Kendall doesn’t disappoint

Kim Kendall was a significant voice against the teaching of sound science in 2008. She polished her growing activism skills on a determined fight against the teaching of evolution when the state science standards were being revised and approved. Failing in her efforts there, she moved on to the state legislature and worked with several lawmaker friends to come within a whisker of passing an “academic freedom” bill that would have severely undermined science education, especially in the biology classroom.

She is now running for her first political office, the state House in district 17. She was among three candidates for the seat taking questions at a forum last night. I wondered if evolution instruction would be an issue and figured that it would at some point, but perhaps not early on. Well, I was wrong and in a big way. Not only did Kendall fly that flag high and proud, but her opponents did too!

Possibly the biggest stunner of the night was agreement by all three that creationism should be taught along with evolution in St. Johns County science classes, not just in church or at home.

[Ronald] Renuart said, “Evolution is still a theory. It should be taught as a theory, not as a fact. Creationism, divine intervention — a lot of people share this belief.”

Kendall agreed with that statement.

“Evolution standards are being thrust on our students in science class,” she said. “Academic freedom allows our students to question that science has it right.”

[Mike] Davis said, “The school should present both ideas.”

No one in the auditorium challenged or commented on those statements, which equated “scientific creationism,” essentially religious dogma, to empirical science.

One wonderful aspect of that story is the reporter’s decision to include that last sentence and the editor’s agreement to leave it in. We need more of that! But that positive is balanced with the negative of that sentence’s other content: no one present challenged the statements.

Election season is off to a roaring start!

9 Responses to “Kendall doesn’t disappoint”

  1. JONATHAN SMITH Says:

    As you said Bradon nothing more than we expected

  2. Peter Says:

    It never ends. We need another Sputnik to put an end to this nonsense forever.

  3. Pierce R. Butler Says:

    “Academic freedom allows our students to question that science has it right.”

    By that measure, high school (and why not elementary and middle school?) students have the right to challenge every fact in every curriculum.

    Carbon dioxide causes atmospheric cooling!

    Pepsi-Cola is a vital nutrient!

    Pi = 3!

    Abraham Lincoln fired the first shot in the War of Northern Aggression!

    If there weren’t so many of them, I’d be sure teabaggers are enemy agents sent to sabotage our whole society.

  4. Bella jones Says:

    Kim Kendall is the kind of human that causes most of the problems we have in the world.

  5. Chris Says:

    I’m not sure Sputnik can do anything. But here’s the problem. The mandated indoctrination of John Dewey’s religious humanism to the exclusion of all other beliefs. If education is the goal, get this religion out or allow all the others in.

  6. Ivory girl Says:

    Chris, Dewey,infact, said he saw the important function that religious institutions and practices played in human life,but rejected religious invasion into education,which I would agree with. Dewey felt that only scientific method could reliably increase human good,which I do NOT agree with.
    If you are infering that evolution is a “religion” that’s pure creationist tripe.

  7. Chris Says:

    Ivory girl, I was unaware Dewey saw religious institutions as important. From what I’ve read he felt theistic based religions were a thing of the past and would be replaced with his belief in humanism. As a signer on the Humanist Manifesto there can be no doubt as to his faith in naturalism.

    FIRST: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” Clearly a doctrine based on faith.
    SECOND: “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.” That continuos process is evolution, adherence to evolution’s expanded theory requires a level of faith far beyond any form of observation. Evolution stands as a foundational religious doctrine for Religious Huminist.
    THIRD: “Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.” The separation of the physical body and the soul or the man inside is clearly a religious belief and must be accepted or rejected by faith. The only existing evidence suggest the contrary. But the need to eliminate a creator dictates the doctrine. A true religious system.
    And of course the manifesto goes on.

    From what I’ve read most of Dewey’s work has been beneficial to education. But I find such religion beliefs as his unacceptable and inappropriate to be promoted in the public school system. I’m opposed to any form of government sponsored religious indoctrination. Most of the lofty claims of evolution’s theory are only validated by the theory itself. If students and parents are not allowed to question the strength and weaknesses of evolution and it’s absolute, then we don’t have an educational system, we have a theocracy.

    This problem goes far beyond a few whining Christians. Humanist doctrine has established itself under the guise of science, and science is now not on top of discovery but rather contained within the parameters of a religion doctrine, it must yield to fraudulent and imaginary evidence regardless. This belief system has placed science in general in direct competition with some of the world’s stupidest religions. As long as we continue down this imaginary bunny trail our society and future advancement will suffer.

    I would think evolution in no more a religion than God is a religion. But the belief in either can spur religion.

  8. Ivory girl Says:

    Chris, I have no intention in getting into a lengthy debate with you as it seems that’s what you desire every time you post one of your negative comments. I support science
    and the theory of evolution, I feel science is a superior way of knowing to theology or philosophy and I’ve actually done some formal study of all three. If you hate science, then why do you come here to Florida Citizens for Science, time and time again to insult scientists as being materialistic, atheist trash, deride evolution and accuse us of being stupid idiots for not swallowing your silly and inane bullshit without question, or hesitation? How come you never do anything at all beyond sneering at science or moaning about how worthless and stupid evolution is because it can’t be used to study the immaterial, or falsify your supernatural designer? If you would like to see science and Evolutionary Biology in particular, swept away and rendered obsolete by a new fangled way of studying the immaterial and the supernatural, explain how it can be done. Don’t just post it on an insignificant blog like this, announce to everyone how YOU can scientifically support your ideas, rather than just parrot crap that you have regurgitated from some creationist ranting. If I was the administrator of this site I would be totally tired of your antagonistic stance, they have more patience than I.

  9. Chris Says:

    Ivory girl. I’m sorry you feel my comments are negative. They simply reflect my observations of the issues at hand. Science has provided superior ways of knowing much about biological life and the universe. And I think all that knowledge should be recognized, not just that which supports a particular ideology.
    I just provided you some factual information on John Dewey and the religious significance his views may have had on today’s educational system. And you call it BS.
    Your imagination is running wild. I’d not referred to hating science, eliminating science, eliminating evolution, insulting scientist, atheist trash, or a supernatural designer. I simply suggested that our present path of submitting the different sciences to humanist religious doctrine has resulted in a quagmire of controversy and the rejection of much knowledge. You sound unaware of these things. Perhaps your formal study left out among other things the strength and weakness of evolution.