Intelligent Design network, inc.
Board of Directors
Kansas State Board of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1182
Re: Science Education Standards
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter contains suggested revisions to the "Kansas Science Education Standards, Sixth Draft of Science Writing Team, December 2000 (Tentative -- Not "Official")." This is the draft that was circulated to members of the Kansas State Board of Education in December, 2000, prior to the December 12, 2000 meeting. We refer to that document in this letter as the "Sixth Draft." We understand that the Board will be asked to replace the existing Standards that were adopted in December 1999 with the Sixth Draft. Although we have no comment on the bulk of the Sixth Draft, we believe it imperative that our suggested revisions be included in any final Standards that the Board does adopt.
Our proposal is focused on one issue. It seeks only to stop the teaching/preaching of Naturalism to our children in the area of origins science - science that deals with the origin of the universe, of life and its diversity. As you know, Naturalism is a doctrine or belief that states that all phenomena result only from natural causes - chance and necessity - and that design inferences are invalid. It is not a proven theory. It is at a philosophy.
The Sixth Draft proposes to use Naturalism to censor any discussion or teaching which conflicts with its essential tenet that no natural system is designed. We believe this is fundamentally wrong. The use of Naturalism to limit inquiry and explanation violates rules of logic. It conflicts with the scientific method. It will lead our schools into violations of the neutrality required by the establishment clause of our Constitution. It will have profound negative affects on our culture and our ethical and moral values. Due to its censoring mechanism - Naturalism will lead our science teachers to omit to discuss information that is material to the question at hand. This results in misinformation. Our proposal seeks to cure these problems that inhere in the Sixth Draft.
This letter consists of an "INTRODUCTION TO THE SUGGESTED REVISIONS" and a second part consisting of the SUGGESTED REVISIONS AND COMMENTARY. The suggested revisions include portions of the text around each revision so that the reader can generally understand the context within which the suggestion is being made. We have also included a "comment" section after each set of revisions so that you can understand the reasons for the suggested change. Finally, we have posted a copy of this letter on our web site at:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/6thdraftrevisions.htmINTRODUCTION TO THE SUGGESTED REVISIONS
The fundamental issue raised by the Sixth Draft is whether we should adopt Science Standards that will have the effect of causing Kansas teachers to promote a philosophy of Naturalism in teaching our children about origins - the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of life.
Naturalism is "the doctrine that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary).
We believe Kansas Science Standards should not promote Naturalism for the following reasons:
1. Naturalism Conflicts with Principles of Logic. There are essentially only two hypotheses regarding origins. The naturalistic hypothesis is that life and its diversity results only from chance and necessity while the design hypothesis suggests that it results from a combination of design, chance and necessity. If you philosophically limit inquiry and explanation to only the naturalistic hypothesis, then you violate the laws of logic which seek to produce reliable and trustworthy explanations. Applying naturalism to origins science is like an investigator assuming that every house fire is the result of accidental or natural causes and that arson (a fire started on purpose, by design) is not a permitted explanation. If the investigator rules out design before examining the evidence he will always conclude that fires result only from accidental or natural causes.
Like an arson investigation, origins sciences, including evolutionary biology, are historical sciences. They seek to use present evidence to explain a past (unobservable) event. Rigorous logic and objectivity are particularly necessary in the writing of any historical account. An historical account that is driven by bias or a single philosophical, cultural, religious or other viewpoint, can never be credible, reliable or trustworthy. This issue is discussed in more detail in the IDnet letter to Ms. Rupe and Ms. Gamble that was circulated to each of you. A copy of the letter may be found at:
2. Naturalism Conflicts with the Scientific Method. Although Naturalism may work well in strictly empirical sciences, it does not work in origins sciences. In this area of science it clearly conflicts with the scientific method. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be tested against all competing hypotheses and their related evidence. With regard to origins science, Naturalism censors the competing design hypothesis and declares it to be invalid as a matter of assumption and not as a matter of evidence.
The need to test a hypothesis against a competing hypothesis is recognized by the Sixth Draft where it is stated that:
"Inquiry is central to science learning. These standards call for more than "science as a process," in which students learn discrete skills such as observing, inferring, and experimenting. When engaging in inquiry, students describe objects and events, ask questions, construct explanations, test those explanations against current scientific knowledge, and communicate their ideas to others. They identify their assumptions, use critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations. In this way, students actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills. (emphasis added)
However, after enunciating the requirement that alternative explanations be considered, the Sixth Draft uses naturalism to censor the design hypothesis rather than to encourage its objective consideration. One of the better examples is Benchmark 3 of Standard 5 for grades 1-4:
"Benchmark 3: All students will distinguish between natural and human-made objects. Some objects occur in nature; others have been designed and made by people to solve human problems and enhance the quality of life. (emphasis added)
In this Benchmark, it is assumed, without discussion, that natural systems are not designed. What is the basis for the assumption that no design is involved in the creation of a falcon when we know that highly sophisticated design and engineering is involved in the human design and construction of a much less sophisticated F-16 Fighting Falcon jet fighter? The basis is not found in any objective examination of the evidence. The basis is found in the definition of science in the Sixth Draft that only permits "natural explanations."
Thus, instead of asking children whether birds or flowers are designed, the draft seeks to lead our children into the naturalistic belief that they are not the products of design. If we were to teach children origins science according to the scientific method we would ask them to consider and confront the evidence that supports the competing design hypothesis rather than leading them away from it.
