Submissions to the CAPSTalk list can be viewed by the
public at the following URL. If deemed necessary, this
can be changed so that only list members can view the
submissions online. Currently there is no restriction
or approval system in place for joining the CAPS email
list, therefore limiting message viewing would serve
no function.

CAPSTalk Web Interface
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAPSTalk

CAPSTalk was established to provide an open forum for
CAPS members, and to replace CAPS's existing email
distribution list with an automated system. Such a
system discourages unsolicited email by providing a
means for self-removal from the list if desired. The
previous list was distributed to anyone interested in
receiving announcements and news from CAPS, and was
not restricted to members to my knowledge. The
CAPSTalk Yahoo-list-service is free, and although
other organizations force membership to participate, I
see this as unnecessarily restrictive.

CAPSTalk is configured so that only list members can
post messages. Problematic individuals can be banned
on a case by case basis if they do not abide by the
established rules for posting. In addition,
submissions to CAPSTalk can be limited to moderators
only. Personally I would like to see the CAPSTalk list
remain open to anyone interested in CAPS and/or
discussing Creation Science with its members, but this
can be changed.

=============================================

The following was recently submitted to the Creation
Research Society listserv by its membership secretary.
IMHO - Using participation in a freelist to collect
membership dues and likewise threatening to publicly
display the names of the list members who have not
renewed their membership is highly inappropriate for
such an organization. I hope we do not sink to this
level as the CAPSTalk list grows....

--- "Glen W. Wolfrom" <glenw@...> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> In the next few days I will be checking the list of
> CRSnet
> participants against those who have or have not
> renewed their CRS
> memberships.
>
> Prior to pulling the plug on those who have not
> renewed, I will
> post the list of names whose renewals have not yet
> been received.
>
> Thanks,
> ---
> Glen ...

====================

--- AJ Miner <miner1955@...> wrote:
> This appeared on the PNWS skeptics email list today.
> They are talking about
> the letter that Chris Ashcraft posted today from
> Doris Anderson to the CAPS
> list. I thought the CAPS email list was for those
> who believe in creation
> only. Is it possible that these guys have
> infiltrated the CAPS email list?
> Are there other ways they can see what is posted? If
> so, is there a more
> secure venue for CAPS people over the internet?
>
> AJ

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

This appeared on the PNWS skeptics email list today. They are talking about
the letter that Chris Ashcraft posted today from Doris Anderson to the CAPS
list. I thought the CAPS email list was for those who believe in creation
only. Is it possible that these guys have infiltrated the CAPS email list?
Are there other ways they can see what is posted? If so, is there a more
secure venue for CAPS people over the internet?

AJ

-------------------------------------------------
"Tom Canham" <tomcan@...> writes:

| This is in response to Ms. Doris Anderson's letter dated [insert date of
| publish here].

         Ms. Doris Anderson's letter of [insert date]

| Ms. Anderson's letter is rife with errors and misrepresentations.  I
| shall start with the most important point:  Creationism is not science!
|
| This important point is derived from a common-sense evaluation of the
| way outspoken Creationists would have us "do" creationism.  Observe how
| difficulties and inconsistencies in their world view are handled; it is
| always through rationalization, backtracking, or outright deception.
| Good science does not work this way.  It admits its mistakes and moves
| on.

         is rife with errors and misrepresentations.  Her most important
error
         is in confusing creationism with science.  Creationism explains away
         inconsistencies in the theory with rationalization, and in some
cases,
         outright deception.  Good science doesn't work this way---it admits
its
         mistakes, revises its models, and continues to test them.

| Additionally, Creationism has been ruled several times by some of the
| highest courts in the land to be religious dogma, and not science.  Take
| for example this quote from [insert court case name here]:
|
| [Insert judicial comment about creationism not being science and hence
| not a proper topic for a science classroom here]

         Indeed, creationism has been repeatedly ruled by some of the highest
         courts in the land to be religious dogma and not science.  For
example,
         from [court case]:  "[quote]"

There are several relevant court cases.

   Epperson v. Arkansas (Supreme Court, 1968)
   http://atheism.about.com/library/legal/decisions/bl_l_EppersonArkansas.htm

   McClean v. Arkansas (Supreme Court, 1981)
   http://atheism.about.com/library/legal/decisions/bl_l_McCleanArkansas.htm

Probably the best one, however, is

   Edwards v. Aguillard (Supreme Court, 1987)
   http://atheism.about.com/library/legal/decisions/bl_l_EdwardsAguillard.htm

where in a 7-2 decision, the Court invalided Louisiana's "Creationism Act"
because it violated the Establishment Clause.  From the brief:

         The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to
         advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created
         humankind[...].  The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious
         doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of
evolution
         from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious
         viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety.

| Thus, what people like Ms. Anderson and Mr. DeHart advocate is not
| simply irrational, it is illegal.

         Thus, what people like DeHard are advocating is not merely
         irrational---it's illegal.

| Second, contrary to Ms. Anderson's (and Mr. DeHart's) claims, this is
| not an attempt to squelch an opposing viewpoint, as Creationists like
| Anderson and DeHart claim, but rather a simple matter of sticking to the
| subject matter.  Ms. Anderson claims Biblical support for a
| spherical-Earth theory -- should we also force geography teachers to
| theories and rationalizations of the flat-Earthers (yes, they still
| exist) as well?  When, exactly, would we find the time to teach every
| contradictory myth, opinion, and religion in science classes, Ms.
| Anderson?  Children would have to spend all of their time learning
| "alternate world views" and not learning other, less important (note:
| sarcasm) subjects like literature, history, and mathematics.
|
| Unless, that is, Ms. Anderson wants only HER worldview to receive this
| special treatment...?  If that is the case, we see what the
| Creationists' cries for "balance" and "equal time" are REALLY about:
| preferential treatment for THEIR beliefs, at the expense of everyone
| else.

         Contrary to DeHart's (and Ms Anderson's) claims, this is simply a
         matter of sticking with the subject:  science.  Should we also force
         geography teachers to teach the rationalizations of flat-Earthers as
         well---after all, there are still some of those out there as well.
To
         carry out DeHart's plan would be to muddle the curriculum by forcing
         "alternate world views" based on blind faith on students---a job
more
         properly done by parents---and not having the time to teach other
         subjects (apparently less important ones to creationists), like
         literature, history and mathematics.  But of course, that's not what
         they want.  In fact, they only want THEIR worldview to receive this
         special treatment---and it is in this way that we see what the
         creationists' cries for "balance" and "equal time" are really about:
         preferential treatment for THEIR beliefs, at the expense of everyone
         else, and at the expense of science.

| For doubting readers, please see http://www.talkorigins.org for a
| humorous, eloquent, and firm refutation of many Creationist deceptions,
| including some of the tired ones that Ms. Anderson recites.

         For a humorous, eloquent and firm refutation of many creationist
         deceptions (including many of those cited in Ms Anderson's letter),
I
         would recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/

| To quote Ms. Anderson's letter:
|
|  "You see, one's morality can determine one's theology and one's
| science as well.  The only alternative is  to see the marvelous
| blend of good science and sound theology. Does that threaten you?"
|
| Ms. Anderson, most people I speak with about this seem to believe (as I
| do) that religious faiths, such as Creationism, should indeed be a
| private matter, in the hands of our pastors and parents, rather than in
| the hands of the school district or Senate.  It is time for us to stand
| up to theological bullies like Anderson and DeHart who, if they are not
| stopped, would take away our "God-given" right to keep our religious
| faith (or lack thereof) a personal thing.

         Ms. Anderson writes "You see, one's morality can determine one's
         theology and one's science as well.  The only alternative is to see
the
         marvelous blend of good science and sound theology."

         Most people I speak with about this believe (as I do) that religious
         faith (such as creationism) should be a private matter, in the hands
of
         our churches and our families, rather than the school district or
the
         Senate.  It is time for us to stand up to theological bullies like
         DeHart who, if they are not stopped, would take away our right to
keep
         our religious faith (or lack thereof) a personal thing.

| Ms. Anderson, if you'd like to live in a theocracy, may I suggest
| Afghanistan?

         After all, if you'd like to live in a theocracy, may I point out how
         well that's working in Afghanistan?

                                        *

That's one take, but it needs to be shorter.  Here's another.

                                        *

         Ms. Anderson's letter of [insert date] writes, "[...] one's morality
         can determine one's theology and one's science as well.  The only
         alternative is to see the marvelous blend of good science and sound
         theology."

         Most people I speak with about this believe (as I do) that religious
         faith (such as creationism) should be a private matter, in the hands
of
         our churches and our families, rather than the hands of the school
         district or the Senate.

         Sadly, while Ms Anderson's letter is rife with errors, her most
         important one is confusing creationism with science.  Creationists
         explain away inconsistencies in their theory with
rationalization---and
         in some cases, outright deception.  Science doesn't work this
way---it
         finds mistakes, revises models, and continues to test them
rigorously.
         For a calm refutation of the rest of her erroneous statements, I
would
         recommend <http://www.talkorigins.org/>.

