Here is an op-ed piece written by Linda Holloway, Chair of the Kansas
State Board of Education, putting the Board's side of the story.
As Ms Holloway says, the problem was that evolutionists wanted to
present evolution "in a very narrow, pristine manner", i.e. with no
discussion of the weaknesses of the theory and the philosophical
assumptions undergirding it.
As it was the Board actually *increased* the amount of teaching on
evolution that schools in Kansas were required to do. So all the fuss that
Kansas students would suddenly be disadvantaged by the Board's decision
is irrational. On that basis they had been even *more* disadvantaged
before, yet there was no national, indeed world-wide outcry previously!
Like all these things, the Kansas issue is really a symbol of a much wider
and deeper culture war between materialist-naturalists and Christian theists
(and ultimately IMHO between guilty rebels and the God they want to hide
from).
As Mike Behe said in his American Spectator article: "What is it about the
topic of evolution that drives so many people nuts? Why does a change in a
farm state's high school examination policy call forth damning editorials all
the way from London, England, and have normally staid editors threatening
children?" (http://www.discovery.org/articles/darwinsHostages.html).
Steve
============================================================
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3774161f.c17,.html
Forum/Opinion
[...]
FORUM/OPINION
PRO/CON: Evolution may be taught in Kansas, along with other ideas
By LINDA HOLLOWAY - Special to The Star
Date: 12/17/99 22:00
"Evolution banned in Kansas" screamed headlines around the world after
the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new science standards. One
problem with the headline: It was totally wrong!
Very little ink has been used to focus on the drafts presented to the board
by the writing committee. Perhaps some readers would be interested in
truth instead of merely noise.
The writing committee's proposal elevated evolution to one of the five
unifying concepts of science. This was the only theory given such status.
Thus, it indicated that evolution was above investigation or question.
A statement in the documents said that students should " ... use critical and
logical thinking and consider alternative explanations." But students would
not be able to apply these directions to evolution because evolution was
presented in a very narrow, pristine manner.
There was no indication that the theory had weaknesses, i.e. lack of
uncontested transition species, lack of evidence that chemicals can give rise
to life. No other theories of origins were mentioned. Frauds such as
Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryo drawings that have been used as
evidence for evolution were not discussed. The leadership of the committee
resisted any suggestion to include evidence or lack of evidence that
indicated problems with the theory.
The board adopted standards that include microevolution (variation within
species) for which there is lots of evidence. Macroevolution (species
changing to another species), for which uncontested evidence is lacking, is
left to local districts to address as they wish. No mandate to exclude the
teaching of evolution from science curriculum was issued.
The writing committee's proposal was based on Darwinian philosophy. The
board's decision broadened academic freedom and free inquiry that was
restricted by the committee to one view and one conclusion, regardless of
evidence.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in the Edwards vs. Aguillard case, "If the
Louisiana legislature's purpose was solely to maximize the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction, it would have
encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of
humankind."
Our children in Kansas deserve no less!
Linda Holloway is chairwoman of the Kansas State Board of Education.
All content (c) 1999 The Kansas City Star
============================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"A favorite example of those trying to find evidence of self-organization is
the human eye. So exquisitely designed, with its adjustable lens and iris,
with its retina capable of rendering images better than any camera-the eye
surely could not have developed from the blind meanderings of evolution.
Or so it seems to Darwin's critics. The eighteenth-century theologian
William Paley considered the eye and other precisely engineered organs as
proof of an intelligent creator. But, again, one doesn't have to be a
creationist to have difficulty accepting that eyes arose purely from random
variation and selection." (Johnson G., "Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and
the Search for Order", [1995], Penguin Books: London, 1997, p267)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------