It should be noted that this slight of hand occurs by violating another of the scientific principles noted above that require students to "identify their assumptions." Not only does the Sixth Draft fail to identify its naturalistic bias as an assumption (except with one word in the definition of science) it leads students into thinking that there are no assumptions other than the objectivity enunciated by the quoted paragraph. This is misinformation that is exceedingly deceptive. The science community responsible for the Sixth Draft should be aware that Naturalism is driving the teaching. It violates its public trust when it omits to tell students about that assumption and the effect of that assumption on the credibility of the explanations given. This is why Michael Ruse, a Darwinist philosopher of science, recently declared that evolution has become a religion. If origins science would stick to the scientific method and allow this historical science to be written objectively and without philosophical and religious bias, then it would qualify for our respect and attention. Otherwise, it really does become nothing more than a myth and a religion.
3. Teaching Naturalism conflicts with the Establishment clause of our Constitution by mandating bias rather than neutrality with respect to a fundamental religious issue.
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that the federal government will impose no law or regulation "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The court has also held that by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment also applies to any state or local government or subdivision thereof. This has been construed by the Supreme Court to mean that the "principal or primary effect" of a state action must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion [Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926 (1968)]. Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that a state institution that encourages open discourse on a subject may not censor single or multiple viewpoints without violating the Free Speech clause of the constitution [Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 831-2, 115 S.Ct. 2510,2518 (1995)].
The neutrality required by the Constitution is articulated by Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion in the Rosenberg v. Rector, et. al, at page 846 (2525 S.Ct.) as follows:
"'We have time and again held that the government generally may not treat people differently based on the God or gods they worship, or do not worship.' [Citations omitted]. This insistence on government neutrality toward religion explains why we have held that schools may not discriminate against religious groups by denying them equal access to facilities that the schools make available to all. [citations omitted]. Withholding access would leave an impermissible perception that religious activities are disfavored: '[The message is one of neutrality rather than endorsement; if a State refused to let religious groups use facilities open to others, then it would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.' [citations omitted]. 'The Religion Clauses prohibit the government from favoring religion, but they provide no warrant for discriminating against religion.'[citations omitted]. Neutrality, in both form and effect, is one hallmark of the Establishment Clause." (emphasis added)
Although neither design nor Neo-Darwinism in and of themselves constitute a religion, design and the naturalistic underpinning of Neo-Darwinism give rise to serious religious implications. Although design does not require theism, all theistic religions that are based on a deity that intervenes in the material world mandate a design-based view of origins. By excluding design as a possible cause of life and its diversify, Naturalism is unavoidably hostile to theistic beliefs.
Accordingly, if a public school system censors evidence of design that exists in nature due to the naturalistic philosophy of science it will have the "effect" of inhibiting or antagonizing the religious beliefs of students who are taught to believe that a designer is responsible for life and its diversity. Under these circumstances, the parent of such a child would have cause to complain that the School was violating the principle of government neutrality. The parents and child would claim denigration of their religious beliefs by State-sponsored promotion of a philosophy (Naturalism) which suppresses evidence consistent with and supportive of their beliefs.
By the same token, if a school were to censor naturalistic views of origins, the school system would be denigrating atheistic beliefs while promoting theistic beliefs. In that case, atheistic parents would have cause to complain.
Accordingly, the only way a public school system can achieve the neutrality required by the Supreme Court is to not censor reliable scientific evidence which supports either causal explanation. In this way the evidence of both theories of origins will be allowed to compete freely and to be open to no-holds-barred testing in the market place of ideas.
4. Naturalism is Converting Darwinian evolution into a Religion that is Profoundly affecting Our Moral and Ethical Values.
Darwinism has spawned a growing secular religion that is having an enormous impact on our culture. Recently, the highly regarded ex Christian, Darwinist and philosopher Michael Ruse published a paper complaining that "evolution" has become a religion. In "How Evolution Became a Religion," http://www.nationalpost.com, (May 13, 2000), Mr. Ruse tells about his complaint:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint -- and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it -- the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." (emphasis added)
But what is it that makes Darwinian evolution a religion? What is the mechanism that causes that to happen? It is Naturalism that enables Darwinian evolution to become a religion. Its censorship of the competing hypothesis makes it possible for the stage to be occupied by only one point of view. Mr. Ruse's plea that scientists stop making evolution into a religion will be answered only when they allow the theory to compete fairly in the market place of ideas with the competing design hypothesis. Until that happens it will become more of a religion than it is now.
The subtle evangelism practiced by Naturalists is explained by Nancy Pearcey in a speech that was delivered at a Congressional Briefing on Intelligent Design on Capitol Hill on May 10, 2000(1).
"One of the most vexing questions since Darwin's own day is what his theory means for religion. Not long ago, I picked up a nature book for my little five-year-old about the Bernstein Bears, the highly popular picture-book characters. In this book, the Bear family invites us on a nature walk, and as you read you suddenly come across a two-page spread with a startling slogan sprawled across both pages with capital letters: Nature is "all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE."
"Have we heard that somewhere before? The words echo the well-known line from Carl Sagan's PBS show "Cosmos": "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Sagan was echoing the classic Christian liturgy ("as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever will be"), and what he was offering was nothing less than a religion of naturalism--where nature takes the place of God as the ultimate and eternal reality. What Sagan did for adults, the Bernstein Bears are doing for young kids.
