A Brief Response to the Kansas Board of Education Decision
Prepared by Krista Kay Bontrager
On August 11, 1999 the Kansas Board of Education (BOE) voted 6 to 4 to remove
macroevolution and big bang cosmology from the state's science curriculum.
[1] The newly revised standards supposedly
neither ban "Darwinism" nor promote "creationism". Rather, they deny that
any single model be used as a "unifying system" of knowledge. The BOE's position
of "no position" created a whirlwind of media
attention.[2] Most notably, it prompted a
related cover-story in Time
Magazine.[3] Battle lines are being drawn.
Many Christians are sounding the trumpet of victory for "our side". Meanwhile
atheistic scientists like Stephen Jay Gould are proclaiming that science
has entered a fantasy land which is no longer in the "real
world."[4] Is the Kansas Board of Education's
decision a "victory" for the Body of Christ? Is it a defeat for science?
Our goal at Reasons To Believe is to cut through the propaganda on
both sides of this issue and to promote a position that is biblically and
scientifically responsible. This approach yields an alternative view that
supports both a high view of Scripture and a respect for the science, potentially
bringing peace to both sides. In the end, the jury found Scopes guilty of violating the Tennessee statute and fined him $100. But this "victory" for evangelicals was no victory at all. Bryan failed to convince the American public that the Fundamentalist view was factually viable. Instead, the trial revealed the emergence of two competing arenas for determining "truth," one "biblical" and the other "scientific." Bryan's testimony solidified Fundamentalist suspicions about science derived from the "secular" university. On the flip side, it confirmed atheists' suspicions about Christians' ignorance and intolerance. Such conclusions led to the lasting, popular impression that "faith" and "reason" are totally separate, perhaps mutually exclusive, spheres of knowledge. The Scopes trial separated society into two distinct groups - public knowledge and private faith. Secular scientists successfully ousted such "backward" thinking from the public sphere and entrenched their position as the "accepted" view. The fundamentalist exodus from the universities, already in progress, intensified. Christian leaders discouraged young people from entering "secular" fields like science, law and philosophy. Bible colleges sprang up to provide a protective fortress from Modernism and to prepare young people for "spiritual" pursuits in full-time ministry. The Scopes trial marked a strong defeat for evangelical Christians engaged in a culture war that continues to this day. Cut to Kansas' Board of Education, 1999. History may be in the process of repeating itself. Five young-earth creationists now hold seats on the Kansas BOE. Board chair Linda Holloway told the Associated Press that the main force behind this revision is Steve Abrams, a veterinarian from Arkansas City and a former Republican state chair. Abrams enlisted an unnamed "fundamentalist group" to draft an alternate set of standards which he then presented to the board. According to Holloway, the final version represents a "compromise" which "shows a respect for diversity of opinion and...expands the learning opportunity of the children of Kansas rather than narrowing it."[8] Unsubstantiated reports from people close to the BOE suggest that the board came under tremendous pressure to adopt Darwinian evolution as the "unifying concept" for biology. The board's goal was to pass standards that could be agreed upon by all. Thus, they voted for a position of "no position" on the matter of origins in order to defer the matter to the local school districts. Contrary to some news reports, however, the standards no where promote creationism, Christianity, God or the Bible. Even so, the wording of the document is not totally neutral. Some young-earth creationists[9] appear to have had a strong hand in crafting it. And while some Christian leaders are applauding the moral courage of board members,[10] the long-term effects of this decision could result in harm to the cause of Christ. The standards attempt to open the door for wider public acceptance of creation. Instead of ridiculing children for holding to a 24-hour, 6 day creation framework, teachers are exhorted to be tolerant of diverse viewpoints. "A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect and civility, and teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. In doing this, teachers display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students. No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory should be censored."[11] It is unclear, however, whether certain "silenced" viewpoints fall under this broad-minded umbrella as well. Since the standards exclude any information about macroevolution, would the BOE take disciplinary action against a teacher like John Scopes? Would his principal be required to place a note in his permanent file because he taught students about neo-Darwinism? What if a science teacher instructed students about the big bang as a model that points to a Divine Designer? Could this Christian brother be written up by his superior for promoting a forbidden origins model? While the standards allow for a certain degree of academic freedom, it is unknown how far such freedom reaches. It seems possible that such ambiguities in the curriculum could foster a hostile environment, even for Christian science teachers. This broad-minded, tolerant language could also lead to another problem. If a child believes that the speed of light varies because he has an alternate explanation, is the teacher not allowed to correct him? How are teachers supposed to grade students' essays about the effects of thermodynamics if one student doesn't believe in the constancy of thermodynamics? Surely the writers do not mean to imply that science is based on subjective rather then objective principles. Yet this implication could arise from the ambiguous wording of the guidelines. Like their fundamentalist forefathers, many leaders in the young-earth community remain suspicious of science done in the secular university. [12] They are largely detached from the academic setting where their model could be