John Phillips
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Board members' statements inaccurate

My name is John Phillips and I am a professional biologist who lives in
Pratt and I have three children in USD 382. I previously wrote a letter to
the Board concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design as a scientific
theory after Mr. Mammoliti and Mr. Richardson made their presentation to
the board. I have recently attended the last two school board meetings to
listen to the discussion on the new science curriculum. Let me first say
that I was appalled at the attempt by several board members to micromanage
the District's professionals that are drafting the new science curriculum
and recommending new teaching resources in an attempt to include their
personal views. I was also appalled by several completely inaccurate
statements made by Ms. Bohn during the last meeting especially those
concerning Intelligent Design. I am writing this letter to correct those
statements and to provide the Board with accurate information. I am
writing a letter because some of this information is lengthy and I do not
want to take up the Boards valuable meeting time. Also, I thought it would
be better to give members some time to digest the information that I will
present instead of having to do so immediately in a oral presentation made
during the board meeting.

Ms. Bohn made a statement at the meeting that Intelligent Design should be
included and taught as part of the new science curriculum because it is a
"proven scientific theory". This statement could not be farther from the
truth. In fact, virtually no positive supporting evidence for the validity
of Intelligent Design has been put forth by its proponents. Discussions of
the validity of Intelligent Design usually focus around points where
proponents feel that the standard scientific Theory of Evolution does not
adequately fit existing knowledge. Even if the current body of knowledge
did not support the Theory of Evolution, which it overwhelmingly does,
this would only disprove the Theory of Evolution. It would not prove the
validity of Intelligent Design, only positive supporting evidence would
accomplish that task. To be scientific, a theory must be testable in some
form and it should guide research to determine its validity. Intelligent
Design has done neither. Scientific theories can be tested directly or
indirectly. The main hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design is
that life is too complex to have been randomly generated. Before we can
even begin to analyze the scientific testability of this hypothesis, the
theory must be adequately developed and described. This includes
describing the mechanisms necessary to complete the theory and the time
frames necessary for the processes to be completed. To date, I have seen
no Intelligent Design proponent ever fully lay out the theory with these
necessary parameters. I also have never seen a description of the maximum
complexity that would be possible through a random process. This would
have to be answered to evaluate the Design theory. Several mechanisms such
as microevolution have been incorporated into Intelligent Design; however,
they do not feed back into the main hypothesis and are essentially
"fluff." An example of what I mean by this is that microevolution is used
in Intelligent Design to describe variation between species and
intra-species changes, but it has no direct or indirect relevance to the
main hypothesis. If microevolution were proven in the future to be false,
it would have no overall affect on the main hypothesis. A new sub theory
would be plugged in and the main theory would continue unaffected. Where
this may be attractive, it is not how a complex scientific theory is
developed. Feedback is necessary for indirect testability. If natural
selection were proven to be false, the Theory of Evolution would undergo
major changes or would be proven invalid. Because of the above listed
points, there is no possibility to directly or indirectly test the main
hypothesis of the Intelligent Design theory. Therefore, Intelligent Design
is not a "proven scientific theory" as stated by Ms. Bohn. In fact,
because of the untestable nature of the current Intelligent Design main
hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as one.
Several scientists nationwide have come out in support of the ideas of
Intelligent Design, but that alone still does not make the theory
scientific. I myself, as a scientist, could  develop a theory on any
topic, but it would not become a scientific theory unless it is testable,
I collect positive supporting evidence and it is peer reviewed and
accepted by the science community. I believe it was Mr. Mammoliti who said
in one of his guest editorials in The Pratt Tribune that Intelligent
Design should not be dismissed as not being a scientific theory, because
it would not do justice to the discussions and critical thinking to be
gained between comparisons of the two theories. Where this is elegantly
stated and appealing at some level, it is also completely wrong. Logic and
the scientific method tells us that we must dismiss any theory as being
invalid or not scientific, if it cannot stand up to the rigors of the
scientific method. One of the best assessments that I have seen on whether
Intelligent Design is a scientific theory comes from "Of Pandas and
People." At the end of overview number one, the book's authors say that
science alone cannot answer the question of what is the intelligent agent
behind the Intelligent Design theory. We must look to Philosophy or
Religion to answer that question. Even if science eventually provides
additional evidence for the Theory of Evolution and fills in the holes of
missing information, it can never prove that there was not an intelligent
agent involved. Without this testability, Intelligent Design will never be
accepted as a scientific theory.