Once Darwinian evolution becomes entrenched via Naturalism it then offers to provide a basis not only for our scientific considerations but also our moral and ethical values. This offer was recently made by Ernst Mayr, one of the "Towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology" in his recent article on the "Influence of Darwin on Modern Thought," at page 82 and 83 of the July 2000 issue of Scientific American:
".....Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics.
"To Borrow Darwin's phrase, there is grandeur in this view of life. New modes of thinking have been, and are being, evolved. Almost every component in modern man's belief system is somehow affected by Darwinian principles."
However, many believe that this "grandeur" is more likely to result in the kind of decadence that is described by Nancy Pearcey:
"Ever since Darwin's day, people have been concerned that [Darwin's] theory undercuts morality in the traditional sense--and they are right. If you listen to radio, you might have heard a song that's climbing rapidly up the charts these days by a group called The Bloodhound Gang. The song has a refrain punched out over and over: "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals; So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." A video for the song features band members dressed as monkeys simulating sexual relations with one another."
The naturalistic conversion of Darwinism into religion is fostered by the Sixth Draft. It refers to humans as nothing more than "complex, SOFT MACHINES..."(Emphasis added. Grade 9-12, Standard 3, Benchmark 7, Para 10.5). It equates human behavior to that of animals and implies that both are merely the products of natural selection:
"Benchmark 6: Students will understand the behavior of animals.
******
"3. Like other aspects of an organism's biology, behaviors have evolved through natural selection.
Examples: Behaviors are often adaptive when viewed in terms of survival and reproductive success. Behavioral biology has implications for humans, as it provides links to psychology, sociology, and anthropology. (emphasis added) [Benchmark 6 of the Life Sciences Standard for grades 9-12]
It is misleading to flatly state that "behaviors have evolved through natural selection," without first stating that this conclusion is based on a philosophy of naturalism and that the direct evidence for the assertion is completely speculative and conjectural. It is even more misleading, without stating that critical assumption, to then imply a similar origin for human behavior. However, the more dangerous effect of this misleading teaching is that it will allow our children to think of themselves as nothing more than animals and soft machines whose ethics and morals can be based on whatever they decide or whatever the scientific elite tells us about nature, which is "all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE."
SUGGESTED REVISIONS AND COMMENTARY
The specific revisions which we suggest are
shown below. The changes suggested are shown within their context. Proposed
additions are underlined in bold face type. Proposed deletions
are shown with a single line strikeout: strikeout. A set of
asterisks (*****) indicate the omission of text which is not subject to any
proposed change.
Following each "Revision" is a "COMMENT" section that explains the reasons for each of the suggested revisions.
Revision 1. INTRODUCTION - Nature of Science - Change in the Definition of Science.
******
"INTRODUCTION
*****
"Nature of Science
"Science
is the human activity of seeking logical natural
explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through
the use of observation, experiment, and logical argument while maintaining
strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are
built on observations, hypotheses, theories.
*******
"Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or
observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation
and/or observation. Generally, scientific explanation
must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and
experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific
explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be
modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so
warrants. However certain sciences that are historical in nature may
not be subject to the experimentation, observability and testability that may be
conducted in sciences where phenomena may be tested in the present as with pure
physics and chemistry. This is the case with evolutionary biology and other
historical sciences that attempt to explain past or historical events such as
the cause of the universe and of life and its diversity where past events can
not be reconstructed and tested in real time. "Laws and experiments are
inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.
Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative
reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying
to explain." (Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern
Thought" (Scientific American, July 2000, p 80)"
"
Because All scientific explanations depend on observational and
experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is in principle, are
subject to change as new evidence becomes available. "
" The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested. In areas where data or understanding are incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts. In situations where information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be greatest. Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history diverse cultures have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions. Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology results in incremental advances in our understanding of the world about us."
*******
COMMENT To Revision 1
The definition of science used in the current standards is:
"Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Although we believe a somewhat different
definition of science might be more appropriate,(2)
we oppose the proposed change that would substitute the word
"natural" for "logical."
This is obviously the most important issue in the entire document. The
proposed change mandates the teaching of Naturalism to our school children. We
oppose that for all the reasons mentioned above. The definition in the Sixth Draft that imposes a naturalistic limitation on
science inquiry is also clearly at odds with the commonly accepted meaning of
the word "science." The Webster's definition does not contain the
naturalistic limitation on explanation, but rather equates science with a search
for the truth:
"Science ..... "3. a: accumulated
and accepted knowledge that has been systematized and formulated with reference to
the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws :
knowledge classified and made available in work, life , or the search
for the truth: comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge;
esp. knowledge obtained and tested through the scientific method ....
b: such knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena:
natural science."
A naturalistic limitation on inquiry will impede rather than aid "the discovery of general truths" and a "search for the truth."
A word search on the Sixth Draft for the word "truth." results in the following response:
The other changes in this section reflect the fact that origins sciences are essentially historical and not subject to the kind of experimentation and testing that non-historical sciences must adhere to.
Revision 2. INTRODUCTION -- Teachings About Origins
Add the following new subsection to
the Introduction:
********
"INTRODUCTION
*******
"Teachings About
Origins
"Any teaching about origins has religious and philosophical implications.