more widely researched, tested and verified. The long-term result of this posture in the mind of the public is a confirmation of the myth that the Christian position cannot be intellectually respected because it is based neither on sound scholarship nor on responsible science. These facts become clear as one examines the strategic insertions and deletions from the Kansas science standards. Ironically, members on both sides of the debate do agree about one thing: big bang cosmology puts their position in jeopardy. The big bang poses a problem for young-earth creationists because it makes the universe billions of years old rather than thousands. Such an assertion undercuts their system at its foundation. Big bang cosmology also presents a problem for atheistic scientists because it points directly to the existence of a transcendent Creator - a fact they dare not concede. We notice that the media has lightly covered the deletion of the big bang cosmology from the standards. Both sides involved in the dispute may be breathing a sigh of relief that it is gone. By removing big bang cosmology from the Kansas curriculum, however, Christians have lost one of their most potent weapons to argue for the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, transcendent Creator. Classical Christian theology describes the creation as coming into existence ex nihilo, out of nothing. From a scientific standpoint, general relativity and big bang cosmology state that all matter, energy, and space-time dimensions came from a singularity.[13] In other words, out of nothing came all of the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions that we have today. The resemblance between the big bang model and the Bible's account of creation ex nihilo is so striking that for decades it has sent atheistic scientists in search of alternative origins models. Big bang cosmology does not stand in isolation, however. Its deletion triggers ripple-effects in other sciences as well. The discipline of astronomy takes a particularly hard hit. While students are encouraged to do observational astronomy, such as look at planets in our solar system through a telescope,[14] and be given general information about the existence of comets and planets, they receive no instruction about such "controversial" facts as the burning rate of stars or the formation of planets. In fact, specific instruction about bodies outside our own solar system is glaringly absent.[15] [16] Because stellar burning requires billions of years instead of thousands, one cannot help but wonder whether this omission represents a deliberate attempt by the young-earth community to prevent students from having access to any information that counters their position. The geology curriculum also contains thinly-veiled promotions of young-earth ideology. In Standard 4 for grades 9-12, students are supposed to learn about the "history of the earth." Teachers are guided to instruct in the following manner: "Investigate how rocks and fossils are dated. Identify assumptions used in radioactive decay methods of dating. Compare and evaluate data obtained on ages from such places as Mount St. Helens and the meteorite named Allende."[17] These examples have been put forth by the young-earth community to illustrate how radical geological changes can occur rapidly. Young-earth creationists imply that only catastrophic geological changes have shaped the earth. Such catastrophes supposedly allow for the possibility of the earth being only thousands of years old instead of billions. Of course, without big bang cosmology and the physics of star-burning and planet formation, little is left in the standards to give students the tools to evaluate this hypothesis. The Kansas standards assert this confusing position: "Students should develop an understanding of the universe. The origin of the universe remains one of the greatest questions in science. Studies of data regarding fossils, geologic tables, cosmological information are encouraged. But standards regarding origins are not mandated."[18] How can students develop an understanding of the universe if they only study the solar system and are not instructed about the origins of planets and stars? How can students arrive at knowledge about the origin of the universe if they do not study about big bang cosmology, a well-supported scientific model? If no specific standards about the subject of origins are mandated, then what guidelines should teachers use to instruct their students about it? Once again, we are confronted with the ambiguity that riddles this document. On the one hand, the standards do not mandate which origins model should be taught in Kansas public schools. On the other hand, however, the educational standards in no way restrict instruction about big bang cosmology, or Darwinian evolution. For this reason, individual teachers are free to step beyond the bounds of the standards and supplement their curriculum with units promoting either Darwinian evolution or big bang cosmology. At this point, the curriculum is at the mercy of the personal worldview held by the teacher. The standards also promote an overly simplistic approach to such complex subjects as speciation. While the writers have deleted all references to the controversial subject of neo-Darwinism (macroevolution)[19] evolution, many questions remain. Standard 3, Benchmark 5, tells 8th graders to "observe the diversity of living things and relate their adaptations to their survival or extinction," (microevolution) [20] [21], but we see no guidelines for discussing the big questions of macroevolution: Does speciation precede or follow adaptation to local ecological conditions? Is speciation a by-product of genetic divergence among populations or does it occur directly by natural selection through lower fitness of hybrids? How quickly does speciation occur? What evidence is necessary to show that a speciation event has taken place? None of these questions can be resolved given the vague parameters set forth in the Kansas standards. The writers give little attention to the conflict among biologists as to the definition of the term "species" itself.