| Kansas Evolution Hearings |
Article Index for Kansas |
Website Links For Kansas |
Information AboutKansas Evolution Hearings |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT KANSAS EVOLUTION HEARINGS | |
| education in kansas | |
| evolution hearings | |
| politics of kansas | |
| intelligent design | |
| intelligent design movement | |
| intelligent design controversies | |
|
The hearings were boycotted by mainstream scientists, who accused it of being a Kangaroo Court and argued that their participation would lend an undeserved air of legitimacy to the hearings. The Scientific Community rejects the teaching intelligent design as science; a leading example being the United States National Academy Of Sciences , which issued a policy statement saying "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." {Link without Title} . Board member Kathy Martin declared at the beginning of the hearings "Evolution has been proven false. ID ( Intelligent Design ) is science-based and strong in facts." At their conclusion she proclaimed that evolution is "an unproven, often disproven" theory. {Link without Title} Intelligent design argues that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly Christian, but it is theistic," asserted Martin. [http://www.reason.com/rb/rb052505.shtml OVERVIEW In the November 8, 2005 the Kansas Board of Education approved the following changes to its science standards: # Add to the mission statement a goal that science education should seek to "inform." # Provide a definition of science that does not preclude supernatural explanations such as intelligent design. # Allow intelligent design to be presented as an alternative explanation to evolution as presented in mainstream biology textbooks, without endorsing it. # State that evolution is a theory and not a fact. # Require informing students of purported scientific controversies regarding evolution. The hearings that determined these standards arose out of the actions of Conservative Christian groups, both in the state and nationwide, to reverse what they see as a domination in science education by the Scientific Theory of Evolution . Their efforts have resulted in the Intelligent Design Movement and the related Teach The Controversy campaign, both products of the Discovery Institute , a conservative Christian Think Tank . Kansas Board of Education elections in 2004 gave religious conservatives a 6-4 majority. In 2005, prompted by the Kansas Intelligent Design Network {Link without Title} , the board sought new high school science standards that, though not eliminating evolution entirely from instruction, would present it as a theory greatly challenged and disputed, in effect ''teaching the controversy'' and presenting intelligent design as an alternative. The Intelligent Design Network originally proposed over 20 pages of revisions to the science standards, The Intelligent Design Network proposals were rejected by the science standards committee (made up of Kansas scientists and educators) appointed by the Board of Education, and were also rejected by 12 independent scientists who reviewed the proposed revisions {Link without Title} . Each side was invited to provide witnesses to testify before the board for intelligent design or evolution, with the taxpayers of Kansas covering the travel expenses {Link without Title} . The scientific community refused to participate en masse. The pro-intelligent design group, the Intelligent Design Network, invited a collection of 22 witnesses. Among these were a number scientists with no professional experience with evolution and of nonscientists. The position of the scientific community is that there is no controversy to teach, that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community as a valid, well-supported theory and that such disagreements that do exist are about the details of evolution's mechanisms, not the validity of evolution itself. For example the National Association of Biology Teachers in a statement endorsing evolution as noncontroversial quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." and went on to state that the quote "accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes." They emphasized that "Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process" and that "The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences." {Link without Title} The hub of the proponents portray evolution as a "theory in crisis." As well as proposing its own draft science standards to the Kansas State Board of Education the Discovery Institute participated in presenting a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Institute associate, Dr. Philip S. Skell [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2568&program=CSC . A notable intelligent design proponent, Dr. Skell's letter to the board touts the alleged benefits of the Teach the Controversy approach, as well his credentials as a member of the National Academy of Sciences, despite the fact the National Academy of Sciences issued a policy statement against the Teach the Controversy solution and intelligent design as a concept. Two intelligent design proponents, John H. Calvert, a lawyer and a Managing Director of Intelligent Design Network, Inc., and William S. Harris, Ph.D., co-author with Calvert of ''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'' (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003) were instrumental in pushing for the successful adoption of the new standards, including submitting a ''Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law'' and numerous other documents [http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/sci_standards.htm . Both are active participants in the intelligent design movement [http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/people.htm]. Discovery Institute fellows used the media coverage of the hearings to take their message to the public. The Institute's vice president and program director, Stephen C. Meyer , appeared on the Fox News show ''The Big Story with John Gibson'', where he debated Eugenie Scott , executive director of the National Center For Science Education . There Meyer sought to convey the Institute's message that debate over evolution is not a ploy to get religious ideas into public schools, that evolution is a theory in crisis, and that students were currently being taught in error there was no scientific controversy over evolution. The proposed changes were not supported by most of the 26 members of the panel that reviews state science curriculum. The hearings drew criticism from leading scientists and organizations, some comparing the hearings to the sensationalism of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" . Many scientists and scientific groups, despite being invited to participate by the organizers, chose not to, and it has been referred to as the "Kansas Kangaroo Court ". Some organized active boycotts, others ignored it on the basis that any attention paid to it by the scientific community could have been used adversely. The board has been accused of misuse of the political process for holding the hearings in the first place. Estimates place the cost of the hearings at $10,000, all funded by taxes. The board was also criticized for possible unfairness towards Pedro Irigonegaray, the Topeka lawyer who argued in favor of evolution. Supporters cite that Calvert was given more time to argue his side, but the opposition states that Irigonegaray "broke the rules" of the hearings by ignoring Calvert's questions to him. Concerns have also been raised that such a public attack on accepted theory could hamper the abilities of Kansas students to excel in science, as well as endanger their later prospects regarding universities and the job market. Kansas has had experience with the debate before. In 1999 they voted to remove any mention of Macroevolution , the Age Of The Earth , and the Origin Of The Universe from science curriculum. In 2001 the position was reversed as the membership of the board was changed due to the previous year's elections. But the board elections in 2004 have given conservatives a majority of the ten seats, causing the curriculum to again be evaluated. RESULT The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 August 9, 2005 to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote. The standards received final approval on November 8, 2005. The new standards were approved by 6 to 4, reflecting the makeup of religious conservatives on the board. {Link without Title} Kansas joins Ohio in adopting public school science standards critical of evolution in the past four years. New Mexico has also been reported in some sources to have standards critical of evolution but this is erroneous. While other states are backing away from teaching alternatives to evolution, the Oklahoma House passed a bill Thursday, March 2, 2006, encouraging schools to expose students to alternative views about the origin of life. Popular reaction included the creation of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism . Its founder insists it should be offered as a "third" theory on origins, suggesting possible legal action if it is not included and intelligent design is. NOTES AND REFERENCES |
|
|