Reflectorites
On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 05:53:28 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>>SJ>...What I have claimed is that the new standards increased the
>>>amount of *evolution* to be taught in Kansas over the old standards.
>SB>and I've asked you to provide documentation for that statement and have
>>been ignored.
SJ>I would ask Susan to substantiate her claim that she has asked me "to
>provide documentation for that statement", ie. that "the new standards
>increased the amount of *evolution* to be taught in Kansas over the old
>standards" and that I have "ignored" her request.
>
>AFAIK I have not been asked by *anyone* to provide such documentation.
>I thought it was common grounds on both sides of the debate on this
>Reflector that the KBoE "increased the amount of *evolution* to be taught
>in Kansas over the old standards".
>
>But apparently not with Susan. So I have taken steps to provide such
>documentation, or at least web links to where Susan can read it for herself.
As promised, here is my documentation of my claim that "the new
standards increased the amount of *evolution* to be taught in
Kansas over the old standards" (ie. the old 1995 standards *in force*, not
the proposed *draft* standards of July 1999 which were only partially
adopted, with amendments, by the KBoE in August 1999).
First, below are URLs for the Kansas Science Standards which have
the original 1995 standards and the latest December 1999 standards:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Old (1995) version:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science1.html
The pro-Darwin Writing Committee Draft that was presented in July,
1999: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/scidraft5.html
(Note this link now has no standards, only a statement about
copyright problems).
The Standards that were actually adopted August 11, 1999:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science_stds99.html
(Note this link also now has no standards, only a statement about
copyright problems).
The current adopted standards, with minor changes are at:
www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science_12799.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Below also is an op-ed article by Jonathan Wells in "The Daily
Republic" of October 14, 1999 which analyses the difference
between the old original 1995 standards and those adopted by the
KBoE in August 1999. Unfortunately "The Daily Republic" only
keeps its archives on line for 7 days but the article is on the web
at: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Ridiculing_Kansas.htm.
As Wells points out, "The old science standards, in effect since
1995, devoted about 70 words to biological evolution" but "The
standards actually adopted by the Board on August 11 include
about 390 words on the subject" which is "a fivefold increase". And
in fact, as Wells observes, "the Board adopted verbatim the
Committee's summary of Darwin's theory: `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 available for life; not all progeny survive; 4)
individuals with advantageous traits generally survive; 5) the
advantageous traits increase in the population through time.'" and
as Wells says, "It would be difficult to find a better summary of
Darwin's theory of natural selection; Kansas students will now be
tested on it."
I haven't got time to do a gap analysis between the old 1995
standards and the new December 1999 standards, but here are the
places in the old standards where the word "evolution" (or its
cognates) occurs in the old 1995 standards:
"Grades 6-8. Identifies patterns of change in the natural and
technological world as trends, cycles, or chaos. (Example:
Examines a variety of changing earth conditions, chemical
reactions, biotic changes as trends, cycles, or chaos; traces the
evolution of the automobile, airplane, etc. and identifies patterns)"
"Grades 9-12. Analyzes the effects of variables on patterns of
change (trends, cycles, or chaos [nonlinear dynamics]). (Example:
Explains how environmental changes impact species' survival;
interprets evolutionary aspects of species development and
adaptations; analyzes the effect of human actions on environmental
quality; models how seasonal changes are related to orbital
changes; analyzes the variables that affect flight)"
"As a result of activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop
an understanding of: ... * mechanisms and consequences of
biological evolution,..."
"As a result of activities of grades 9-12, all students should develop
an understanding of: ... * origin and evolution of the earth system,
and * origin and evolution of the universe."
"PATTERNS OF CHANGE: Patterns of change are of particular
interest because much of science is about how things evolve and
how one change is related to another...Change can be classified
into three general categories: (1) changes that are steady trends;
(2) changes that are cyclic; and (3) chaotic changes. A system may
contain all three kinds of change occurring together, for example,
the patterns of evolution."
"Conceptual Models. One way to give an unfamiliar thing meaning
is to liken it to some familiar thing-that is, to use metaphor or
analogy....For example, the metaphor for the repealed [sic]
branching of species in the "tree of evolution" may incline one to
think not just of branching but also of upward progress; the
metaphor of a bush, on the other hand, suggests that the branching
of evolution produces great diversity in all directions, without a
preferred direction that constitutes progress."
There are other biological terms mentioned but these are all those
places that mention "evolution" and its cognates.
I have now provided the documentation and/or links to it that Susan
requested. Now If Susan wants to wade through the old 1995
standards and the new December 1999 standards to produce a
comprehensive gap analysis which shows where the new
December 1999 (or August 1999) standards adopted by the KBoE
have *not* "increased the amount of *evolution* to be taught in
Kansas over the old [1995] standards", she is welcome to do it.
Unfortunately I just don't have the time anymore to do it myself.
