« Drinking age | Main | ‘Jena Six’ case »

September 23, 2007

‘Kansas vs. Darwin’

“Kansas vs. Darwin,” shown at the Kansas International Film Festival at the Glenwood Theatre last week, masquerades as a documentary about the 2005 Kansas Board of Education science hearings. Unfortunately, it failed to document what happened there.

Of more than 20 hours of testimony from 23 internationally known scientists, only a few moments were shown. Powerful testimonies, such as Michael Behe on the complexity of the human cell and Bill Harris on DNA, were not shown.

Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, certainly not a scientist, was the only person who spoke at the hearings for the evolution-only side. His major concern was whether any of the scientists could tell him the age of the earth.

Time was wasted interviewing hearing panel members outside the hearing about their personal lives, as that had nothing to do with whether Kansas schools would teach all the science evidence or only one theory.

Fortunately, for those open to the truth of the scientific evidence presented at the hearings without commentary, the DVD “Teaching Origins Objectively” is available on Amazon.com.

Donna Gillett
Leavenworth

Comments

CRD

[laughing harder]

Dan Beyer

By the way CRD, maybe you should use less drugs and start using your brain more. Maybe then you learn what real humor is.

Dan Beyer

Well the first exciting new finding would be DNA. But for the first 70 years Darwinists did everything they could to discredit it. Later they incorporated it into the theory by saying that "oh yeah Darwin knew all along about genetics!"

zenozac

Seriously, I'm laughing out loud here!
Thanks for the amusement.
Posted by: CRD | Sep 27, 2007 4:39:16 PM

yes we are all laughing at you. You have nothing to say but being an idiot.

CRD

"Scientists across the globe want more freedom to pursue these exciting new findings. But they aren't allowed to try because they'll be branded religious creationists."

[still laughing] What "exciting new findings"?!

CRD

Seriously, I'm laughing out loud here!

Thanks for the amusement.

zenozac

Zeno, there's no scientific debate here. Give us a call when your RATE study actually gets accepted into a scientific journal as a legitimate study, not as a humor column.
Posted by: CRD | Sep 27, 2007 7:03:20 AM

You have said something correctly CRD. There is no scientific debate because mainstream science will not even consider any disagreement with their Faith in evolution.

Dan Beyer

CRD, I KNEW IT!

Dan Beyer

Also, because there's such an intolerance of opposing viewpoints by those who cling to Darwin's theory, true scientific methodology is hindered. And that's why we're starting to hear about this controversy more and more. Scientists across the globe want more freedom to pursue these exciting new findings. But they aren't allowed to try because they'll be branded religious creationists. Unfortunately because there are so many that like to being part of the non-thinking, do as they're told mob, those researchers and scientists that do believe in ID are fearful of making waves and losing status and most of all, funding.

CRD

"By the way CRD If you and me did evolve from the same monkeys does that make you a crackpot too?"

Not necessarily -- but it does make me the distant cousin of a crackpot.

CRD

"the first thing the pro-evolutionists do is attack the persons credentials"

I didn't attack Humphreys' credentials -- I simply pointed out that the "RATE study" has no scientific validity. Again, give us a call when your RATE study actually gets accepted into a scientific journal as a legitimate study, not as a humor column.

Just because a crackpot theory is written by someone with a PhD doesn't mean the theory isn't crackpot or has scientific validity.

Dan Beyer

By the way CRD If you and me did evolve from the same monkeys does that make you a crackpot too?

Dan Beyer

Any time anyone disagrees with any kind of pro-intelligent design evidence, the first thing the pro-evolutionists do is attack the persons credentials. So appearently Dr. Russell Humphfreys' Phd. who's part of the RATE researchers, doesn't have a "real" Phd. like a pro-evolutionist's Phd. Yeah ok. And of course if you see a website that says "Nope! It ain't scientific, trust us!" than that's got to be the truth!

CRD

"Dan, Dan, Dan... what are we going to do with you and Zeno? The RATE thing has been debunked so many times that I think it is approaching the number of "scientists" in your camp."

[chuckle] Good one.

Crackpot city.

Zeno, there's no scientific debate here. Give us a call when your RATE study actually gets accepted into a scientific journal as a legitimate study, not as a humor column.

zenozac

"Although the RATE group has undertaken a massive fund-raising effort amongst ye-creationists, none of its members has experience or training in experimental geochronology. Two members, Austin and Snelling have written a number of articles in creationist magazines, but neither has published articles using radiometric dating in the mainstream literature"
Cooked, You cannot even write your own opinion. Just copy and paste.

zenozac

cooked, crd nothing clever to say? 30 sites man, you said it would be easy. And could some of them be real sites, not someone elses opinion which CRD is famous for. Oh yeah you went to the same site!

zenozac

So much for your RATE folks and their finding. Sounds like to me they are not qualified to me.

Posted by: cooker_fox | Sep 26, 2007 6:21:51 PM

Please tell us of your qaulifications to judge between the 2 views. Other than one agrees with what you think already. And try give us 30 sites which do not all reference back to the same site and study.

zenozac

yes please do. That is the same site as the CRD monster sent us to. Who are those people and where do they Identify their research?

cooker_fox

"Although the RATE group has undertaken a massive fund-raising effort amongst ye-creationists, none of its members has experience or training in experimental geochronology. Two members, Austin and Snelling have written a number of articles in creationist magazines, but neither has published articles using radiometric dating in the mainstream literature"

So much for your RATE folks and their finding. Sounds like to me they are not qualified to me.

cooker_fox

Dan, Dan, Dan... what are we going to do with you and Zeno? The RATE thing has been debunked so many times that I think it is approaching the number of "scientists" in your camp.

Try this link since you are so into reading both sides.

http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

I can give you 30 more sites to check out if you are interested.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright