Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 | Science : Teaching Science | print version Print | Comments

Document Kansas science standards evolve again, becoming pro-Darwin

by John Hanna

Reposted from:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/16691686.htm

Thanks to Bret for sending this story our way.

TOPEKA, Kan. - New, evolution-friendly science standards for Kansas' public schools were adopted Tuesday by the State Board of Education, replacing ones that questioned the theory and generated international ridicule.

The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of "intelligent design," who had helped write the older standards being jettisoned.

Some scientists and science groups believed the board's latest action was significant because it turned back a subtle attack on evolution that encouraged schools to teach about an evolution "controversy," rather than mandating that creationism or intelligent design be taught. Intelligent design says an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe.

"What we're seeing around the country is more attempts to qualify or downgrade evolution," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., which fights efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution. "The 'evidence against evolution' is the creationism du jour."

But John West, a senior fellow with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design research, predicted the Kansas board's vote would have little effect nationwide - just as states didn't follow Kansas' lead when the board adopted its previous standards in November 2005.

"It's not going to be a precedent in other states," he said. "Education is largely a state and local matter, so states are going to do what they think is best and so are local school boards."

Nor do people involved in Kansas' debate think the board's 6-4 vote Tuesday settles the issue. State law will require the board to update the standards again by 2014, and elections before then could give conservatives a majority again.

"I think we're good for two years," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who supported the new standards. "Who knows what the election will hold in two years?"

The state has had five sets of standards in eight years, with anti- and pro-evolution versions, each doomed by the seesawing fortunes of socially conservative Republicans and a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans. The moderate bloc had a 6-4 majority after elections last year; conservatives prevailed when the board adopted anti-evolution guidelines 15 months ago.

Although other states have seen debates and court fights over evolution, Kansas' back-and-forth have brought it additional attention. Scott also blames images others have of Kansas from "The Wizard of Oz."

"It's the centrality of Kansas as middle America and generic America that made this front-page news," she said. "You aren't unique, unfortunately."

The board on Tuesday removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts - like a common origin for all life on Earth and change in species creating new ones - were controversial and being challenged by new research. Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what's observed in the universe.

"Those standards represent mainstream scientific consensus about both what science is and what evolution is," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa math and technology teacher who helped write the new guidelines. He is also president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

But the board's conservative minority said the new standards will limit the relevant information students get about evolution.

"There seems to be a pattern," said board member Steve Abrams, an Arkansas City Republican. "Anything that might question the veracity of evolution is deleted."

Many Kansans harbor religious objections and other misgivings about evolution, even 198 years after British naturalist Charles Darwin's birth, which was Monday. The Intelligent Design Network presented petitions with almost 4,000 signatures, opposing the standards the board eventually adopted.

"Let's have an open mind and question things," Rebecca Hoagland, a research statistician from Osawatomie, said during a public hearing before the board's vote.

Hoagland said she home-schools her daughter and three sons. She believes public schools don't teach students how to think critically about such subjects as evolution, and "I don't see it changing."

Greg Lassey, a retired Wichita-area biology teacher, said the new standards also undermine families by "discrediting parents who reject materialism and the ethics and morals it fosters." And others, including John Calvert, a retired Lake Quivira attorney who help found the Intelligent Design Network, accused the board of promoting atheism.

But the Rev. Douglas Phenix, a retired Presbyterian minister from Topeka, welcomed the rewriting even though he acknowledged that, "The doctrine of creation is absolutely central to my belief system." He said the standards being replaced were "fraudulent" and suggested students had to choose between faith and evolution.

"I feel personally offended," he said. "It is a false choice."

The state uses it standards to develop tests that measure how well students are learning science. Although decisions about what's taught in classrooms remain with 296 local school boards, both sides in the evolution dispute say the standards will influence teachers as they try to ensure that their students test well.

Wichita Superintendent Winston Brooks said anti-evolution standards might have influenced teaching had they remained in place. But he and other educators had anticipated the old guidelines might be short-lived.

"We haven't changed our science books. We haven't changed our science curriculum," Brooks said. "I guess it's one of those things, if you wait long enough, this too shall pass."

Lisa Volland, a biology teacher at Topeka West High School, saw the board approving new standards as "housekeeping."

"I am glad that they are putting things back to the way they should be," she said. "I think the teacher shortage and the alarming state of affairs in science is where the focus needs to be now."

There were debates or legal battles in California, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Nevada and South Carolina over evolution and "intelligent design."

But none has inspired comedians' jokes or parodies like Kansas' ongoing battle has, such as the four-part "Evolution Schmevolution" series in 2005 on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

A conservative-led state board deleted most references to evolution in rewriting the standards in 1999; two years later, a less conservative board returned to evolution-friendly standards.

Conservative Republicans skeptical of evolution had a 6-4 majority when the standards came up for review again in 2005.

Hearings that year drew journalists from Canada, France, Great Britain and Japan. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Science Teachers and the American Association for the Advancement of Science condemned the board's actions.

But moderate Republicans captured two seats from conservatives in GOP primaries last year, guaranteeing a return to evolution-friendly guidelines.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat re-elected last year, cited embarrassment caused by the board's past decisions on evolution as a reason to strip it of its power to set education policy.

"Gov. Sebelius has consistently said that we need more science education in our schools, not less, so she is relieved to see the State Board of Education take this action," spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said.


Associated Press Writer John Milburn also contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Proposed science standards, including a comparison with the existing guidelines: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid144

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #22278 by eccles on February 13, 2007 at 10:05 pm

 avatarIt is a step in the right direction, but just watch those bible thumping fundamentalist whackos make sure kids are fed bible lies instead of letting them concentrate on proper science. Then America might be allowed to escape from the Dark Ages.

Other Comments by eccles

2. Comment #22283 by Al A. on February 13, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Amazing! It'll flip back and forth for the next few decades until the old guard finally dies off and young people find more entertaining things to do on Sunday. Atheist need to organize picnics and trips to museums. Who knows! Perhaps that is not exciting enough, afterall it is pretty amusing to watch the faithful shake, rattle, and roll in the aisles as they stew in their own milieu of emotion.

Eventually people will understand that the law of common descent and natural selection trumps the talking snake in the garden, afterall, as I ask my students, "has any organism ever existed without parents?" Appeal to their common sense and make it as concrete as possible. Use props to represent ancestors...plastic toy soldiers work fine. Many American children live in a helter skelter fast paced world with little connection to the historical past, especially in the west. How can they understand phylogeny when so many of them don't even know who their grandparents are? Heck, after the meth epidemic passes how many will know their parents?
Al A.

Other Comments by Al A.

3. Comment #22288 by MarcusA on February 13, 2007 at 11:28 pm

"Creationism Is Dead" - A Darwin Day Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwdoUkuHYZ8

Other Comments by MarcusA

4. Comment #22291 by denoir on February 13, 2007 at 11:55 pm

 avatarBut the Rev. Douglas Phenix, a retired Presbyterian minister from Topeka, welcomed the rewriting even though he acknowledged that, "The doctrine of things falling upwards is absolutely central to my belief system." He said the standards being replaced were "fraudulent" and suggested students had to choose between faith and gravity.

"I feel personally offended," he said. "It is a false choice."

Other Comments by denoir

5. Comment #22292 by vertigo25 on February 13, 2007 at 11:57 pm

 avatarThis is at least the second time today that I've heard the term "mainstream science" in a news report.

There's no such thing as "mainstream" science. This implies that there is an "alternative" science.

No.

There is only *science*.

Oh, how I wish every single news agency would send their reporters and writers to CFI's Science & the Public.

Other Comments by vertigo25

6. Comment #22302 by Jez on February 14, 2007 at 1:35 am

"There's no such thing as "mainstream" science. This implies that there is an "alternative" science.

No.

There is only *science*."