This is particularly true with respect to teachings about the cause of life and
its diversity. A naturalistic teaching that life and its diversity results only
from mechanisms of chance and necessity, such as Darwinian evolution guided by
random mutation and natural selection, implies that no intelligent agent or god
has intervened in the process. Accordingly, the implications of that teaching
are consistent with atheism and inconsistent with theistic religions founded on
the belief that a God does intervene in the material world. A teaching that life
and its diversity may result from design implies the intervention of an
intelligent agent. Accordingly, the implications of that teaching are consistent
with theism.
"Good science education about origins issues
should not censor the teaching of evidence of any of the possible causes of life
and its diversity so long as the evidence is reliable, is relevant to and
logically supportive of the issue and is not being presented to advocate any
particular religious or philosophical belief. In particular, scientific
teachings about the cause of life and its diversity should not be based on a
philosophy of naturalism nor should they be based on any religious belief or
teaching about creation. Naturalism is "the doctrine that cause-and-effect
laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and
that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid" (Webster's
Third New International Dictionary).
"If a teacher is censored from discussing evidence of design so that the
teacher may only teach a theory based on mechanisms of chance and necessity,
then the school may be causing the state to promote atheistic beliefs in a way
that has the effect of denigrating theistic beliefs. If a teacher is censored
from discussing evidence of Darwinian evolution based on natural selection and
random mutation so that the teacher may only teach a theory based on design,
then the school may be causing the state to promote theistic beliefs in a way
that has the effect of denigrating atheistic beliefs and religions which are not
theistic.
"Teachers should also not be censored from teaching evidence that tends to
criticize any theory of origins for the same reasons. Censorship of evidence
critical of any theory of origins will tend to promote the protected theory and
its atheistic or theistic implications. Censorship of the evidence will also
undercut the credibility of the protected theory and will be inconsistent with
the fundamental principle of science that all theories should be held open to
testing and criticism.
"Any conclusions expressed by a teacher regarding the weight of the
evidence supporting any particular theory should be formed objectively and
tentatively, based on the strength of the evidence and not on any religious or
philosophical view or belief. The tentativeness of any such conclusion is
important since ultimate answers to the issue of the origin of life are
currently unknowable based on available technology.
"Teachers should also be encouraged to explain to science students an
objective history of the philosophy of science and how that philosophy changed
with the advent of Darwinism to a philosophy of naturalism. Science teachers
should carefully explain that naturalism is merely a belief or philosophy and
that explanations of origins may be affected by this belief or philosophy."
*******
COMMENT To Revision 2
This section has been added because the Sixth Draft makes no distinction between teachings about origins and teachings about other aspects of scientific knowledge. In addition to the fact that origins science is essentially a historical science that sets it apart from other sciences, it is also a science that necessarily causes public schools to encounter religious subject matter. This raises a legal issue. As indicated above, the Supreme Court has held that a state must deal with religious issues neutrally. Such neutrality can not be achieved when the science of origins is taught with a preconceived and philosophic bias against any design inference.
The proposed addition to the standards illustrates the problem and offers a solution that is consistent with logic, good science and our Constitution.
Revision 3. INTRODUCTION - Teaching With Tolerance and Respect
********
"INTRODUCTION
********
"Teaching With Tolerance and Respect
"Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can be
tested against the natural world. However, science
should not be taught dogmatically. Compelling student belief is inconsistent
with and in conflict with the goal of education."
"A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect.
sensitivity, and civility. Teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a
student for expressing an alternative view or belief. In doing this, teachers
display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and
experiences of all students. If a student should raise a question in a natural
science class that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science,
the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain
why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the
student to discuss the question further with his or her family and other
appropriate source. However, teachers shall not classify a question
as outside the domain of science simply because it conflicts with a naturalistic
view of the cause of life and its diversity."
*******
COMMENT To Revision 3
In prior versions of the Sixth Draft, the naturalistic guidance to teachers who receive questions that are not within the "domain of science" was to refer the student to the student's family or clergy. The problem is that neither have the qualifications necessary to address the quality of the evidence of design that exists in the universe and in living systems. Apparently recognizing the inability of members of the clergy to address these issues, the Sixth Draft simply proposes to refer these questions to another "appropriate source," without identifying the "source." Well, what is the source for knowledge about the evidence of design that exists in nature? The sources are scientists - geologists, biochemists, biologists, mathematicians, astronomers, chemists, physicists, information theorists and computer scientists, and so forth. If indeed the other appropriate sources are scientists, then why should this evidence be classified as outside the "domain of science." This issue merely highlights the inappropriateness of using Naturalism to censor scientific inquiry and analysis by limiting the "domain of science."
Revision 4. INTRODUCTION - Unifying Concepts and Processes in the Kansas Science Education Standards
******
"INTRODUCTION
*********
"Unifying Concepts and Processes in the Kansas Science Education Standards
******
"Constancy, Change, and Measurement: Although most things are in
the process of becoming different-changing-some properties of objects and
processes are characterized by constancy (e.g., speed of light, charge of an
electron, total mass plus energy in the universe). Changes might occur, for
example, in properties of materials, position of objects, motion, and form and
function of systems. Interactions within and among systems result in change.
Changes vary in rate, scale, and pattern, including trends and cycles.