Ms. Bohn also made several statements referring to what she called the
Philosophy of Evolution. Outside of the obvious mixing of several theories
that were made in her statement, there was also a lack of understanding of
the Theory of Evolution, its various mechanisms and how it is and has been
tested. The Theory of Evolution describes natural selection and genetic
drift, when accumulating over a long period of time, as the main
mechanisms to accomplish the process of species origin. Therefore, natural
selection feeds back into the origin theory and the study of natural
selection is an indirect test for the Theory of Evolution. Amassing data
through the continued testing of natural selection, island biogeography,
and the fossil record, we continue to collect supporting evidence for the
Theory of Evolution. Indirect testing is a common scientific method (not
just in biology, but also in physics, chemistry, economics, etc.) to test
theories for concepts that require long time periods to complete or for
processes that cannot be directly observed. The Theory of Evolution has
remained the primary scientific theory to describe the origin of species,
because of its indirect testability and the continual supporting evidence
that is collected. It also meshes with and is supported by the theories of
the development of the universe, geologic plate tectonics, and the study
of the age of the earth (which were developed after the Theory of
Evolution and for reference, none of which where developed in biological
fields).

A statement was made during the last board meeting, by Ms. Mills and Ms.
Bohn, that any teaching of the Theory of Evolution should be done
correctly. I am not exactly sure what they mean by this statement, so I
will assume that they want all controversies and anomalous evidence that
they feel do not support the theory presented to students for analysis.
Science teaching at the introductory level in high school focuses around
the basic presentation of scientific theories, so that a student can get
an idea of the theories and how they are developed. All science theories,
whether in biology, chemistry or physics, have anomalous evidence that
does not perfectly fit the theory. That is why they are theories. However,
because of the massive amount of information that is put forth in an
introductory science course, this information is either left out or is
only briefly mentioned. The primary objective is to give the students an
understanding of the theories, not an unbending belief that the theories
are completely correct (as has been suggested by Ms. Bohn and Ms. Mills).
Also, at this level, students are not prepared for the type of critical
thinking that has been suggested. This type of in-depth analysis of
scientific theories is usually taken by college biology students in a
junior or senior level course in evolutionary biology. If we look at the
controversy surrounding the Theory of Evolution, we see that most of that
controversy sits outside of science. That is not to say that some
scientist believe the Theory of Evolution is incorrect, but most of the
discussions in science revolve around how the mechanisms operate together
and other finer details of the theory. A further look into the outside
controversy shows that the controversy is not really based on evidence or
the lack of evidence, it is an argument based on emotion. No amount of
evidence will ever stop the controversy and even if the perfect supporting
data were eventually collected, it would be dismissed as not being good
enough. This is evident by returning to the statements made in overview
number one in "Of Pandas and People" Even if science eventually provides
additional evidence for the Theory of Evolution and fills in the holes of
missing information, it can never prove that there was not an intelligent
agent involved.

One thing that appears to be lost in the science curriculum discussions at
last two board meetings, is what is best for the District at this time.
Ms. Mills made a statement in both meetings that we should not be afraid
of being sued. In a District that has major funding issues, especially
those for new school construction, it doesn't appear that risking a legal
challenge of their proposals (and they will be challenged) would be in the
District's best interest. Not only would it be time consuming, but it
would also tie up needed financial resources, no matter who wins the
challenge. The only conclusion that I can make from those statements is
that several board members are putting their personal views above the best
interest of the District and/or they are listening to foolish legal
advise.

Ms. Bohn and I do agree on one thing. I also think Outcome 5 of Life
Sciences, Genetics and Zoology and the other theories appendix is
inadequate. Both of those items should be removed from the Science
Curriculum, because they do not add anything to the teaching of scientific
concepts. Otherwise, the previous draft of the Science Curriculum is a
quality document. It is well founded in science and includes all major
science concepts. It is an excellent blueprint that would provide USD 382
students with a quality science education. I urge the board to approve the
previous draft curriculum without Outcome 5 and the other theories
appendix.

I would like to apologize to the board for the length of this letter and
for the harsh tone in several portions. However, both were necessary to
make several points that needed to be clarified. I agree with Mr. Jones
and believe several board members owe the professionals working on the
science curriculum a sincere apology for attacking the quality of the
science curriculum document in a misguided attempt to insert their own
personal views. Thank you for you time.

John Phillips

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/June/14-396-news6.txt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Pratt Tribune" June 21, 2000

Chris Mammoliti
LETTER: Phillips' arguments cut both ways

To the editor:

I read with interest the June 14 letter to the editor from John Phillips.
As I was mentioned specifically in the letter, it seemed appropriate to
provide a response to some of the points he addressed. Like Mr. Phillips,
I am a biologist with advanced college degrees and 20 years professional
experience. By its nature, scientific inquiry requires skepticism and I
happen to be skeptical of several arguments in his letter. In science,
sometimes you just have to throw a little tea in the harbor.

