Rob Manes
LETTER: Melott's attack unwarranted

I enter the written debate over teaching origins of life, because Adrian
Melott's Sept. 20 letter both perverted and personalized the fundaments of
the issue. Professor Melott stated that "what is at issue is science,"
implying that Chris Mammoliti's position on this matter is founded on
non-science. He continued with an unmerited personal attack, stating that,
"Mammoliti doesn't know the difference between science and philosophy."
Both the implication and the statement are grossly untrue.

After more than 15 years working beside Mr. Mammoliti and attending
graduate school with him, I confidently state that he is a scientist by
the most rigorous standards. His intellect, integrity, and courage are
exceptional. To question Mr. Mammoliti's understanding of science is to
base a grave statement on something other than demonstrable fact.

As Mr. Mammoliti and others have attempted to point out repeatedly, this
debate hinges on the lack of scientific evidence undergirding what is
often taught as fact regarding evolution. One need not be a Christian,
though I am, an expert in evolution theory, I am not, or a scientist to
find objectionable the dogma that presents evolution as proven fact. It is
not, and therein lies the issue.

Rob Manes
Pratt

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/27-435-news8.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" September 27, 2000

Chris Mammoliti
LETTER: Don't try to change the subject

I got a good chuckle from Dr. Adrian Melott's most recent letter. I'm sure
his criticism that I "have no idea what science is" would come as a
surprise to the universities where I earned bachelor of science and master
of science degrees, as well as to the organizations where I've worked as a
professional biologist for the last 20+ years. What's disappointing is
that someone of Dr. Melott's stature must resort to this type of argument.
In the field of debate, this type of argumentation is called "Argumentum
Ad Hominem." The basic purpose is to distract attention from the issue at
hand by switching the argument to a person's character, personality,
qualifications, or religion. It is a common tactic utilized when one has
weak factual arguments.

While Dr. Melott may assert that "what must be taught is science," he
continues to ignore the fact that popular science textbooks use the terms
blind, uncaring, purposeless, and undirected to describe the process of
evolution. These are not terms derived from objective science but terms
based in a particular philosophical viewpoint (Darwinism). If Dr. Melott
truly wishes the confusion to stop, textbook misrepresentations would be a
good place to start.

For the record, here's another quote from an "objective" scientist. In a
speech at the 1999 Freedom From Religion Foundation convention, Dr. Steven
Weinberg, a Nobel prize-winning physicist and professor at the University
of Texas-Austin, stated "I personally feel that the teaching of modern
science is corrosive to religious belief and I'm all for that." If science
helps to bring about the end of religion, he concluded, "it would be the
most important contribution science could make."

Chris Mammoliti
Pratt

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/27-434-news7.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" October 4, 2000

Burt Humburg
LETTER: The philosophy of Evolution and ID

In a column published Aug. 24, Mr. Mammoliti asked if evolution could
coexist with a belief in God and whether those beliefs had any place in a
science classroom. The only attack science brings to religion is when
religion seeks to explain the workings of the physical world and
contradicts science in the process. Science, after four hundred years of
development, is excellent at providing these explanations, whereas
religion was never designed to provide natural explanations. Religious
scientists must therefore find ways in which religion and science can
interact and prosper together.

At least two forms of Christianity, or rather creationism, integrate
evolution. One form, Intelligent Design (ID), says that some evolution
occurs, but that it is insufficient for explaining all of natural,
biological origins. ID advocates point to special structures or processes
for which (in their view) evolution is unable to account. For example, at
a recent Kansas City ID seminar, presenters called attention to molecular
flagellar motors, the Cambrian explosion, and abiogenesis.

People attending this conference may have been disappointed that there was
no ID theory or alternative to evolution presented. In fact, there is no
theory of ID because it exists only as a criticism of evolution. To make
my point, I quote Phillip Johnson who said of evolution, "I'm not saying
I'm proposing another theory. I'm explaining why I'm not convinced by
yours." Small wonder why the scientific community has rejected ID and that
the best effort to spread the news about ID does not involve getting
scientific approval but instead involves the hijacking of local boards of
education. Clearly, ID is not scientific.

It is also interesting to realize the significance of the fact that the
"evidence" for ID presented at the IDNet symposium focused on poorly
understood areas of science. ID exists where established science isn't,
digging up the old, debunked "God of the Gaps" (GOTG) argument. Like all
GOTG arguments, saying that only God can do something unexplained by
science today fails both scientifically (scientific knowledge grows daily)
and theologically (it suggests Christians should fear the search for
knowledge and that God can exist only in the shadows of our scientific
understanding). ID advocates operate under the wholly antiscientific
notion that natural processes can't fully explain natural phenomena.
Operating under that notion, ID advocates desperately seek to find those
areas that natural science can't explain then hurry to interject
supernatural explanations in those places. Since an action of God can
explain everything, it is a small wonder they make mistakes in their
logic.

