Science Education

Defenders of Darwin’s theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not. The Kansas State Board of Education has proposed ten days of hearings featuring scientists who embrace evolutionary theory along with scientific critics of neo-Darwinism, but according to this article in the Lawrence Journal-World, evolutionists are crying foul:

some evolution proponents are suggesting that scientists shouldn’t participate in what they say will be an unfair hearing. “The deck is completely stacked,” said Liz Craig, a spokeswoman for Kansas Citizens for Science. “I don’t believe anybody’s going to participate… because it’s just ridiculous.”

Darwinists have a rather peculiar definition of an “unfair” and “stacked” hearing, however. The Kansas Board has asked for an equal number of scientists (10) to testify on each side. Scientists favoring evolution would be selected by professor Steve Case, chair of the state committee drafting revised science standards for Kansas and an ardent evolutionist. Scientists critical of evolutionary theory would be chosen by biochemistry professor Bill Harris, another member of the same science standards committee, and a supporter of intelligent design. Case would be allowed to cross-examine scientists critical of evolutionary theory, and Harris would be allowed to cross-examine scientists who defend evolutionary theory. In other words, the ground rules proposed are scrupulously fair and even-handed to both sides of the debate.

With some local reporters in Kansas striving to cover the science standards controversy there with fairness and accuracy, it’s disappointing to see the Associated Press reporter in Kansas writing science fiction in the guise of news reports. According to the latest salvo from AP’s Bill Draper:

Some conservative members of the state board have questioned whether the committee has properly considered views about creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution.

A minority of members on Case’s committee have said it’s not fair to teach evolution as an explanation of the origin of life without also including the possibility that life was formed by an intelligent being.

Contrary to Draper, there is no debate on the Kansas Board of Education over whether to teach creationism, and there is no debate on the Kansas science standards committee about whether to teach intelligent design. What minority members on the science standards committee have called for is teaching about scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory as well as the evidence favoring evolutionary theory. They have not called for the teaching of intelligent design. Has Mr. Draper even read the minority report issued by members of the science standards committee?

A writer for the newspaper of record in Liberal, Kansas (yes, there is a town with that name in Kansas) endorses the truly liberal policy of teaching the scientific controversy over evolution. He argues: (opponents of teaching the controversy) should come up with a good argument on why teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state education science mission statement to make all students lifelong learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions. Presenting only one life science theory in classes without alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement. The author of the essay is wrong to suggest that the Kansas Board of Education is considering adding intelligent design to the Kansas state science standards. In Read More ›

BY KEITH PENNOCK Some school boards seem to have confused their role with that of the FDA, placing warning labels on textbooks as though they were a package of cigarettes that should be kept out of the hands of minors. Fortunately, there’s a better way. Rather than noting the scientific controversy over Darwinism by placing stickers on textbooks, we advise that school boards attempt to teach the controversy by augmenting their curriculum using supplemental materials. Ohio and Minnesota followed this approach, and now students there can learn both the strengths and weaknesses in Darwin’s theory. And neither state has been drawn into a legal flap. Smart.

Kansas is busy reviewing, and proposing revisions to, the standards by which it will measure what students know or don’t know about science. Regardless of the tin-ear reporting of some journalists, students in Kansas will continue to learn about evolution. The question is will they know ALL about evolution including the scientific evidence against it? Or, will they learn only about the evidence that supports it?

Reporting on the issue has run the gamut from good, to bad, to ugly. We remarked on the good previously, an article by Diane Carroll of the Kansas City Star. And, there was today another good article, by Elaine Bessier in the Johnson County Sun. In fact, Bessier’s article was more than good, it was downright fair and balanced.

Rather than conflate the revisions being proposed with intelligent design theory Bessier correctly reports:

The Intelligent Design Network’s John Calvert has provided us with this first-hand account of Tuesday’s meeting where the public could share their opinions with the Kansas SBOE on proposed revisions to the state’s science standards.

Report on a public debate about evolution

Last night I went to the public meeting at Schlagel High in Kansas City, Kansas. It focused on the Kansas Science Standards and Proposals by the Harris group to increase their objectivity in the area of origins.

I thought there would be a crowd, but not 400. The place was packed. Even if I wanted to speak, the line that had been open for speakers was closed well before my arrival. They cut off the list at 60 but allowed time for only 45 or 50.

The Feb. 7 issue of Newsweek carries a long article about intelligent design titled “Doubting Darwin.” Although I don’t agree with the article in every particular, Newsweek’s Jerry Adler is to be commended for far outclassing Newsweek’s competitor, Time magazine, in his coverage of the growing debate over evolution. Compared to Time’s histrionic article a few days ago, Newsweek’s story is a serious attempt to report on what is actually happening. Among other things, Newsweek clearly distinguishes intelligent design from biblical creationism, and it avoids the conspiracy-mongering promoted by leading Darwinists. (FYI, the print edition of Newsweek carries a nice full-color photo of Steve Meyer and myself at the Discovery Institute office. If you look closely at the photo, you will be able to see a small bronze bust of Teddy Roosevelt on the bookshelf behind us.)

Despite the fact that Newsweek’s article is a credible effort, I would offer a few critical observations:

In this week’s Legal Times of D.C., Dr. Francis J. Beckwith offers an excellent analysis of the recent decision by Judge Clarence Cooper in Selman v. Cobb County School District. The article has the apt title of “Sticker Shock.” Beckwith is the author of Law, Darwinism and Public Education (available here and here), an outstanding book analyzing the constitutionality of presenting intelligent design theory. He has likewise published several articles related to this subject in law reviews and law journals. In this article, he brings his full expertise to bear in discussing the Judge’s rationale in light of U.S. Supreme Court case law, while also focusing upon some of the larger philosophical issues. Notes Beckwith: While the Cobb County sticker Read More ›

There are an infinite number of wrong ways to address the subject of how to teach evolutionary theory in public schools. But before discussing some of those wrong ways, it is best to keep in mind a right way. Namely, teach students the scientific arguments in favor of biological and chemical evolutionary theories, but also allow students to learn about some of the scientific criticisms of those theories. As Stephen Meyer and John Angus Campbell have insisted, “When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about the competing perspectives.”

Comes now Georgia House Bill 179, sponsored by Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges. AP reporter Doug Gross’s story (here) discusses HB 179 as being “designed to prevent the theory of evolution from being taught in Georgia’s classrooms.” At least, that’s how Gross sees it. Yet, a plain reading of the bill’s text is seemingly at odds with the idea that evolutionary theory would be banned from Georgia schools. If enacted as law, the bill would apply “Whenever any theory of the origin of humans or other living things is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration.”

At this point, the only thing clear about this is that it is very unclear where Rep. Bridges is coming from on this.