Guest Opportunity on Janet Parshall’s America


I have been invited to be on Janet Parshall’s America, a national conservative talk-show, next Thursday between 3:15 and 3:30 CST. The producer Ron Stafford noticed a reference to me in a recent USA Today article, which said:

“Part of the job of the public school system is to make professional judgments about what children ought to learn,” says Jack Krebs, a teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science. “It doesn’t make any sense to give equal time to all these other ideas that are vastly unsupported. It’s misleading to kids.”

Ron was interested in the part about “professional judgments about what children ought to learn” in relation to the creation/evolution debate. As part of preparing for the show, he asked me to let them know “more [about] where you’re coming from with regard to the creation/evolution debate on how this should be presented in schools.”

I thought this was a good question, and I’ve let them know that I appreciate their inviting me to discuss this issue from the point of curriculum in the public schools. In response I wrote a short summary of some of the important main points, which I post below. I’m sure there is plenty of material here for them to ask me some good questions in the short amount of time we’ll have.

Where I’m coming from on teaching the creation/evolution debate in public schools

Comments about education in general:

1) The public school curriculum should focus on key knowledge and skills that students will need to be successful citizens: successful as workers in whatever careers they have, as parents and family members, as consumers, as community members, and as participants in our nation’s political system at all levels. Note that by skills I mean both specific content skills, such as writing well or being able to do algebra, and also personal and interpersonal skills, such as being responsible, honest, respectful, and so on.

2) School districts have traditionally had a great deal of local control over curriculum in our country. School boards usually assign the responsibility for designing curriculum to teachers and administrators who are expected to exercise their expertise in selecting curriculum content and teaching methods that will allow the school to meet the goals described in paragraph 1).

In particular, in designing curriculum teachers take into account:

a) the district curricular outcomes for graduating seniors,

b) the place in the sequence for their particular class (what have students learned so far and what will they need to know in the next grade or class),

c) what concepts and teaching methods are developmentally appropriate for the age group involved, and

d) how do teachers fit all that needs to be done into the allotted time with the available resources.

This latter point is quite important: there is much more to teach than we really have time for; therefore we have to balance covering essential content with teaching the students how to learn.

3) State and national involvement in education has also become increasingly important in the last 15 years or so. State accreditation processes, and now the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, have made school districts more accountable for meeting state standards by emphasizing high-stakes assessments.

State standards, such as are currently being revised in Kansas, outline the core curricular content that all schools should use as a foundation for building their local curriculum. State standards are not usually mandated; nevertheless standards are essential because the state assessments, which are used for NCLB and state accreditation, are based on those standards.

Note also that state standards by no means are meant to include everything that is to be taught. Therefore they do not restrict content to that mentioned in the standards. Standards are a foundation of core content, but not a complete curriculum.

The method for developing state standards is analogous to what happens at the local level. The state Board of Education appoints a committee of professionally qualified educators, those educators develop the standards, and then the state Board adopts those standards. Generally state and local Boards follow the recommendations of their appointed committees.

Now let’s look at the evolution/creation debate.

4) The theory of evolution is the mainstream explanation for the diversity of life on earth, accepted as a unifying principle of biology by virtually all scientists worldwide who have expertise in fields related to the subject. As such, it is what we should be teaching students.

5) The anti-evolution movement has two main branches, the young-earth creationists and the Intelligent Designists (IDists).

a) Young-earth creationists have made testable hypotheses about the physical world: the earth is about 6000-10,000 years old, all the different “kinds” of living things were created during a literal six days, a global flood was responsible for many of the geological features of the earth, and so on. The scientific community considers these claims to be unsupported by the evidence: they have no standing in the fields of biology, geology, or cosmology Furthermore, Supreme Court cases have clearly declared that young-earth creationism is a manifestation of a religious doctrine, without scientific merit, and that therefore teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional.

b) Intelligent Design is a philosophical objection to a misunderstanding about the nature of science. Intelligent Design has made no scientifically testable hypotheses and therefore produced no empirical data. Intelligent Design at this point is not even science, much less tested and accepted science, and therefore does not deserve consideration as a part of the science curriculum.

6) Intelligent Design (and most anti-evolutionary views) mistakenly claim that science, because it seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena, is virtually identical to philosophical naturalism and atheism. However, millions of religious people, including millions of Christians, do not accept this view. They accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for what has happened in the physical world, and they believe that God manifests His divine will through His active presence in every moment in ways that are beyond our comprehension (and certainly beyond our scientific scrutiny.)

