On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:45:57 -0500 kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller)
writes:
> I will only ask that you read the complete standards for yourself.
They
> are posted at <http://kabt.org/Ks_Standards/Standard6.htm>. I grow
weary
> of people criticising the standards who have never actually read them.
Dear Keith,
I have now read the entire KS Science Standards, the info on and linked
to the arn.org site, _Creation and Change_ by Douglas Kelly (PCA
theologian), _What's Darwin Got to Do With It?_ by John Wiester and
others, the PCA Committe "Report on Creation", and _Defeating Darwnism_
(great book), all as background to respond to your opinion that John
Wiester's "characterization of the standards is completely false" (quoted
from your post of Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:55:04 -0500), because John said
"The new Kansas science standards tilt toward indoctrination rather than
education." I have also given this subject some shelf time to allow my
thoughts to sort themselves out.
First, I must say that I have gained a much higher regard for your
thinking as a result of reading your excellent essay in _Darwinism
Defeated? _. Not that we agree, mind you :-), but I very much enjoyed
reading the book in general and your chapter in particular.
I gather that you and most others on this list believe that God used "a
seamless series of cause-and-effect processes" to create through
evolution the life we see today (quote from your chapter of _Darwinism
Defeated?_, p 113). I have no problem with your believing whatever you
choose, but the basic question is whether the KS Science Standards take a
position which reaches beyond the data and then attempt to promote that
view in the science program - hence the phrase "tilt toward
indoctrination rather than education."
As a denomination, PCA doctrine takes a very different view from yours.
Frank Barker, now retired PCA pastor and one of the founders of the PCA,
said "The PCA doctrine of creation would be that Adam was created
genetically unique, i.e. he was not evolved from lower animals and then
given a soulish nature by God to make him 'man' instead of 'animals.' He
was created from 'dust' rather than evolving." The PCA "Report of the
Creation Study Committee" states "that there are presbyteries that do in
fact receive men holding other views [regarding the age-of-the-earth
question] without requiring an exception, provided the men can affirm the
historicity of Gen 1-3 and do reject evolution." So PCA doctrine clearly
rejects evolution in the sense of "a seamless series of cause-and-effect
processes."
If schooling a child under the KS Science Standards would tend to
undermine this PCA religious doctrine by teaching a theory based upon
inference, and by not teaching any alternative to the theory, then
indoctrination would occur.
So do the KS Science Standards teach evolution, which would undermine PCA
religious doctrine? Consider the following from the KS Stds:
1) Benchmark 3: Students will understand the major concepts of the
theory of biological evolution.*....The students will understand:
1. That the theory of evolution is both the history of descent, with
modification of different lineages of organisms from common ancestors,
and the on going adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and
changes (modified from Futuyma, et al., 1999).
2. That biologists use evolution theory to explain the earth's present
day biodiversity - the number, variety and variability of organisms.
3. That biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of evolution
are natural selection and genetic drift....
5. That evolution is a broad, unifying theoretical framework in
biology.
Examples: Evolution provides the context in which to ask research
questions and yields valuable insights, especially in agriculture and
medicine.
The common ancestry of living things allows them to be classified into
a hierarchy of groups; these classifications or family trees follow rules
of nomenclature; scientific names have unique definitions and value.
Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a
scientific explanation for the fossil record that correlates with
geochemical (e.g., radioisotope) dating results. The distribution of
fossil and modern organisms is related to geological and ecological
changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration).
*Understand: "Understand" does not mandate "belief." [Why even state
the blatantly obvious? Belief can only be mandated by force under pain
of death. This is eyewash for the evolutionists to assuage the irate
parents and their children - to put them back to sleep.] While students
may be required to understand some concepts that researchers use to
conduct research and solve practical problems, they may accept or reject
the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where
students' and/or parents' beliefs may be at odds with current scientific
theories or concepts. See _Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of
Science_, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page 59. (KS Science Stds.,
pp 58-60 of 75)
I will comment on only this one aspect of the KS Science Standards. For
those interested in more, the references above contain a wealth of info.
