Good morning.  My name is Jody Sjogren.  I am here to encourage you
 again to rethink your plans for the Science Standards in light of
 current evidence against Darwinism.

 Last month we introduced this new book, Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan
 Wells. This book analyzes ten of the so-called evidences for evolution
 most often seen in  science textbooks.  Today we will briefly address
 several of these icons.  For your further study, we have a copy of the
 book for each of you, as well as the feature article in this month's
 American Spectator magazine, which is a condensed version of the book.

 Haeckel's Embryos are drawings done in the 1870s by German biologist
 Ernst Haeckel (Figure 1).  His purpose was to show that various classes
 of vertebrate embryos (like amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals)
 are virtually identical in their earliest stages and become noticeably
 different only in later stages of development.  Darwin found this
 pattern supportive of his theory that these animals are the modified
 descendants of some ancient common ancestor.

 For over 100 years these drawings have appeared in biology textbooks in
 support of evolutionary theory, while embryologists have known that
 different species are distinguishable from each other from the very
 earliest stages all through development.

 In 1997, British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international
 team of experts published an article comparing Haeckel's drawings with
 photographs of actual vertebrate embryos.  The real embryos look
 noticeably different from Haeckel's stylized drawings (Figure 2).
 Richardson puts it this way: "It looks like it's turning out to be one
 of the most famous fakes in biology."  And even Harvard evolutionist
 Stephen Jay Gould agrees.

 I am sure that you do not want to promote a theory that uses inaccurate
 and misleading illustrations to support a philosophy of naturalism.  I
 urge you not to turn a blind eye to the important work of credible
 scientists who have exposed Haeckel's Embryos as frauds.  This icon of
 evolution is being toppled by contemporary science, and with it goes the
 so-called evidence from embryology for Darwin's theory.

 Thank you.

 Jody F. Sjogren
 Managing Director
 Intelligent Design Network

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REMARKS OF DR. YONGSOON PARK
 TO THE KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

 December 12, 2000
 

My name is Yongsoon Park. I have a Masters and a PhD degree in Nutritional
Biochemistry and currently work as a research scientist at the UMKC
School of Medicine.

I would like to make a few comments on the proposed revisions to the
Kansas Science Education Standards. I want to point out a serious problem with
the presentation of the tree of life as a fact.

On p. 102 of Biological Sciences, the text used in 10th grade biology in
the Shawnee Mission school district,  Darwin's tree of life is displayed
clearly linking all 5 kingdoms to each other beginning with a single common
ancestor. It is false and misleading. This is important issue since
descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory.

The branching tree of life is inconsistent with major features of the
fossil and molecular evidence. First, the Cambrian fossil pattern does not fit
Darwin's prediction since the major phyla appeared right at the start in
the early Cambrian. The Cambrian explosion happened quickly and was very
extensive. It turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Second,
using protein sequence differences as a "molecular clock" to estimate how long
ago species shared a common ancestor has also failed. In a February 2000
article in Scientific American, Doolittle suggests that the early history of life
is a tangled web rather than a branching tree.

Science should be unbiased fact-finding and logical weighing of evidence.
The 1999 standards endorse the open-minded evaluation of evidence. In
considering what to do with these new standards, please do not limit the
stu dents' right to hear all the relevant evidence.

Thank you so much for your attention!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 REMARKS OF Dr. WILLIAM S. HARRIS
 TO THE KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
 as read by  Brad Cook

 December 12, 2000

Good Morning! I''m here at the request of a friend, Dr. William Harris, a
nutritional biochemist and professor of medicine at UMKC. He couldn't make
it this morning and asked me to stand in for him.

Dr. Harris writes: ""I have recently examined a text book entitled
""Biological Science -- A Molecular Approach"" which is used in my
daughter' 's 10th grade biology class at Shawnee Mission East High School. This book
contains all of the classic Icons of Evolution, from Darwin''s Tree of
Life to the Peppered moth. The book states on page 13 regarding Darwin''s
theory of evolution that ""virtually no opposing data have yet been found."" Dr.
Harris takes serious issue with this statement.

For example, the Miller-Urey experiment involved sending an electrical
current through an atmosphere producing simple amino acids.

This is presented as proof that life originated by the random interaction
of chemicals and electrical fields. The textbook writers fail to tell the
students two critical facts: 1) Most researchers today agree that the
methane and ammonia rich atmosphere used by Miller-Urey was NOT present in
the early earth''s atmosphere; (points to gas chamber on overhead) and 2)
nobody has ever been able to produce functional proteins by natural
processes.

The proper role of curriculum standards, as Jack (Krebs) has just said,
require examination and correction of error and misinformation.

Current biology textbooks do not present the whole truth. Why are students
left with the impression that this important experiment was successful?

The new board will more than likely reverse the 1999 science standards.
Although I welcome some revision of those standards, I would urge you to
NOT revise the definition of science. To assert that all phenomena must be
explained by natural mechanisms is a philosophical, not scientific,
restriction. When discussing origins, students should be given all
pertinent data and allowed to draw their own conclusions free of philosophical or
religious agendas.

Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 NATURALISTIC LIMITS ON EXPLANATION
 SHOULD NOT BE DICTATED BY SCIENTISTS -
 SEEK GUIDANCE FROM OTHERS!

 December 12, 2000

Hi I'm John Calvert.

A member of a local school board once said to me:  "I have to rely on
scientists to guide me on what to teach in science class."

This may be true as to most scientific issues.  However, when it comes to
origins science Board members need guidance from others as well as from
scientists.

This is because modern science does not do origins science as an unbiased
and independent investigator.

Modern science predicates origins explanations on a naturalistic
philosophy that rules out one of the two possible causes of life and its diversity.
As a consequence the explanations given reflect philosophy and not science.

Whether the philosophy of naturalism should be used to limit explanations
about origins involves a cultural issue for the public to decide and not
just the science community.

Teaching naturalism also raises a legal issue.  When origins issues are
discussed, you can not avoid religious implications.  If you use
naturalism to censor the evidence that favors theistic world views to promote
explanations that favor atheistic world views you encounter a
constitutional problem.

Who then should you rely on?  I submit that in addition to scientists you
need guidance from a number of other experts and interested parties.

Appoint a special committee consisting of scientists, philosophers,
educators, attorneys and parents that will fairly represent both the
naturalistic and logical approaches to the question of how origins should
be taught.   Have a respected and independent judge chair the committee.
Encourage the committee to seek guidance from qualified witnesses and
experts.  Make your decision on new standards only after the committee has
done its work and reported back.

Whatever you do about new origins standards,  please do it openly,
cautiously and after you have given the public a fair opportunity to
comment on any proposal.

Thanks for listening.

John Calvert
Managing Director
Intelligent Design Network, Inc.