However, the Intelligent Design movement does not accept that this is a valid Christian perspective. For example, Intelligent Design founder Philip Johnson has said, “Liberal Christians [who accept evolution as described above] are worse than atheists because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion.”

7) The Intelligent Design movement has a well-funded, well-organized strategy, the Wedge strategy, for inserting their particular religious views into society, and they use public school curricula and policies as the vehicle for doing so. They are bypassing accepted ways of establishing science and education curricula as a means of establishing their religious perspective, a perspective which disenfranchises millions of people with other religious and a-religious views.

8) I can see a place for a discussion of these issues in public schools, although there are reasons why such a discussion might be hard to accomplish.

a) As part of a section in a social studies class on comparative religions, or comparative religious views, students might study and discuss the ways different religions view the relationship between the physical and metaphysical. For instance, Plato’s views clearly bring up the issue of whether ideas or physical reality “comes first” ontologically. Similarly, students could study, as part of their understanding of Western monotheism and Eastern pantheism and non-theism, different ideas about how the metaphysical acts upon and manifests in the physical. At some point in that discussion, students could address the Christian arguments over whether God is continually active or whether he has periodically intervened, which appears to be the position of the Intelligent Designists. However, this is all pretty sophisticated, and there probably would not be many teachers or courses offered that would go into the subject at this depth.

b) A second place these issues might be discussed would be as a “current event” in science. Good science teachers bring up socially important topics where science is involved but which also involve non-scientific considerations such as values and ethical judgments; a discussion of different religious perspectives about science and why they are so contentious would probably be valuable.

The problem here, of course, is that the subject is so contentious that many biology teachers are reluctant to teach evolution itself as fully as they should for fear of arousing protest; trying to teach about why it is contentious is probably not a task many teachers would want to attempt. A second problem is that most science teachers don’t have the background to teach this, and good materials don’t exist. And last is the fact that the science teacher would not be teaching the anti-evolution views as being scientifically valid, but would be looking at them from a religious and sociological perspective. That is precisely what the anti-evolutionists don’t accept and don’t want.


Very nice article Jack. It captures nicely the many (flawed) viewpoints of Intelligent Design and shows the potential cost of such viewpoints on education. In the end it all comes down to two issues

1. Is there a real scientific controversy about evolution? 2. Does ID present a scientific alternative?

The answer to both questions is a resounding ‘NO’.

Excellent. Good luck, kick butt, and speaking as former “debater” on a number of shows re: gay issues, I know it’s tough not to reach out and touch someone hard sometimes. (I would have done so to Rev. Falwell on MSNBC once, but he was in VA.)

Do you know who you’re appearing “against”? If so you might want to do a little opposition research beforehand (but I’m sure you’ve been through all this with Kansas.)

And what PvM said: There is NO SCIENCE in their science.

Excellent work Jack!

As Genie Scott has written, antievolution arguments boil down to three themes: evolution isn’t real science, evolution is incompatible with religion, and it’s only fair to teach both sides. Your article deals with all three. Well done.

Thanks. I think I will just be talking with Janet Parshall herself, or perhaps a call-in listener, but I don’t know for sure. They didn’t mention htis being in conjunction with anyone else.

Good luck with Parshall. From her point of view, it would be best if you fall on your face, so expect her to try to sandbag you. I would be very surprised if she views you as more than an opportunity to pander to her God-ridden audience and score a few creationist points. Hope I’m wrong and she gives your a fair hearing.

Jack wrote:

6) Intelligent Design (and most anti-evolutionary views) mistakenly claim that science, because it seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena, is virtually identical to philosophical naturalism and atheism. However, millions of religious people, including millions of Christians, do not accept this view. They accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for what has happened in the physical world, and they believe that God manifests His divine will through His active presence in every moment in ways that are beyond our comprehension (and certainly beyond our scientific scrutiny.)


As you point out, Johnson’s Wedge strategy relies on the claim that science presumes naturalism of some sort and thus is philosophically biased. The best way to defeat this strategy is to reply, that no, it doesn’t. Science, as its practiced, doesn’t seek categorically natural explanations of categorically natural phenomena, in that it doesn’t need to characterize phenomena and their explanatory relations as natural vs. supernatural in advance. Rather it simply seeks the best *scientific* explanations of whatever phenomena are brought forward for explanation, where “scientific” means intersubjective, testable, reproducible, parsimonious, unifying across levels, transparent, not assuming ad hoc entities, etc. etc. (for an improvable list of criteria of scientific explanations, see

The natural world is what we call that which scientific explanations and theories reveal to be the case. Science itself determines the distinction between the natural (explicable and evidenced via science) and supernatural (inexplicable and unevidenced by science). But it doesn’t assume *in advance* which phenomena are natural, and then investigate only those. Nor does its method say or assume anything about the natural as opposed to the supernatural. Its method simply generates reliable knowledge. There is no metaphysical or methodological naturalism here, just science.

