Background

New science standards

1. Add to the mission statement a goal that science education should seek to "inform."
2. Provide a definition of science that doesn't preclude supernatural explanations.
3. Allow intelligent design to be presented as an alternative explanation to evolution as presented in mainstream biology textbooks, without endorsing it.
4. State that evolution is a theory and not a fact.
5. Require informing students of purported scientific controversies regarding evolution.

Opposition to new standards

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it can't be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."

"This is simply another instance of Darwinists attempting to oppose critical analysis of evolution by pretending that it's equivalent to teaching intelligent design. This is a political tactic based upon misinformation, misrepresentation, emotions, and false fears."

"My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I'd love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID. There is a lot of movement among science high school teachers to never teach ID, even if it becomes a law because "we don't know how to teach philosophy." It would be nice to see them learn. I worked in a school and grew tired of hearing them speak of how it's wrong to point out the weaknesses in Darwin's theory because, "even if it's weak, it's still the best theory out there." (Shades of Dawkins anyone?)"

"It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that's the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you're not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID. If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause...which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you've to invoke the idea of ID." Dembski's research assistant felt compelled to issue a clarification that he was only voicing his personal opinion, not that of others in the movement, and that he's Dembski's "assistant on theological work, not necessarily the ID movement."
   The Discovery Institute continues to deny allegations that its true agenda is religious, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ABC News asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path."
   Both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association spoke out against the new science standards; in addition to separate statements from each opposing the standards, the two groups issued a joint statement that the new Kansas standards are improved, but as currently written, they overemphasize controversy in the theory of evolution and distort the definition of science. The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association offered to work with the board to resolve these issues so the state standards could use text from the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards and National Science Teachers Association's Pathways to Science Standards, though they ultimately declined to grant use of the text due to Kansas State Board of Education members insisting on language "emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution" and "distorting the definition of science."
   The position of the scientific community is that there's 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."

Support for new standards

The hub of the intelligent design movement, the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, played a central role in bringing about the Kansas evolution hearings, first by supporting ID proponents in their bids for seats on the board, and later in aggressively lobbying for a "Teach the Controversy" solution (External Link). Teach the Controversy is a controversial political-action campaign originating from the Discovery Institute that seeks to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces intelligent design to public school science curricula and seeks to redefine science (External Link) to allow for supernatural explanations by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with "theistic realism" (External Link). Teach the Controversy proponents portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."
   As well as proposing its own draft science standards to the Kansas State Board of Education (External Link) and Critical Analysis of Evolution high school lesson plan, (External Link) (PDF file) the Discovery Institute participated in presenting a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Institute associate, Dr. Philip S. Skell (External Link). 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 (External Link) and numerous other documents (External Link). Both are active participants in the intelligent design movement (External Link).
   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 isn't 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.
   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.

List of participants

The following is a list of those who testified in the Kansas evolution hearings, most of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute and all of whom are intelligent design advocates or other forms of creationists, or advocates of some other form of anti-evolution.

Mustafa Akyol - Columnist in the Turkish daily newspaper Referans, and freelance writer in the U.S., vocal advocate of intelligent design.

John C. Sanford - Cornell University Associate Professor of Horticultural Sciences, inventor of the "gene gun," intelligent design adovcate.

Charles Thaxton - Editor of the book Of Pandas and People, Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Jonathan Wells - author of Icons of Evolution and Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Robert DiSilvestro - Biochemist, Professor of Nutrition, Ohio State University,

Stephen C. Meyer - Program Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute co-founder, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

John Calvert - Lawyer who has worked closely with the Discovery Institute in finding constitutionally allowable ways to bring intelligent design and failing there, Teach the Controversy, into public schools. Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc., an organization that seeks intelligent design taught in public education.

William S. Harris - Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory, St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,

Edward Peltzer - Oceanographer, Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, Senior Research Specialist Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Russell Carlson - Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Georgia, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Roger DeHart - High school biology teacher, Oaks Christian High School in Westlake Village, California, who claims teaching intelligent design cost him two jobs. Author of a companion study guide Icons of Evolution- A Study Guide to Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution.

Nancy Bryson - Former Division Head of the Dept of Science and Mathematics at Mississippi University for Women who claims to have lost her position over a presentation Critical Thinking on Evolution that presented alternatives to Darwinian evolution which a senior professor of biology derided the speech as "religion masquerading as science." Bryson is often cited by the Discovery Institute as one who has "demonized and blacklisted" by "Darwinian fundamentalists."

John Millam - Software developer, signer of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, denier of common dissent, advocate of intelligent design.

Warren Nord - Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,

Bruce Simat - Associate Professor of Biology at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota,

Dan Ely - Professor of Biology, University of Akron in Ohio, who assisted in drafting the adopted lesson plan.

James Barham - Scholar, author, intelligent design advocate specializing in evolutionary epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and the foundations of biology, known for "Why I'm not a Darwinist" in Debating Darwin, From Darwin to DNA and quoted in Dembski's Uncommon Dissent...Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.

Ralph Seelke - PhD Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin - Superior, self-described Christian apologetist, Additionally, Gonzalez-Bravo appeared in a commercial favoring the teaching of intelligent design.

Angus Menuge - philosopher of science, Dept. of Philosophy Concordia University Wisconsin, who participated in Discovery Institute sponsored symposia leading up to the 2006 election for seats opening in the state Board of Education. Menuge also describes himself as someone whose interest "now are in promoting Christian teaching and scholarship...".

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. (External Link) In July of 2006 the Board of Standards issued a "rationale statement" which claimed that the current science curriculum standards don't include intelligent design. (External Link) Members of the scientific community critical of the standards contend that the board's statement is misleading in that they contain a "significant editorializing that supports the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design network’s campaign position that Intelligent Design isn't included in the standards", the standards "do say that students should learn about ID, and that ID content ought to be in the standards", and that the standards present the controversy over intelligent design as a scientific one, denying the mainstream scientific view. (External Link)(External Link) Kansas joins Ohio in adopting Critical Analysis of Evolution public school science standards in the past four years.
   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 the intelligent design parody Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Its founder insists it should be offered as a "third" theory on origins, suggesting possible legal action if it isn't included and intelligent design is.
   On August 1, 2006, 4 of the 6 conservative Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards lost their seats in a primary election. The moderate Republican and liberal Democrats gaining seats, largely supported by Governor Kathleen Sebelius, vowed to overturn the 2005 school science standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing Committee that were rejected by the previous board. (External Link) One of the members who lost her seat, Connie Morris, a conservative from St. Francis in the northwest corner of the state, pointed to the "liberal media" for her loss, noting that "liberal opportunists" don't mind "slandering people and harming their families and their reputation and their business and their communities and their state ... It's a shame, and I feel bad for them when they face God on Judgment Day." Although four born-again Christians remain on the Board, she believes that the new board will waste no time adopting new science standards, expecting that in January, when the new members are sworn in, the Board will rescind existing standards and adopt new ones that "let government schools teach children that we're no more than chaotic, random mutants."
   On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again returned to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe."Further Information

Get more info on 'Kansas Evolution Hearings'.

External Link Exchanges Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page: <a href="http://kansas_evolution_hearings.totallyexplained.com">Kansas evolution hearings Totally Explained</a> Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.    As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.