IP: Kansas, theory, fact

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: Joel Orr <Joel.Orr () bentley com>
> To: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Kansas, theory, fact
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:28:40 -0400
>
> Dear Dave,
>
> A balancing view on the Kansas education issue, from http://www.icr.com:
>
> The Kansas Board of Education, in adoption of their new statewide science
> standards, has made a dramatic break with national guidelines as set forth
> in National Science Education Standards (NAS, 1996) and Benchmarks for
> Science Literacy (Project 2061 AAAS, 1993). In seeking to distinguish
> scientific fact from speculation, the board has elected to drop from the
> standards any compulsory claims regarding origins, including such standard
> fixtures as macroevolution and big bang cosmology.
> The state standards is a document--of some one hundred pages--which contains
> guidelines for local school districts to follow and, more importantly,
> provides a foundation for the development of any state assessments in
> science. Both "unifying concepts" for all K-12 curricula, and specific
> "benchmarks" of academic achievement for different grade levels are spelled
> out. In a 6-4 vote and after months of debate, the new standards were passed
> on August 11, 1999.
> In denying evolution the status of "unifying concept" for all K-12 curricula,
> the board has made the clearest break with national standards. The other
> most significant changes were the removal of "benchmarks" which would have
> mandated as science certain speculative ideas regarding origins, including
> macroevolution and big bang cosmology. Benchmarks remain in place, however,
> which mandate the teaching of microevolutionary processes like natural
> selection, mutation and genetic recombination as the observeable facts they
> are. Other benchmarks in the new standards outline specifics regarding
> observational astronomy, but stop short of presenting any one cosmological
> view as "cosmic history".
> Local school districts in Kansas will now have considerable freedom to teach
> as they deem appropriate, for example, whether macroevolution be eliminated,
> taught as theory subject to skeptical inquiry, or taught as factual history.
> Evolution has certainly not been "banned" from Kansas schools. It can also
> be said that the new standards do not advocate the teaching of creationism
> in any way; but neither has it been banned. Scientists of the ICR applaud
> the kind of distinction between fact and speculation that the Kansas board
> has striven for. We also applaud their courage in thinking for themselves,
> rather than deferring to "the experts".