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.
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.