         Creationism has been repeatedly ruled by the highest courts in the
land
         to be religious dogma and not science.  Even the Supreme Court ruled
         (in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987), "The Louisiana Creationism Act
         advances a religious doctrine by requiring [...] the presentation of
a
         religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety."

         Thus, what people like DeHart and Ms Anderson are advocating is not
         merely irrational---it's illegal.

         Contrary to their claims, this is not a matter of squelching
         opinion---it's simply a matter of sticking with the subject:
science.
         Should we also force geography teachers to teach the
rationalizations
         of flat-Earthers as well?  (There are people that adhere to this
         belief, based on their *own* view of the Bible.)  To carry out
DeHart's
         agenda would either muddle the curriculum by forcing a large number
of
         "alternate world views" based on blind faith on students (a job more
         properly done by parents and churches), or limiting the "alternates"
to
         the worldview preferred by DeHart.  It is in this way that we see
what
         the creationists' cries for "balance" and "equal time" are really
         about:  preferential treatment for their beliefs, at the expense of
         other religious views, and science itself.

         It is time for us to stand up to theological bullies like DeHart
who,
         if they are not stopped, would take away our right to keep our
         religious faith (or lack thereof) a personal thing.

         After all, if you'd like to live in a theocracy, may I point out how
         well that's working in Afghanistan?

Hm.  That's still 390 or so words.

                                        *

         Ms. Anderson's error-filled letter of [insert date] states, "[...]
         one's morality can determine one's theology and one's science as
well.
         The only alternative is to see the marvelous blend of good science
and
         sound theology."

         Most people I speak with about this believe (as I do) that religious
         faith (such as creationism) should be a private matter, in the hands
of
         our churches and our families, rather than the hands of the school
         district or the Senate.

         However, Ms Anderson's most important error is confusing creationism
         with science.  Creationists rationalize away inconsistencies in
their
         theory, often practicing outright deception.  Science, by contrast,
         finds mistakes, revises models, and continues to test them
rigorously.
         Indeed, creationism has been repeatedly recognized by the courts to
be
         religious dogma and not science.  Even the Supreme Court ruled (in
         Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987), "The Louisiana Creationism Act advances
a
         religious doctrine by requiring [...] the presentation of a
religious
         viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety."

         Thus, what people like DeHart and Ms Anderson are advocating is not
         merely irrational---it's illegal.

         Contrary to their claims, this is not a matter of squelching
         opinion---it's simply a matter of sticking with the subject:
science.
         To carry out DeHart's agenda would either muddle the curriculum by
         forcing onto students a large number of "alternate views" based on
         blind faith (a job more properly done by parents and churches), or
         limiting the "alternates" to the view preferred by DeHart.  Thus we
see
         that their cries for "balance" and "equal time" are really about
         preferential treatment for their beliefs, at the expense of other
         religious views, and science itself.

         It is time for us to stand up to theological bullies like DeHart who
         would take away our right to keep our religious beliefs a personal
         thing.

         After all, if you'd like to live in a theocracy, may I point out how
         well that's working in Afghanistan?

316 words.  Can we do better?

                                        *

         Ms. Anderson's error-filled letter of [insert date] states, "[...]
         one's morality can determine one's theology and one's science as
well."

         Most people I speak with about this believe (as I do) that religious
         faith should be a private matter, in the hands of our churches and
our
         families, rather than the hands of the school district or the
Senate.

         The most important error Ms Anderson makes is her confusion over
         creationism vs. science.  Creationists rationalize away
inconsistencies
         in their theory, often practicing outright deception.  Science, by
         contrast, finds mistakes, revises models, and continues to test them
         rigorously.  Indeed, creationism has been repeatedly recognized by
the
         courts to be religious dogma and not science.  Even the Supreme
Court
         ruled (in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987), "The Louisiana Creationism
Act
         advances a religious doctrine by requiring [...] the presentation of
a
         religious viewpoint that rejects evolution [...]."

         Thus, what creationists are advocating is not merely
irrational---it's
         illegal.

         Contrary to their claims, this is not a matter of squelching
         opinion---it's simply a matter of sticking with the subject.  To
carry
         out DeHart's agenda would either muddle the science curriculum by
         forcing onto students a large number of "alternate views" based on
         blind faith (a job more properly done by parents and churches), or
         limiting the "alternates" to the view preferred by DeHart.  Thus we
see
         that their cries for "balance" and "equal time" are really about
         preferential treatment for their beliefs, at the expense of other
         religious views, and science itself.

         It is time for us to stand up to theological bullies like DeHart who
         would take away our right to keep our religious beliefs a personal
         thing.

         After all, observe how well blind theocracy is working in
Afghanistan.

That's 285 words.  Just about workable.  What are the guidelines again?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest Skeptics - http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/

Note: The opinions expressed in this email message are those of the author's
and not necessarily those of Pacific Northwest Skeptics.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/pns.html



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Dear CAPS

Attached is a letter to the editor of the Herald
submitted by Doris Anderson.

All CAPSTalk members can post messages directly to
this forum using the following email address.

CAPSTalk@yahoogroups.com

--- LloydDoris@... wrote:
I am sending the attached article to the Herald in
response to the articles about DeHart. I ask prayer
for its release and impact. I am sending it as a
letter to the editor or an opinion piece if they will
run it.

===============================================

No Wiggle Room at Marysville Pilchuck

By Doris Anderson, co-director, Mount St. Helens Seven
Wonders Creation Museum

The Wiggle Room at Marysville Pilchuck High School is
about to get smaller. For, reassigning teachers like
Dehart to earth science from biology won't erase the
problem teachers are faced with. Evolution has invaded
every area of thought including geology, theology,
psychology, sociology and even economics. Creationists
feel the pain of waging battle with this monster of
many legs.

We don't mind the monster in the classroom -- but it
should be seen with all its weaknesses. Not as
undisputed fact. For instance, within the DNA of each
species is so much information that mutations occur as
populations spread out or coalesce. However, only in a
limited fashion -- not between kinds. Birds have
always been birds. Reptiles have always been reptiles
and people have always been people. Try as they may
and fudge as they do, evolutionists cannot find the
missing links. Yet, we are told, "if you have a
backbone you
descended from a fish."

Before Darwin's Origin of the Species, scientists read
the earth's landscapes (earth science) as the results
of a world-wide catastrophe called the Noachian Flood.
The idea of slow and gradual processes causing places
such as the Grand Canyon was unthinkable. Today, the
idea that God would find mankind so evil that He would
destroy it with a flood is unthinkable. That is the
reason for evolution -- a smoke screen to obscure the
Judge of all.

Whenever science overlaps with a view of origins and
destinies it hinges on reasons, purposes, lifestyles
and morality. We can't wiggle out of it. Why are we
here? Evolution says, "no reason." How far does one
carry survival of the fittest then? Ideas have
consequences such as suicide and shooting one's
teachers and classmates. Hitler's push for the master
race and Australia's search to assign the aborigines
as closer to the apes than the white man both had
their roots in evolution. You see, one's morality can
determine one's theology and one's science as well.
The only alternative is to see the marvelous blend of
good science and sound theology. Does that threaten
you?

The Bible, when it overlaps with science is accurate.
When the religious men of the dark ages chained the
Good Book to the pulpits and failed to give it
credence they asserted the world was flat. They should
have read the verses that talk about God sitting on
the "circle of the earth."

If I speak too harshly and seem to impugn wrong
motives to you, dear reader, forgive me. What I am
trying to say is, think about what you believe and the
consequences. Require good science. After all, none of
us were there when the earth was formed.

However, most of us were around when Mount St. Helens
erupted. Hey, it didn't take millions of years to form
canyons. Mudflows in the summer and fall of 1980
formed a 700-foot canyon there in just five months.
Does it make you think about Noah's flood? It should.
That is earth science and it should be taught in the
public schools and at the National Volcanic Monument.
Someone seems to think Step Creek formed Step Canyon.
How would they come to that conclusion? You tell me.

Doris Anderson


=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Dear Chris Ash croft: thanks for your e-mail about different teachers
that have problems in science teaching anything that is close to
creation. I think this problem of intelligent design might be a step
forward, but it is still a long way from creation.

My concern is the moral one and I think it is important to address that.
whether you have intelligent design or direct evolution, you have
something that is not fixed, but evolving. And you automatically than
deny the Ten Commandments and true morality, because  true morality has
to be fixed, it cannot  be real morality and then still be evolving. If
we allow evolution or any compromise, then right and wrong are evolving
and that destroys the morality of the Ten Commandments. Then Itis no
wonder that high school kids feel they are justified in killing, because
they are being taught that evolution progress is made that way. There are
many scientific positions that need to be addressed, but the main problem
is the moral one. Walter LAN

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/01/8/12/14199390.cfm

The Herald - Everett 8/12/01
Darwin Debate is Still Evolving

By Todd C. Frankel
Herald Writer

To understand, talk about the eyes.

