Re: Kansas

Keith,
Reacting to the list of improprieties of the ID gang, I wonder if a
lawyer could draw up a petition for an injunction that would prevent the
scum from even considering their poppycock. I would rejoice to have them
hoist by their own petard. I know that this would make them claim to be
martyrs, but a recital of their illegal actions should counteract that.
Dave

On Thu, 12 May 2005 14:27:47 -0500 Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> writes:
>
> > 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 Fri May 13 15:03:14 2005