Equilibrium is a physical state in which forces and changes occur in opposite
and off-setting directions. For example, opposite forces are of the same
magnitude, or off-setting changes occur at equal rates. Steady state, balance,
and homeostasis also describe equilibrium states. Interacting units of matter
tend toward equilibrium states in which the energy is distributed as randomly
and uniformly as possible. Changes in systems can be quantified, and evidence
for interactions and subsequent change and the formulation of scientific
explanations are often clarified through quantitative distinctions-measurement.
All measurements are approximations, and the accuracy and precision of
measurement depend on equipment, technology, and technique used during
observations. Mathematics is essential for accurately measuring change.
Different systems of measurement are used for different purposes. Scientists
usually use the metric system. An important part of measurement is knowing when
to use which system. For example a meteorologist might use degrees Fahrenheit
when reporting the weather to the public, but in writing scientific reports, the
meteorologist would use degrees Celsius. We do not know why many
changes or patterns of events have occurred. For example, we do not have a
complete scientific explanation for the cause of: the origin of the universe and
its laws, the origin of life and its diversity, or the causative agent of the
mind and its capacities to perceive, think, reason and decide. Although theories
are postulated about these events, all of the theories are controversial.
"Patterns of Cumulative Change: Accumulated changes through
time, some gradual and some sporadic, may account for some
of the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural
systems. Present phenomena are often best understood in the light of
the historical processes that produced them. The general
idea is that the present arises from materials and forms of the past. An example
of cumulative change is the biological theory of evolution, which explains the
process of descent with modification of organisms from common ancestors.
Additional examples are continental drift, which is part of plate tectonic
theory, fossilization, and erosion. Patterns of cumulative change also help to
describe the current structure of the universe.
"Form and Function: Form and function are complementary aspects of
objects, organisms, and systems. The form or shape of an object or system is
frequently related to use, operation, or function. In systems that
have been designed by humans or animals the form can generally be explained in
relation to the purpose for which the objects or systems were designed. In this
respect "form follows function." Function
frequently relies on form. Understanding of form and function applies
to different levels of organization. Form and function can aid in the
explanation of explain each other."
*****
COMMENT To Revision 4
Although it is clear that things change over time and that those changes may influence subsequent events, scientists still are very much in the dark as to the mechanisms or means that direct change. We simply do not know what causes some changes. Rather than imply that we have all the answers, truth would be better served by simply acknowledging our ignorance. This is reflected in the first suggested revision to this section.
Consistent with this ignorance, we should not teach a naturalistic "story" that cumulative change explains the appearance and diversity of life when great gaps in our knowledge exist. The second set of revisions in this section deal with the elevation of cumulative change as the solution to our ignorance. We know that patterns of events result from a combination of one of three causes - design, chance or necessity. However, we do not know, as the naturalistic paradigm mandates, that design is not involved and that change results only from chance and necessity and the cumulative changes that they produce.
It is inappropriate to elevate Darwinian evolution and other naturalistic theories of change to one of five "unifying concepts." A unifying concept should be one that has gained acceptance without protection from testing by the competing hypothesis and that is not subject to the degree of criticism that has been advanced against natural selection as a mechanism that can build irreducibly complex systems. But more importantly, a unifying concept should not be driven by a philosophy that censors consideration of highly relevant evidence. A unifying concept should gain its stature only by the weight of the evidence after objective and rigorous consideration and analysis. Since Darwinian evolution is driven by philosophy rather than the evidence, it is not entitled to be elevated to that of a "unifying concept." The effect of such an undeserved promotion would only be to make it easier for Naturalistic censorship to operate.
The last change in this section deals with the concept of form and function. We think the Sixth Draft misstates what most engineers recognize - that the form of an object is determined largely by the function for which it was designed. The Sixth Draft implies that function comes about as a result of the form of an object or system and thereby twists reality. Function does not follow form, rather, form follows function. When one designs a machine, the designer conceives of a target or purpose for the machine. The machine is then formed to accomplish that goal. We believe this is another example of evolutionary biology and Naturalism ignoring one of the evidences of design that exists in nature - living systems have forms that accomplish their apparent purpose/design in the ecosystem.
Revision 5. By The End Of FOURTH GRADE - STANDARD 5:
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY - Benchmark
3: All students will distinguish between natural and human-made objects.
*******
"By The End Of FOURTH GRADE
*****
"STANDARD 5: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
*****
"Benchmark 3: All students will distinguish between natural and human-made
objects.
"Some objects occur in nature; others have been designed and made
by people to solve human problems and enhance the quality of life. Some
naturally occurring objects have also been designed, such as birds' nests,
beavers' dams and bees' hives. Living systems and other naturally occurring
objects give the appearance of design. Evolutionary biologists who adhere to a
naturalistic philosophy hold that the design that is seen in living systems is
merely an illusion and that these systems are not really designed. Other
scientists believe that the available evidence is not sufficient to prove or
convincingly establish the claim of illusion.
"Indicators: The student will:
"4 1. Compare, contrast, and sort human-made versus natural objects.
Example: Compare and contrast real flowers to silk flowers.
"4 2. Use appropriate tools when observing natural and human-made objects.
Example: Use a magnifier when observing objects.
"3. Ask questions about natural or human-made objects and discuss the
reasoning behind their answers.
Example: The teacher will ask, 'Is this a human-made object? Why do you
think so?' When observing a natural or human-made object, the child will be
asked the reasoning behind his/her answer.