Jonathan Wells does not believe humans developed eyes
through the natural selection process of Darwinian
evolution. He believes the eyes were assembled by an
intelligent designer to achieve the goal of sight.

It was not a random, meaningless event. It was part of
a plan.

"I can't prove it," says Wells, a developmental
biologist in Poulsbo, "but I think it makes more sense
than the Darwinian explanation."

This is intelligent design, the newest entry in the
timeless debate over the origins of life. It is an
anti-evolution movement, but it isn't creationism.
Design theory is a sophisticated, clever idea that has
blurred the lines between the traditional
science-vs.-religion arguments.

Intelligent design proponents believe the complexity
and diversity of life cannot be explained solely by
Darwinian natural selection and "survival of the
fittest." Something else is at work, they say. And
that something else -- which is often left undefined
-- is what is troubling to many.

"Intelligent design doesn't prove there is a God. But
if there is a God, he may have had a hand in this,"
said Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute in
Seattle, a research institute that promotes
conservative causes. "You don't know who designed it.
So it's theologically suggestive to some people.

"This," he said, "is the focus of the whole debate."

The debate appears headed for Snohomish County.

The Marysville School District has hired a Skagit
Valley teacher who made national headlines for
injecting design theory into his biology classes.
Roger DeHart claims he merely wanted to present
students at Burlington-Edison High School with
different views about the origins of life. He says he
never mentioned "God" during the course.

But controversy followed as the community divided over
the issue and the ACLU threatened to sue. This summer,
the school district finally decided to move him from
biology to earth sciences, where he wouldn't teach
evolution. As a result, he quit.

DeHart is scheduled to begin teaching in Marysville
this fall. Already, he made news as he and school
officials gave conflicting accounts about his new
role. DeHart claimed he was hired to teach high school
biology. School officials said he was hired for an
earth sciences position.

Wherever he goes, the debate is sure to follow. When
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National
Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., heard
DeHart was headed for Marysville, she was blunt.

"What he's doing is teaching a very subtle form of
creationism," Scott said. "This is old wine in new
bottles. The content of the science he's teaching
these kids is really bad."

But intelligent design supporters say they are just
putting forth a competing idea to explain inadequacies
in Darwinism.

They are certainly not alone in wanting more from
Darwin's theory of natural selection. Polls show that
a majority of Americans believe in some form of
creationism.

One of the intelligent design readings DeHart tried to
give to his Skagit County class was an article written
by Wells, the Poulsbo biologist.

Wells is a Discovery Institute fellow with the
institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and
Culture. He is one of about 35 scientists paid by the
institute to look for signs of intelligent design.
Much of the fellows' work focuses on the molecular
level, looking at the engines of life for hints of a
design.

It is here, looking at the smallest things, that
design theory has its greatest successes. As
scientists look deeper and deeper into cell biology,
design theorists argue that the complexity of
biological structures points to a designer.

Design theory is merely "the fine-tuning of physics,"
explained Richards, program director at the science
center.

He used the analogy of a billiards table to explain
design theory, saying that the balls must first be set
into place before putting them in motion. So it is
only once the balls are sliding across the table that
the natural process takes over.

"Most design theorists believe that explains some
things, that is, the survival of the fittest,"
Richards said. "But does it explain the arrival of the
fittest?"

Wells has worked instead on debunking the tenets of
evolution. In his book, "Icons of Evolution," he
attacks biology textbooks for embarrassing mistakes in
some of the examples given as proof of evolution.

One of the better-known examples include the
19th-century drawings of biologist Ernst Haeckel,
which claimed to show the early embryonic stages of
animals such as chicken and fish were virtually
identical to humans. This was used as evidence of
common ancestors for all living things.

Haeckel's drawings have since been set aside as
perhaps overblown, or exaggerated, examples of
evolution. But evolutionists say that doesn't mean you
get rid of the theory. Wells differs on that point.

"I don't think we have to hold on to a bad theory
until we have a substitute," Wells said.

Wells and other design theorists are more comfortable
with a collective "confession of ignorance" about the
origins of life.

But there is not a consensus about much behind
intelligent design. The prominent scientists and
scholars who support the theory do not agree on the
force behind it. Some say it is God, others credit an
inanimate life force or an extraterrestrial life force
or a meteorite that started the chain reaction of
life.

Many design theorists don't doubt the estimated age of
the earth at billions of years. Others do, approaching
the "young earth" belief held by many creationists.

What makes people most uncomfortable is where design
theory veers near and even overlaps with creationism.

But Wells dismissed that as a legitimate problem.

"Darwinism closes the door to any supernatural,
otherworldly agent," says Wells. "Intelligent design
opens that door. I don't think science can deal with
that."

Scott of the National Center for Science Education
said she doesn't mind DeHart teaching in a capacity
where he can't get into a discussion on evolution and
intelligent design.

"I think Marysville will find he'll make an excellent
earth science teacher," she said.

You can call Herald Writer Todd C. Frankel at
425-339-3429 or send e-mail to frankel@...

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Dear Mr. Asncroft: This is Walter LAN a replying somewhat to you
recent e-mail on De Hart.  One of the comments that I miss when there is
this type of controversy on teaching origins, is the moral one. If
things got here by themselves, which is pure idolatry from a Scriptural
viewpoint, then where does right and wrong come in?   If things got here
by themselves, then nature itself is made God, and then there are no
fixed, moral standards Anything goes, if the dependance is on things
getting here by themselves. Then it is no wonder kids kill each other at
schools where this is taught. Then, it is no wonder that instead of
loving enemies as the ten commandments demand, then we hate enemies and
lose al the benefits of showing love to enemies and developing a helpful
rather than a hateful society. How can kids ever learn to love their
enemies as true morality demands, when they are taught evolutionary
progress, which develops by hating and destroying enemies?Any effort to
get the world here by process that destroy previous life is immoral and
develops hatred rather than love. There is no morality in process
evolution. Re teaching demands above all teaching true morality. Lang.

Ken Ham will be speaking in Federal Way on September
15,16,17. His speaking schedule has been posted at the
following URL along information about Ken Ham, his
credentials, and ministries.

Creation Science Seminars in the Northwest USA
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac/nwseminars.html

Sacajawea
Junior High School.
1101 South Dash Point Rd.
Federal Way, WA 98003
Info line:253 - 941-2711
Sponsored by: Christ Church of Federal Way

Sat Sept. 15th
4:30 - 5:45 pm  Dinosaurs as Missionary Lizards, Q and
A
6:00 - 7:30 pm  Reconnecting the Bible to the Real
World Beginning with Genesis

Sunday Sept. 16th
9:00 - 10:30 am Reconnecting the Bible .........
10:30 - 11:00 Break
11:00 - 12:30 pm Reconnecting the Bible .......
6:00 - 7:05 pm  Six Days or Millions of Years?
7:05 - 7:30 Break
7:30 - 8:15 pm  In the Beginning God or in the
Beginning the Cosoms?

Monday Sept. 17th (at Christ Church of Federal Way-
next to the school)
6:30 - 7:35 pm  One Blood -- The Biblical Answer to
Racism!
7:35 - 7:50  Break
7:50 - 8:45 pm How to Evangelize an Increasingly
Secularized Culture

For More info Call Bruce Lindquist at 206-824-1301

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/01/8/10/14189379.cfm

The Herald

Marysville on edge over new biology teacher

By Theresa Goffredo
Herald Writer

MARYSVILLE  --  A former Skagit County biology teacher
who drew national attention for introducing to public
school students a variation of creationist theory --
the idea of a higher power having a hand in starting
life -- may teach science in the Marysville School
District this fall.

But why did Marysville school officials invite this
controversy into their classrooms? School officials
claim they didn't know the teacher was renowned for
teaching a controversial theory of life known as
intelligent design. But the teacher says they knew he
was not a low-profile person.

And this leads to another question: What kind of
science will he teach?

Roger DeHart is a former biology teacher from Skagit
County who became the focus of a national debate about
whether the theory of intelligent design, a variant of
creationism, could be taught to his public high school
biology classes.

Intelligent design is the belief that life is so
amazingly complex that the slow, gradual changes
involved in evolution cannot be supported, and that a
higher being, perhaps God, had a hand in creating
life. But it differs from creationism, which is rooted
in biblical literalism.

Intelligent design goes counter to evolutionary
theory, in which  many scientists believe life is
created through random mutations and outside natural
forces, such as weather, and stronger creatures pass
on their genes to future generations and weaker
creatures die off.