Thankfully, there is at least one alternative to ID: theistic evolution.
An utterly simple idea, theistic evolution merely states that God used
evolution to accomplish his will. Most religious scientists who
acknowledge evolution picture God in this light. One of the implications
of theistic evolution is that there is no scientific necessity to believe
in God. One believes in God for reasons unrelated to science-because of
faith and not proof.

Mr. Mammoliti apparently thinks of faith as a weakness, since he complains
about the fact that evolution abandons the supernatural for the natural.
Science is the search for natural explanations for phenomena, not because
it is scornful of God, but because natural explanations are the only
things everyone can agree on. (Supernatural explanations, on the other
hand, are revealed, internal, and personal.) Those who do not understand
theimportance of science as natural, to defend Dr. Melott's recent
comments, certainly do not understand what science is, no matter what
level of science education they may have attained.

Mr. Mammoliti further highlights statements describing evolution as
"blind, uncaring, purposeless, and undirected", which although may not be
scientifically accurate, are harmless in the light of theistic evolution
because all those words describe is the science involved. In evolution, it
only matters whether an organism is adapted for its environment. If it is,
it survives. If it is not, it does not pass its genes on. This process is
utterly aloof, without goal, and predicts well the weeding out or
spreading around of genes based on environmental selective pressures that
we see in the world. Any perspective on direction or purpose inferred in
evolution is not based on the science involved. As far as evolution alone
is concerned, both tapeworms and humans are well adapted for their
environments.

To answer Mr. Mammoliti's other question, neither theistic evolution nor
the flawed ID should be taught in public school classrooms. Just plain
evolution, without theistic or atheistic perspectives, should be taught.
Because public schools cannot be counted on to provide theological
perspectives, it falls to the parents and clergy to provide much-needed
Christian context. Therefore, parents and clergy should learn as much as
they can about evolution. Please reject efforts to suppress the teaching
of evolution or suggest that natural processes are insufficient for
explaining natural phenomena. Consider joining KCFS and invest your time
and talents to ensure that your children get the best science education
our state can give them.

Finally, for whatever reason or bias, Mr. Mammoliti has chosen to quote
only atheists in his last few submissions. In closing and in rebuttal, I
offer this comment from Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome
Project.

"I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom,
used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad
idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with
that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who
is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have
fellowship with us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that
goal? I don't see a problem with that. The only problems that get put
forward are by those who would interpret Genesis 1 in a very literal way.
And that interpretation in many ways is a modern one. Saint Augustine in
400 AD, without any reasons to try to be an apologist to Charles Darwin,
agreed that that was not a particularly appropriate way to interpret the
words that are written in that first chapter of the Bible."

Burt Humburg
3rd Year Medical Student
Member, Kansas Citizens for Science
Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/October/4-481-news9.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" October 4, 2000

Adrian Melott
LETTER: Science, philosophy can be separated

To Chris Mammoliti, I have to quote a former president: "There you go
again." The claim he made that started this dialog boils down to the
following: Some biologists and others have used Darwinism to make
arguments against religion, therefore Darwinian evolution is an
anti-religious philosophy.

Other people have used it to make arguments in favor of religion - to
elucidate God's clever design of a Universe in which we could evolve. Does
this also make it a type of Christianity? Both are wrong. People will use
whatever they can to support their points of view.

It is true that purpose is not part of the theory, any more than it is
part of the theory of snowflakes forming. This is no more a denial of
purpose in the Universe than not invoking God as the designer of each
snowflake.

His misrepresentation of Michael Ruse, which Mammoliti claims not to
understand, is that Ruse shows some people wrongly using evolution to
claim it "proves" their point of view. Ruse strongly supports teaching the
science. Mammoliti objects to the science because he cannot separate it
from the philosophy. To not understand this is not to understand what
science is.

He ends by quoting Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist. He happens to be a
friend of mine and my former employer, and although he and I disagree
about this issue, we now see a quote that does NOT misrepresent the views
so far as I know. But what does it have to do with Darwin? Weinberg is a
theorist of elementary particle physics, and has never done any work on
biology to my knowledge.

