Contact Us


« Helen Thomas tries to sell her book | Main | Tuesday's open thread »

February 13, 2007


I find James' 3:14 post offensive and hope that the list moderators would consider removing it.



Why is it offensive?? If we came from apes,some may be more evolved than others! Libs are always offended by


Why is it offensive?? If we came from apes some have evolved more than others!! Thats what evolutionist believe, libs are always offended.

anon, James always makes racist and homophobic comments. He also claims to be a religious person, but that is not evident in anything he writes. Best to ignore because I have yet to see the Star delete anything unless you have a curse word in it. Oh, and everything is the "libs" fault, if you can't tell.


Learned in the grammar of the English language, JAMES is not. Amusing I find him to be. Dismissive of his thoughts, you should be.

May the force be with you.

Grant Moritz

Protractor is absolutely correct about the definition of a theory. More people should have paid attention in Biology class...hell, even taken biology.


James, no need to worry. Just learn a new language. For very soon everything in the English language will be offensive and against the law.

I don't know why anyone wants to make English the official language. We can't use most of it.


Oh, and apparently barrister is now the politically correct term for a public defender/attorney.

Cracks me up. Thanks libs!


Can't you teach both?


No apparently not platte county. For the offended ones (libs) are offended by creationism. I believe in evolution, makes sense to me. I'm not afraid of it. And I believe in creationism. Not afraid of it either.

The libs scream separation of church and state, i.e., follow the law. But let someone else say follow the law, too, and they seem to think it's only made for them.

And they use names like right wing nut (and that's ok of course -- to offend) and then they use protectionist words like homophobic and racist -- those verbal "silver crosses" that they hold up to keep the demons away. Sorry, couldn't help but infuse a little humor. I could go on and on.

But that's what cracks me up.


There is nothing wrong with believing in intelligent design as a tenet of ones spirituality, but it is wrong to call it science. As was stated earlier, the problem seems to lie in the interpretations of the word, "theory". Evolution is an evolving scientific theory; not set in stone but rather something that we have collected alot of documented evidence. And the evidence continues to build. It hurts me not a whit if some don't believe in it.

Here's what I think, though. The religious right does most of its work underground. Some Karl Rove type came up with the idea of calling the christian religion "science" and then selling it to Kansans. Why? Because, as many leaders of this movement have said publically, they can impose their views of morality and insert religion into the classroom.
It comes down to us against them. And Kansas is sort of a charicature of what's is occurring in this country. Smart people distorting the constitution to fit their agenda. It is incidious and it is happening everywhere. It is how it all began in Germany, where those similar folk said, "oh well, it's not affecting our family." By the time they realized it was time to stand against what Hitler was doing to the Jews, it was too late.
Just a series of mildly twisted events, which had no real effects on the German masses, until one day they looked up and realized they should have stood up sooner, should have seen it coming.
That happened in the 30s and 40s. It will have happened for naught if we do not learn from the experience. When will someone finally stand up and say the emporer is wearing no clothes? I guess I will right here.


Ok, sure. Now we don't get to exclusively hold the label wing nuts.

Based are the above post you want that title from us too.

Libs, you want it all!

I think Jeetz needs a waaaaaaaaaahmbulance.

I am so confused by the 'argument' that we have to
"teach both." Evolution is a scientific theory of how animals and species change over typycally vast amounts of time. It makes no suppositions about the actual origins of life. Thus, what is meant as "both?" There are COUNTLESS tales of the origins of life. Protractor only listed a very few.

If we teach the Chrisitian tale of creationism, we have to teach all the other fairy tales that have been handed down through the ages (even that of the Great Spirit, the God of Rah, etc.,etc..) regarding how life came to be. Before anyone is offended, keep in mind that anything absent of physical unbiased independent proof is indeed a "tale."


Serious now. I have noticed that almost all of the blankety-blanks are pro-fiberals. I find it very interesting that if fiberals are so popular that you'd think they'd want to shout out some identifying moniker that says "hey look I'm one of the popular ones."

But they don't. They remain "totally" blankety-blank. It makes one think that even though they are supposedly the new mainstream voice, that they still feel like they are on the outside looking in.

Why is that blankety-blanks? Why do you take a fiberal stand, very popular I might add, but still don't feel comfortable enough to open yourself up to be challenged.


Great point deklinejoco 8:21, although you left out the part about Hitler killing off the Jews in order to speed up evolution. Sort of hypocritical, eh?

Let's face it, evolution is a religion. Why else would we spend billions on a Nasa program to impact a comet and take pictures of said impact? I would rather the State let me keep my money to educate my child myself instead of slamming a comet with a giant chunk of copper.