Marysville School District officials say teacher Roger
DeHart will more than likely teach a course in which
the chances of introducing the theory of intelligent
design is less likely to occur. Instead of teaching
biology, which includes the origins of life, DeHart
will be diverted to earth sciences, which focuses on
geology.

District officials said they made their decision
Thursday when they learned -- they say for the first
time -- that DeHart's attention-attracting background
included an appearance on CNN and stories in the Los
Angeles Times and The New York Times.

DeHart, whose 23 years of experience teaching biology
produced glowing recommendations, will be put in a job
where he can be successful, Marysville schools
superintendent Linda Whitehead said.

I don't want to put him in a place where there is any
misunderstanding of the curriculum, Whitehead said.
Therefore,  there's no temptation to teach something
that's not a part of the stated curriculum.

After learning about DeHart's renown, Whitehead said,
I thought we had a jewel. I still choose to believe we
have a diamond.

But DeHart said he never hid his past from Marysville
school officials. He said he interviewed for the job
after the high school vice principal -- a friend --
recommended him.

DeHart said he was hired by Marysville to teach
physical science and biology at the high school, not
earth science at the junior high level. He called the
district's decision to reassign his position
incredible.

My 23 years of experience in biology is impeccable,
and I'm denied as if I was black or gay, DeHart said
when reached by phone Thursday from his Skagit County
home. This is happening because of an ideology, not
because of anything else but an ideology, and the fact
you can reassign someone based on an ideology. And I
thought this was America.

For 10 years while a biology teacher at
Burlington-Edison School District in Skagit County,
DeHart used the book Of Pandas and People to
supplement his biology curriculum. The book makes a
case for intelligent design, the theory that life is
so complex that a higher power had to have
participated in its origins.

The American Civil Liberties Union intervened,
threatening to sue Burlington-Edison School District
if DeHart didn't stop. Opponents of DeHart formed a
vocal group called the Burlington-Edison Committee for
Science Education and loudly accused DeHart of trying
to sneak religion into a public classroom.

As a compromise, the district and DeHart agreed that
he could bring up the discussion of intelligent design
if he tempered it with mainstream evolutionary
teachings.

Last year, Burlington school officials had to
reiterate to DeHart that he needed to stick to the
biology textbook. He said he did. But the district
decided to reassign DeHart to earth science.

DeHart quit the Burlington district, and said Thursday
there was no doubt in anyone's mind that teaching
earth science at Marysville was not the position he
accepted. And, DeHart said, he made it clear to
Marysville's principal the reasons he left Burlington.


I was up front, or otherwise I'd be put in the same
situation I was before, DeHart said. I told them
exactly what I've done. That I've been on CNN and the
LA Times and told them if you think I'm a low-profile
person, I'm not. So they're the ones who didn't do
their homework.

DeHart said Marysville-Pilchuck High School's
principal, Peggy Ellis,  did not sit in on his job
interview with the vice principal. DeHart also said
Ellis didn't ask him specific questions regarding the
controversy in Skagit County.

When reached Thursday, Ellis said she recommended,
based on DeHart's very good application packet, that
he be offered a science position. Ellis said, however,
that DeHart's teaching assignment had yet to be
determined.

Ellis said she was aware of the theory of intelligent
design, but not the extent to which DeHart was
involved in the controversy of supplementing his
biology curriculum with texts based on the theory.

The previous district did not say a word about this to
me, Ellis said.

Assistant superintendent Yvonne Ryans, who handles
questions regarding curriculum, wasn't certain whether
the theory of evolution is taught as part of the
biology curriculum at Marysville-Pilchuck High School.


Ryans did say that the district's policy was that
teachers teach the adopted curriculum. Deviations
would not be tolerated, she said.

Whitehead said that all of DeHart's recommendations,
which are confidential but sent from his previous
supervisors, were absolutely outstanding. None,
however, mentioned the controversy, Whitehead said.

The good news is now we are very much aware of the
controversy, Whitehead said.

DeHart can still accept or decline any teaching
position Marysville might offer. An exasperated DeHart
said Thursday that he didn't know what he would do.

You can reassign a teacher, DeHart said, but not for
the wrong reasons.

You can call Herald Writer Theresa Goffredo at
425-339-3097 or send e-mail to: goffredo@...

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=575&NewsID=156352&CategoryID=124\
9&show=localnews&om=1

Skagit Valley Herald

Burlington science teacher departs

DeHart, who became center of debate over origins, to
teach at Marysville-Pilchuck High

08/09/01
MARINA PARR

BURLINGTON — A Burlington-Edison High School teacher
at the center of a national debate over teaching
intelligent design to his biology classes has taken a
similar job in Marysville.

Roger DeHart, who came under fire for introducing to
public school students the idea that life is so
complex it may have been created by a higher power,
was hired by the Marysville School District Tuesday.

Burlington-Edison administrators were at a retreat
Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.

Last month, Burlington officials moved DeHart from
biology and into earth science. District officials say
they moved DeHart for practical reasons, not political
ones. A new teacher with credentials to teach a number
of subjects, including biology, was tapped to head up
several of the high school’s biology classes once
taught by DeHart.

Some criticized the shuffle, saying the district had
short-changed students by replacing DeHart — who has
23 years of experience teaching biology — with a
newcomer. Others applauded the move, believing that it
put an end to a divisive issue that had landed DeHart
in the Los Angeles Times and on CNN television.

In his new job at Marysville-Pilchuck High School,
DeHart will teach both life science and physical
science.

DeHart responded to a reporter’s phone call by e-mail.
He wrote that the Marysville job is “similar to one I
had held at Burlington.”

School officials in Marysville did not say whether
DeHart’s life science classes would touch on
evolution. The district’s curriculum director, Yvonne
Ryans, declined to return calls seeking comment.

Marysville-Pilchuck High School Principal Peggy Ellis
said she knows about the controversy that sprang up in
the Burlington-Edison School District over intelligent
design.

She said DeHart’s experience teaching biology and
other science subjects put him at the head of the
pack. She also was enthusiastic about his
qualifications and how he interviewed, and was pleased
by what his references had to say about him.

“Based on the background and knowledge that he does
have in all the sciences, we hired the best person,”
Ellis said.

She added: “Mr. DeHart is aware of what our curriculum
is. I am certain he will follow the adopted
curriculum.”

======================================================

http://pluto.beseen.com/boardroom/c/55898/View?n=00661
SKAGIT VALLEY HERALD, July 29, 2001
Editorial: DeHart change points to issues beyond debate

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Anyone who wishes to receive John Mackay's email
newsletter on a regular basis should do so my signing
up at the following URL.

Email News Updates from John Mackay.
http://creationresearch.net/UPDATESform.htm

Creation Research
http://creationresearch.net/

--- "Loren I. Nelson" <nelson1589@...> wrote:
>
> > Greetings from John Mackay and the Creation
> Research Team Worldwide
> >
> > DID ADAM HAVE A BELLYBUTTON

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Creation Research" <info@...>
To: <Recipient list suppressed>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: News Update 8th August 2001AD