Adrian Melott
Professor of Physics and Astronomy
University of Kansas

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/October/4-480-news8.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" October 18, 2000

Mark Morgan
LETTER: Darwin's house of cards about to fall

Isn't it amazing how heated and prolonged this debate about intelligent
design is? Whenever I read from our experts of science, they seem to talk
down to us poor, intellectually lazy Christians. You know, maybe they are
right. I just put down the paper that had some guy talking about theistic
evolution. That is, God made it all; He just used evolution to do it. Wow,
what a statement or belief system that is! I am not even interested in
arguing on a science level with these experts, most who are from out of
school district.

This letter is addressed to Pratt County Christians. If we as Christians
do not believe exactly what God said through Moses in Genesis, then we are
damned and these experts know this. What foolish Christians we are! If
there were no Adam and the fall of mankind through sin, then Jesus'
purpose to redeem our life from sin and all of mankind from sin is of no
avail.

Evolution is a, house of cards, one big, stiff wind will blow it over.
Christians, Pratt County is that stiff wind and it explains why such a
heated and long debate over this issue is still raging. Any person who
calls the name of Christ should stand up for Him. To me, standing up for
Him at this time in our city means to pray for the fellow Christians who
are taking the heat for their beliefs. Write letters to the editor in
support of intelligent design; talk to the school board and staff of our
school system. This includes writing the State Board of Education.
Encourage others to do the same. We have the right, by law, to say what is
taught in part in our local schools.

This is the time, now is the hour. Seek the Lord to find His will for you
in this. I think you will find that involvement is the thing to do. If you
dont agree, read Genesis again and try to reconcile that with what Christ
says about Himself being the second Adam. Just because our experts don't
know or don't care about the Bible should not be a reason for us to give
up our values and our community to a wicked and sinful world.

Mark Morgan
Pratt

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/October/18-604-news8.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" November 2, 1999

Experts to explore creation, evolution

TOPEKA - In August, the Kansas State Board of Education adopted a new set
of science standards that de-emphasized the teaching of evolution in
Kansas public schools. As a result, what is to be taught in schools has
become one of the year's most debated topics throughout the nation.

The constitutional issues related to this decision will be explored by a
panel of nationally recognized authorities during a special roundtable
discussion, "Creation, Evolution and the First Amendment," set for 7 p.m.
Thursday, Nov. 4 in White Concert Hall on the Washburn University campus.
This presentation will be unique in that equal representation will be
afforded to all perspectives, with panelists being drawn from the
disciplines of science, philosophy and law. Also participating will be two
members of the Kansas Board of Education.

The participants are:

Steve Abrams

Steve Abrams has represented south central Kansas on the State Board of
Education since 1995. Previously, he served four years on the local school
board in his native Arkansas City. He represents the State Board of
Education in its joint meetings with the Board of Regents. A graduate of
Kansas State University, he owns a veterinary practice in Arkansas City.
He is past president of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
 

David K. DeWolf

David K. DeWolf received his juris doctorate from Yale Law School. A
professor at Gonzaga University Law School, Spokane, Wash., he has
co-authored a number of books on legal matters, including Washington Tort
Law and Practice and Washington Contract Law and Practices, as well as
several technical and popular articles in publications, such as National
Review and The Wall Street Journal.

Stephen C. Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer received his doctorate in the history and philosophy of
science from the University of Cambridge in 1991. He is currently director
of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute
and an associate professor of philosophy at Whitworth College. Meyer has
contributed articles to several scholarly books and anthologies including
The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An
Encyclopedia, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Of Pandas and People: The
Central Question of Biological Origins, The Creation Hypothesis:
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer and Facets of Faith and
Science: Interpreting God's Action in the World.

Timothy Miller

Timothy Miller is a professor of religious studies at the University of
Kansas. He received a doctorate in American studies from The University of
Kansas and in 1991 received research honors from RQ and Choice for his
book American Communes, 1860-1960.

Robert M. O'Neil

Robert M. O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the
Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia and an
authority on the First Amendment, teaches constitutional and commercial
law. After earning a law degree from Harvard, O'Neil clerked for U.S.
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. before beginning his law
faculty career, holding posts at the University of Cincinnati, Indiana
University and University of Wisconsin.

John R. Staver

John R Staver is professor of education (science) and director of the
Center for Science Education at Kansas State University. Presently, his
research and scholarship focuses on constructivist epistemology and its
implications for improving science teaching and learning.

Bill Wagnon

Bill Wagnon is both a member of the Kansas State Board of Education and a
professor of history at Washburn University, where he also directs the
university's Center for Kansas Studies. Elected to the state board in
1996, Wagnon has been primarily interested in strengthening the state's
school improvement system and bolstering public confidence in its public
schools. He has been a champion of fostering school leadership skills and
expanding resources for both early childhood development and professional
development for teachers. Wagnon also coordinates the Shawnee County
Historical Society's Historic Ritchie House preservation and
interpretation project. He holds a doctorate in history from the
University of Missouri-Columbia.

