded His followers to pray, "your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10), because His will won't be perfectly done until His kingdom comes. So in the meantime, we will just have to `settle' for having read the end of the book (Rev 21:1-22:5), and we win!:
"When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
... we win ..." (Michael W. Smith,
"End of the Book." My emphasis)]