Re: Kansas

Keith -

Thanks for the explanation. From a PR standpoint it would be very helpful,
if not essential, for these questionable procedures to get as much attention
as possible in the media.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:27 PM
Subject: 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 15:43:08 2005