evolution

Two items about education: First, a Washington Post editorial about the No Child Left Behind Act that is fair and makes some excellent points.

I too think that NCLB makes unrealistic expectations (100% of students 100% proficient in reading and math by 2014 — you will never, ever have 100% of anyone doing 100% of anything) and too directly lashes struggling schools to the anchor of their communities. I believe that the single greatest force in schools is not teachers — it is parents. Many kids (and this is a not-uncommon problem at my school) are not taught basic standards of respect and behavior at home, especially (as in my district) when one or more parents is out of the home for long periods to make ends meet. It is very difficult for a student who cannot master these to take in more complicated ideas. Thus, it falls to the teacher to teach these things — and then issues of qualification come in. Do we want teachers to not only teach his or her subject but basic behavior too? I am eminently qualified to talk about high-school level mathematics, but my master’s degree in no way qualifies me to teach standards of behavior and other such things.

Secondly, it pains me greatly to read this Kansas City Star article: Evolution debate returns to Kansas. You’ll recall that in 1999 my home state was held up as an object of ridicule on a global scale because of a ridiculously foolish decision by the Kansas Board of Education — a body that Governor Sebelius ought to abolish — to dilute instruction in one of the millenium’s greatest scientific theories. You would no more eliminate evolution from science curricula than you would Newton’s three laws of physics.

But, as they say, “once more under the bridge, dear friends”:

A new evolution storm is gathering over Kansas.

The next Kansas Board of Education won’t be seated until January, but a renewed debate over the teaching of evolution in science classes already is beginning.

Jack Krebs, who supports instruction in evolution, will tell an audience tonight at the University of Kansas that the new board probably will go back to a stance similar to one the board took in 1999 when it diluted the teaching of evolution in public schools. Kansas was ridiculed worldwide that time, he said.

This time, he said, the board could do more than embarrass the state: It also could hurt the state’s blossoming biosciences initiative.

“People who are concerned about this ought to start talking about it now before it happens rather than waiting until after it happens and having the damage done,” said Krebs, a high school teacher.

John Calvert, a leader on the other side of the debate, criticized Krebs for speaking publicly at this time and KU for serving as host of the forum. A committee appointed by the state Board of Education still is drafting an update of the science standards, and “what Jack is doing is undermining that process,” said Calvert, a founder of Intelligent Design Network Inc., a group formed in the wake of the 1999 debate. Krebs is a member of the board’s committee.

Mounting evidence shows that evolution alone does not explain the origin of life, Calvert said. Students should be allowed to also hear about intelligent design, he said, the theory that the universe was designed and cannot be explained by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural processes alone.

“This whole controversy can really be taken out of context,” Calvert said, “and I think that is one of Jack’s motives.”

A 25-member committee, which has been working this summer on a periodic review of the science standards, expects to present a draft to the board in December. A draft is expected to be posted early next month on the Kansas Department of Education’s Web site.

State board Chairwoman Janet Waugh of Kansas City, Kan., said Monday she was expecting another heated fight. Conservatives are positioned to comprise a majority of the 10-member board, because conservative Kathy Martin, a retired teacher from Clay Center, defeated a moderate, incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina, in the Republican primary in August. No Democrats filed, so Martin will be unopposed in the Nov. 2 election.

“I’m not looking forward to this,” said Waugh, a Democrat and supporter of evolution instruction who was on the board in 1999. “I thought it was a nightmare last time, and I don’t want to do it again. But if we have to, so be it.”

The board will hold public hearings on the standards before adopting them. Waugh estimated that it probably would be at least March before the board takes a final vote.

The debate is expected to be different this time around.

The 1999 vote was influenced by young-earth creationism, the idea that God created the universe and everything in it in six days, as the Book of Genesis states in the Bible. Its advocates believe that Earth is only a few thousand years old.

The 1999 vote did not go so far as to embrace young-earth creationism, but it did remove some questions about evolution, such as the big bang theory, from state assessments. That meant teachers were free to ignore those topics in their classrooms. When moderates gained control of the board in 2001, they threw out the 1999 standards. Since 2003, the board has been split 5-5 ideologically.

In recent years a national movement called intelligent design has gained momentum. Its advocates believe that intelligent causes, such as a designer, rather than natural processes, are responsible for the origin of the universe and the diversity of life. They accept many of the tenets of evolution, such as the age of Earth, but they believe scientists should look for logical, not natural, explanations.

Evolution, on the other hand, theorizes that living things share common ancestors but have changed over time. It accepts only natural explanations for scientific phenomena.

Intelligent Design Network has been involved in the rewriting of science standards in other states, such as Ohio. Calvert said Ohio changed its definition of science to include a search for logical explanations for the world around us, a definition he supports. The Kansas definition, which Calvert would like to see changed, defines science as the activity of seeking natural explanations.

The Ohio definition allows teachers to talk about intelligent design and evolution in an objective way, he said. The Kansas version limits teachers to evolution.

“There is a ton of evidence that suggests that natural causes are not adequate to explain living systems,” Calvert said.

Fossil records, in many respects, are inconsistent with the theory of evolution, he said.

“The problem is that evolution is really a theory in crisis,” Calvert said “What worries Jack and what worries the scientific community is that students may be shown both sides of the evolution controversy.”

Krebs said proponents of intelligent design asserted that they were objective, but “their big goal is to show there is scientific evidence that a divine creator has had to have been involved in life.” They are willing to accept “foot in the door” successes, such as the Ohio vote, to establish a platform for their views, Krebs said.

If proponents of intelligent design want to subject evolution to critical analysis, he said, they should run their experiments, write their papers and make their case to the scientific community.

The job of a science standards committee, he said, is to “take the things that are accepted as mainstream and put them into the school system. It’s not schoolchildren who should be trying to judge whether challenges to science are valid or not.”

Calvert is not a member of the science standards committee, but his views are represented on the committee by another founder of his network, William Harris of Prairie Village. Harris is a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a heart disease researcher with St. Luke’s Hospital.

Harris said he hoped the two sides would find common ground. Hurting the state’s reputation is not in anyone’s interest, he said.

Like Calvert, Harris said he was disappointed that tonight’s forum in Lawrence would be held. It is being sponsored by KU’s Center for Science Education and several academic departments.

KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway is to introduce Krebs at the event, which begins at 7:30 p.m. in Woodruff Auditorium in the Kansas Union.

“As a leading science research institution, it’s only natural for us to provide a forum to discuss the issue,” KU spokesman Todd Cohen said. “Everyone in higher education is following this issue closely.”

Krebs said he would be speaking not as a committee member but as a teacher who is concerned about what the board might do.

The Kansas City, Lawrence and Topeka corridor has the potential to become a hub for the bioscience industry, Krebs said. That effort probably would be hurt if the board once again passed standards that fail to support one of the most basic ideas behind the biological sciences, he said.

“The public needs to be informed about what is going on,” he said.

The public also needs to be informed that “intelligent design” — even though it is a view which, in part, speaks to me — is NOT SCIENCE! It cannot be verified by any acceptable scientific method. Note that I do not dispute the truth of “intelligent design” any more than I dispute the truth of evolutionary theory. It is a debate for a philosophy class or debate team — not a science classroom! It may be that in the future, evidence of “intelligent design” may surface and be pored over by scientists. Until then, “intelligent design” is not science.

[UPDATE: 20:47] The ridicule has already begun.

[UPDATE: 18:42 09/29] And begun again.