Example: The teacher will ask, 'Does the real flower appear designed like the
human-made flower?'"
*******
COMMENT To Revision 5
This Standard, without our suggested addition, assumes that natural systems are not designed and that this is what distinguishes them from human-made objects. The distinction is supported only by the unstated assumption of Naturalism. It is made in the face of the fact that natural systems actually appear to reflect a far more complex design than that which is evident in human-made objects. This is another example of a proposed misleading teaching.
Revision 6. By The End of EIGHTH GRADE - STANDARD 3:
LIFE SCIENCE
Benchmark 5
*******
"By The End of EIGHTH GRADE
*********
"STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
*********
"Benchmark 5: The students will observe the diversity of living things and
relate their adaptations to their survival or extinction.
"Millions of species of animals, plants and microorganisms are
alive today. Animals and plants vary in body plans, and
internal structures and genetic code. Evolutionary
biologists theorize that Darwinian biological
evolution, gradual changes of characteristics of organisms over many
generations, may have has brought
variations among populations. Therefore, A
structural characteristic, process, or behavior that helps an organism survive
in its environment and that is theorized to have resulted from
natural selection is called an adaptation. When the environment
changes and the adaptive characteristics are insufficient, the species becomes
extinct.
"Some scientists believe that living systems exhibit a level of design
that cannot be explained by Darwinian mechanisms. Apparent design is perhaps
best exhibited in the genetic code that is in a form of a language that provides
the instructions for the assembly of organisms. These scientists postulate that
some adaptations may reflect design or guided modifications rather than change
resulting only from natural selection or other unguided process.
"Teachers guide students
toward thinking about similarities and differences as students investigate
different types of organisms. Students can compare similarities between
organisms in different parts of the world, such as tigers in Asia and mountain
lions in North America to explore the concept of common ancestry. Instruction
needs to be designed to uncover and correct misconceptions about natural
selection. Students tend to think of all individuals in a population responding
to change quickly rather than over a long period of time. Using examples
such as Darwin's finches or the peppered moths of Manchester helps develop
understanding of natural selection over time. (Resource: The Beak of the
Finch by Jonathon Weiner). Providing students with fossil evidence
and allowing them time to construct their own explanations is important in
developing middle level students' understanding of extinction as a natural
process that has affected earth's species over time.
"Students should also be encouraged to formulate other hypotheses for
the fossil record than the Darwinian explanation."
"Indicators: The students will:
"7 1. Conclude that millions of species of animals, plants, and
microorganisms may look dissimilar on the outside but have similarities in
internal structures, developmental characteristics, and chemical processes.
Examples: Research numerous organisms and create a classification
system based on observations of similarities and differences. Compare this
system with a dichotomous key used by scientists. Explore various ways animals
take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide.
"7 2. Understand that adaptations of organisms-changes in structure,
function, or behavior-contribute to biological diversity.
Example: Compare bird characteristics such as beaks, wings, and feet
with how a bird behaves in its environment. When students work in cooperative
groups to design different parts of an imaginary bird, relate characteristics
and behaviors of that bird with its structures.
"7 3. Associate extinction of a species with environmental changes and
insufficient adaptive characteristics.
Example: Students use various objects to model bird beaks, such as
spoons, toothpicks, clothes pins. Students use beaks to eat several types of
food, such as cereal, marbles, raisins, noodles. When food sources change,
species without adaptive traits die."
*****
COMMENT To Revision 6
The suggested revisions to this section use the term "Darwinian evolution" instead of "evolution." We believe it is misleading to use the term "evolution" without adding a qualifier. Although the term "evolution" can mean simply change over time, the Sixth Draft uses it in a purely naturalistic sense so that all change is attributed only to natural processes such as natural selection. This use, without the "Darwinian" qualifier, will continue to confuse students, their parents and the public.
It is also misleading to discuss the issue of what causes life and its diversity without introducing the competing hypothesis - that change may be designed. The omission of this concept is merely Naturalistic censorship at work.
The suggested deletions regarding the reference to peppered moths and finch beaks is based on the desire that Kansas Science Standards not encourage a continuation of the misleading use of these examples in science text books as documented in the book, "Icons of Evolution," which we have provided to you.
The balance of the suggested changes are otherwise fairly self-explanatory.
Revision 7. By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE - STANDARD 1: SCIENCE
AS
INQUIRY; Benchmark 1: Students will demonstrate the
fundamental
abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry.
******
"By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE
*******
"STANDARD 1: SCIENCE AS INQUIRY
"Benchmark 1: Students will demonstrate the fundamental abilities necessary
to do scientific inquiry.
"Indicators: The students will:
"1. Develop through experience a rich understanding and curiosity of the
natural (material) world."
******
COMMENT To Revision 7
We think it is inappropriate to limit natural to only the material world. Natural sciences are concerned with more than just "material" things. The natural world includes features which can not be reduced to the material. An example is the semantic character of biological information. In Benchmark 2 of Life Sciences for the grade 9-12 it is stated that "DNA provides the instructions that specify the characteristics of organisms." These instructions constitute biological information having a semantic characteristic that can not be reduced to mass, energy or any measurable quantity. Other examples are the many faculties of naturally occurring minds, including human minds that have not been reduced to the material.
*******
Revision 8. By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE -
STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE Benchmark
3: Students will understand
major concepts of Darwinian biological
evolution.