The letter indicates that since the intelligent agent implied by design
theory can never be identified, then "Intelligent Design will never be
accepted as a scientific theory." Here we have an argument that cuts both
ways. Physicists have yet to identify who or what was the cause of the Big
Bang. According to the line of reasoning put forth above, the Big Bang
must therefore be rejected as a scientific theory.

Another point in the letter was that the inclusion of microevolution (the
ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental change) into intelligent
design was "essentially fluff." The argument is that microevolution has no
relevance to the main hypothesis of intelligent design. I disagree! By
analogy, there are trucks that utilize 2-wheel drive in normal conditions
but are adaptable to 4-wheel drive in off-road situations. Does this
adaptability feed back into the main hypothesis of the truck design? Yes
it does. This adaptability is ultimately a product of the initial design.
By the same token, if living organisms are designed, then the process of
microevolution is a logical component of their design.

It was also argued that intelligent design was not scientific because the
main theory would remain unaffected if "sub-theories" were disproved. As
stated in the letter "a new sub-theory would be plugged in and the main
theory would remain unaffected." Again, this is an argument that cuts both
ways. Consider the gaps in the fossil record. Darwin proposed that the
differences between organisms was the result of many small changes over
very long time periods. He also stated that "Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such gradual organic change and this is perhaps the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." One
hundred and forty years later there are still "gaps" in most proposed
lines of evolutionary development. To address this problem a new
"sub-theory" called punctuated equilibrium was "plugged in." The main gist
of this sub-theory is that evolution occurred rapidly in small isolated
populations and the intermediate forms were seldom preserved in the fossil
record. In essence, we have a new sub-theory being plugged in while the
main theory, that all living organisms evolved from a primitive common
ancestor, remains unaffected. If the argument works against intelligent
design, it also works against evolution.

The letter further states that "students are not prepared for the type of
critical thinking that has been suggested." Again, I disagree. The USD
#382 science curriculum calls for critical thinking and skepticism. State
science standards call for critical thinking and skepticism. The national
science standards, put forth by the National Research Council, call for
critical thinking and skepticism. To say that our students are unprepared
to think critically on this issue sells them short and leaves them lacking
in skills necessary to succeed in science.

My final point concerns Mr. Phillips' being "appalled" by school board
members who wish "to insert their own personal views" into the science
curriculum. Is there anyone, whether it be school board member, parent or
patron, who does not wish to see their personal views reflected in the
education of their children? Doesn't Mr. Phillips' letter reflect a
concern that his personal views have been challenged by a majority of the
school board? Personal views are part and parcel of any decision made at
any level. In a democratic society, we have the opportunity to elect
individuals whose views most closely reflect our own. That's how our
system works.

Although I disagree with Mr. Phillips on many points, I applaud his
willingness to express his concern in an open and forthright manner. I
invite him and others to continue this discussion by attending a Public
Forum on this issue this Saturday, June 24, at 7:00 PM in the Municipal
Building.

Chris Mammoliti

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/June/21-408-news96.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Pratt Tribune" July 12, 2000

John Phillips
LETTER: Debate theories on their merits

A couple of people have asked me if I was going to respond to several
comments that were prompted by my June 14 letter. Initially I wasn't, but
after overhearing a couple of discussions concerning my first letter, I
thought I would write another to clarify an issue and make several
observations. First let me clarify one issue. Over the last couple of
weeks, I have overheard several discussions concerning Creation that were
said to have been prompted by my June 14 letter. My original letter was a
reprint of a letter that I sent to the USD 382 School Board criticizing
the statements and actions of several members and focused on what science
is, how it is determined and who determines it. It was in no way intended
to be a treatise on secular versus religious ideas, because they are not
mutually exclusive. Myself, most scientists before me and the many that
will follow have been able to combine both scientific principles and
spiritual beliefs in ways that make both stronger. If you review my first
letter and the responses to it, it should be obvious that I disagree with
Intelligent Design proponents on many issues that surround this debate.
This is good. Science draws its strength from disagreement. However,
science has a method to its madness. Disagreements are resolved through
the refereed scientific peer review process using research, data analysis
and critical thinking. Even though Intelligent Design's ideas have been
around for more than 10 years, this has still not happened! Why? Primarily
because of Intelligent Design's lack of scientific evidence, poor quality
of analyses and the fact that no complete scientific theory has ever been
put forth. The refereed scientific peer review process is seen by some
non-scientists as a restrictive and exclusive process and in some sense it
may be. However, it is also the way that science guarantees the quality of
what is puts forth. This very process has provided the scientific and
technological advancements that we enjoy today. Should it be abandoned for
this debate? Why? We are discussing science and what should be taught in
science class, the process is not only relevant but also mandatory to
guarantee quality. The refereed scientific review process is not
censorship as has been implied by several individuals whose theories
cannot meet its rigors. Critical thinking is also good. This exchange
between Intelligent Design proponents and myself is an example of critical
thinking. However, critical thinking can only occur with the mastery of
ideas and topics. I don't think anyone out there seriously thinks that any
Intelligent Design proponent and I would be having this discussion after a
3-day unit on evolution that is presented in high school biology. Teaching
our children the process of critical thinking in science, as well as other
subjects, is important. However, attempting to present flawed and
misleading evidence against one scientific theory under the guise of
critical thinking will not advance critical thinking, only personal views.
 