> Greetings from John Mackay and the Creation Research Team Worldwide
>
> DID ADAM HAVE A BELLYBUTTON was the question we asked the home school
> group. One six year-old quickly put is hand up and said the answer was
> yes.  When asked how he knew, he boldly stated "God was so mad at Adam
when
> he sinned, He came down to earth, poked him in the tummy and said 'I told
> you not to do that!'"
>
> AFRIKAANS TRANSLATION of this e-news now available.  Contact
> info@... to receive it.  Also Spanish, Hungarian and
> Romanian editions available.
>
> NOTABLE QUOTABLE from a most amazing article by anthropologists Mark
> Collard & Bernard Woodhas been published by the National Academy of
> Sciences . We found it difficult to believe the NAS would publish such
> material, but here it is - a little technical, but worth digging through
to
> get 'hot tips' on Human Evolution - Skulls, Teeth and Family Trees
(phylogeny)!
>
> "Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to
> generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives.
> However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to
> external validation . . . . Given the robustness of the molecular
> phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed
in
> phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence.
The
> corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human
> evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are
> required to address the problem of hominin phylogeny." PNAS V. 97, no. 9
> 5003-006
>
> ED. COM.: This brief article is right up there with 'Natural selection and
> the criteria by which a theory is judged' (Systematic Zoology, 1979, p.
> 600-21 Ron Brady). Brady's article was, and is, so devastating to
> neo-Darwinian natural selection that, (according to the late Norman
> Macbeth), one biology dept. head from an Ivy League college cut the
article
> out of the college copy of Systematic Zoology to prevent students reading
it!
>
> USA TENNESSEE TECH Uni Creation Research Club has elected Paul Marcellino
> as president for the coming year. Pray for him. We have sent projects for
> their investigation. If you have any projects you would like them to
> consider, contact us and we will forward them. They should have a
> collegiate Creation Research website up in the coming USA academic year.
>
> CANADIAN BIOLOGY PROFESSOR AND CREATIONIST DR GARY CHIANG recently debated
> the University of Toronto's Larry Moran (an atheistic evolutionist) about
> Behe's book (Darwin's Black Box) and intelligent design.  The audience was
> primarily unbelievers, but it was rather surprising how easily Chiang was
> able to deconstruct Moran's arguments.  Although Moran claims to be well
> versed in the latest scientific evidence for evolution, his understanding
> of evolution was naive, and his arguments totally circular.
>
> CAR DEAD!!! Romulus Campan is now walking to do Creation Research Ministry
> in Romania and Hungary. To date we have only had two donations
specifically
> towards a replacement car for our ministry rep to travel in Hungary and
> Romania.  Is there someone out there who can help??  Send gift to any
> Creation Research office below and mark "CAR"!
>
> WANT A CREATION RESEARCH SPEAKER IN MID TENNESSEE, USA?
> Geologist Rob Stewart - Field Trips, Churches
> Icthyologist Rob Row - Youth, Churches
> Geologist Bob Powell - Travelling Fossil Show, Home School groups
> Biologist Dr. Sid King - Public Schools
> Contact info@... for more details.
>
> DURING GUELPH UNI CREATION DEBATE, contenders Dr Steven Haller and
> colleagues claimed in the question time that Linnaeus, the creationist
> inventor of the Biological Classification System  became an evolutionist
at
> the end of his life. As we had no time to refute this claim during the
> debate, our Canadian correspondent Ian Taylor (Author "In the Minds of
> Men") replies quoting from: Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1968. "Darwin and the
> Darwinian Revolution" N.Y.: WW Norton & Co., First ed.1959. 509 pages,
> notes, bibliography, index; and Gillispie, Charles Coulson ed.1973.
> "Dictionary of Scientific Biography. N.Y.: Charles Scribner & Sons. Vol8,
> page374 - 381.) "
>
> TAYLOR STATES the source of the oft-quoted notion that Carl Von Linne
> (Linnaeus), 1707-1778 abandoned creation and took to evolution is a
> statement from the author Himmelfarb, p.170.
>
> "It is one of the ironies of history that Linnaeus' classification of
> species should in large part prevail today, surviving so long the
> assumption upon which it was based, that of the immutability of species.
It
> is also ironic that his famous dictum -'the number of species is the same
> as the number of forms created from the beginning' - which has come down
as
> the classical expression of immutability, was retracted by Linnaeus
himself
> within a decade of its publication. Confronted with the evidence of a
> hybrid [Linaria vulgaris] form that could reproduce itself, Linnaeus was
> finally forced to concede that, 'it is possible for new species to arise
> within the plant world,' and thus 'the basis for all botanical science,
and
> the natural classification of plants [is] exploded."
> Himmelfarb gives as her reference to the last quote above:
> Hagberg, Knut. Carl Linnaeus. Translated by Alan Blair. London, 1952,
> quoting from Linnaeus' Dissertation on Peloris, 1744.
>
> The facts, however, are given in Gillispie, vol 8 p.377:
> "Linnaeus' botanical ideas changed over the years on an important point:
he
> was forced to relinquish confidence in the constancy of the number of
> species. In Peloria (1744, quoted above) he described a monstrous form of
> Linaria vulgaris that he wrongly interpreted as a hybrid between Linaria
> and a completely different plant. He thereafter held that new plant
species
> could develop through hybridization (See Plantae hybridae, 1751) and
> reached the daring conclusion that within every genus only one species had
> originally been created and that new species had developed in time through
> hybridization of the mother species with species of other genera. This
> concept was based upon a peculiar theory, traceable to Cesalpino,
> concerning the 'marrow' and the 'bark.' [Here follows a long description
of
> this peculiar theory and the author concludes:] THE THEORY, ALTHOUGH
> INTERESTING AS AN ATTEMPT TO APPROACH A GENETIC KINSHIP CONCEPT, HAS
> NOTHING TO DO WITH A THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN THE MODERN, DARWINIAN SENSE OF
> THE WORD."(Emphasis ours)
>
> TAYLOR CONTINUES My comments here are that Linnaeus knew nothing about
> genetics and information theory. Had he been living today he may well
> realize that populations of plants, like animals, can be divided and the
> incomplete gene pool in each of the two sub-populations can continue to
> lose genetic information. The result after a number of generations can be
> that the two sub-populations may change in appearance, especially if they
> occupy different environments. The individuals may be regarded as plants
of
> two different genus and when crossed a new "species" is formed. This would
> not be true however, as the two plants were initially from the same gene
> pool and thus likely of the same kind i.e. they had a common ancestor. If
> the two sub-population are isolated for a sufficiently long time with
> greater loss of genetic information, crossing may produce infertile
> offspring or no offspring at all. This is not evolution as Darwinists
claim
> but simply the loss of ability to reproduce. The same thing happens within
> a few short years to a married couple!
>
> Finally, Gillispie p.379
> "Linnaeus was a complicated man. His enormous scientific production was
> supported by a self-esteem almost without parallel. He considered his
> published works to be unblemished masterpieces; no one had ever been a
> greater botanist or zoologist. Unable to [p.380] accept criticism he
sulked
> like a child .... Yet Linnaeus also could radiate an overpowering charm,
> and almost all of his students loved him. ... His view of nature was
deeply
> religious; central to all his work was God's omnipotence. He never
deviated
> from the devout physicotheology that was widespread in the eighteenth
> century, but he stamped it with his peculiar sense of mystery and wonder.
> 'I saw,' he wrote in the introduction to the later editions of Systema
> naturae, 'the infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful God from behind as He
> went away and I grew dizzy. I followed His footsteps over nature's fields
> and saw everywhere an eternal wisdom and power, an inscrutable
perfection.' "
>
> ED. COM.: Linnaeus' original assumption was that his concept of species
was
> the same as the Genesis kind hence if kinds were fixed so were his
> species.  He was wrong - but it was too late.  His popularity ensured that
> his first mistake became entrenched as Creationist doctrine - thus paving
> the way for the population to accept Darwin's proof that if he could use
> the Galapagos Finches to show species aren't fixed, then the Bible is
> proved wrong.  How important it is to not elevate Christian speculation
> about science to the same authority as God's Word.  Now that Evolution is
> so popular, the fact that Darwin was totally wrong about the Galapagos
> Finches is blithely ignored.
>
> DONATIONS TO HELP CREATION RESEARCH WORLDWIDE can be sent to the following
> addresses or use our secure Web site: www.creationresearch.net and click
GIFTS.
> USA: P.O. Box 281 Hartsville TN 37074 (Donations in USA are tax
deductible.
> Make checks to Creation Education Society)
> UK: P.O. Box 1 Ashton under Lyne Lancs. OL6 9WW
> AUSTRALIA: P.O. Box 260 Capalaba Qld 4157
> CANADA: P.O. Box 35027 London Ont. N5W 5E3
> NEW ZEALAND: P.O. Box 40480 Glenfield, Auckland
>
> IF YOU no longer wish to receive our updates please reply with REMOVE in
> the subject. To assist us please include your name as well as e-mail
> address (and organisation name, if any).
>
>
>
>

Dear CAPS

An AntiCreation group known as the PNWS Pacific Northwest Skeptic was
in attendance at more the one of Dr. McIntosh's seminars. I offer a
couple of the posts from their listserv as an unedited critique from
opponents. While the first report is nice though perhaps sarcastic,
the other hammers Andy's use of the mythical lighthouse story.

I have already submitted a defense to the list on Andy's behalf...

P.S. We need a 1/2 page description of Andy's talk for the CAPS
website.

=======================================

[PNWS] Pacific Northwest Skeptics Email List
Greetings Sensible People.

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Andy McIntosh at the
ALderwood Manor community Church tell a large gathering of the
faithful how the world and all life came into existence by design,
and that in six 24 hour days a mere 6000 or so years ago.  I learned
that all of this was created by God's Word, that the Bible is the
history book of the universe, is true science, while present current
science is not true science.

The presentation was full of convincing proofs, such as, airplanes
and birds both fly, and airplanes were very carefully designed...
therefore birds must be designed.  Also given as a key point, was the
fact that flight is seen in three distinct classes of animals...
birds, bats, and insects, and none of these are at all related, so
this would have required flight to have evolved not just once, but
three times at least, and to quote the man, "To my mind, flight
evolving once is incredible, twice even less possible, and three
times impossible."  He also said that T-rex on Noah's Ark was no
problem... God just called in baby T-rexes and other dinosaurs so
space and carnivore activity was no real problem ...if you think
about it. (so think about it..??)

Other similar proofs were given, plus an alter call.

Having just visited London and the Museums there which show Darwin's
theory of evolution with fossils, hominid man, increasing skull
sizes, early tools, etc., it was good to return home and be put
straight.

