Posted on 10/22/2005 2:36:07 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Proposed Kansas science standards that detractors view as attacking evolution have been criticized by a nonprofit educational research firm for being confusing and poorly written in places.
A report from the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning in Aurora, Colo., gave the Kansas standards good marks for being appropriate for all students, meeting testing criteria and challenging students to learn at a high level.
However, the report criticized the standards as unclear, especially in areas related to evolution and the study of life's origins. The review noted the state doesn't expect to test students on many key elements of evolution covered by language in the standards.
"These standards still need a lot of work, and there's still a lot of problems with them," said Steve Case, assistant director of the Center for Science Education at the University of Kansas.
Case is co-chairman of a committee of educators who proposed revising the state's existing science standards but continuing to treat evolution as solid science, crucial for students to learn. Kansas law requires the State Board of Education to update academic standards regularly.
The board could vote on the final version of the science standards later this year. The standards will be used to develop tests for students.
Intelligent-design advocates persuaded the state board's 6-4 conservative [Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!] majority to include language in the proposed standards indicating there's a controversy over evolutionary theory - drawing criticism from many scientists.
The state board ordered Mid-Continent's review, a standard practice when the board is revising academic standards. The board could order its staff or Case's committee to make further revisions in response.
But Case said his committee is unlikely to do more work, noting that much of the criticism in the Mid-Continent review arose from changes made by conservative board members.
Case said there's no excuse for anything but top scores from an outside review. However, Mid-Continent's criticisms - that parts of the proposed standards were poorly worded or unclear or that statements were not supported by scientists - are reason to continue working on the document, he said.
Yet the Mid-Continent report cited only 7 percent of the material in the standards as questionable. Much of that material reflected intelligent-design advocates' criticism of evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create the building blocks of life, that all life has a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor .
"I'm not sure the public understands the nature of this review," Case said. "What they will hear is that the standards are pretty solid."
John Calvert, a retired Lake Quivira attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said he expected criticism of the proposed standards.
But he noted that a board subcommittee had four days of hearings in May to examine questions about evolutionary theory. National and state science groups boycotted, viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution.
"I could have predicted the reviewers would not embrace these changes. I would not expect the reviewers to be jumping for joy," Calvert said.
Intelligent-design advocates argue some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause. Calvert said including language they seek in the standards gives teachers the freedom to consider other theories and to have a meaningful discussion of evolution.
Case said the proposed standards confuse the lines between good science and the supernatural. He added that an outside review isn't going to show much support for intelligent design or other ideas not accepted by scientists.
And Case said approval of new standards could be delayed if the national and international science groups balk at allowing their materials to be part of the Kansas standards.
In 1999, those organizations refused to grant copyright permission for changes in the Kansas standards that eliminated most references to evolution. Two years later, after elections, the board rewrote the standards again, making them evolution-friendly.
Calvert said it would be unfortunate to delay the process, but not unexpected if copyrights became a sticking point.
"If national organizations try to use that kind of strong-arm method, it's just another example of science interfering with education," Calvert said. [Unbelievable statement.]
I certainly did not mean to miss the point of what you said, and if I did, I apologize. Perhaps it would help if you restated the point in slightly different terms?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha...... good one.
Oh... you were serious. Oops.
You are also aware that ID includes the theory of evolution?
Ok, ok I know, change the urinal cakes and clean up the visitor's bathroom.[sigh]
We think of it as natural selection.
[whisper]Where did I put those exploding urinal cakes?[/whisper]
OK boss.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
PatrickHenry
Take care Sensei.
This humble archivist is honored.
PatrickHenry Jr.? I smell nepotism. I demand an audience with the Grand Master, who I suspect is really an old 6502 computer.
He won't see you (see #51, above).
Man does not walk by sight alone.
He doesn't look like a 6502.
Not very much, apparently, if they expect Science Education to be government-financed, but not subject to the vicissitudes of public policy.
Thanks for the ping!
YEC INTREP
Patrick Henry is making a categorical point, and to imply that any given category, or school of thought is beyond reproach, especially for conservatism, is not only bad, it's dangerous.
Why
I certainly don't have a history of evasive behavior, and I've never defended, nor advocated, Intelligent Design.
Of course, if you happen to mean that there literally is a big duck somewhere in my post, then I'm afraid that I can't be of help with that perceptual error either.
As a matter of incidence now though, from where I'm sitting, you're perception isn't very impressive, and I'm afraid that from this point further, I'll have to ask for empirical evidence to accompany any observations. I have my standards you know.
One more duck and I have to assume that you are ok with teaching children that God may be dead.
Why don't you just pull it out of the duck's butt and assume what you will. What difference does it make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.