William Paley Institute for Intelligent Design™

William Paley Institute
for
Intelligent Design^™

Letters

Back

Response to the Writing Committee:
February 8, 2001

Board of Directors
Kansas State Board of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1182

Re: Our proposed revisions to the Sixth Draft of the Kansas Science Education
Standards contained in our letter dated January 5, 2001 (Proposed Revisions")
and the January 30, 2001 Response (the "Response") of the Science Standards
Writing Committee (the "Committee").

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Following the meeting on January 9, 2001, we submitted our Proposed Revisions to two groups of scientists, educators, lawyers and philosophers for comment. We also sought written endorsements from those who wished to state that they
"generally agree with the substance of the Revisions." To date we have received
104 written responses, including responses from the three authors. All but two
of those responses reflect general agreement with the substance of the Revisions
without further qualification. The two other responses favor the Revisions but
were qualified in minor respects. We received no negative responses.

The 104 endorsements included endorsements issued by 58 persons holding one or more doctoral degrees, 14 holding terminal master's degrees and 27 holding
terminal bachelor's degrees. Fifteen of the doctoral degrees were granted in the
fields of biological sciences (biology, biochemistry, molecular biology,
neurobiology, microbiology, plant pathology and zoology), eight in medicine,
eight in law, six in chemistry, five in physics, 4 in philosophy, two in
mathematics, two in education, including science education, two in psychology,
one each in astronomy, oceanography, history of science and engineering, and two in other fields. The 14 masters and 27 bachelor terminal degrees were granted in a wide range of fields, including four in geology and earth sciences.

The endorsers are employed or retired from employment as college professors
(34), research scientists (9), attorneys (6), physicians and health care
professionals (8), K-12 school teachers (9), business or technical managers or
specialists (24), members of school boards (3), graduate students (6), pastors
and religious ministers (3) and other activities (2). Most of the responses come
from throughout the United States. A few have come from Canada, the United
Kingdom and Germany, indicating the global perspective of this issue.
The endorsement of the Proposed Revisions by this significant group of
credentialed professionals suggests that those Revisions have merit.

In light of these endorsements, we are obviously disappointed with the response
of the Committee. Its terse reply simply sweeps under the rug fundamental
problems that inhere in the Sixth Draft. The Committee avoids a response to the
substantive criticisms implicit in the Proposed Revisions by making a hollow
claim that the Sixth Draft does not promote Naturalism.

Interestingly, this claim reflects an important agreement between us. We both
agree that science standards should not be used to lead our children to a belief
in Naturalism. Where we differ is whether the Sixth Draft actually has that
effect. Is the Sixth Draft naturalistic or not? We and the endorsers find that
the Sixth Draft promotes Naturalism. The Committee contends that it does not -
at least that it does not promote a "philosophy of naturalism."

With all due respect to the Committee, the Sixth Draft clearly promotes a belief
in Naturalism. If these science standards are followed by teachers as directed,
those teachers will lead our children toward a belief that design does not play
a role in the origin of the universe, of life and the diversity of life. That is
Naturalism. It makes no difference whether the Committee or the Board believes
that it is injecting philosophy into the standards. If these standards are used
as proposed they will have the effect of preaching naturalism to our children.
They will improperly lead our Children to a belief that they are not the
products of design and that they are the products of only natural causes.
The primary mechanism to achieve this end is the Sixth Draft's proposed use of a
definition of science that permits only "natural explanations of the world
around us." Natural explanations comprehend only "natural causes." This rules
out design as a cause even though the inference of design is logically based on
data that is observed in nature, consistent with scientific methods used in
other scientific disciplines that focus on design detection. If there was ever
any doubt about the intent of this natural limit to censor design inferences and
explanations, it was removed in the dialogue between Dr. Abrams and the
Co-Chairmen of the Committee on January 9, 2001. In that discussion the
Committee leaders advised the Board that the new definition of science is
intended to narrow the "domain of science" such that teachers are not permitted
under the Sixth Draft to bring up design as a possible cause of natural objects.
If a child raises the question, then the Sixth Draft requires that the child be
told that this matter is outside the "domain of science" and to take the
question elsewhere.

This has the effect of promoting naturalism. It makes no difference whether you
call it methodological naturalism or philosophical naturalism, it has the same
effect. Our children will be led down a path that takes them to only one
conclusion about their origins - a naturalistic one. As the Supreme Court has
said, government must be concerned not only with the "form" of its actions, but
the "effect" of them. In the arena of origins science the effect must be
neutral. The Sixth Draft does not pass this test.

The Committee asserts, as if it were fact, that "science" requires that only
natural explanations be permitted. This is not true. The Committee should take
note that the Latin root of the word "science" means "knowledge." The
Committee's definition is far too limited and prescriptive and is actually at
odds with the current definition that is properly driven by logic. The Committee
definition also conflicts with the common definition of science provided by
Webster's New Third International Dictionary. That highly respected source
defines science as a body of knowledge "formulated with reference to the
discovery of general truths." Nowhere does it suggest that explanations must be
limited to only natural ones. Finally, the limitation to only "natural
explanations" conflicts with the view of the Supreme Court that science must
focus "solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they
generate." [ Daubert v. Merrill Dow Corporation, Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., Et al. V. Carmichael Et al. 119 S.Ct. 1167
(1999)].

For the many logical, scientific, legal and cultural reasons outlined in our
January 5 letter, the Committee's definition is one which is inconsistent with
science that seeks to provide honest answers to fundamental questions regarding
our origin. The naturalistic definition proposed by the Committee and the
National Science organizations which hold copyright permission over much of the
Sixth Draft, is simply an inherently misleading mechanism that will have the
effect of guiding our children to a belief in Naturalism.

Our Proposed Revisions also seek to cure misinformation that will result from
the proposed naturalistic teachings. Regardless of the wisdom of teaching only
one of the two possible explanations for origins, this methodology is inherently
misleading if the strategy is not explained to students in great detail. Nowhere
does the Sixth Draft seek to explain its naturalistic assumption. This
undisclosed assumption, along with the censorship of evidence which challenges
the naturalistic explanation, will lead teachers to seriously misrepresent the
strength of the evidence that supports the naturalistic explanation. Our
revisions detail the numerous instances of this misinformation. The Committee
response completely fails to address these problems and their expected
consequences.

We recognize that your patience concerning science standards may be quite thin
by now. However, this issue is important. The Proposed Revisions squarely
address this most difficult problem of how to teach our children about the
origin of the universe, of life and its diversity. They provide a logical,
scientific, legal and culturally satisfying solution. It is one that has been
endorsed by a significant number of qualified scientists, educators,
philosophers and lawyers. We urge you to follow their lead and adopt the
Proposed Revisions.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

s/John H. Calvert
John H. Calvert, J.D.
Managing Director
s/William S. Harris
William S. Harris, PhD
Managing Director
s/Jody F. Sjogren
Jody F. Sjogren, M.S., CMI
Managing Director
cc: The Endorsers

Promoting an Understanding of the Intelligent Design of the Universe