[22] Some biologists now deny that "species" are real entities. The Kansas Educational Standards, however, simply use the term without much explanation. This kind of broad-brushed approach leaves teachers ill-equipped to prepare their students to handle the challenge of college science. The Kansas BOE decision seems a mixed bag. While the Board may have at least temporarily blocked efforts to adopt Darwinian evolution as the "unifying concept" in biology, the document's ambiguity and deletion of big bang cosmology are issues of concern. So, while students may not be learning about Darwinian evolution, they may not be receiving an adequate science education either. The Kansas BOE decision actually represents a victory for science illiteracy. One also wonders how this decision will affect the state's educational system over the long haul. Will the state BOE eventually develop curriculum and standardized tests based on these standards? If so, how will the board flesh out the vague parameters set forth in the standards? Will there be any repercussions for Kansas-educated students when they apply for college? Critics are already suggesting that students who take high school biology in Kansas should be excluded from admittance to science programs at top universities.[23] The Kansas educational standards may also foster an environment of fear among Christian science teachers who want to instruct students about big bang cosmology, yet fear disciplinary action by their superiors. The safe road for these teachers will be to stick to the mandates and not venture into untested territory. Rather than equipping teachers to show their students about how to investigate controversial questions regarding origins, the Kansas curriculum standards actually create an academic environment that makes the responsible study of science unsafe for people of faith. Sadly, the long-term effects of this decision will most likely only perpetuate the myth that Christians are not concerned with "facts" but prefer to cling to "blind" irrational faith. In actuality, however, the opposite ought to be the case. Christians, above all people, should concern themselves with compiling an accurate and coherent view of reality. When rightly discerned, our understanding of the physical world stands in perfect harmony with the Word of God. We concur whole-heartedly with scientists who write in Nature, "If more children were taught science as a means of interrogating nature, rather than as a toolbox of rules, the `debate' between creationism and Darwinism would come to be seen in a clearer light."[24] Exactly! Let the research commence. Let all theories for origins be tested out in the open for all to see. Which model best explains reality? Which model best predicts future scientific discoveries? Our main point of disagreement with the Nature article is with its prediction of what the outcome of such research will be. Instead of believing that the evidence for Darwinism will continue to mount, we believe it will decline and that the evidence will continue to mount for divine design. Since the Bible is true, science will eventually mirror our position. One of the foundational premises on which good science rests is that its results must be publicly verifiable. In other words, if scientists with conflicting worldviews perform the same experiment they should derive the same results. This prevents one's worldview from manipulating the science. Of course, the scientist's worldview may influence the kinds of experiments he chooses to perform or his interpretation of the significance of the conclusion. This approach does not in any way deny the far-reaching effects of sin in the thinking of the unbeliever, however. Atheist scientists may, for example, resist a certain interpretation of certain facts that point to a Divine Designer. Or they may resist belief in the Christian God due to other reasons, such as a philosophical objection like the "problem of evil," or because of emotional obstacles, such as trauma as a child. We do not deny that the unbeliever's sinful mind is capable of going to great lengths to resist an admission of guilt before a holy God. Nor do we deny that a Christian's mind is capable of going to great lengths to resist admitting a faulty interpretation of Scripture or of nature's record. But in the scientific realm, the experiment itself and the data rendered ought to be the same no matter who performs the experiment or what their worldview may be. The point is that since the Christian worldview is correct, we have nothing to fear from the facts of science. In fact, scientific discoveries will confirm the truth and, in turn, be in harmony with the reality put forth in the Bible. This is why good science must involve the unbelieving community. Scientific models must be studied out in the open, in an environment that can predict, test, and verify the results. It is not enough for Christian scientists to do science among themselves, read each other's papers, and confirm one another's conclusions. Such a methodology belongs neither to good science scholarship nor to effective evangelism. As my grandfather used to say, "When churches want converts, they don't preach to the choir." Christians cannot afford to allow history to repeat itself. The Fundamentalist retreat from the university and culture in the wake of the Scopes trial only resulted in Christian ideas being further marginalized. For this reason we find ourselves still embattled in the same culture war 75 years later. Moreover, we must go beyond "evolution-busting" and challenging the atheist's worldview assumptions - although these scholarly endeavors are important and must be accomplished. At the same time, we need a scientifically responsible model to stand in the old one's place. The challenge before us is to make a concerted and positive effort to put forth an origins model that can be rigorously and openly researched and tested. Only then will Christians have the opportunity to demonstrate that the God behind the Bible is also the God behind the facts of nature. To learn more about the history behind this cultural debate, consult:
1. Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1997). To learn more about the testable creation model currently being developed by Reasons To Believe, visit our web site at www.reasons.org. Also consult: 1. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998).