Doug E

============================================

[PNWS] Pacific Northwest Skeptics Email List
Lighthouse Story - Try this link
http://www.snopes2.com/humor/jokes/lighthse.htm

==============================================

[PNWS] Pacific Northwest Skeptics Email List
Subject: McIntosh the liar

So in other words, PNWS observed McIntosh propagating this urban
legend, he's informed that it isn't true, he acknowledges that it
isn't true, and then turns right around and propagates the same myth
two days later.

This series of lectures was arranged by the Creation Association
of Puget Sound, and I know for a fact that the person who runs their
website and their Yahoo club, Chris Ashcraft, is a member of this very
email list and has been observing us.

Ashcraft, I want you to know that we saw a hell of a lot of sloppy
mistakes by Andy McIntosh that night, but this one really takes the
cake. He was not only mistaken about the lighthouse incident, he was
corrected and he tried pushing the same story again two days later as
fact.  What does that tell you about the integrity of your speakers?
If you were a true Christian, you and Ashcraft should be on your hands
and knees begging for God's forgiveness.  Disgusting.  Fortunately,
your movement is essentially dead in the Pacific Northwest, and we
only came for a good laugh.  It looks like we were handsomely
rewarded.

Pierre Stromberg
Pacific Northwest Skeptics
http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/


---------------

Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck & "BR" Sanders" <cjbr@...>
To: "Bill & Linda Boone" <whboone@...>; "Barbara Ackerman"
<barback@...>; <joe_mcintyre@...>; "Walt & Kristi
Buchman" <wbuchm@...>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:06 PM
Subject: "Diggin' News" fr. Chuck'n "br": Colorado Site


Hi ALL!
Most of you know who we are, except Loren Nelson (Chuck met you once and you
seemed to be interested in the ancient, clay dino figurines that have been
brought to light recently in Mexico.  If you wish to be taken off this list,
please just fire-back a reply, and we'll do so, OK?).

Also, to Jerry Bizonet, we need to explain that Becca thought you'd like to
hear from us with occasional "dino-news".  Please let us know if you too
would like us to take you off this list, won't you?  Thanks...

All the rest of you told us you'd like to hear about what's going on from
time to time, so here we are.  Should you change your mind, please just let
us know...
****************************************************************************
*******************

'Journeyed safely from Kirkland, WA to Crosbyton, TX, arriving Friday, May
12th!  Signed papers for new house around noon.  Friends from our newly
adopted church helped us unload the "U-Haul" trailer and "Ryder" truck!
Praise the LORD!!!  [Of course, we learned right away that down here it's
not really a "U-Haul", it's a "Y'All Haul"...]
'Could take us a year to get settled-in, but we're lovin' it.  Days are
nice'n warm (hottest, 106 degrees F) and nights are cool (high 60's - 80's).
'Started helping-out part-time at the "Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum", Tuesday,
the 16th.  Joe Taylor's the "boss"...

****************************************************************************
********************
Now then, here's a quote from the "Crosbyton News & Chronicle" that came out
Thursday, May 25, 2000, that's as good a newsie as any for y'all:

FOSSIL MUSEUM CURATOR TAYLOR ON UNUSUAL DINOSAUR DIG

"Dinosaurs lying on their backs with their legs sticking up demand rapid
burial.  This is what you see at our dig site," says fossil excavator Joe
Taylor of Crosbyton.

According to Taylor, the northwest Colorado excavtion site near the small
town, appropriately enough, named Dinosaur, is part of an extensive fossil
bone graveyard.

"This boneyard covers several hundred thousand acres.  The site contains no
less than six animals in an area of only 300 square feet."  These include
long-necked and long tailed sauropods, spike-tailed stegosaurs, T-rex-like
allosaurs, and heavily armored ankylosaurs, as well as turtles and
crocodiles.

"THE WAY these animals are buried and their sheer numbers defy such often
used but outdated explanations as 'local river inundations'.  Only a massive
flood of unbelievable proportions can account for the scale of devastation
we see at this site and in many other western states, in Canada, and other
parts of the world.  These animals were also buried under hundreds of feet
of mud and similar sediment."

This week Taylor is returning to the Colorado site to supervise the removal
of more of the fossil bones.

Taylor is also the director and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in
Crosbyton.  For those interested in seeing fossil remains from the Colorado
site and other exhibits, the museum hours are Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m..
Special group rates are available.

****************************************************************************
********************

Joe's back now.  We're planning a trip to Glen Rose, TX this coming Friday.
Dr. Duane Gish (well-known Creation lecturer) will speak at the High School,
Saturday, June 3rd.  'Also plan to visit Dr. Carl Baugh's "Creation Evidence
Museum".  Dr. Baugh has also just returned from the Colorado site. 'Bye for
now ...

GOD IS BLESSING YOU !!!

In HIM, with you,       Chuck'n "br" [Sanders]

P.S.  'Special "Hi" to WOHGIES!  You remain in our prayers.  'Remember you
all with great delight!  'Drop a note when you can?  WE GIVE SPECIAL THANKS
TO GOD FOR YOU ALL!!!

P.P.S. Extra-Special "HI" to Joe'n Pam!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
P.P.P.S.  Hi Karen!  BLESSINGS!  Could you perhaps make a copy of this for
Sylvia Dillon?  She and Alanna would appreciate it, I'm quite sure.  Her
only e-mail (which I don't even have right now) is at the school where she
works, and I don't know if her school is out yet???  But if her school is
still in session, please nevermind the copy.  Just send me her e-mail
address, and I'll send it directly to her.  Thanx a BUNCH!  ["HI"' and
BLESSINGS to the Office Staff!!!]  "br"

A message from Geraldine Duzenack at Human Life

Be sure to let your voice be heard.

All the Best,

Mark Roberts

**************

Please forward immediately to all appropriate lists!

U.S. House to Vote on Weldon-Stupak Bill to Ban the Cloning
of Human Embryos for Lethal Research --Weldon-Stupak Bill
is Threatened by Greenwood "embryo farm" substitute

Date of Anticipated House Vote:  As early as July 31, 2001

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

Please generate PHONE CALLS to each U.S. House member -- regardless of
his or her position on abortion. ­­U.S. Capitol Switchboard is (202) 225-3121.
It is also very helpful to place calls to the LOCAL office(s) of U.S. House members.

Do not assume that a House member will vote for the Weldon-Stupak bill simply
because that lawmaker has an anti-abortion voting record, because some anti-abortion
lawmakers may be swayed by the argument that the bill would interfere with
"medical research."

The basic message:  "Support the Weldon-Stupak bill, H.R. 2505, to
prohibit the creation of human embryos by cloning. Oppose the clone-and-kill
substitute proposal that will be offered by Congressman Jim Greenwood.

A vote for the Greenwood substitute is a vote to allow Œhuman embryo farms'
or Œembryo production lines', which would mass-produce human embryos
for the sole purpose of destroying them in medical experimentation."

A NOTE ON E-MAIL: When e-mail is used to write to a lawmaker, your
regular mailing address must be included in the e-mail.  Otherwise, the
lawmaker's staff has no way of knowing whether the e-mail actually comes from
a constituent or an organization representing constituents.

Background:  The U.S. House is expected to vote between July 30 and August 3
on H.R. 2505, a bill to prohibit the creation of human embryos by cloning.

Researchers already have cloned sheep, monkeys, and some other mammals, but
so far there is no confirmed report of any researcher successfully using
cloning to create human embryos.  However, the urgent need for enactment of
the Weldon-Stupak legislation was demonstrated by a report in the July 12
Washington Post that a major biotechnology firm, Advanced Cell Technology of
Worcester, Massachusetts, already has a project underway to mass-produce
human embryos by cloning, in order to use them in medical experimentation
that will kill them.  The head of the firm told the Wall Street Journal (July 13)
that actual human cloning will begin "soon."  It is believed that other firms
are engaged in similar efforts.
 
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Tuesday, July 24,
on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 2505, successor to H.R. 1644),
sponsored by pro-life Reps. Dave Weldon (R-Fl.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mi.).
This bill, which is supported by NRLC and many other organizations, would
prohibit the use of cloning to create any human beings, including human
embryos.  The Bush Administration has endorsed such a ban.

The Weldon-Stupak bill faces intense opposition from the powerful
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), which represents biotechnology
corporations that wish to use cloning to mass-produce human embryos in order
to harvest their stem cells for medical research or to subject them to other
lethal manipulations.  The biotechnology firms refer to this practice as
"therapeutic cloning" or "research cloning," but pro-life groups call it
"clone and kill."

A June, 2001 International Communications Research poll found that 86% of
Americans said "no" when asked, "Should scientists be allowed to create a
supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?"

