Did God create evolution? It's worth debating

By Krista Kafer Monday’s Rocky Mountain News featured two Associated Press stories that were at first glance miles apart and at second eerily close. The first was about a federal court case in Pennsylvania. A small Pennsylvania school district is defending its policy to give 9th grade students a short statement on Intelligent Design before presenting information about evolution.

Intelligent Design theory rejects the proposition that random mutation and natural selection alone are responsible for the complexities of the natural world. These scientists assert that the genetic and microbiological evidence suggests the presence of a designer rather than an undirected process.

It is an interesting theory that asks important questions. It will either change prevailing scientific thought or strengthen the theory of Darwinian evolution depending on the answers. The debate is interesting. It might even pique the interest of a half asleep, hormone distracted 9th grader.

Keep in mind I have no dog in this race. I have no problem with evolution. I believe evolution and Christianity can coexist – God could have created the earth through a process just as easily as in an instant. I believe that learning evolution, as the prevailing scientific theory, is valuable to students. I believe that discussing dissenting and alternative views is also valuable. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that I have several dogs in the race. What I don’t support is closing the track – that is, shutting down public discourse over the origins of life.

That is exactly what some people are trying to do. They want to quash the debate and burn the heretics at the stake with inflamed rhetoric. The tone of Denver Post Columnist Jim Spencer’s Sunday column on the subject was one of sneering condescension toward the people with whom he disagrees. Spencer suggests that questioning evolution is why Colorado can’t fill jobs demanding scientific or technological expertise. Others like him have suggested that allowing a discussion of evolution alternatives in public schools will plunge the country into a Dark Age. (Should I buy a coat of armor before there’s a run on the market?)

Attempts to silence the dissent have implications for public schools, in particular their public-ness. A recent CBS poll found a majority of Americans want students to be taught both sides. If a minority of Americans want no discussion, should they be able to foist their will upon the majority by denying the majority’s voice in schools? What goes on in the science classroom in Dover, PA won’t be decided by the elected school board. A court will decide.

Last month, the Kansas Board of Education tentatively decided to open their science standards to allow the teaching of evolution alternatives in addition to evolution. Will the court ultimately decide there too? Time will tell.

So what was the second article that caught my eye? The second article was about China. It seems that the Chinese government intends to regulate the Internet to ensure that only “healthy and civilized news and information” circulates on the Web. Though a half a world away, the attempt to limit discourse to pre-approved information sounded eerily familiar.

Milton Friedman Says No To Refs C & D

By Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@JessicaCorry.com) Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Price in economics, has denounced Refs C & D for what they are--a massive tax increase that won't help bring accountability to our ever-growing government.

According to aGreeley Tribune article that ran on September 14th, Friedman said the following: "I strongly urge the voters of Colorado to reject Referendum C, or any action that would suspend Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights. I strongly favor the continued and uninterrupted use of TABOR, including it's so called ratchet mechanism. The ratchet is one of the best features of TABOR. It is the only thing that will reduce out-of-control government spending."

The Fight to Protect Good Teachers

By Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@JessicaCorry.com) In America, you can criticize your doctor. You can make all the lawyer jokes you want. You can even interrogate your preacher. Call into question the abilities of your kid’s teacher, however, and you’re likely to have an entire teacher’s union screaming outside your window. It’s a lesson Arnold Schwarzenegger learned the hard way yesterday.

After the California Governor posted a form on his website asking Californians for stories about inferior teachers, the teacher’s union went ballistic. The form asked: “Have a story about a teacher who just might not be cut out for the job, yet nothing can be done because of tenure? Please tell us. We’d like to share the stories of Californians like you!”

The form, which was quickly pulled off the site after a reporter’s inquiry, was part of Schwarzenegger’s campaign for Proposition 74, an innovative plan that would lengthen the probationary period for new teachers to five years from two. The reason: it’s simply too hard for school districts to fire bad teachers who have tenure.

As of this morning, Alliance for a Better California, the shell group organized to oppose to the measure, was planning a counter-attack. “Why do teachers have to point out to him that it’s a bad idea to attack them? Why are he and his campaign staff playing these sorts of political games?” the group's spokeswoman Robin Swanson huffed. “The governor should have more respect for teachers in his state.”

More respect?

What could be more respectful of good teachers than seeking ways to get rid of bad ones?

Our kids deserve better than business as usual. Schwarzenegger’s only mistake was to pull the form off his site. Parents across California need a voice—the form may have been their only option against the ever-powerful over-funded union special interests.

Reid Folds Under Pressure on Roberts Vote

By Jeremy Schupbach Senator Harry Reid announced yesterday that he would vote against the confirmation of Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Senator from Nevada has made it clear that he is now a wholly owned subsidy of the left. After a week of testimony, thousands of pages of documents, and the opportunity to question Judge Roberts ad nauseum (and some of the questions were noxious) Senator Reid had not made up his mind about how he would vote.

However, after meeting with nearly 40 representatives of liberal interest groups he knew exactly how to vote. Kim Gandy, the president of the National Association of Women (NOW), trumpeted the news to the press, "He got the message loud and clear, didn't he?

Senator Reid may try and convince us that he's voting no because there are "too many unanswered questions" about judge Roberts. But the fact is that he'll vote no because of the politics, and the money, and because the liberal interest groups told him to. The fact is that his vote will confirm what NOW and many other liberal groups already know. They own his vote. It may have taken 40 meetings to remind him, but the Senator got the message. He may be the Senator, but he's not the one pulling the strings.

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar also appears in the article, calling on the White House to release even more documents. Senator Salazar was elected, in part because he promised not to practice petty partisan politics - especially with judicial confirmations. It appears that he's been given the same talking points as Senator Reid. Will Senator Salazar have the courage, to do what he knows is right for America and Colorado and bring the nomination to a floor vote. As a member of the "gang of 14" he certainly has the power, will he have the backbone to honor his campaign promise and get it done?