If you review any of the comments that were prompted by my June 14 letter
and my original letter itself, one thing is obvious. None of my criticisms
and comments have been addressed. Only perceived flaws in evolution and
origin theories were pointed out with several comparisons. I would suggest
that we examine the research and theory behind Intelligent Design to
answer my criticisms, but none has been fully and adequately presented.
That is why Intelligent Design is known in the scientific community as
"the elusive theory". It has been implied that Intelligent Design is a
"revolution" in the world of science. I have seen numbers presented by
various people that anywhere from 1,000-2,000 scientists have turned their
backs on the Theory of Evolution. Sounds like a large number. But, lets
put it into context. Lets use the larger of the two numbers and take it on
face value without any further analysis of the people behind this number.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has almost 140,000
members. If you add to this, the memberships of the many other
professional science organizations and all scientists that do not belong
to professional societies (half of those that I know) and subtract
duplicate memberships (people who belong to more than one society) and the
members that might not be professional scientists, there are more than
200,000 professional scientists. So after more than10-years since the
presentation of the ideas of Intelligent Design, at best, all that
proponents can say is that less than 1% of scientists think there is
validity behind Intelligent Design. Hardly a revolution by any definition
of the word!

Several people have seemed to miss my point on the appalling nature of the
board's vote not to accept the science curriculum developed by the
professionals the district employs. What is most disturbing to me is the
attempt to micromanage the situation by several board members who do not
have any scientific expertise. Anyone who has been involved in
micromanaged situations knows the major pit falls that are associated with
the practice. From recent actions, it appears that those effects are
starting to be realized within the district. Also, what is equally
appalling is the suggestion that quality science can and should be
determined by a popular vote instead of by review of the scientific
community!

I am intrigued by the idea of debating Intelligent Design proponents
concerning the science behind the Theory of Evolution. I think several
would make worthy opponents in a debate. However, the Theory of Evolution
is not on trial here. What is up for discussion are the actions and
proposals of several members of the school board, especially since they
rejected the expertise of their professionals based on their own
"extensive" science training. It has been suggested that we continue the
debate on this topic. I have a better idea. I suggest that we get out of
the way of the science professionals that have been hired by this district
and let them do the job for which they are trained to do - teach our
children science. I will reserve my additional comments for the time when
those members of the board fully define their idea of "critical thinking"
and why they feel "critical thinking" currently is only important in the
discussion of evolutionary theory. One can only hope it won't amount to
yet another try to validate old flawed misleading evidence in an attempt
to elevate it to the realm of accepted science. Several board meetings
ago, statements were made about "new" evidence for design and against
evolution. But so far, all I have seen is the same old flawed pattern
recognition ideas that were presented to me almost 10 years ago. While we
wait for the board's proposals, if the proponents of Intelligent Design
really want to accomplish something, I suggest that they present their
"new" evidence and fully lay out their theory.

John Phillips

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/July/12-444-news94.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Pratt Tribune" August 24, 2000

Chris Mammoliti
GUEST COMMENTARY: Evolution a theory and a religion

Many argue that Intelligent Design has no place in the science classroom
because it is a philosophy rather than science. Others say that science
cannot investigate theological questions or that belief in God and the
theory of evolution are not contradictory. What has yet to be discussed is
the philosophical basis for Darwinian evolution. Is it consistent with a
belief in God and does it have a place in a science classroom?

Darwin argued that if God was guiding the process then, as he put it,
"natural selection would be superfluous." Darwin clearly saw that you
can't have both. Either God or natural selection becomes unnecessary. This
was Darwin's philosophy.

