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.
Or, perhaps, try the URL in the article I posted. I'm beginning to think no one reads before they comment. *g*
Ah, yes, a real conservative. We should shut down private schools and home schools, too, eh? Pardon, but your rampant liberalism is peeking through... Don't you hate that when that happens? lol
I think you might be confusing Gish with Henry Morris - he's a hydraulic engineer, I believe.
Yes, it does. Thank you. *g*
The "five words" bit is also a thoroughly dishonest representation of the changes made to the Kansas standards. There's also a bit tossed in asserting that the fossil record does not support evolution.
This might surprise Behe, who is on record in "Darwin's Black Box" and under oath in court saying that the fossil record does support evolution.
I believe that is "Dr." Abrams to you... but, why bother with facts. *g*
Ah, the old bait and switch. I was talking about evolution and criticism thereof. What are you talking about? It seems some agenda, because the focus keeps slipping.
The foreign journals are just as atheistic, materialist, Satanic, blah! blah! blah! as those with their HQs in the US. If there was a body of "foreign" research contradicting the preponderance of opinion in US science, it would be all over these threads and we'd have been talking about it for years now.
Yes, you named no one, but I am familiar with the antievolution arguments and who makes them. And the preponderance of opinion in science is not anything you want it to be. That and not the personal attachments of state or local school board members should be reflected in the preparation of educational materials.
I see... well, glad to see that you're man enough to admit you hadn't read the article and can't see the URL unless it's linked. That certainly warrants some name calling, doesn't it? Well, then, back to talking to the reasonable and intelligent... lol
BTW, is school out today?
Okay, is that what this row was all about? A clause in science standards mandating criticism of origin-of-life theories? Any of the Kansans are yahoos (in Swift's sense, not subscribers to a certain on-line company) crowd have some missing quotations from the Kansas BOR standards to show otherwise?
Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education.
I beg to differ, but those who toss the word "lie" around so casually can probably substantiate their claims, right?
Precisely.
It was early in October
When I was far from sober
And hauling home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter,
So I tumbled in the gutter
And soon a pig was seated by my side.Then I warbled "It's fair weather
When good fellows get together,"
'Till a lady passing by was heard to say,
"You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses."
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.
No bait and switch. I was asking for citations for peer-reviewed literature that criticize the general validity of evolution. You still haven't provided any.
Till then, I see no reason to introduce scientific critiques that don't exist into a school curriculum...
> I see the distinction.
Clearly you do not. Please return to grade school for a refresher course.
...why bother with facts....
Dr Abrahms didn't in the article posted.
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.