[1] Kansas Curriculum Standards for Science
Education, final version adopted August 11, 1999. This document was available
for public viewing at
www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science81199.html,
but unfortunately has been temporarily removed due to legal problems.
FROM THE TRENCHESby Jody Sjogren, RTB Supporter in Kansas It would probably be an understatement to say that the Kansas State Board of Education's recent decision on the Kansas Science Education Standards has been widely misunderstood. Many in the mainstream media have attacked the Board for "dumbing down science." Kansas' own governor, Bill Graves, has called it "a tragic, terrible, embarrassing solution to a problem that did not exist." Our local newspapers here in Kansas have been covering this debate for months now, often with front-page headlines. The Op-Ed pages in newspapers around the country have been filled with letters from ardent adherents to both sides of the issue. It appears, from media coverage, to be a boxing match between the religious fundamentalists (country bumpkins who obviously know nothing about science) and the scientific establishment (who supposedly have all the answers). Not only has it continued far longer than most of us expected, this skirmish shows no signs of fizzling out. So what's the big deal? What does this conflict really represent? As an RTB supporter and as one who has a background in science (B.S. in Zoology and M.S. in Medical Illustration), I would like to take this opportunity to offer a perspective from first-hand observation of this historic set of events. Probably no one here in Kansas could have predicted the fallout from the State School Board's vote. It has taken some time for us to realize what has happened and what it means for science education. It is tempting to think that all science has been insulted, and the omission of Big Bang theory from the assessments in this new document has been cited as a major shortcoming. However, while they do not mandate the teaching of it, the new standards also do not prohibit the teaching of Big Bang cosmology. We could have hoped for a document that handled cosmology differently, and perhaps a future document will do that. For now, though, I think it is necessary to look at another very important aspect of the situation. I want to make a point that I believe is crucial to understanding what this situation represents, and I am hoping for the patience and insight of all who read this and who wish things had gone differently. The primary issue in this debate was not so much cosmology as it was the theory of biological evolution. The question was whether or not evolution should be elevated to the level of a Unifying Concept in science. Again, the flashpoint here was the theory of biological evolution, not young-earth or old-earth cosmology. In spite of what you may have deduced from the media coverage, the crux of the problem was macroevolution! So what DID happen in Kansas? What is all the national furor about, and why has the reaction from the scientific establishment, the national media, and the political powers been so volcanic? Is this new document really such a radical departure from good science teaching, or is there a deeper reason for the explosive international reaction to a mere 94-page document composed in a relatively small town in a largely rural state in America's heartland? After all, the new science standards have actually INCREASED the emphasis on evolution more than five-fold over the old standards (Kansas Curricular Standards for Science 1995, revised 1998, still in effect until the Board actually implements the new standards which were adopted August 11, 1999). Specifically, the 1995 science standards devoted approximately 69 words to biological evolution, and the Kansas Science Education Standards 1999 devote approximately 392 words. It's just that the Darwinists wanted them to increase it to 644 words (a nine-fold increase). Furthermore, the Board accepted the majority of the Writing Committee's work on the Science Standards without significant problem. Where they drew the line was at the demand that science be defined as the search for naturalistic explanations (the Board insisted on defining it as the search for logical explanations, a change which has so far gone unchallenged). They also refused to promote Darwinian theory to a fundamental unifying concept of science, and they eliminated the requirement that students be tested on macroevolution. Since this treatise is rather lengthy, I am going to divide it into two parts for your ease in reading. First, I will explain the basic events that transpired, in order to give historical background. Second, I will give what I believe to be a reasonable explanation of what the vote means and why the national reaction has been so seemingly out of proportion to the action itself. WHAT HAPPENED:A 27-member committee of science educators was appointed by the Kansas Commissioner of Education and charged with the task of updating the 1995 Kansas Curricular Standards for Science. Carrying out this charge, the Kansas Science Education Standards (KSES) Writing Committee presented a series of drafts to the Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) during the early months of this year. Their writing was taken in large part from the "National Science Education Standards," published by the National Research Council, and the "Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy" from Project 2061 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These documents organize science education into five major Unifying Concepts and Processes which "cut across the traditional disciplines of science" and "provide connections between and among traditional scientific disciplines, are fundamental and comprehensive ... and can be expressed and experienced ... during K-12 science education." (see footnote #1). In the main body of the document, the learning benchmarks and performance indicators were keyed to these Unifying Concepts so that students would learn how the classroom experiences related to the Unifying Concepts. The five Unifying concepts charted in the KSES, as initially proposed by the Writing Committee, were these:
