Kathy Martin: Kansas and Creationism

BEAUTIFUL AND BRILLIANT, Kathy Martin represents District 6 of the Kansas State Board of Education. That fortunate district includes Manhattan, Kansas, which Wikipedia tells us is the eighth-largest city in that state. Inevitably, it has been nicknamed “The Little Apple.”

Thus it is that in the Manhattan Mercury we read State Board of Education Race. Yes, Kathy Martin, having recently prevailed in a contested primary, now has the general election coming up. Here are some excerpts from the Manhattan Mercury, with bold added for emphasis:

I’m sure everyone is aware of the national attention the Kansas State Board of Education (SBOE) has received over the past few years due to the controversy surrounding the science standards. Beginning in 1999, the SBOE has rewritten the science standards every few years as majorities on the SBOE have changed with each election. The SBOE has gone back and forth between including supernatural explanations of phenomena and removing references to evolution, to returning to science standards supportive of evolution theory .

Indeed. And as you can see here: Kansas evolution hearings, Kathy has been a leader of the “supernatural science” faction, which has brought intellectual chaos and universal ridicule to Kansas. More:

The District 6 candidates are Kathy Martin, incumbent (R-Clay Center), and her challenger Christopher Renner (D-Manhattan).

Aha, Kathy has a challenger! Continuing:

In terms of the science standards, Renner said he supports the current science standards and doesn’t think that Intelligent Design is scientifically credible. On Renner’s web site, he says, “I support the current science standards, especially in regard to the teaching of mainstream evolutionary science – a scientific theory that is well-accepted in the scientific community and which impacts our daily lives in numerous ways.”

That seems reasonable. On the other hand …

On Martin’s web site, information about her says, “The truth is that Darwin’s theory is far from proven and that continuing to teach it as fact without offering competing theories for Kansas students to consider is doing them a disservice. Scientific discoveries made over the last decades, such as the DNA code in every living cell, have proven Darwin’s theory of macroevolution not to be a plausible theory.

That’s Kathy! The article also describes the candidates’ differences on sex education, but we’ll confine our discussion to science education. As a Curmudgeon, we must maintain our deportment.

The November election will tell the tale. The people of District 6 have a clear choice, one that will affect the entire state. Will it be science or creationism?

For blogging purposes, we’d like to be able to ridicule Kansas again, but we’d prefer that America continues to be what it has been from its beginning — a beacon of enlightened civilization. Therefore we hope that Kathy suffers a well-deserved, crushing, humiliating, and absolutely devastating defeat from which she will never rise again. It’s up to the people of District 6.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Kathy Martin: Kansas and Creationism

  1. retiredsciguy

    Kathy Martin wrote:
    “Scientific discoveries made over the last decades, such as the DNA code in every living cell, have proven Darwin’s theory of macroevolution not to be a plausible theory.“

    Huh? What is she talking about? Has she ever explained how DNA disproves evolution? Have the creationists? And what is macroevolution? It sounds like creationistspeak.

  2. mightyfrijoles

    You have led a sheltered life, it seems.

    1. No they never explain how DNA disproves evolution. They say it because it sounds good to them. All the DNA evidence notwithstanding. They used to say that the DNA evidence (say >30 years ago) would disprove evolution when we got it. Well, now we got it and it is strong confirmation for evolution, but the Creationists have not yet updated their talking points.

    2. Macroevolution in Creationism Speak is the evolution of one “kind” into another, say snake into bird. Of course evolution doesn’t say anything like that, but the Creationists think it sounds good and is a strong anti-evolution argument. They, however, accept “microevolution” (well most do), since it’s kind of hard to deny it – which is small trait changes within a species.

    Creobabble is a loud, powerful, chaotic force, but when you boil it down you get 150 year old talking points.

  3. Sorry for all the links, but I’d really like you to see I’m not pulling this stuff out of my . . . ears.
    *********************************
    “Beautiful”? In the eye of the beholder. She’s certainly charming and energetic.

    “Brilliant”? . . . maybe in knowing how to Win Friends and Influence People, but certainly not in her grasp of science.
    *”Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts.” (but Martin was unable to provide any scientific examples which support ID)
    *”We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say.”
    *From the same link:
    While introducing ID into the evolution curriculum might blur the lines between theology, philosophy, and science, Martin sees no difficulty in teaching morals or ethics in the science classroom.

    “Why shouldn’t theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them,” said Martin. “All children believe in God. Even little children whose parents don’t take them to church believe in God.”