'Alternative' is another word for 'not'.

Other Comments by Jez

7. Comment #22312 by abilard on February 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

Does this mean they won't be teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-(

Other Comments by abilard

8. Comment #22322 by MelM on February 14, 2007 at 6:27 pm

I find it incredible how creationists want students taught about "critical thinking" applied to evolution. Creationist posing as advocates of critical thinking? Puke! It's just spin used to hack together an argument (all religious "thinking"?), and, as typical of spin, it'll come back to bite them on the ass.

Ok, fine, let's have a class on critical thinking. Lesson #1: Faith is not thinking at all! Lesson #2: Faith can't achieve knowledge; it only results in dogma. Lesson #3: All religion is irrational.

Count on it. If the faith freaks got wind of a "thinking" class that didn't allow faith, they'd pull out all the stops trying to tinker with it or end it (if they understood what was going on.)

Yes, I've seen the term "main stream science" used in another story about the change in Kansas. It's something to be concerned about.

Other Comments by MelM

9. Comment #22331 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 14, 2007 at 9:57 pm

"Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what's observed in the universe."

This statement demonstrates a general misunderstanding of the concept of science. Science is indeed useful for explaining phenomena that regularly occur in the Universe, such as a rain storm or a solar flare, but its effectiveness is greatly diminished when attempting to explain historical events, especially those that imply a supernatural causation due to our current knowledge of the universe and how it operates. Historical science, if you wish to call it science, simply does not entail near the same level of certainty that can be provided by empirical science. It is therefore hard for me to understand why militant atheists believe their extreme dogma to be justified with such a high level of certainty that they feel they reserve the logical right to assert that only half-witted ninnies can believe in such fairy tales as a supernatural being causing a supernatural event.

Now before you all start loading your guns, keep in mind that the word "supernatural" simply implies that which exceeds, or is unbound by nature and the subsequent laws. For instance, when we try to conceptualize the beginning of the Universe, it is indeed proper to call it a "supernatural" occurrence, for such an event is never observed in nature, nor is it implied by any natural phenomenon. This is a question that science was never meant to answer given its inherent limitations. The creation event cannot be repeated, and it was not observed. It therefore it falls in the realm of history. Science can certainly give us clues as to what could have happened, but it can offer little more than this. It is a tool, and it has its limits.

It just frustrates me when people such as Dawkins use the word science in respect to alleged historical events such as reptiles magically turning into birds and then use it in the context of empirical science interchangeably and without distinction, therefore causing anyone who doesn't know any better to infer that this pseudo-science carries the same level of certainty that empirical science can offer. This is the fallacy of equivocation, and I must admit it is very effective at muddying the water, so to speak.

It is therefore improper to make the claim that, as these new "definitions of science" assert, science can or has provided a sufficient answer to the question of origins. Science, when used correctly, can certainly provide us with logical inferences as to how certain historical events might have happened, but it is improper to equate what comes down to an interpretation of stagnant evidence to the same level of certainty offered by empirical science.

"#2: Faith can't achieve knowledge; it only results in dogma."

That's an interesting stance. It demonstrates a very, very shallow understanding of the concept of faith. Faith, contrary to your philosophically absurd claim, is a necessary condition for knowledge. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.

A mistake that Dawkins and many other atheists make is that they fail to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist. You cannot absolutely prove it, but it is a reasonable belief based on the general self-evident concept that our senses can be trusted most of the time. However, there still exists the element of faith.

I would encourage you to look past your own dogma and re-examine your beliefs, especially those regarding the concept of faith. I am often surprised to find how few atheists (or anyone for that matter, including Christians unfortunately) actually know why they believe what they do. Of course, on the off-chance that I am provided with a lumpy morsel of an atheist's justification, I am not surprised to find fallacy after fallacy hiding behind the already counter-intuitive claims.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

10. Comment #22336 by denoir on February 14, 2007 at 10:42 pm

 avatarBizarro:
For instance, when we try to conceptualize the beginning of the Universe, it is indeed proper to call it a "supernatural" occurrence, for such an event is never observed in nature, nor is it implied by any natural phenomenon.