1. Systems, Order, and Organization No significant problems were registered with any of these except Evolution. It was the positioning of Evolution as a Unifying Concept that drew intense public reaction to the proposed standards. The situation was brought into media limelight when a committee of concerned citizens collaborated with one of the KSBE members and proposed an alternative draft (Working Draft Trial 4a) which retained much of the practical classroom benchmarks and indicators, but eliminated the Unifying Concepts and instead divided science study into three broad interconnecting areas:
1. Technology While this document contained no inherently religious wording, it was immediately branded as "creationist dogma" by the KSES Writing Committee and the science establishment because it removed evolution as an umbrella concept in the teaching of science and because it was associated with an anonymous group of authors whose religious beliefs were well known, although their names were not disclosed. A paragraph definition of evolution was contained in the Glossary of Trial 4a, distinguishing microevolution ("observable adaptation in organisms") from macroevolution ("change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles into birds, which has never been observed"), and stating that "it does not logically follow that the demonstration of one evolutionary process, like aging, is proof for another, like man evolving from hydrogen." (see footnote #2) For this, the citizens' committee drew a furious response from critics and set off a storm of public debates which raged for the duration of this summer. The Citizens Forums at the KSBE meetings were thronged with people from all perspectives testifying in two-minute statements before the Board, urging one course of action or another. The KSES Writing Committee, working with the Board to achieve a compromise, renamed the controversial Unifying Concept of Evolution, calling it "Patterns of Cumulative Change" in their Fifth Working Draft of the Science Standards. The Twelfth Grade Benchmark #3 in the Writing Committee's draft, dealing with the teaching of major concepts of biological evolution, including macroevolution, continued to present difficulties. The statements that "biologists use evolution theory to explain the Earth's present day biodiversity" and "biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and random genetic drift" (see footnote #3) continued to spark debate and dissent among the ten Board members. By late July, the Board and the KSES Writing Committee remained in a stalemate, with the majority of the Writing Committee members refusing to consider other options for the teaching of origins and the State School Board unwilling to pass the Fifth Working Draft in the face of tremendous public opposition to evolutionary theory. Finally, a three-member Science Sub-Committee of the Board drafted a compromise which retained much of the text of the KSES Writing Committee document but eliminated evolution from the Unifying Concepts and eliminated the benchmark which would have taught macroevolution as THE theory of origins. The glossary included a definition of evolution, though not as lengthy as those proposed in either the Fifth Working Draft or the earlier Citizens' document. No explicitly religious verbiage occurs anywhere in the Sub-Committee draft, although critics have pointed out that the phrasing of certain examples in some of the indicators reveals "thinly veiled young-earth cosmology," and have therefore accused the Board of having a hidden agenda to push religious views in science classes. The Science Sub-Committee draft of the Kansas Science Education Standards was passed by a 6 - 4 vote of the Kansas State Board of Education on August 11, and the public reaction began. Months later, it is still raging. WHAT IT MEANS:As one who has watched this situation closely, having attended most of the Board meetings since May and two of the all-day meetings of the KSES Writing Committee as they worked on their document, having talked at length with Board members and listened to people on both sides of the issue, having read much of the response in the newspapers, and having gotten involved in the debate myself, I offer here these observations and interpretations of the events since that historic vote. What we are seeing in Kansas is basically a grass-roots insurrection against the government-mandated teaching of naturalism. The six members of the Kansas State Board of Education realized that the pressure to make evolution THE theory of origins to be taught in our schools is coming from the scientific elite of our time (namely such prominent and influential groups as the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Science Education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Association of Biology Teachers, among others). The informed insiders of these organizations understand that the central theme of evolution (macroevolution) is that life is the result of purposeless natural processes, and that no God, no divine being, no intelligent agent had anything to do with the creation of life or the universe itself. They define the rules of science to exclude supernatural explanations, because in their view science can only study natural things. So