Reflectorites
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:12:46 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
SB>Here is an interesting tidbit I picked up from another creation/evolution
>discussion list. *Very* interesting reading! And, of course, it contradicts
>Stephen's claim that the new Kansas standards actually increased the level
>of science taught.
First of all I have claimed *nothing* about "the level of *science* taught"
(my emphasis). What I have claimed is that the new standards increased the
amount of *evolution* to be taught in Kansas over the old standards.
Second, the article Susan posted said nothing about what the evolutionary
content of the old standards was. No one denies that the Board reduced the
teaching of evolution in the *draft* standards presented to the Board for
approval.
The rest of the article makes out like it is a new discovery that the KBOE
was assisted by creationists in deciding what to delete out of the draft
standards. But one of my earliest posts on the Kansas issue to the Reflector
said that the standards were rewritten "With the help of creationists":
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 05:21:53 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>The Kansas debate began more than a year ago when the state appointed a
>committee of 27 scientists and professors to write a state version of new
>national science guidelines.
>
>But when those standards were submitted to the board, a conservative
>member, Steve Abrams, a former state Republican chairman, said he "had
>some serious questions about it," claiming "it is not good science to teach
>evolution as fact."
>
>With the help of creationists, Abrams rewrote the standards, deleting most
>of the two pages on evolution. What remained was "micro-evolution,"
>which refers to genetic adaptation and natural selection within a species.
>But "macro-evolution," the origin of species, was gone.
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, since this has arisen again, I would also point out that the ID
movement's basic position (which I support) has been that teaching about
evolution should not be reduced but *increased*. That is, the problems
with evolution and its underlying philosophical assumptions should be
also taught, so that students can make up their own minds based on
*all* the evidence. In the above same post to the Reflector I also said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 05:21:53 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>The line the ID movement leaders like Johnson and Behe (see attached the
>latter's article at http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/13behe.html in
>the New York Times) are taking is that evolution should not be banned
>from schools, but that it should be taught *honestly* with its philosophical
>assumptions laid bare and all its difficulties frankly admitted.
[...]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
> NEWS RELEASE - NEWS RELEASE - NEWS RELEASE
>
>For Immediate Release 12/10/99
>
> Creationists Secretly Authored Kansas Science
> Standards, Kansas Citizens For Science Members Charge
>
>
>Members of Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) have
>uncovered evidence that a Genesis-based creationist
>group led by Tom Willis, president of the Creation
>Science Association of Mid-America (CSAMA), was the
>primary author of alterations made to the science
>standards that were adopted by the Kansas State Board
>of Education in August.
>
>At the December Board meeting in which KCFS members
>Jack Krebs and Steve Case presented this evidence,
>Krebs stated, "Allowing the creationists to alter the
>standards in this way is a serious violation in spirit
>of the separation of church and state."
>
>The standards originally had been written over a
>13-month period by a statewide 27-member writing
>committee composed of scientists, educators and
>curriculum experts. At the August Board meeting, the
>Board subcommittee of Steve Abrams, Scott Hill, and
>Harold Voth claimed to have written the changes to the
>standards themselves, and, despite concerns expressed
>at the time, claimed that they did not use any outside
>sources for their
>work. At the recent SUA forum at KU, Mr. Hill said,
>"As the primary author of the compromise standards
>that were passed, I guarantee that it was not input
>from fundamentalist religious zealots that did the
>work."
>
>However, drawing on a document found on the website of
>Celtie Johnson, a primary organizer of the creationist
>group, Krebs and Case showed the Board that virtually
>all the additions made to the science standards in
>August actually came from a alternative draft of the
>standards written byTom Willis and his group, the
>Citizens1 Drafting Committee. This
>document, entitled Working Draft CDC/A8 and available
>at http://www.homestead.com/ncese/index.html,
>contains, verbatim, 40 out of 42
>major additions to the standards made by the
>Abrams-Hill-Voth team. Draft A8 also contains
>information that shows that the document was revised
>at least four times on Tom Willis's computer, shipped
>to Dr. Abrams' computer and then returned to CSAMA.
>
>Neither members of the original 27-member standards
>writing committee nor the Board as a whole has ever
>seen this document. However, on their website the
>creationists take credit for their efforts, writing
>that their "citizens drafting committee had an
>unprecedented opportunity to assist the members of the
>Kansas School Board in the development of new Science
>Curriculum Standards.... The Citizens Drafting
>Committee prepared several
>drafts ofthe proposed Kansas Science Standards,
>eventually arriving at the Citizens
>Draft Committee A8 version."
>
>Earlier in May, BOE member Abrams had presented an
>alternative draft, Trial 4A, and implied that he was
>the author. However, WSU professor and creationist
>Paul Ackerman, in his recent book about the science
>standards, "Kansas Tornado," states that the draft was
>written at Tom Willis' house in Missouri, and that
>Abrams agreed to submit it under his name. Celtie
>Johnson's website says of this draft that it "is the
>early draft of the Kansas Science Curriculum which was
>assembled by the Citizens Draft Committee"
>
>Jack Krebs also presented information from other
>articles and public presentations that showed that the
>real reasons for the creationists' efforts are
>religious: they believe that evolution contradicts
>central tenets of their religion, and particularly
>their belief that Jesus
>died to redeem humankind from Adam's original sin.
>Krebs concluded "By eliminating
>all standards which contradict Genesis and by
>inserting many examples that bolster a creationist
>view, the Board has accommodated the religious views
>of these creationists at the expense of scientific
>knowledge that is considered essential and accurate
>worldwide."
>
>On Dec. 7, Board voted 9-1 to send the standards out
>for independent review. This costly and time-consuming
>project, says KCFS member Steve Case, a member of the
>original 27-member writing committee, "merely prolongs
>the rejection of these standards and allows the board
>to divert attention from the fact that a religious
>right group secretly authored them."
>
>It is estimated that the independent review will cost
>$18,000 to $20,000.
>
>Kansas Citizens For Science is an organization
>composed of parents, educators, scientists, students
>and others who support the teaching of sound science
>in Kansas public schools. For more information, see
>the KCFS website at: www.kcfs.org.
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The biggest physical storm occurring in ten years usually produces as
much change as all the rest put together. And the biggest in a hundred
years as much or more than all the rest. And, perhaps, even the biggest in a
thousand years.... Something of the same sort seems to happen with
evolution. The fine-tuning of genes produces small changes. The addition
of entirely new genes, perhaps whole batteries of new genes, produces
large changes, grafted onto the genetic complement of an already existing
organism." (Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution", [1987], Acorn
Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.xv. Ellipses in original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 26 2000 - 17:23:28 EST