Kansas Creationism: Kathy Martin Update (02 Nov)

THE KANSAS school board race in District 6, between incumbent Republican Kathy Martin (a flaming creationist) and Democrat Christopher Renner, is coming to an end. In the Manhattan Mercury we read: Church & state in schools, subtitled: “It’s a litmus test issue in Renner-Martin race.” Excerpts, with bold added by us:

Opposing candidates for the sixth district seat on the Kansas Board of Education sketched sharply contrasting views of the role of religion in education during a forum Friday at the Seniors Center. On that issue, undercurrents of which have dominated the campaign, Democrat Christopher Renner drew a far sharper and more distinct line than Republican incumbent Kathy Martin.

Not surprising. Creationists seeking public office rarely declare their true intentions. If creationists’ lies were consecutive days without bathing, the stench would exterminate all life on earth. Continuing:

Renner termed separation of church and state as it relates to the classroom ”important,” and said he has detected ”a real effort to blur that line.” He agreed with one questioner’s premise that the board’s recent debates over the teaching of evolution had made Kansas a national laughing stock, characterizing what had taken place as ”a serious onslaught about the credibility of science.” He said he could accept the teaching of religious-based theories concerning the origin of life ”in social science classes, where people are discussing various myths.”

That’s rather straightforward. However …

Martin was more open to religious expressions in schools. ”Children should not have to leave their values on the doorstep,” she said. She viewed prayer as acceptable as long as it did not disrupt the learning process, remarking that ”religious values should not be segregated as long as they (students) have those values when they come to school.”

What does “not segregated” mean? Is Kathy saying that a student raised to be a creationist shouldn’t be silenced if he starts raving incoherently about Noah’s Ark in biology class? Here’s more:

Martin denied advocating the teaching of Biblical-based creation theories, ”only advocating an open-minded, objective” presentation of theories. ”If you look at what we did, it was to let science defend itself against new theories,” she asserted.

Anyone who followed the Kansas evolution hearings knows the real Kathy Martin. According to Wikipedia:

Board member Kathy Martin declared at the beginning of the hearings “Evolution has been proven false. ID (Intelligent Design) is science-based and strong in facts.” At their conclusion she proclaimed that evolution is “an unproven, often disproven” theory.

That same article reminds us about Kathy’s sidekick during those hearings:

Board member Connie Morris sent a taxpayer-funded newsletter to constituents calling evolution an “age-old fairy tale” that was defended with “anti-God contempt and arrogance.” Describing herself as a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, Morris wrote that evolution was “biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically, metaphysically and etc. wildly and utterly impossible.”

A bit more from the Manhattan Mercury:

Renner said the state had been seriously hurt by the board’s foary into the legitimacy of evolution. ”What scientist would want to bring her research, her children to a state where science is doubted?” he asked. Renner said Kansas State University ”has lost professors because of this,” and termed Robert Corkins, the superintendent of education hired by the ”conservative” majority and fired when the ”moderates” regained control ”an incompetent political hack who drove down morale.”

The two candidates have other differences, but evolution is the biggie. We’ll soon learn if Kansas wants to put itself through another embarrassing episode of official creationism.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Kansas Creationism: Kathy Martin Update (02 Nov)

  1. retiredsciguy

    Kathy Martin said: “If you look at what we did, it was to let science defend itself against new theories.”
    What new “theories”? Creationist/Intelligent Design ideas? That’s just what they are — ideas, not theories.
    Theories are based on observation; ideas can be anything. Theories ARE science — how can science “defend itself” against — itself?
    The answer, of course, is that Kathy Martin wasn’t really talking about new theories, but rather about old religious teachings.

  2. “The answer, of course, is that Kathy Martin wasn’t really talking about new theories, but rather about old religious teachings.”

    Jeepers! Do you really think so?

  3. Steven Barlow

    Creationism is in fact not a threat against any individual. Because if one person accepts that each and every individual is created by God, then he has respect for everyone he comes across despite their races, nationalities, appearance, education, tendencies etc. This kind of an attitude in society will bring mutual tolerance and peace.

    Evolutionism however is the contrary when it divides people as to superior-inferior, developed-underdeveloped, etc. Eugeny movement is an embarrassment in history when thousands were killed due to some people judging against others and classifying them as inferiors.

    This point should be taken into consideration for the benefit of all.

  4. “This point should be taken into consideration for the benefit of all.”

    I’ve considered it. Based on the evidence, I’ve rejected it.

  5. Steven says, “Creationism is in fact not a threat against any individual. Because if …”
    IF that were true! Creationism requires that the individual ignore reason and conform to what the group believes no matter how ignorant it may be.

    Steven then says, “Evolutionism however is the contrary when it divides people as to superior-inferior, developed-underdeveloped, etc…”
    I seem to have missed this part in my studies of evolution.

  6. Steven also mentions the “Eugeny movement”. Not having ever heard that term before, I googled it. Beside showing Steven’s comment here, the only other entries were the exact same comment.

    At the “Corn Fed Conservative” blog (http://cornfedconservative.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html ). They say, “While reading through some blogs I came across a very good comment on a post entitled Creationism aka Zombia Science.

    The comment was made my Steven Barlow…”

    And at ( http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/creationism-aka-zombie-science/#comment-692).

    Googling just Eugeny, one gets 249,000 entries which seem to be almost entirely devoted to people’s names. One source defines the name Eugeny as meaning “nobleness of birth.”

    Nothing like making up your own definitions huh?