Evolution is not a religion, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Evolution was originally a hypothesis offered by scientists (initially Charles Darwin) as opposed to religious prophets and theologians. Over time, as more and more physical evidence was found and more and more data was compiled that happened to support the 'hypothesis' that 'hypothesis' eventually became a scientifically accepted theory. By definition, the scientific theory of evolution cannot account for every detail of the evolutionary record as it is physically impossible to unearth the complete archeological record of the planet and the cosmos. Even THAT record would be incomplete. Thus, the scientific theory of evolution does not disprove the possibility that our ancestors were planted here by inhabitants of the long ago dead planet Zorgon Nine.

The tale of creation by contrast is a central tenet within a single religion from the entire historical record of mankind, albeit perhaps the the largest and most influential organized religion the world has ever seen. One by definition is in fact based in science (evolution is offered by SCIENCE). One by definition is in fact based in religion (creationism is offered by RELIGION). Science belongs in public schools. Religion belongs in churches and private schools.

Now, to conclude in a way that is in keeping with my message of peace, love and particularly human understanding (i.e.; common ground):

Whether you believe in Eve from the Garden of Eden or in a small-stature mutant ape named 'Lucy' from Africa, you believe that we have all descended from a common mother; from the same womb. We are all brothers and sisters.

Jeetzwillager, I am no more offended by Creationism than I am by Greek Mythology. Actually, I find both fascinating!


You should post more about this Darwin guy. He sounds kind of fascinating. What was the basis of his original study? Was it Lucy?

I believe in evolution, so I love Lucy!

Actually, Jeetswillager, his original work and the basis for the theory involved classifying plants. I doubt seriously you know this, but 20th century scientists tagged an old fossil with the name 'Lucy' long after Darwin had lived and died.

There are many books about the guy. Many even written by him as opposed to being written through countless human intermediaries from several centuries, languages and re-interpretations.

Be careful reading his work though. His books have more words than they do pictures of nearly naked well kempt white people living in harmony with the animals and eating apples. Also, you may need to visit a public library to find his works as opposed to the living room in which you were home schooled.

Hope this helps.

Gentle Ben

What is significant is that scientific critiques of darwinian theory are not being allowed. What kind of "scientific" theory goes to court to silence other theories? What kind of "scientific" theory is afraid to meet its opponents in the marketplace of ideas?

Like many, I used to accept macro darwinian theory as a fact, but after watching the so-called scientific community flee from debates and hang around in the hallways at SBOE meetings gossiping like a bunch of old women I began to realize that the real religion in the debate was darwinian theory. Indeed the only thing that seems to be saving this fraud is the gullibility of the press corps.

Microevolutionary theory, fine and dandy, but macroevolutionary theory apparently can't hack it in a free and democratic marketplace of ideas.


Another blankety-blank sharing his peace-loving wisdom. Gotta love that.

Actually, I was being facetious about "Chuckie." Was well aware of his contribution to Valentines Day.

But I still love Lucy! ...for you worldly pups, that was a sitcom from years ago about a whacky redhead named Lucille Ball had a famous skit where she immitated a monkey.

But you keep 'dem dere "Stereo"-types playing your kind of music. ...we really do need to raise the voting age.

How did Noah fit all those dinosaurs on the ark?

We'd better not cheer too soon. Reliable sources in Kansas report the four Christian minority school board voters have regrouped and drawn a new line in the sand.

And this time they claim to be on firmer ground, so to speak: according to recent reports, they're preparing a challenge to the presumed right of Kansas schools to permit the un-biblical "Theory of Gravity" to be taught without giving equal time to "alternative, equally scientifically-valid explanations of 'up-ness' and 'down-ness'" that have "nothing at all to do with religion", a board member is reported to have said.

"It's the angels," he told this reporter in a recent interview. "They lift us up and they set us back down again, and it's got nothing at all to do with religion." Insisting that it's "good science and simply the truth", he went on to say that the scientific literature at every school ever attended by himself, his family, his friends and fellow believers is unamimous on the subject, and that "it's a crime against The Lord" the way liberal heathens "make stuff up, like gravity" just to keep The Lord's Truth out of America's classrooms.

"With The Lord's help", he said, "and with a little push from His Poor Blessed Idiots, like TimN over there at Satan's homepage on the internet, we will prevail and conquer. In His name, of course."

So this story is far from over, sports fans, and it seems these four brave dissenting Kansas School Board members are ready once again to show America and the world just how smart Evangelical Christians can be when they pray really, really hard about something and don't take that funny medicine the doctor gave them, to make all the bad voices go away ...

By: jasjohn128 on February 14, 2007 at 12:09am


Whew! After reading all the tards comment about the policy, it's pretty clear which one of you should be riding the short bus to the curriculum meetings. I'm glad don't live in Kansas. If you think this is a "debate" over science vs. your pet theory from Genesis, better back your bags and get on the corner.

The comments to this entry are closed.