The central point in my thinking is contained in the following statement
from the Standards: "If a student should raise a question in a natural
science class that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of
science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science
and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her
family and other appropriate sources" (KS Science Standards, p 6 of 75).
My impression is that these Standards have been very carefully
wordsmithed to allow naturalism to be presented, and for supernatural
possibilities to be excluded. I find the limiting of questions to those
consistent with methodological naturalism inconsistent with KS Science
Standard 7 (p 47 of 75):
"The student will:
1. Practice intellectual honesty.
2. Demonstrate skepticism appropriately.
3. Display open-mindedness to new ideas.
4. Base decisions on evidence."
The Standards are clearly based upon a search for naturalistic
explanations rather than a search for truth (the word "truth" doesn't
appear in the Standards). This is not a minor point, but it was
apparently missed by the Chancellor of the University of Kansas, Robert
E. Hemenway, in "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why
Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth". Hemenway states: "Most
scientists, of course, believe that science is never fully certain and
complete, and that new truths lie just around the corner, somewhere in
the next experiment or observation. But that hardly means that
scientific theories - incorporating facts, laws, inferences, and tested
hypotheses - are not truths that can be used to explain the natural
world. Evolution is still the central unifying concept of biology - and
that is an understanding that schools and universities must teach if
education is to maintain its continuous search for biological truth."
The Chancellor of the University of Kansas equates biological *truth*
with "scientific theories... that can be used to explain the natural
world."
"Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can
be tested against the natural world.... Compelling student belief is
inconsistent with the goal of education" (KS Science Standards, p 6 of
75). What is presented as truth, but based upon inference, may not be
true at all. Historical science is neither observable nor subject to
repeatable experiments, but is an interpretation of empirical data.
The Standards are internally inconsistent. They cannot promote
intellectual honesty, appropriate skepticism, open-mindedness to new
ideas, and decisions based upon evidence, while limiting the questions
that may be asked to the realm of nature. On the one hand, the
Introduction to the Standards says "Inquiry is central to science
learning... Students...identify their assumptions, use critical and
logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations." (p 4 of 75)
This is patently false; the Standards prohibit consideration of any
explanation alternative to naturalism. On page 5 of 75, "Nature of
Science": "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations
for what we observe in the world around us." By definition, any
nonnatural explanation would be deemed as "outside the domain of
science", which means that every teacher is directed to shunt the
question out of the science classroom and out of the school system.
The Standards create the impression that the diversity of life can be
explained by natural processes. This is not demonstratable and is
therefore, in my opinion, unethical. The Administrative Rules, Ethics
and Enabling Act of the Alabama Board of Licensure for Professional
Geologists, Section 364-4-14-.06 Ethics states "(1) The professional
geologist shall not ... (g) perform any acts, allow omissions or make any
assertions or representations which are fraudulent, deceitful, or
misleading, or which in any manner whatsoever tend to create a misleading
impression;..." (p 45-46) The Kansas Science Standards do "allow
omissions" (i.e. anything deemed by evolutionists to be outside of the
domain of science) and "create a misleading impression" (i.e. students
are free to practice intellectual honesty, demonstrate skepticism
appropriately, display open-mindedness to new ideas).
The question of intelligent design is permitted in SETI and in suspected
arson and murder cases, but not in the Kansas Science Standards. The
Standards are internally inconsistent by encouraging students to "use
critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations",
while prohibiting alternative explanations which are subjectively judged
by *evolutionists* to be "outside the domain of science." How can
intelligent design be *within* the domain of science for SETI but
*outside* the domain of science for biology? By creating a misleading
impression.
I agree with John Wiester who said, "The new Kansas science standards
tilt toward indoctrination rather than education." I disagree with Keith
who said that John Wiester's "characterization of the standards is
completely false."
So let me ask you once again, Keith, may we offer John a chance to defend
himself against your allegation that his statement was "completely
false"? I would think you should either publicly apologize (if you agree
with what I have said above, which I don't expect :-)) or extend to John
the opportunity to defend himself.
Bill Payne
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 00:23:51 EDT