by definition the supernatural must be ruled out as a causative agent for natural phenomena. Even when the evidence might logically suggest the work of an intelligent supernatural designer, this line of reasoning is rejected because it is "outside the rules." In the view of these authorities, any evidence that would challenge the presumption of naturalism is therefore invalid or subject to suppression. In addition, the astute members of the Board realized that evolution is not nearly so widely accepted, even within scientific circles, as the establishment would like us to believe. They took time to examine the evidence for and against the theory of macroevolution, and they concluded that at this time the evidence is not conclusive enough to elevate the theory to the level of a Unifying Concept in science. While they have been criticized for their apparent ignorance of science, in fact they understood that the mounting evidence of scientific investigation reveals a universe and a world so exquisitely designed for life that the random processes claimed as "mechanisms" of evolution appear increasingly inadequate to explain the origin and diversity of life. The real triumph of this historic vote is that this Kansas State Board of Education stood up to the scientific establishment and stopped the silent, steady progress of materialistic philosophy in its tracks. They dared to question the evolutionary theory that the government wants to promote as a foregone conclusion. Believing that the issues were so important that the State should NOT mandate teaching of that one theory of origins, they returned to the local school districts the responsibility of deciding what explanations of origins will be taught. In effect, they opened up the discussion and allowed schools to teach the evidence, the conflicts, and the controversy. THIS is what drew the volley of furious rhetoric against the Board, NOT - as the scientific establishment would like us to think - an ill-conceived and ignorant move to "dumb down science education in Kansas." The six members of the School Board knew exactly what they were doing, and the scientific establishment understands what the Board did. The establishment just doesn't want that much power and authority under local control. Viewed from this perspective, all of the colorful and heated reactions from the scientific establishment and the liberal media make perfect sense. If this had been simply an issue of scientific fact versus ignorance, the keepers of evolutionary knowledge would long ago have ended the debate with a cool, calm presentation of the explanation for life's origin in scientific terms. They would have quietly and carefully shown us the intricate mechanisms by which life arose from some primitive replicating molecule and then blossomed into the tree of life. They might even have used a bit of charity, in the true spirit of teaching, while they corrected our misunderstanding. But they haven't done that. Instead, they have focused the debate on peripheral issues, using accusations of hidden religious agendas, refusal of copyright permission, threats of legal ramifications, etc. And the tenor of the tirades can hardly be called courteous, much less charitable. So what will happen now? Who knows, but one thing is for sure. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle, and now we're in for an interesting time! The encouraging thing, as I see it, is that finally we have national attention focused on one of the most important cultural realities of our time, the religion of scientific materialism. For the past century or more, Darwinian theory has crept in and displaced a design-based explanation for the universe. The science of evolutionary biology has been teaching us that all life traces its ancestry back to a primitive replicating molecule in a prebiotic chemical soup. And while teaching this naturalistic explanation of origins (and, by extension, materialistic philosophy), the scientific establishment has also suppressed the design-based evidence (and, by extension, theistic implications) which challenge it. What they don't want us to know is that the very foundation of the theory is flawed. Contrary to the expectations of scientists half a century ago, origin of life experiments in the laboratory since the early 1950s have not led to an elucidation of the mechanisms by which life emerged from the primordial soup, but rather to stalemate and confessions of ignorance about how it could have happened. Without even a viable model or evidence to confirm chemical evolution, upon which the rest of the evolutionary "tree of life" is supposedly built, Darwinian theory has serious fundamental problems. While all of this remained in the ivory halls of academia, far from the consciousness of the masses, the scientific elite had little to worry about in the way of threats to their ensconced seat of power. But now things are changing, and that's why we see the signs of nervousness and defensive posturing among the science community. It is really just too much that the people have taken matters into their own hands and questioned the authorities! Ironically, it may just be that the scientific authorities, in their sustained and vociferous response to the new science standards, have done what the Kansas State Board of Education could never have done by itself. They have managed to prod the slumbering populace into awareness and action. And that, as we all know, is how revolutions are born. Footnotes/References: 1. Kansas Science Education Standards, Fifth Working Draft, June 1999, page 9. 2. Kansas Science Education Standards, Working Draft Trial 4a, April 1999, pages 78, 79. 3. Kansas Science Education Standards, Fifth Working Draft, June 1999, pages 73-75. |