    *denies effectiveness of condom use, states failure rate is 85%

    *claimed science relies on “imperialism” (sorry, no link; I heard her say this on the first day of the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt. So did the reporter sitting next to me, who was more inclined to give Martin a break.)

    *didn’t even bother to read the science standards she was criticizing

    Martin understands only a grossly-drawn caricature of science, one she’s gullibly swallowed from the DI & AiG.

    “Brilliant” can also mean “sharp and clear in tone.” The tone of Martin’s voice might not be strident, but the motivations behind her actions are as clear as daylight. She’s also “brilliant” at getting most of her campaign funding from non-constituents.

    Hopefully she’ll get a proportional amount of non-support from the voters in her district come November 4 . . . but I’m not at all hopeful.

  4. mightyfrijoles says:

    You have led a sheltered life, it seems.

    In some ways, yes, but not regarding Kathy. I’ve been following her antics for years. I was posting about her every day during the ’05 hearings. But that was at another website, and I had a different name. Same cuddly curmudgeon, however.

  5. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says:

    “Beautiful”? In the eye of the beholder. She’s certainly charming and energetic.

    “Brilliant”?

    That too goes back to my days, years ago, at another website. I would always post Kathy’s picture at the top of each new thread about her. After a while I started calling her “lovely,” and “beautiful,” and similar words. Others would join in the spirit of things and remark that her beauty was exceeded only by her brilliance. I guess if you haven’t been through the crevo wars during those years, you’re not familiar with that manner of dealing with Kathy.

  6. “As beautiful as she is brilliant…”

    Catchy phrase, isn’t it?

    😉

  7. “I guess if you haven’t been through the crevo wars during those years, you’re not familiar with that manner of dealing with Kathy.”

    Or, I wasn’t reading that particular website back then. Yeah, I’m a latecomer to the evo wars – didn’t start until late 2004.

  8. longshadow says:

    “As beautiful as she is brilliant…”

    Catchy phrase, isn’t it?

    Kansas is a festival of creationist wisdom.

  9. From Kathy’s Science Education Website

    “Scientific inquiry is about examining all possible theories. The truth is that Darwin’s theory is far from proven and that continuing to teach it as fact without offering competing theories for Kansas students to consider is doing them a disservice.”

    This is typical of ID proponents. Asserting that we need to teach ID for the sake of showing all sides of the argument. Then why do you single out Evolution? There are many theories in science. If we were to practice “educational freedom” (as they have been calling it as of late) we would have to represent every possible argument. Creationists/IDs paint it this way so that they may act as though they are not trying to impose religious beliefs in schools.

    On top of any arguments for or against evolution, it really all comes down to the fact that it is not the position of the state or federal government to make laws which benefit a particular religion over others.

    From the case Everson v. Board of Education regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

    “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
    http://www.fac.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx

    ID involves supernatural ideas which by definition (Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.) are non-scientific and thus if taught in a scientific environment would go against the rule of not benefiting religion.

    All you are accomplishing by pushing against evolution is causing a general distrust of the science world. I hope you don’t want a cure for cancer any time soon.

  10. Joe says:

    ID involves supernatural ideas which by definition … are non-scientific and thus if taught in a scientific environment would go against the rule of not benefiting religion.

    Yes, but they lie about it. That confuses idiots (which doesn’t really matter), and it provides cover for slimy politicians. Stealth religion. Bad stuff.

  11. “Stealth religion. Bad stuff.”

    Luke 22:33-35. The stealthers are following in Peter’s footsteps by denying their association with Christ.

    Luke 9:23 states that if they’re truly followers of Christ, they’ll deny *themselves,* not Him.

    2nd Peter – false prophets will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord. ID has been described by theologians as theologically unsound because it limits God’s actions to those processes we haven’t figured out scientifically – God of the gaps.

  12. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says:

    … false prophets will introduce destructive heresies …

    Good points, but I prefer to quote Saint Augustine: ““Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian … talking nonsense …”

  13. retiredsciguy

    Thank you, mightyfrijoles, for explaining the creationismspeak for me. I have led a sheltered life when it comes to their jargon; but I’m not new to the crevo wars. Thankfully, the school district in which I taught earth sciences for 27 years had an intelligent school board, so the battles were being fought in other places.

    I did have some interesting parent-teacher conferences though, but the most interesting one had nothing to do with evolution. A mother came in and felt it important to tell me they were “Jehovah’s Witnesses and didn’t believe in glaciers .” I never did find out what glaciers, or their nonexistence, has to do with religious belief. In hindsight, I probably should have assured her that I wasn’t planning any class field trips to Greenland or Antarctica.