Steve
===================================================================
Ridiculing Kansas school board easy, but it's not good journalism
Jonathan Wells
The Daily Republic (Mitchell, SD)
October 14, 1999
Wizard of Oz jokes are in vogue as the news media scramble to
ridicule Kansas for downplaying, eliminating, or even banning
evolution in its public schools. But the people who are writing such
stuff apparently haven't read the Kansas Science Education
Standards. The truth is that the August 11 School Board decision
actually increased public school emphasis on evolution.
The old science standards, in effect since 1995, devoted about 70
words to biological evolution. Standards proposed to the Board
earlier this year by a 27-member Science Education Standards
Writing Committee would have increased this to about 640 words.
The standards actually adopted by the Board on August 11 include
about 390 words on the subject. So the Kansas State School
Board, asked to approve a ninefold increase in the standards for
evolution, approved a fivefold increase instead.
Of course, word counts dont tell the whole story. But the 390 words
approved by the Board include many of the provisions
recommended by the Committee. For example, the Board adopted
verbatim the Committee's summary of Darwin's theory: "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 available for life; not all progeny
survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive; 5)
the advantageous traits increase in the population through time." It
would be difficult to find a better summary of Darwin's theory of
natural selection; Kansas students will now be tested on it.
The Board also required students to understand that
"microevolution...favors beneficial genetic variations and
contributes to biological diversity," and listed finch beak changes as
an example. The Board declined, however, to adopt the
Committee's proposal requiring students to understand that
microevolution leads to macroevolution -- the origin of new
structures and new groups of organisms. The Board's reluctance is
understandable, since even some biologists doubt that changes in
finch beaks can explain the origin of finches in the first place.
There were some other recommendations the Board did not follow,
as well. For example, the Committee would have required students
to understand: "The common ancestry of living things allows them
to be classified into a hierarchy of groups." This requirement would
no doubt have come as a surprise to 18th century creationist
Carolus Linnaeus, who had no need of common ancestry when he
devised the hierarchical system of classification still used by
modern biologists.
Even more interesting than the details, however, was the
Committee's bid to inject Darwinian evolution into the very heart of
science. According to the 1995 standards, science embodies "four
general themes: Energy/Matter, Patterns of Change, Systems and
Interactions, and Stability and Models." Furthermore, "it is the
nature of science to provide a means for producing knowledge,
using processes such as observing, classifying, questioning,
inferring,...[and] collecting and recording data." The Science
Education Standards Writing Committee proposed to add a fifth
general theme, "patterns of cumulative change," an example of
which is the biological theory of evolution.
As a biologist myself, I find this strange. Why list a specific theory
such as biological evolution among general themes such as
systems and interactions, or basic processes such as collecting
and recording data? That's like inserting a specific law into a
constitution designed to establish a framework for law-making.
Why did the 1995 standards have to be changed at all? The
Committee's proposal was a product of recent nationwide efforts by
people who believe that Darwinian evolution is indispensable to
biological science. A rallying cry for these efforts is Theodosius
Dobzhansky's famous maxim, Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution. But Dobzhansky was mistaken.
There are entire areas of biology that have no need for evolutionary
theory, and there is evidence that the most sweeping claims of
Darwinism are wrong. More importantly, there can be no such
thing as an indispensable theory in science. A true scientist would
say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evidence.
The standards adopted by the Kansas State School Board are far
from perfect. Biology education would have been better served if
students had been required to understand macroevolutionary
theory, though they should also be taught the scientific evidence
against it. Under the circumstances, however, the Board may have
done the best it could. Faced with national pressure to include
Darwin's theory in its description of the very nature of science, the
Board courageously resisted, stocking the shelves with more
evolution but refusing to hand over the store.
News commentators who ridicule Kansas for downplaying,
eliminating, or even banning evolution from its schools not only
misrepresent the truth, but they also miss the real story. Why do
Darwinists go ballistic at the thought of high school students
questioning their theory? Why do biology textbooks continue to cite
evidence for evolution that was long ago discredited? How many
qualified scientists have lost their teaching jobs or their research
funding just because they dared to criticize Darwinism? How many
millions of your tax dollars will be spent this year by Darwinists
trying to find evidence for a theory they claim is already proven
beyond a reasonable doubt? There's enough here to keep a team
of investigative journalists busy for months.
Years ago, when asked why the media were spending so much
time covering the O.J. Simpson trial, a news commentator said, "It's
easy work." Ridiculing Kansas is easy work, too. But is it good
journalism?
Jonathan Wells is a post-doctoral biologist and Senior Fellow at the
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
in Seattle.
===================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods
of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing
today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are
less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a
scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution
than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of
Species." (Eldredge N., "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian
Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster:
New York NY, 1985, p14)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 07 2000 - 07:57:08 EST