Is this the philosophy promoted by evolutionary biologists today? In the
July 2000 issue of Scientific American, biologist Ernst Mayr states:
"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations ... It no
longer requires God as creator or designer ... this is perhaps Darwin's
greatest contribution - he developed a set of new principles that
influence the thinking of every person: the living world, through
evolution, can be explained without recourse to supernaturalism." As
philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote in the May 13, 2000 National
Post, "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 ... the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a
religion."

Is this philosophy entering the classroom? Consider this statement from
the popular college textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling
undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of
natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of
the life processes superfluous." Or, this statement from the widely used
high school text Biology: "...it is important to keep in mind this
concept: Evolution is random and undirected." (Emphasis in original)

Darwinian philosophy also enters the classroom through curriculum
standards. The standards rejected by the Kansas State Board of Education
last August relied heavily on standards formulated by the National Academy
of Sciences. The September 1999 issue of Scientific American reported that
over 90 percent of surveyed NAS members did not believe in a personal God.
Biologists were the most skeptical with 95 percent claiming to be atheist
or agnostic. The NAS standards elevated evolution from simply a biological
theory to a "unifying concept" that transcends the traditional disciplines
of science.

Is the philosophy that Darwinian evolution makes God unnecessary held by
the majority of Americans? Recent Gallup polls show that 47 percent of
Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one
time in the last 10,000 years. Another 40 percent agree that humans
developed from less advanced forms over millions of years, but that God
guided this process. Only 9 percent say that humans developed from less
advanced forms over millions of years and that God had no part in the
process. Darwinian evolution, as it's defined, practiced and presented in
the science classroom upholds a philosophical doctrine that is denied by
87 percent of the population.

If Intelligent Design must be censored because it has a philosophy
consistent with theism, shouldn't Darwinian evolution be censored because
it has a philosophy consistent with atheism?

Chris Mammoliti

Oryginal:
http://www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/August/24-337-news9.txt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Pratt Tribune" August 30, 2000

Ken Brunson
LETTER: Evolution theory not kin to religion

As a scientist, I find the current debate over creationism in the science
classroom fraught with misconceptions. Perhaps the greatest distortion
being that belief in evolution principles are analogous to religious
beliefs. It would all be merely amusing were it not that evolution
principles are central to nearly everything we study and discover in
biology. "Critical thinking" is nothing new to science. Genuinely good
science constantly tests itself through "critical thinking" and it does it
through professional, peer-reviewed forums, not through politics and
religious pressures. The comparable political attack on science is most
evident now in the corporate world which proclaims that any studies which
do not agree with industrial rights to pollute simply are not considered
"good science." Some would have us regress to a strange new dark age when
the only science which could be presented is that which passes the
majority religion's and the corporate/political litmus tests.

Just because some scientists apply their religious convictions to science
does not make science religion, nor religion science. Faith in scientific
evidence and faith in God are two different disciplines. One is science,
the other religion. The premise in Intelligent Design theory is to yield
to a master designer, God, when science has not advanced sufficiently to
answer all evolutionary questions. Imagine how scientific discovery would
have regressed if this logic was universally applied? Why would one be
motivated to seek advancements in modern medicine, for example, if faith
healing was the accepted treatment for afflictions because trying to
understand the human body is just too complicated? Why is evolution
singled out as the only scientific arena to have Intelligent Design
applied?

While I believe it will weaken our science curriculum to try to represent
religion as science, I believe it more disheartening that the school board
is allowing perpetuation of this religious debate by merely tabling it,
ignoring the advice of its own science curriculum committee. It seems
customary now for members of the school board to utilize their positions
to proselytize their own religious views before what they must conclude is
a heathen public in need of their preaching. Along with the attempt to
interject their religious views of creation as scientific fodder,
attention to truly serious ethical, moral, and structural deficiencies
infecting this school system for years may continue to be avoided.
Evolution can continue to be the scapegoat for this lack of institutional,
and religious courage to deal with more pressing issues.

My admiration goes to the Pratt High faculty who have to silently witness
this counterproductive effort while slaving in actual sweat-shop
conditions and suffering in noisy, cramped, shared rooms with antiquated
facilities. The new Kansas State School Board will soon reverse the
embarrassing actions of the former which ignored the advice of its own
expert scientific panel. The Skyline School district took the advice of
its experts and maintained its current science curriculum and did not
include "Of Pandas and People" as a supplement. Isn't it about time for
the Pratt USD 382 school board to end this distraction and devote its full
attention to the real issues at hand?

Ken Brunson
Pratt

POWRÓT