A close vote is expected in the Judiciary Committee on July 24, but it
appears that the committee will reject the clone-and-kill approach and
approve H.R. 2505.  If so, the House Republican leadership may schedule H.R.
2505 for action on the House floor during the week of July 30 -- which is the
final week before a month-long congressional recess.   On the House floor,
Rep. Greenwood will seek to offer his "clone and kill" (or "human embryo
farm") measure as a "substitute amendment" -- that is, as a replacement for
the Weldon-Stupak bill.   The critical roll call vote will be on the
Greenwood substitute.

Others might be fooled by the efforts of Rep. Greenwood
and bio-tech lobbyists to "sell" the Greenwood bill as a "ban on cloning of
human beings" (or as a "ban on reproductive cloning").  By these misleading
terms, they merely mean that the Greenwood bill would seek to prevent any
cloned human from actually being born -- but the bill would accomplish this
by requiring that every cloned human embryo must be killed!  Also, do not
assume that all pro-abortion House members will oppose the Weldon-Stupak
bill.  A complete ban on cloning of human embryos has been endorsed by
various organizational and individual supporters of legal abortion, including
the United Methodist Church, feminist health writer Judy Norsigian, and the
Council for Responsible Genetics.
 
* Send a letter of 250-300 words to the letters column of your local
newspaper(s), encouraging citizens to contact their U.S. House members to
urge support for the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 2505) to ban the cloning of
human embryos, in order to prevent the beginning of "human embryo farms."

* Please assist NRLC's lobbying efforts by reporting any response from a
lawmaker's office, and any local press report about a lawmaker's position, to
the NRLC Federal Legislative Office at 202-626-8820, fax 202-347-3668,
e-mail: Legfederal@....

To read the text of the Weldon-Stupak bill, H.R. 2505, or the Greenwood
clone-and-kill bill, H.R. 2172, go to the "Thomas" congressional website at
http://thomas.loc.gov

The Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education
is an Anti-Creation group active here in Washington.

http://www.scienceormyth.org/resources.html

They appear to be related or synonymous to the Pacific
Northwest Skeptics which among other things keeps tabs
on Creationist activities in the NW.

http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/realindex.html

Of particular interest is an atlas that details the
activities of Creationists affecting the public school
system in Washington. URL below.

http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/atlas/



=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Hello CAPS

The Washington State Senate introduced a Bill that would place an
Evolution Disclaimer in public school science textbooks (Bill 6058)
The Bill was cosponsored by members Harold Hochstatter , Val Stevens
and Dan Swecker. Full text of the bill follows..

==============================================

SENATE BILL 6058
            _______________________________________________

State of Washington       57th Legislature       2001 Regular Session

By Senators Hochstatter, Swecker and Stevens

Read first time 02/15/2001.  Referred to Committee on Education.
     AN ACT Relating to science textbooks; and adding a new section to
chapter 28A.150 RCW.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

     {+ NEW SECTION. +}  Sec. 1.  A new section is added to chapter
28A.150 RCW to read as follows:
     All science textbooks purchased with state moneys must have the
following notice placed prominently in them.

           "A MESSAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE

            This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial
     theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for
     the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and
     humans.
            No one was present when life first appeared on earth.
     Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be
     considered as theory, not fact.
            The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change.
     Evolution describes changes that occur within a species.
     (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.)  This
     process is microevolution, which can be observed and described
     as fact.  Evolution may also refer to the change of one living
     thing to another, such as reptiles into birds.  This process,
     called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be
     considered a theory.  Evolution also refers to the unproven
     belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of
     living things.
            There are many unanswered questions about the origin of
     life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:
     -  Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the
     fossil record (known as the "Cambrian Explosion")?
     -  Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in
     the fossil record for a long time?
     -  Why do major groups of plants and animals have no
     transitional forms in the fossil record?
     -  How did you and all living things come to possess such a
     complete and complex set of "Instructions" for building a
     living body?
            Study hard and keep an open mind.  Someday, you may
     contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on
     earth."

===================================

The following page is by an AntiCreation group called - The Pacific
Northwest Skeptics. It contain other useful information concerning
Bill 6058, and Email Addresses of the Washington State Senate
Education Committee.

http://www.eskimo.com/~pierres/6058.html

The July 2001 DSA Newsletter has a cover story on Andy
McIntosh. An 880K PDF can be downloaded at the
following URL.

DSA Newsletter
http://www.pdxdsa.org/DSA_7_01.pdf

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: Lloyddoris@...

To: CAPSTalk@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:02 PM

Subject: Re: [CAPSTalk] Fw: McIntiosh Meetings

Loren -- This is an excellent exhortation.  So well put.

Lloyd

Creation Association of Puget Sound
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac/caps/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CAPSTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

To CAPSTalk Email discussion Group:
All the posted MSH Pictures have been moved into a Folder named: "Mt.
St. Helens Pictures" it is underlined.  By clicking on the
underlined  words, the list of pictures will Appear, as before and by
clicking on the underlined file name each picture will appear.

Notice, there are 2 files for picture #6. the new one is smaller in
size. let me know if you like the smaller size better. Thanks.

Loren Nelson

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the CAPSTalk
group.

   File        : /Mt. St. Helens Pictures/P6230006 - MtStHelens Crater,Sml.jpg
   Uploaded by : nelson7328@...
   Description : 6th picture - Smaller size

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAPSTalk/files/Mt.%20St.%20Helens%20Pictures/P6230\
006%20-%20MtStHelens%20Crater%2CSml.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

nelson7328@...

At the Coal Creek Chapel

14615 SE 22^nd St.

Bellevue, WA

Church Office: 425-957-0303

 Sponsored by: Creation Association of Puget Sound (CAPS) & Coal Creek Chapel

Creation Science Seminar Calendar for the Northwest USA

Dr. Andrew McIntosh

Illustrated talk geared for youth and adults--everyone welcome

A.C. McIntosh BSc Wales, PhD Cranfield, DSc Wales, FIMA, CMath, FInstE, CEng

Dr Andrew McIntosh is a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory in the Department of Fuel and Energy at Leeds University, UK. He recently received a DSc degree from the University of Wales, Bangor for research in combustion theory.

• McIntosh's Leeds Univ Home Page
• McIntosh's Short CV
• McIntosh's Publications
  

News Release - Combustion Theory Scientist to Argue for Creation

PowerPoint Presentation Titles:

• "From Creation to Christ: Why Creation is Important (according to Scripture)"
• "Creation or Evolution: What the Rocks & Fossils Tell Us"
• "The World by Chance or Design: the Wonders of Design in the Living World"

Saturday, July 28th, 9-11:30 a.m.
Portland, OR
"Creation or Evolution "
Design Science Association (DSA)
Meeting at Gateway Baptist Church
13300 NE San Rafael Street
Contact: Keith Swenson, DSA Pres.
503-665-9563

Sunday, July 29th, a.m. & p.m.
Seattle, WA
9:30 a.m. "From Creation to Christ"
6:00 p.m. "Creation or Evolution "
Emmanuel Baptist Church
3752 S 182nd St.
Pastor Bob Martin: 425-687-5056

Tuesday, July 31st, 7:00 p.m.
Bellevue, WA
"The World by Chance or Design"
Creation Association of Puget Sound (CAPS)
Coal Creek Chapel
14615 SE 22nd St.
Church Office: 425-957-0303

Thursday, August 2nd, 7:00 p.m.
Lynnwood, WA
"The World by Chance or Design"
Alderwood Manor Community Church,
3403 Alderwood Mall Blvd
Contact: Adult Ministries Pastor Ken Collins
Church Office: 425-774-7766

Sunday, August 5th, 9:45 a.m.
Portland, OR
"From Creation to Christ"
Glencullen Baptist Church
4747 SW Cameron
Pastor Phil Cavin: 503-244-3655

Sunday, August 5th, 6:30 p.m.
Portland, OR
"The World by Chance or Design"
Central Bible Church
8815 NE Glisan St.
Church Office: 503-252-1424

Wednesday, August 8th , 7:00 p.m.
Randle, WA
"The World by Chance or Design"
First Baptist Church
130 Morris Road
Contact: John Pollman
360-497-3997

Sunday, August 12th, 10 a.m.
Longview, WA
"From Creation to Christ "
Calvary Community Church
2655 38th Avenue
Church Office: 360-423-1160

Dear CAPS - A bit of information on logging-in to the
CAPSTalk page if you want to upload files, and enter
information into the Calendar of Events.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/capstalk/

The CAPSTalk page above can be accessed by the public,
and they can read any posts, or view uploaded files,
etc. Everyone on this list can also send messages to
the CAPSTalk group, but to upload files, or add to the
Event Calendar, you must first loggin as a registered
Yahoo user.

On the uppper right hand corner of the CAPSTalk page
there is a link that says "Register" and another that
says "Sign In". Click Register if you do not already
have a Yahoo ID, then specify a Yahoo username,
password, etc. Following your registration you must
loggin using the Username and Password you chose. Do
this using the link that says "Sign In". After signing
in you may upload files like the photos Loren intends
to post of the Mt. St. Helens hike.