Jonathan Wells

Jonathan Wells has received two doctorates, one in molecular and cell
biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in
religious studies from Yale University. He has done extensive work as a
postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at
Berkeley, and has taught biology at California State University, Hayward.
Wells has published articles in both scientific and religious journals
including Development.

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/1999/November/2-279-news4.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" November 28, 2000

Pratt Board changes biology standards
By Mike Marzolf

After about six months in the works, Biology standards for Pratt High
School students were finally passed Monday night by the Pratt U.S.D. 382
Board of Education - minus some scope and sequence wording.

All of the attention was focused on a few words in the standards. The main
attraction for the nearly 50 people at the meeting centered around
Standard 3, Benchmark 3.

In that benchmark, among the content a student should know, is item 5,
which reads "There are different viewpoints of how life originated on
earth."

That means that theories such as intelligent design may now be taught at
Pratt High School. In addition, Items 6, 7, and 8 are new to the
standards.

This follows the new leniency the Kansas State Board of Education created
with its vote in 1999 to allow a more relaxed standard for teaching the
origins of life.

Pratt's new standards, which had been rewritten three times, were passed
by a 4-2 vote, with one board member not present.

The four votes for the adoption of the standards were cast by Willa Beth
Mills, Julie Bohn, Vice President Larry Riffey and Sue Peachey. Those
casting dissenting votes were Board President Bruce Pinkall and Tom Jones,
a former president of the board.

Board member Paul Olsen was not present at the meeting but had sided with
Pinkall and Jones in past votes.

Mills, a former president of the board, said she felt the new standards
were fair.

"If you go back and read the textbook, it is language that is already in
there," Mills said.

Mills was referring to the textbook "The Dynamics of Life", which has been
used in the district for several years. The school currently has a new
version out of the same series.

One of the biggest dividing points of the board centered on changing
language that teachers had established in the original standards, which
was reviewed by a district steering committee as well.

Curriculum standards for subject are reviewed by the board on a periodical
rotation. The first step is to form a committee made up of people from the
community as well as staff to work on recommendations.

Once those recommendations have been passed, the outcome is then sent to
the district steering committee for its approval. That is a standing
committee.

>From there it is sent to the superintendent to be prepared for
presentation to the board.

The science standards were originally brought to the board in June, but
were sent back by a 4-3 vote.

Teachers were then asked to revise it, and it was brought back to the
board again in August, but was tabled.

Following the passage of the standards Monday, President Pinkall made a
statement for his dissenting vote, directly to the several faculty and
staff members at the meeting.

"I truly trust and respect you," Pinkall said. "As I reviewed our process
and considered the students of our district, the staff of our district and
the patrons that elected me, with those thoughts in mind and with those
considerations, I made my respective no vote - and no matter what anyone
says, I still hold that rope."

Following that statement, Pinkall received a round of applause from the
faculty and staff present.

But Mills said she doesn't feel that the board did anything it was not
empowered to do.

"When it comes to curriculum, 99.9 percent of the time when it comes to
the board it is not changed," Mills said. "But the board does have the
direction that if they see something they want to change, it is the
board's job.

"From an academic standpoint, there is nothing wrong with it. There is
nothing in there that is bad for students. This will allow them to leave
our district well prepared in the world at more things. I think it is good
for the student and good for learning."

The entire process took about five minutes for discussion and a vote.

When the agenda item first came up at the meeting, Jones had some
questions about the standards.

"Have the changes been sent back to the district steering committee?"
Jones asked. "Is there any reason we haven't done that? I would think that
is something we need to do.

"I was under the impression that we were going to send it to the biology
heads of the Board of Regents as well before we brought it back to the
table."

Superintendent Ken Kennedy told Jones that the first revision had been
sent to the department heads in the regent schools, but the second
revision, which the board passed, had not been reviewed.

-In other action, the board made a motion to open negotiations earlier
than normal for the purpose of discussing the defined benefit as related
to the health insurance with PNEA. This issue would have to be resolved
before the district could switch over to the state health insurance plan,
which is under consideration.

-Superintendent Kennedy pointed out to the board the tax statements
received by the patrons was misleading and clarified the information.
Although the statement showed a 44 percent decrease in property taxes,
this was due to a fluctuation that would go back up next year. In
addition, the general fund taxes have been moved to a separate line making
it appear that the USD mill levy has declined. The district still has 20
mills and is listed as General Fund Statewide Levy. The USD mill levy is
an additional 15 mills for a total of 35, which is down from the 42 last
year.

