Re: Kansas

> However, I think rather than having "no choice", they
> made a very poor choice and are now setting a poor example
> of how to stand tall in the face of certain unreserved and
> bombastic politicians.

A short explanation for the decision by the scientific community
throughout Kansas to not participate in the hearings.

The hearings were set up completely outside of the established process
for revising science standards. The standards revision committee has
been working for nearly a year to evaluate and revise the standards.
They have received expert advise and input from both the scientific and
science education community throughout the process. The standards were
posted for public and professional input and public forums were held
around the state to obtain further input. Some of the best science
teachers in the state were on the standards committee. When the
committee was established the policy was set that any changes to the
standards had to be by consensus, or if not, by at least a two thirds
majority vote.

The result was an excellent set of revised standards that were
submitted to the Board. At this point the normal procedure would be to
send the recommended standards out for external review. However, the
Board majority set them aside and supported another set of revised
standards written outside of the process by an 8 member minority of the
committee (the "Minority Report"). Those 8 members were all appointed
to the committee by the anti-evolution members of the Board. The
Minority Report was written through meetings that were not open
meetings and were not conducted through the committee process or in
accordance with open meetings law. The first Minority Report was not
submitted through the commissioner's process. John Calvert founder of
the ID Net, who took the lead in writing the minority report and
pushing for the hearings, appointed himself and had no official
standing. The Board members who voted for the hearings were the same
individuals that had appointed the 8 members to the committee. The
three subcommittee members who are acting as jury for the hearings all
hold anti-evolutionary views and publicly stated their support for the
minority report before the hearings were ever held.

Thus the reasons that the scientific community has not participated
are: 1) that both writing of the Minority Report, and the hearings
themselves have occurred in violation of the procedure established for
the standards revision, 2) that the scientific and science education
community already has had extensive input into the standards and that
input has been ignored in favor of the Minority Report, and 3) the
hearings were not to inform the Board's decision as the position of the
Board members had been publicly stated before the hearings were held.
The scientific community refused to give credibility to this process.

The scientific community in Kansas is now unified and activated in a
way that I have never seen in the 15 years that I have been here. Even
more so than in 1999 when we went through this before. There is a
growing understanding that the problem we face is a long term one that
will require a long term effort at public education about both the
nature and limitations of science. Virtually all the science
organizations in the state now recognize how important it is to
publicly and clearly reject the false science/faith conflict or warfare
view. The religious community is also becoming activated. I think
that his is one of the very positive outcomes of this mess. The Kansas
scientific community is sending out a very unified voice that
evolutionary science is not based on an atheistic or materialistic
worldview, and that it is not in any necessary conflict with religious
faith.

Keith
Received on Thu May 12 15:36:48 2005