This is the link to the registration..
http://edit.yahoo.com/config/eval_register?.intl=us&.src=ygrp&new=1&.done=http:/\
/groups.yahoo.com%2Fgroup%2FCAPSTalk

This is the link to the Sign In
http://login.yahoo.com/config/login?.intl=us&.src=ygrp&.done=http://groups.yahoo\
.com%2Fgroup%2FCAPSTalk%2Fjoin%3Freferer%3D1

Warning: long links are often fractured by text
wrapping in email, so if those above dont work, the
links to "Register" and "Sign in" are clearly labeled
on the CAPSTalk page.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/capstalk/

--- "Loren I. Nelson" <nelson1589@...> wrote:
> The program is telling me that I am not a member of
> the Caps Group.  The last I looked I am the keeper
> of the records of who is and who is not a member of
> CAPS.

In His Service,

=====
Chris Ashcraft
Creation Science Resource
http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/evolution_update0601.html

SPECIAL UPDATE: Evolution Opponents on the Offensive in Senate, House
(Posted 6-19-01)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

IN A NUTSHELL: A day before the Senate completed action on a
comprehensive education bill that it had debated for six weeks, Sen.
Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced a two-sentence amendment drafted by
evolution opponents. The amendment, presented in the form of a Senate
resolution, defines "good science education" and encourages teaching
the "controversy" surrounding biological evolution. Amidst a flurry
of other amendments, the Senate voted 91-8 in favor of the provision
on its way to passing the entire bill by the same margin. Earlier, a
group of conservative representatives had stripped a science testing
provision out of the House counterpart bill in part because of
concerns that the tests would include evolution-related questions.
Differences between the two bills will be worked out in a House-
Senate conference likely to take place in early July.

************

Last summer, proponents of intelligent design creationism held a
Capitol Hill briefing to educate congressional members and staff on
the failures of Darwinism and their alternative proposals (see a
summary at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/id_update.html). They
also lectured their audience on the moral decay that the teaching of
Darwinism had wrought on society. A panel discussion was moderated by
David DeWolf, a law professor at Gonzaga University in Spokane,
Washington and author of a legal brief on how to get intelligent
design into public school curriculum. Like most of the other speakers
at the briefing, DeWolf is a senior fellow at the Seattle-based
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture,
a conservative think tank dedicated to promulgating intelligent
design as an alternative theory to evolution.

Up until that briefing took place, the political debate over the
teaching of evolution in public schools had taken place at the state
and local level, but the briefing appeared to be a disturbing
expansion of anti-evolution efforts into the federal legislature.
That appearance is now reality with DeWolf and briefing speaker
Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at
Berkeley and CRSC senior fellow, taking center stage.

K-12 Education Bill Used as Vehicle

Education was a campaign priority for President Bush, and the first
bills introduced this year in both the House and Senate (H.R.1 and
S.1, respectively) are comprehensive overhauls of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which covers most federal aid
programs for states and local school districts. S.1, entitled the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, was passed by the
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee in March, having
been introduced by the committee's then-chairman Jim Jeffords (now I-
VT). The full Senate took it up in May with hundreds of amendments
being offered and considered. After the Memorial Day recess and
Jeffords' departure from the Republican Party, debate on the floor
resumed in June with new HELP chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
managing the debate.

On the morning of June 13th, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) rose to speak
on his amendment #799, which he handed in the previous evening. It is
a non-binding "Sense of the Senate" resolution, a common tactic used
to put the Senate on record about a given subject without worrying
about statutory implications. According to Santorum, his amendment
dealt "with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the
teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary
education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate
curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be
freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the
classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if
there is this intellectual freedom to discuss."He then stated that
the amendment was "simply two sentences--frankly, two rather
innocuous sentences." The amendment reads:

"It is the sense of the Senate that-- "(1) good science education
should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories
of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in
the name of science; and "(2) where biological evolution is taught,
the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject
generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding
the subject."

Santorum then went on to read an extended passage by DeWolf lauding
the benefits of "a more open discussion of biological origins in the
science classroom." Although most amendments, especially non-binding
ones, are simply added by unanimous consent or withdrawn without a
vote, Santorum called for a roll call vote to put the Senate on
record. Kennedy, the floor manager, then expressed his support for
the amendment. With nobody speaking against it, the amendment passed
by a 91-8 vote. All Democrats voted for it (except Sen. Chris Dodd, D-
CT, who was absent). The eight Republicans who voted against the
amendment (Chafee, RI; Cochran, MS; Collins, ME; DeWine, OH; Enzi,
WY; Hagel, NE; Stevens, AK; Thompson, TN) were opposed on the grounds
that it was an unnecessary federal intrusion in a state and local
matter. The full text of Santorum's remarks from the Congressional
Record are available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?
r107:FLD001:S06148 on pages S6147-48, Kennedy's remarks are on S6150,
and supporting statements by Brownback, R-KS, and Byrd, D-WV, are at
S6152.

Whether or not one views the specific language of the amendment as
innocuous or unobjectionable, this vote has become a public relations
bonanza for the intelligent design creationists. The Discovery
Institute put out a press release stating: "Undoubtedly this will
change the face of the debate over the theories of evolution and
intelligent design in America. From now on the evidence will be free
to speak for itself. It also seems that the Darwinian monopoly on
public science education, and perhaps on the biological sciences in
general, is ending." The Senate vote is also being portrayed as  a
vindication of the 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to
remove evolution from state tests (a vote subsequently overturned
when several of the school board members were defeated in the 2000
elections). Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) told the Washington Times (6-18-
01) that it "cleared the record." In a speech supporting Santorum's
amendment, he argued: "The great and bold statement that the Kansas
School Board made was … simply that we observe micro-evolution and
therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe
macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption.... [Santorum] clarifies
the opinion of the Senate that the debate of scientific fact versus
scientific assumption is an important debate to embrace."

How did this amendment come about? In the same Washington Times
article, Phillip Johnson took credit for helping to frame the
amendment's language: "I offered some language to Senator Santorum,
after he had decided to propose a resolution of this sort." According
to his web site, Johnson visited a number of Capitol Hill offices
early in June to meet with senators and representatives. Johnson is
the author of several anti-evolution books, including "Darwin on
Trial," and speaks widely on this subject.

A Broader Offensive

Evolution also came up as an issue in the House education bill, H.R.
1. As passed by the House Education and the Workforce Committee, H.R.
1 included a provision mandating that students be tested on science
in addition to the reading and math testing provisions called for in
the original bill -- a presidential priority. Scientific societies
pushed for the testing provision lest science lose attention as
resources are concentrated on tested subjects.

Before any bill can be considered on the House floor, it must pass
through the Rules Committee, which decides how much debate will be
allowed, which amendments will be in order, and other procedural
matters. The committee can also amend the bill so that what is
considered on the floor is different from what was passed in
committee earlier. In response to concerns raised by a group of
conservative lawmakers, the committee (chaired by Rep. David Dreier,
R-CA) removed the science testing provision in this manner. Sources
report that a major reason for the opposition was that testing might
include evolution-related questions.

Although Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) was assured that he would be given
the opportunity to propose a floor amendment restoring the science
testing provision, he was never allowed to do so despite support for
his amendment from Education and the Workforce Committee chairman
John Boehner (R-OH).

The Next Step

A House-Senate conference committee must work out differences in the
two bills -- both bodies must vote on an identical measure before it
goes to the president for his signature, which is expected. Conferees
have yet to be named but will surely include senior members of the
Senate HELP Committee and the House Education and the Workforce
Committee. Senators Kennedy and Judd Gregg (R-NH), the senior
Republican on the HELP Committee, will certainly be on it as perhaps
will S. 1 author Jeffords. On the House side, Boehner and ranking
Democrat Rep. George Miller (D-CA) will be on it.

In addition to efforts to restore science testing provisions,
scientific societies including AGI are considering options for how to
address the Santorum amendment. Given the clear public rejection of
the 1999 Kansas school board's action, it does not seem likely that
the majority of the senators who voted for the amendment share
Brownback's opinion of its implications or agree with the Discovery
Institute that their purpose was to "change the face of the debate
over the theories of evolution and intelligent design in America."
Indeed, faced with such rhetoric, they might just decide that
Santorum presented his "innocuous" amendment to them as something
other than the anti-evolution stalking horse that it truly is.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Special update prepared by David Applegate, AGI Government Affairs
Program
Sources: American Physical Society, Congressional Record, Discovery
Institute, Washington Times.

Please send any comments or requests for information to the AGI
Government Affairs Program at govt@....

Below are two below Gallop Poll summaries --- both show a growing
public trend showing increasing (majority) support for creation (OE
+YEC) over evolution. This is the kind of "official" data that
could/should be helpful to those striving to establishing some sort of
"balanced" treatment for same within public school science curriculae.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010214c.asp