A column about Kansas Science Standards

EducationNews.org ^ | November 14, 2005 | State Board Chairman Steve Abrams, DVM

[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.

[GarySpFc]

Yes, people can distort the Bible, but I have not.

[WildTurkey]

Yes, people can distort the Bible, but I have not.

You are only human.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Then 30 years in the future, these are all debunked or altered by the new MyEgoUon inverted anti-quark theory. Science will be all a-ga-ga with the elegant mathematics generated for this theory."

Do you think that science can ever advance or does it just go round and round in circles, discarding old theories with ones that don't have any more explanatory power than the replaced one? When a new theory is accepted, does that wipe out all of the observations that were part of the old theory or are they incorporated into the new theory?

[WildTurkey]

Take the theory of flight.

Creationism 101: Angels hold the planes aloft.

[WildTurkey]

I guarantee you any aircraft designed with strict adherence to these faulty scientific concepts (in the theory of flight) would not fly, so they were not. Yet this theory of flight was stated as absolute as the theory of gravity for many years.

If this theory of flight was so absolute for so many years, how come all the planes could fly. This is another of your many ignorant distortions based on your scientific ignorance.

[PatrickHenry]

The scientific case against powered flight

1. For thousands of years, powered flight has been known to be impossible.
2. If God meant man to fly, He'd have given us wings.
3. There is no evidence of powered flight. None at all.
4. Those who claim to have flown are liars, in it for the money.
5. Things seen in the sky other than birds are, in truth, evidence of supernatural beings.
6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out heavier-than-air flight.
7. Powered flight upsets the natural order, and leads to sexual promiscuity.
8. Powered flight is not mentioned in the Bible.
9. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), a highly regarded scientist and president of the Royal Society of London, stated flatly in 1885, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
10. It takes more faith to believe in powered flight than to believe in the tooth fairy. Teach the controversy!

[VadeRetro]

9. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), a highly regarded scientist and president of the Royal Society of London, stated flatly in 1885, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

You have to wonder if anyone asked Kelvin about birds and insects.

[Liberal Classic]

Lord Kelvin also said "Radio has no future" which turned out to be utter nonsense. However, he also said "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science."

[Coyoteman]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke's Law, later the first of the three laws, was proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in Profiles of the Future (1962). The second law is offered as a simple observation in the same essay; its status as Clarke's Second Law was conferred on it by others.

In a revised edition of Profiles of the Future (1973), Clarke acknowledged the Second Law and proposed the Third in order to round out the numbers, adding "As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly decided to stop there."

[PatrickHenry]

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.
-- Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law

[Liberal Classic]

I'm with you. I don't think that average folks who post on these threads are practicing deception. If someone tells me they believe the way they do because that is what their faith tells them, I don't have any problem with that.

But you're absolutely right that Mr Abrams should know better. He was elected, and draws a taxpayer salary, based on the premise that he knows what science is, and what the schools ought to be teaching. That he has injected his own personal beliefs into the curriculum shows that he has abandonded professional standards.

[longshadow]

7. Powered flight upsets the natural order, and leads to sexual promiscuity.

Ahhh; that would explain the "Hot Nympho Stewardess" erotic film genre...

[The_Reader_David]

Exactly. The quoted passage from the Kansas BOR standards spoke only about criticism of origin of life theories, hence my question if that was what the row was about, and whether anyone had other omitted quotations.

[Quark2005]

Science parodies itself these fields.

Not really. The science of evolution has improved dramatically since Darwin's time, and the science of cosmology has improved dramatically since Hubble's time, much like the theories of flight and gravity that you also reference.

You seem to be under the false impression that evolution and cosmology have not advanced since their inception. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our knowledge in both these areas have grown tremendously with the new evidence.

Newtonian theory of gravity contradicted Einstein's theory, Einstein's theory needs tied together with string theory ad infinitum

A more accurate statement would be that Newton's theory is a subset of Einstein's theory; Einstein's theory is a subset of string theory. Newton's theory was not rendered invalid by Einstein, only determined to be valid in a limited dynamic realm. Einstein improved Newton's theory, he didn't abolish it.

Similarly, Darwin's theory hasn't been abolished, it has merely been improved upon. Darwin had no concept of genetics, for example, but everything we have learned about genetics has only reinforced the basic precepts of evolution. Original pioneers of the Big Bang theory had no concept of inflationary theory in cosmology, either, but once again, that does not render invalid the theory, it only extends it. Yes, there are still gaps in our knowledge in various places, but not the uncrossable chasm that you seem to be portraying. Science has accomplished a lot, and I don't see any purpose in scrapping that knowledge just because it may unpalatable to some.

[curiosity]

hence my question if that was what the row was about, and whether anyone had other omitted quotations.

See post #18. The author of the article that is the subject of the post has omitted other quotations. I don't think anyone is objecting to the abiogenesis part of the standards.

[RunningWolf]

I have the answer, but I want to wait and see what your answer is. If your are what you say you are, then you already know. If your only answer is what you said here after your 2 hypothetical questions, then it is nothing. In fact your questions may reveal already, but I will wait for you.

See thats part of it, lets try to have a real dialog here. Or are you a scientist or not?

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

I meant to say it more like that. I will get back to you. But I had links to sources that even the scientists here would have difficult time discounting. And those said part of Newtons laws were contradicted by Einstein's.

But your last paragraph. You acknowledge gaps in the theories and also say the one theory extends another (I add into infinity), then you conclude that this is knowledge. You can certainly hang onto your knowledge. I say it is nothing close to reality but very far fetched theory. We just have the tiniest subsets of reality and you guys are calling game, it does you poorly IMO.

All Darwin observed is speciation, turtles becoming other turtles, iguanas becoming other iguanas, et al, nothing else. Therefore the conclusions drawn from that were a great reach, and I say wrong. Genetics only reinforces that conclusion in the minds of those that have adopted that conclusion, then they see their conclusion in the evidence.

See thats one problem many people see with the contemporary scientists, maybe its in the presentation of the scientists.

As a 17 year old, I put an arrow (with a 45lb re-curve) within 6" of a flying pheasant 50' away and with a limited understanding of the 'physics' involved, we now send a vehicles to intercept Titan. Very fantastic yes, but see my analogy?

Wolf

[mlc9852]

I would never vote for a candidate that didn't support introducing ID. And if a Democrat supported it, they would get my vote. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[MHalblaub]

For me parts of the "Kansas Science Education Standards" are just copied out of a creationist textbook.

page 75ff
Additional Specificity:
1.c ...However, in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution.
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.
...
3. d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence.
...
7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, thesequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

page 105

Glossary:
Biological evolution: a scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The longterm perspective focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective centers on changes within lineages. In the long term, evolution is the descent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors. In the short term, evolution is the on-going adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.

The glossary is just a strawman for the creationistic mirco-macro nonsense.

[PatrickHenry]

200