Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence
A column about Kansas Science Standards
Monday, November 14, 2005
By Steve Abrams, chairman, Kansas State Board of Education
Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Is there any truth or facts that can come out of what has been bandied about in the media in the last few days?
Let me first comment a little about what my critics claim. Some of my critics claim it is nothing short of trying to insert the supernatural into the Science classroom. Others claim I am trying to insert creation into the Science classroom via the backdoor. A few claim that I know nothing about science and that my Doctorate must have come from a mail order catalog.
The critics also claim that in the scientific community, there is no controversy about evolution. They then proceed to explain that I ought to understand something about this, because surely I can see that over a period of time, over many generations, a pair of dogs will “evolve”. There is a high likelihood that the progeny several generations down the line will not look like the original pair of dogs. And then some of the critics will claim that this proves that all living creatures came from some original set of cells.
Obviously, that is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding, but they prefer to misinform the media and assassinate the character of qualified scientists who are willing to shed some light. In our Science Curriculum Standards, we called this micro-evolution and macro-evolution… changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another. Again, as previously stated, evolutionists want nothing to do with trying to clarify terms and meanings.
Most of the critics that send me email send 4 basic comments: they claim that we are sending Kansas back to the Dark Ages, or that we are making a mockery of science, or that we are morons for putting Intelligent Design into the Science Standards or that they also are Christian and believe in evolution.
There are a few critics that want to present an intellectual argument about why Intelligent Design should not be included in the Science Curriculum Standards. They claim that ID is not good science. From the aspect that Intelligent Design is not a full fledged developed discipline, I would agree. But, if one takes the time to read the Science Curriculum Standards, they would see that Intelligent Design is not included.
So, what are a couple of the main areas that our critics take issue?
It seems that instead of making it a “he said”, and then “she said”, and then “he said” and so on and on, it would make sense to go to the document about which everyone is supposedly commenting about: The Kansas Science Curriculum Standards.
The critics claim that we have redefined science to include a backdoor to Biblical creation or the super-natural.
From Science Curriculum Standards, page ix:
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
Where does that say the field of science is destroyed and the back door opened to bring Biblical creation into the science classroom?
Another claim that our critics promote through the media is that we are inserting Intelligent Design. Again, if we go to the Science Curriculum Standards, Standard 3 Benchmark 3 Indicators 1-7 (pg 75-77). This is the heart of the “evolution” area. Only 7 indicators…
1) understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors.
2) understands populations of organisms may adapt to environmental challenges and changes as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and various mechanisms of genetic change.
3) understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms.
4) understands organisms vary widely within and between populations. Variation allows for natural selection to occur.
5) understands that the primary mechanism of evolutionary change (acting on variation) is natural selection.
6) understands biological evolution is used as a broad, unifying theoretical framework for biology.
7) explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.
As anyone can see, Intelligent Design is not included. But many of our critics already know this. This is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”
Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution. Evolutionists are the ones minimizing open scientific inquiry from their explanation of the origin of life. They do not want students to know that peer reviewed journals, articles and books have scientific criticisms of evolution.
So instead of participating in the Science hearings before the State Board Sub-Committee and presenting testimony about evolution, they stand out in the hall and talk to the media about how the PhD scientists that are presenting testimony about the criticisms “aren’t really scientists”… “they really don’t know anything”… “they obviously are in the minority and any real scientist knows there is not a controversy about evolution.”
Instead of discussing the issues of evolution, noisy critics go into attack mode and do a character assassination of anyone that happens to believe that evolution should actually be subject critical analysis.
In spite of the fact that the State Board approved Science Curriculum Standards that endorses critical analysis of evolution (supported by unrefuted testimony from many credentialed scientists at the Science Hearings) and does NOT include Intelligent Design, and add to that, the fact that scientific polls indicate that a large percentage of parents do not want evolution taught as dogma in the science classroom… what is the response from some of the Superintendents around Kansas? They seem to indicate that, “We don’t care what the State Board does, and we don’t care what parents want, we are going to continue teaching evolution just as we have been doing.”
But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, because Superintendents and local boards of education in some districts continue to promulgate pornography as “literature”, even though many parents have petitioned the local boards to remove the porn. Obviously that is a different issue than the Science Standards, but it still points out the lack of commitment on the part of administration in some districts to allow parents to control the education for their own children.
I have repeatedly stated this is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… this is about what constitutes good science standards for the students of the state of Kansas. I would encourage those who believe we are promoting a back door to creation or Intelligent Design to actually do your homework… READ and investigate the Science Curriculum Standards (www.ksde.org) and base your comments on them and not on the misinformation critics have been plastering the print and clogging the airways with… unless of course, your only defense really is baseless character assassination.
Oh, and why did you paste together two seperate posts, deleting the reference to the 2nd law, which was in reference to the statement about which you complain?
Surely, you are not modifying, selectively deleting, and misquoting to try to pursuade?
Sounds like what the serpant did to poor Adam, to me.
"As anyone can see, Intelligent Design is not included. But many of our critics already know this. This is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”
That lying sob. In their opening remarks in the standards they no less than two times refer to ID as "scientific". No doubt where they are trying to go.
Thank you, Patrick, for the link. I believe it is revealing to compare these standards with the previous ones.
Here is a link to the previous standards, adopted in 2001. I found this document by using the search function on their website, and typing in "science standards."
Science Education Standards. Please note that this is a PDF document and somewhat largish.