*******
"By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE
*******
"STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
*******
"Benchmark 3: Students will understand(3)
major concepts of Darwinian biological evolution.
_________________
(3)" Understand: "Understand" does not mandate
"belief." While students may be required to understand some concepts
that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical problems, they may
accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly
where students' and/or parents' religion is at odds with science. See Teaching
About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences,
1998, page 59.
"Understand: Although "Understand" does not mandate
"belief" it should be recognized that beliefs are significantly
affected by the information that is provided and by omitting to provide other
relevant information. Accordingly, diligence should be used to insure that
explanations provided do not exclude pertinent evidence or promote certain
evidence for philosophic or religious reasons. In particular, teachings should
not be driven by naturalism or any religious text, belief or doctrine. "
________________
"Indicators: The students will understand:
"1. That the theory of Darwinian evolution is both
the history of descent with modification of different lineages of organisms from
common ancestors and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental
challenges and changes (modified from Futuyma, 1998).
"10.2. That many biologists use Darwinian
evolution theory to explain the earth's present day biodiversity-the number,
variety, and variability of organisms
"Some biologists believe that natural selection and random genetic drift
are not competent to produce the information processing systems that distinguish
living from non living systems. They theorize that a mind or some form of
intelligence is necessary for the construction and assembly of the kind of
information processing systems and biological machinery that comprise each cell
in a living organism and the information processing network that comprises the
organism. The design hypothesis is supported by (a) the apparent design that is
observed in nature and particularly in living systems, (b) the lack of any known
physical or chemical law or process that can account for the biological
information or information processing systems found in living systems, (c) the
apparent irreducible complexity of many biological systems and machines, (d)
statistical studies indicating the improbability of such systems arising by
chance-based Darwinian mechanisms, (e) comparisons of biological information
systems with those that are human- made, (f) the abrupt appearance of phyla in
the fossil record and (g) the existence of laws, constants and forces essential
to life that fall within statistically improbable ranges.
"Example: Patterns of diversification and extinction of
organisms are documented in the fossil record. The fossil record provides
evidence of simple, bacteria-like life as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago almost
simultaneously with the postulated habitability of our earth. Natural
selection, and other processes, can cause populations to change from one
generation to the next. A single population can separate into two or more
independent populations. Over time, these populations can also become very
different from each other. If the isolation continues, the genetic separation
may become irreversible. This process is called speciation. Populations and
entire lineages can go extinct. One effect of extinction is to increase the
apparent differences between populations. As intermediate populations go
extinct, the surviving lineages can become more distinct from one another. Although
these patterns may be supportive of Darwinian evolutionary theory when
extrapolated to the tree of life, the fossil record provides no continuous
record of species-to-phyla diversification. Rather the fossil record shows
evidence of the appearance of major phyla without previous ancestors (for
example: the Cambrian explosion), a pattern that is more consistent with the
design hypothesis.
"3. That many biologists recognize that the primary
mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are natural selection and random
genetic drift.
Example: Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1)
Heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more
advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a
finite supply of resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4)
individuals with advantageous traits generally survive to reproduce; 5) the
advantageous heritable traits increase in the population through time.
"10.4. The sources and value of variation.
Examples: Variation of organisms within and among species increases the
likelihood that some members will survive under changed environmental
conditions. New heritable traits primarily result from new combinations of genes
and secondarily from mutations or changes in the reproductive cells; changes in
other cells of a sexual organism are not passed to the next generation.
"5. That many scientists use Darwinian evolution by
natural selection as is a broad, unifying
theoretical framework in biology.
Examples: Darwinian evolution provides the context in which to ask
research questions and yields valuable insights, especially in agriculture and
medicine. The postulated common ancestry based on similarity
of features of living things allows them to be classified into a
hierarchy of groups; these classifications or family trees follow rules of
nomenclature; scientific names have unique definitions and value. Natural
selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for
the fossil record that correlates with geochemical (e.g., radioisotope) dating
results. The distribution of fossil and modern organisms is related to
geological and ecological changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration). Certain
aspects of the fossil record, the age of the earth based on radioisotope dating
and plate tectonics are consistent with the Darwinian theory. However, this
evidence is not inconsistent with the design hypothesis."
*******
COMMENT To Revision 8
We believe the commentary that discusses the distinction between belief and understanding in this context is misleading. Due to the use of Naturalism, the teaching of the subject under discussion in fact encourages belief in a philosophy rather an understanding developed through an objective and logical investigation of the two possible causes of life and its diversity. With naturalism, Darwinian evolution is the only possible answer to the question. Hence, the teaching in fact encourages belief rather than a mere understanding.
The balance of the suggested revisions are fairly self-explanatory. The discussion of the design hypothesis is necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Also, it is necessary that all historical origin of life accounts be clearly identified only as theories or hypotheses so that they are not confused with facts and general scientific truths.
Revision 9. By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE - STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
*******
"By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE
*******
"STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
*******
"Benchmark 6: Students will understand the behavior of animals.
******
"Paragraph 3
******
COMMENT To Revision 9
The reasons for this suggested revision have been discussed in the forepart of this letter. It is misleading to flatly state that animal behaviors "have evolved through natural selection," without first stating that this conclusion is based on a philosophy of Naturalism and that the evidence for the assertion is speculative and conjectural. It is even more misleading, without stating that critical assumption, to then equate the origin of human behavior to the same cause.