When you drop a ball (at a specifict time and place) and it falls to the ground, it is a singular event. You will never see the exact same thing again. Yet from dropping a ball at a later time and observing what happens, you can deduce that last time the ball probably dropped to the floor.

The big bang followed the rules of physics and we have a fairly good idea of how things happened (read the "First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg). Our theories are confirmed by a huge number of independent measurements - everything from quantum fluctuations to cosmic background radiation, observation of stars and the temperature of our own earth. For us to be wrong about it all, terribly many things must have had gone extremely wrong.

It is not very probable because we are parading this knowledge every day in our technology. The quantum mechanics of the big bang is the same quantum mechanics that makes the transistors work in the computer you are sitting in front of right now.

But suppose that we knew nothing of the scientific research that justifies the theory of the big bang, evolution or gravity. Does that justify a wild assumption that some specific entity X is causing those things? Of course not. If we didn't know about the processes of evolution the claim that "God did it" would be equally (in)valid as "The Invisible Purple Cucumber did it".

It's not specific to science but is general common sense. If you found that somebody had broken into your house and I told you that general Zorg living on the planet Mars did it, you'd ask for some pretty strong evidence. You would have been sceptical as it goes against the observation that no generals Zorg or otherwise seem to inhabit planet Mars.

A mistake that Dawkins and many other atheists make is that they fail to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist. You cannot absolutely prove it, but it is a reasonable belief based on the general self-evident concept that our senses can be trusted most of the time. However, there still exists the element of faith.


I absolutely agree with you that we have a set of axiomatic beliefs about the world that are only confirmed in a self-referential manner that can never be proved. As you said, we are making the assumption that our senses represent on average a consistent representation of the world. There is not and can't ever be a way around it. The entire world might be in my head and not really exist and I could never prove it. Reasonable or not, such an assumption is a practical necessity.

The same thing cannot be said of Jesus' virgin birth or Mohammed flying on a winged horse to heaven or the Martian general Zorg raiding your apartment. Not only are these beliefs not existentially necessary but they are in conflict with the necessary assumptions about the world that we have made.

Comparing religion to some of the basic existential assumptions that we have to make is deeply flawed. We don't accept those axioms because we want to or because we feel good about it or even because we know them to be true. We accept them because they are the absolute minimum required to do any practical interacting with the world. Once we have accepted them we make sure that we are not in need of any additional unnecessary axiomatic beliefs as well as making sure that nothing comes in conflict with those that have by necessity already been defined.

That first assumption is an unfortunate necessity, but you need some form of reference point. However just because we have been forced to accept one unprovable (even worse - untestable and not falsifiable) assumption doesn't mean that we think it is a good thing and that we would accept any assumption that comes our way.

Other Comments by denoir

11. Comment #22340 by kkant on February 14, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Bizzaro: Maybe you consider the question of evolution to be unanswered. It is easy to insert God as the answer to unsolved scientific problems. What is your position on the matter of these unanswered questions? There are two possible answers: "I don't know" and "God did it". Which one do you choose?

Other Comments by kkant

12. Comment #22352 by Pantore on February 15, 2007 at 2:51 am

 avatar"It just frustrates me when people such as Dawkins use the word science in respect to alleged historical events such as reptiles magically turning into birds and then use it in the context of empirical science interchangeably and without distinction"

So it was magic that created birds out of reptiles?

Other Comments by Pantore

13. Comment #22354 by Jiten on February 15, 2007 at 4:01 am

 avatarBizzaro,I'm an atheist and this is my position also:

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything..."

Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist)

What's fallacious about that?

Other Comments by Jiten

14. Comment #22363 by Luthien on February 15, 2007 at 4:56 am

 avatar7. Comment #22312 by abilard on February 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

Does this mean they won't be teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-(

You evil celestial teapot infidel! You will spend eternity in the great saucer below for believing in your false noodly gods.