Starting on page 74, the standards read for high school life sciences:
Benchmark 3: Students will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution.* (see p. 76)
1. That the theory of evolution is both the history of descent, with modification of different lineages of organisms from common ancestors, and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes (modified from Futuyma, et al., 1999).
2. That biologists use evolution theory to explain the earth's present day biodiversity, the number, variety and variability of organisms.
Example:
Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. The fossil record provides evidence of simple, bacteria-like life as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago. Natural selection, and other processes, can cause populations to change from one generation to the next. A single population can separate into two or more independent populations. Over time, these populations can also become very different from each other. If the isolation continues, the genetic separation may become irreversible. This process is called speciation. Populations, and entire lineages, can go extinct. One effect of extinction is to increase the apparent differences between populations. As intermediate populations go extinct, the surviving lineages can become more distinct from one another.
3. That biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.
Example:
Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive to reproduce; 5) the advantageous heritable traits increase in the population through time.
4. The sources and value of variation.
Examples:
Variation of organisms within and among species increases the likelihood that some members will survive under changed environmental conditions. New heritable traits primarily result from new combinations of genes and secondarily from mutations or changes in the reproductive cells; changes in other cells of a sexual organism are not passed to the next generation.
5. That evolution is a broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology.
Examples:
Evolution provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable insights, especially in agriculture and medicine. The common ancestry of living things allows them to be classified into a hierarchy of groups; these classifications or family trees follow rules of nomenclature; scientific names have unique definitions and value. Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record that correlates with geochemical (e.g., radioisotope) dating results. The distribution of fossil and modern organisms is related to geological and ecological changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration).
[Note this disclaimer - LC]
*Understand: "Understand" does not mandate "belief." While students may be required to understand some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical problems, they may accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where students' and/or parents' beliefs may be at odds with current scientific theories or concepts. See Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page 59.
End cite.
Now, following the link that you gave, Patrick, I compared the new standards, also for high school life sciences starting around page 75:
Benchmark 3: Students will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution.
[...snip... -LC]
f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:
i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and
iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
End cite. Notice, in the new standards the disclaimer of "understanding" is absent.
But in the article, Steve Abrams claims: In spite of the fact that the State Board approved Science Curriculum Standards that endorses critical analysis of evolution (supported by unrefuted testimony from many credentialed scientists at the Science Hearings) and does NOT include Intelligent Design...
How can this be so, when they have included in the high school life sciences benchmark key creationist/intelligent design talking points: that comparitive genomics disagrees with the fossil record, and the Cambrian Explosion complexity argument, and the notion that evolution has been "challenged in recent years."
I would have to say when Mr Abrams claims "But, if one takes the time to read the Science Curriculum Standards, they would see that Intelligent Design is not included" that he is talking through his teeth.
And that makes him an authority on biology how?
Then you should know full well how dishonest people can distort the bible to read what they want it to ...
Did you read their two page forward about how ID is credible science?
Abrams is in a different category from the typical creationist poster here on this website. The typical creationist we encounter isn't steeped in the issues. He's basically going with some old misinformation, and for some reason he doesn't want to learn that he may be wrong. This is, by my standards, a peculiar intellectual position, but it's not evil.
Abrams, on the other hand, is what I'd regard as a "professional" creationist. He's had a few years of intense exposure to the issues. So he knows the issues, and unless he's a case of walking brain-death, he also knows that his position isn't scientific, and that it doesn't belong in a science curriculum. So as to him (as with the folks who maintain creationist websites), I conclude that he's either intentionally lying, or else he's insane. Possibly both, but an insane person can't control himself.
The people of Kansas deserve better. Perhaps, as in Dover, the electorate will wake up and toss these fools out. And I hope the GOP gets the message they were sent in Dover -- ID is an electoral loser. It's gotta be dumped.
"Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards
We believe it is in the best interest of educating Kansas students that all students have a good working knowledge of science: particularly what defines good science, how science moves forward, what holds science back, and how to critically analyze the conclusions that scientists make. Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”
From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on all sides of the debate. But as interesting as these personal questions may be, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards nor are they the basis for the Board’s actions in this area.
Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory.
All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.
We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreementwith the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. 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.
Finally, we would like to thank the Science Standards Committee for their commitment and dedication in their work toward the standards.
But, But, But a "soldier of God" is allowed to lie for the cause.
I take exception to that. I'm probably as nuts as they come and yet I evince amazing self-control.
Festival of the Professional Anti-Evo
" Kansas Science Standards"
There's an oxymoron!
Yes, and that's true of most creationists too. I was thinking of the kind of lunatic who barks like a dog and stuff like that. Not responsible for his actions. Perhaps the Kansas School Board has some of those.
The world would be a much more knowledgable place if all the Creationoids refused all medical advances that are due to evolution.
I.E. No more antibiotics and flu shots!
he also knows that his position isn't scientific, and that it doesn't belong in a science curriculum. So as to him (as with the folks who maintain creationist websites), I conclude that he's either intentionally lying, or else he's insane.
My vote goes to intentionally lying, rationalized by a perceived dispensation because it's a fight to the death against being the 'evil' of evolution. I think a good cross examiner will bring this out under oath , if it comes to that.
I finally figured out the definition and limits of micro-evolution.
It's evolution that goes just to the level that produces benefits anti-evolutions want...but not beyond.
I finally figured out the definition and limits of micro-evolution.
It's when micro-evolution becomes unkind.
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.