-Kennedy also informed the board of boiler problems that have been fixed
and others that have not. Recent legislation had made existing boilers in
violation of some codes and further maintenance would be required. Kennedy
So far $24,000 has been spent and Kennedy saidit could take another
$60,000 to get in compliance. He also noted all boilers have passed safety
inspection.

-Steven LaPrad told the board the annual audit has been complete and
everything is in compliance with state statutes.

-In personnel moves, the board accepted the resignation of Marty Mortimer
as the custodian at Pratt High and Kerry Boldt has been hired to take his
place. Other new hires were Amy Ward, lunchroom attendant at Southwest,
and William Dorman, a mechanic for the district.

-There will be a special meeting Dec. 4 to go over the annual
superintendent's evaluation.

Outcome(s)

Content (know)

The student will understand:

1. The theory of evolution is both the descent with modification of
different lineages of organism and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to
environmental challenges and changes.

2. Most biologists use the theory of evolution to explain the Earth's
present day biodiversity.

3. The primary mechanisms of evolution recognized by biologist are natural
selection and random genetic drift.

4. The sources and value of variation.

5. There are different viewpoints of how life originated on earth.

6. There are different scientific perspectives regarding the prevailing
textbook evidence used to support the theory of evolution.

Process (Be able to do)

The student will:

7. Research and critique the strengths and weaknesses of differing
viewpoints identified in the textbook.

8. Understand and critique the different scientific arguments relating to
the evidence presented in the primary textbook.

Resources/Activities

Examples

1. Microevolution is the ongoing adaptations of organism. (i.e. bacterial
resistance) Macroevolution is the descent with modification of different
lineages (i.e. fish to amphibian).

2. While patterns of diversification and extinction in the fossil record
are widely accepted as evidence of evolution, many scientists acknowledge
the lack of clear transitional fossils in most evolutionary lineages.

4. Variations of organisms within and among species increases the
likelihood that some members will survive under different environmental
conditions.

5. Other common viewpoints as outlined in the Text Biology - The Dynamics
of Life may be introduced and discussed.

6. Origin of Life Experiments of Oparin, Miller &Urey Fox

Embryonic Similarities - Haeckel's Drawings

Peppered Moth Research - Ketterwell's experiment.

Examples

7. Students may write a comparative paper, engage in a debate or do other
research activities.

8. Suggested resources:

"Origin of Life & Evolution Biology Textbooks - A Critique.
"Haeckel's Embryo's: Fraud Rediscovered."
"Not Black and White."

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/November/28-589-news1.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Pratt Tribune" December 06, 2000

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
LETTER: Should students think critically about evolution?

In a letter to the Pratt Tribune last week, Jack Krebs charged that local
school board members are attempting to "insert creationism into the public
science curriculum" by adopting new science standards that "follow the
outline" of my recently published book, "Icons of Evolution."

But in my book I do not defend creationism in any form. Instead, I cite
hundreds of published scientific reports to show that biology textbooks
routinely distort evidence in order to convince students of Darwinian
evolution.

For example, Pratt textbooks contain drawings which purport to show
remarkable similarities in the early embryos of all animals with
backbones. Students are told that these similarities are evidence for the
common ancestry of humans and fish.

The drawings are fakes, however, and embryologists have known this for
over a hundred years. In the March, 2000, issue of Natural History
magazine, Stephen Jay Gould noted that scientists should be "both
astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led
to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority,
of modern textbooks."

In "Icons of Evolution," I show that faked embryo drawings are part of a
larger pattern of systematic misrepresentation, and that this pattern
casts doubt on the scientific validity of Darwin's theory. I also evaluate
commonly used biology textbooks to determine whether they present the
evidence for evolution truthfully. Pratt's textbooks score a dismal D
minus.

Mr. Krebs claimed that the new science standards do a "disservice" to
public school children in Pratt. The real disservice, however, is teaching
lies to our children in the guise of scientific evidence. This is not
education, but indoctrination - and it's being done at taxpayers' expense.
Apparently, it is also endorsed by the dogmatically pro-Darwin "Kansas
Citizens for Science," of which Mr. Krebs is a Board member.

The Pratt school board deserves to be commended for its courage in
resisting organized pressure to indoctrinate students in Darwinian
evolution, and for its wisdom in encouraging students to think critically
about what they're being told in science classes.

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Discovery Institute, Seattle

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/December/06-660-news7.txt

POWRÓT