The lengths to which Darwinists will write evolutionary history to fit their naturalistic perspective is perhaps best exhibited by a review in the December 31, 2000 New York Times Book Review section that discusses a recently published book: Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, "Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food: Taming our Primal Instincts." The reviewer highlights the excess of speculation and conjecture as follows:
"Evolutionary psychologists
have been beating the Darwinian drum for some years now, invoking the Victorian
scientist's name to explain everything from sexual attraction and infanticide to
selfishness and infidelity. But until now they have been mostly content to put
forward their ideas in scholarly books, their bolder assertions --- that a
proclivity for rape is written in men's genes, for example --- stirring debate
on the cocktail circuit and in the halls of academe.
"Now, however, two true believers in the power of evolutionary
theory to explain human behavior have taken the next step; they have written a
self help book...."
This report on the sloppy "science" done by two evolutionary psychologists is merely reflective of the degeneration of our critical thinking processes when we allow them to be driven by a philosophy of Naturalism rather than by logic and an unbiased and objective investigation and analysis of the available evidence.
Revision 10. By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE - STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
*******
"By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE
*******
"STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
*******
"Benchmark 7: Students will demonstrate an understanding of
structure,function, and diversity of organisms.
*******
"Paragraph 10.4
******
COMMENT To Revision 10
This is a good example of the negative way in which Naturalism has influenced the Sixth Draft where humans are characterized as nothing more than "complex, SOFT MACHINES..." (Emphasis added). Although it is consistent with Naturalism that we be characterized as mere machines,
we believe most of us and most scientists will agree that humans are far different than machines. While much of the anatomical structure and physiological processes of the human body may be described in machine-like analogies, it is clear from the intangible faculties of cognition, emotion, mental judgment, "free-will" and moral awareness that human life is far more than simply "soft machinery." Although we would expect this error to be corrected in whatever standards are adopted, it is illustrative of how a naturalistic philosophy can lead us to a radical, de-humanizing world view."By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE
*******
"STANDARD 6: SCIENCE IN PERSONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
*******
COMMENT To Revision 11
This section of the Standards implies that our health is merely a function of naturalistic processes. This is consistent with the naturalistic and materialistic philosophy which underlies the Sixth Draft. Its vice is that it may mislead students into believing that health is simply a function of materialistic causes, thereby avoiding the observable effect that mental and non materialistic processes have on our health. The suggested revision reflects the need to highlight the impact of mental health on our physical health.
Revision 12. By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE - STANDARD 7: HISTORY AND NATURE OF SCIENCE - Benchmark 2: Students will develop an understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge
********
"By The End Of TWELFTH GRADE
*******
"STANDARD 7: HISTORY AND NATURE OF SCIENCE
COMMENT To Revision 12
This section is misleading because it omits to explain that much of the science covered by the Standards is historical science that is driven by Naturalism. Our suggestions attempt to cure this problem. The suggested revisions have also been discussed in the INTRODUCTION and are otherwise self-explanatory.
Revision 13. Appendix 1 GLOSSARY
********
" Appendix 1 GLOSSARY
*******
"Evolution-Biological or
Darwinian Evolution: A scientific theory that accounts for
attempts to explain present day similarity and diversity among
living organisms and changes in non-living organisms
entities over time without attributing any
such developments to an intelligent agent. With respect to living
organisms, Darwinian evolution has two major perspectives: The
long-term perspective focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term
perspective centers on changes within lineages. In the long term, Darwinian
evolution is the descent with modification of different lineages from common
ancestors. In the short term, Darwinian evolution is the on-going
adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.
*******
"Evolution-Cosmological:
With respect to non-living entities,*******
"Evolution-Macroevolution: Darwinian
evolution above the species level. The evolution of higher taxa and the product of evolutionary novelties such as new structures (May, 1991). It is postulated that Macroevolution continues the genetic mechanisms of microevolution and adds new considerations of extinction, rate and manner of evolution, competition between evolving units, and other topics relevant to understanding larger scale evolution.******"Science:
The human activity of seekingCOMMENT TO Revision 13
The suggested revisions have been discussed above and are otherwise self-explanatory.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
Very truly yours
s/John H. Calvert
s/William S. Harris
s/Jody F. Sjogren
______________
1. For a copy of Ms. Pearcey's complete remarks see the last four pages of the document that may be found at:
"Science is a body of knowledge. It is assembled by systematically seeking explanations for what we observe in nature. The tools of Science are observation, experiment, and logical argument which require strict empirical standards and a healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are ultimately built upon observations. From these, hypotheses and theories are developed. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can serve as the basis for further inferences, explanations, and most importantly, predictions. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
3. " Understand: "Understand" does
not mandate "belief." While students may be required to understand
some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical
problems, they may accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This
applies particularly where students' and/or parents' religion is at odds with
science. See Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,
National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page 59.
"Understand: Although "Understand" does not mandate "belief" it should be recognized that beliefs are significantly affected by the information that is provided and by omitting to provide other relevant information. Accordingly, diligence should be used to insure that explanations provided do not exclude pertinent evidence or promote certain evidence for philosophic or religious reasons. In particular, teachings should not be driven by naturalism or any religious text, belief or doctrine. "
POWRÓT