Other Comments by Luthien

15. Comment #22367 by Linda on February 15, 2007 at 6:08 am

A new film by evolutionary biologist Randy Olsen reveals that a scientist can have a delicious sense of humour.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20070214/LAW09314022007-1.html#

"LOS ANGELES, Feb. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Overflow crowds at national screenings of the funny and critically acclaimed documentary FLOCK OF DODOS: THE EVOLUTION - INTELLIGENT DESIGN CIRCUS, timed to coincide with Charles Darwin's birthday this month, are being further fueled by the unprecedented decision of the Kansas School Board. In a 6 to 4 vote on February 13, driven by school board members featured in FLOCK OF DODOS, the new board ousted the pro-intelligent design standards approved by the previous board. This makes Kansas not only the first school board to approve intelligent design standards, but also the first to reject them.
In FLOCK OF DODOS, filmmaker and evolutionary biologist Randy Olson pokes fun at both sides of the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy as he delves head first into the seriousness of the issue. One of the film's many revelations is that the controversy is less about science and more about communication dynamics. Over the past few days, the public's interest in learning more has been seen at packed screenings of FLOCK OF DODOS followed by very lively discussions in Kansas City, Seattle, San Francisco, Austin, Tucson, Los Angeles, Denver, London, etc. For complete schedule visit"
http://www.flockofdodos.com/.

Other Comments by Linda

16. Comment #22377 by MelM on February 15, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Let's not confuse axiomatic concepts with "faith". An axiom is validated by showing that a person must accept it even in the act of attacking it. For example, there is no way to attempt to invalidate the senses without somewhere assuming the validity of the senses. There are a number of concepts of this kind and they can't be used to ground "faith". I think these two short paragraphs about Aristotle (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) are quite beautiful and deal with the issue very well. One does not have to be an Aristotle expert (I'm certainly not) to understand them.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#FunPriAxi

One of the main theist modes of attack is to try to blow away confidence in reason itself. Instead of establishing the validiity of their own beliefs, they go on the attack and try to undercut any attempt at a rational criticism of the whole matter of religion thus making religion--any religion, unchallengable. This was evident in a post just the other day by a theologin attacking Dawkins. Another way one hears the attack is in the statement that "atheism is a religion" or "reason is an article of faith..." (from the amazon.com comments about "Letter to a Christion Nation." We all know that once faith (a vice) rules the day, it will take us into 1 of hundreds of religions, sects, or cults. The only reason I don't believe in Zeus or Bahá'u'lláh is because I don't have the faith. Religion depends on faith and the modern world depends on reason. Let Barbara Forrest state the issue more clearly.
http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/9..html

I urge everyone to pay close attention to the modes of theist attack. If we can't get better and better at dealing with them, religion wins--by default. At this point in history, our lives and freedom are at stake.

Other Comments by MelM

17. Comment #22382 by ksjohn on February 15, 2007 at 9:03 pm

As someone living in Kansas with a child in kindergarden, this situation is very bothersome. It was still a 6-4 vote!! I really don't want to have to worry about which way the political winds are blowing by the time my child is taking science classes. I am glad that the school board was ridiculed by the rest of the world to shine a light on the problem.

Other Comments by ksjohn

18. Comment #22384 by Chayanov on February 15, 2007 at 9:47 pm

How odd. I thought it was the creationists who were pushing the idea of things magically happening in the universe.

Other Comments by Chayanov

19. Comment #22459 by lasyadela on February 18, 2007 at 9:37 pm

 avatarFrankly, I'm surprised America is so backwards in that respect. Back home (I'm from a developing country) even though religion is integrated into almost ALL government schools, they still teach students about evolution...

Other Comments by lasyadela

20. Comment #22460 by Roy_H on February 19, 2007 at 1:30 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID_CXC2Zkuw&mode=related&search=
No prizes for guessing who the cartoon teacher reminds me of.

Other Comments by Roy_H
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: