Selected e-mails

by Steve Gruenwald

From: Steve Gruenwald
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 11:02 AM
To: JWaugh1052@aol.com; martinkathy@yahoo.com; MSGamble@swbell.net; krw@ourtownusa.net; jwmsbacon@aol.com; carolrupe@hotmail.com; bill.wagnon@washburn.edu; vanmeter@terraworld.net; conniemorris2010@yahoo.com; sabrams@hit.net
Subject: Intelligent Design


Dear School Board Member:

I was fascinated to see that Kansas is once again attempting to introduce into the public school curriculum a degree of respect for theories regarding the origin of Man that, while perhaps not as well supported by real evidence as the widely accepted theory of evolution, do have some level of acceptance as alternative explanations. In this regard, I strongly believe that your curriculum should encourage teachers to give equal time to such carefully thought out and widely respected theories as those of the following scholars.

1. Zecharia Sitchin, who has done extensive research into ancient Sumerian writings. He has discovered convincing documentation of the likelihood that the evolution of humans was carefully guided by benign visitors from the planet Nibiru, who have tailored our development to be more in line with their own; see his books under the title "The Earth Chronicles."

2. L. Ron Hubbard, whose theories (accepted by numerous highly visible public figures) explain, among other things, how humans are actually descended from clams, by way of the Piltdown Man, and our so-called "souls" the embodiment of Thetans, who also take on numerous forms other than the human. Our perceptions of the world (including our mistaken scientific theories) are the result of "engrams" which the Thetans implant in us. Christ was one such implanted engram.

3. Larry Niven, who explained in the book "Protector" how a race of highly intelligent beings, attempting to find a new world to settle, mistakenly dumped a load of proto-humans on Earth without properly planning for their development into intelligent beings. By luck, they also negligently failed to plan for the radiation leakage from their nuclear-powered space craft, which led to a high rate of mutation among the proto-humans. Human development since then has occurred largely by trial and error; but not, as if often wrongly assumed, up from the lower primates - they in fact also evolved from the proto-humans. (This book was presented as fiction, but provides one of the best explanations of how it is than humanity has reached its present great heights in the relatively short time available in Earth's history, unlike more traditional theories of evolution.)

Please assure me that your planned changes to the state's science curriculum will fully support teachers who plan lessons on the basis of these alternative theories.

             - Steven Gruenwald
               Hoffman Estates, IL


From: conniemorris2010@yahoo.com [mailto:conniemorris2010@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 11:02 AM
To: steveg
Subject: Yahoo! Auto Response

Thank you for emailing! Please know that I make a sincere effort to read every correspondence that comes my way, however it has become impossible to personally respond to every contact. I deeply appreciate your support and the valuable information that you may provide. Input from each and every individual is important. PS: The KSBE is NOT seeking to implement Religion in public schools. My hope is to simply encourage criticisms of Evolution-as the evidence to do so abounds. Be well! -Connie Morris


From: Carol Rupe [mailto:carolrupe@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:28 PM
To: steveg
Subject: RE: Intelligent Design

Dear Steve,

Excellent ideas. I'm one of the few moderates left on the board which now has a majority of far right conservatives. They have proposed changing the definition of science from "seeking natural explanations" to "seeking logical explanations" and the explanations you have listed are certainly as logical as any. Thanks. I wonder if you will hear from any of the conservatives.

Carol


From: Sue Gamble [mailto:msgamble@swbell.net]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 1:39 PM
To: steveg
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design

Dear Mr. Gruenwald, Thank you for your message. Please visit the Flying Spaghetti Monster web site: www.venganza.org where you can see another alternate theory; while there please note my response that is listed on the site. Below is a message I have sent around the world to people who have sent me messages. I think it fully explains my position.

I did not support the hearings nor do I support changing the definition of science to include supernatural explanations; unfortunately, I am in a minority of four on the state board. The six member majority on the state board have held the hearings and seem determined to change the definition of science.

Kansas has a long history of very strong education. Kansas is rated in the top 10 of about anything that is used to measure educational quality nationally. That is one of the things that the minority on the state board finds so troublesome we feel the quality of our education system could be jeopardized as a result of this action to weaken science standards. Unfortunately, our minority of four votes will not stop the six member majority on the board from acting.

In 1999 the state board adopted science standards that seriously de-valued evolution. In 2000 the Kansas electorate removed three of the four members who voted for the 1999 flawed standards. I expect they will do the same in 2006.

Also, if you are not a Kansans' be aware this movement is in your state as well. Are you registered to vote and prepared to keep this element out of positions of authority in your state? Some of the six member majority were elected in Primary Elections with less than a 10% voter turnout.

Four of the six member majority will be up for election in 2006: Bacon, Van Meter, Willard, Morris. I am compiling a list of folks from all over the world who want to help defeat these four. If you would like to help just let me know and I will add your name. Thanks for caring.

Sincerely,

Sue Gamble

PS The standards as now proposed by the six member majority do not include the words creationism or intelligent design but the definition of science tacitly includes the acknowledgement that there are other explantions for science than natural ones. The language is subtle but the concepts are there and I think they weaken the science standards and I will oppose them.


From: Kathy Martin [mailto:martinkathy@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:05 PM
To: steveg
Subject: Re: Intelligent Design

Dear Mr. Gruenwald, Only alternatives which are supported by scientific research and data will be allowed in science classes in Kansas. Thanks for your information and suggestions. Sincerely, Kathy Martin


From: Steve Gruenwald
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:59 AM
To: 'Kathy Martin'
Subject: RE: Intelligent Design


Ms. Martin:

You say:

> Dear Mr. Gruenwald, Only alternatives which are
> supported by scientific research and data will be
> allowed in science classes in Kansas. Thanks for your
> information and suggestions. Sincerely, Kathy Martin

Oh, then, a correction is needed to the current proposal as written. The "Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards" statement says:

> While the testimony presented at the science hearings
> included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these
> standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this
> scientific disagreement.

I take it from your reply to me that the notion of Intelligent Design will *not* be allowed in science classes in Kansas, and teachers will be advised that teaching it in the public school classroom is in fact prohibited.

     - Steven Gruenwald