As long as we continue to use the words natural or naturalism in (mis)characterizing science, so long will the Wedge strategy continue to work. Unfortunately, the scientific establishment seems committed to this mischaracterization, making life easy for Johnson and his cohorts.

Thanks Tom, these are excellent comments - one of the best explanations of this point that I’ve seen. May I steal your ideas in the future? and perhaps some of your phrases? and also quote you in other places?

There’s a lot of verified science out there that local school districts have to decide to include/omit. For example, tensor calculus and solid state physics all exist and are used by professionals, though their utility to a high school in terms of paying a teacher to be available to actually teach this stuff is probably not much.

Hence, a big part of a local school board is to make determinations about what is important to teach. The decision by localities to teach this thing or not teach that thing is not singular to ID.


I agree with Tom’s point about being prepared for the ID science/naturalism issues. I suggest being as aggressive as possible, raising the IDers points before they do themselves, rather than reacting to them.


By all means avail yourself of anything at Naturalism.Org to use as you see fit - I’m glad you see some virtue in this approach. Best of luck in your appearance and let us know how it goes.

I’ve never done one of these debates before. I recently spoke with someone who ran a political campaign and their main point was “frame the discussion on your terms and always bring it back to your terms”, which I think is a useful tactic. The other thing is have a message that can be said fast and (pedgogically speaking) repeat often. Be ready for the complicated argument, but don’t convolute unnecessarily.

Good luck.

Don’t forget that both John Paul II and Pius XII consider biological evolution to be perfectly consistent with a belief in God. I have met a fellow who considers John Paul II to be a liberal theologian, with a feminist agenda, but Pius XII is pretty much the poster-boy for conservative theology, wouldn’t you say?

fusilier, who has some of your 1999 letters saved off BioLab James 2:24

Jack, You should also prep by listening to the lovely Ms. Parshall’s program between now and then. Check her website for times and stations for you,


I suggest the important thing to do is hammer over and over the following:

Creationism is not science. It’s religion. Religion doesn’t belong in science class, even if it is dressed up with fancy terms. Countless scientists, Nobel Laureates, and scientific associations have said that creationism’s not science, and it doesn’t belong in a science class.

(why am I not calling it ID? because part of the creationist strategy is to change the name, now that everyone knows what creationism is, and that the SCOTUS bounced it. Similarly, other frauds have been renamed over the years after the word got out it was fraud. Clairvoyance becomes ESP becomes Remote Viewing.…)

Another point to be wary of is the creationist’s appeal to fairness - the majority of people in the States, when asked, tend to agree that teaching “both sides” of the issue is only fair.

On the surface this is a reasonable point of view, but of course if we allowed fairness to be the overriding factor we find ourselves teaching astrology alongside astronomy, and holocaust denial alongside WWII Jewish history.

If pressed, most IDist would agree that there has to be some form of filter applied to what science is being taught in our schools. Given that the scientific establishment is the current method for doing this, the IDists should be pushed to explain exactly why evolution should be the only exception to this process.

After all, we no long teach pre-continental drift geology in schools do we? It may have taken years for the scientific establishment to accept that radical theory when it first came out, but the scientific process worked, the evidence mounted and it became the established thoery, after which it entered the text books.

Science is chock full of theories that had a hard time being accepted at first, the accelerating universe is another that springs to mind. It’s hard to argue that ID is not getting a fair hearing if you can show that radical theories become accepted all the time - once they can show merit through supporting evidence.

Also try to avoid having to defend evolution - most of the audience will have heard those arguments before - rather focus on the complete lack of evidence for anything that supports ID. Show them it’s a theory with no clothes. That is what the audience needs to hear.


You seem to be in good shape Jack. There have been some excelent comments. Good going. Let us know how it goes.


Jack – Listeners to a conservative talk-show will certainly value national security and economic interests.

It would be effective to point out that the country faces the proven threat of bioterrorism, and is competing globally in the biotech and pharmeceutical industries.

Evolution provides the foundational understanding of both.

It contravenes national security and economic interests to replace proven facts in science with nonsense.

How did the appearance work out? I checked their schedule and you weren’t mentioned.

BTW, best example for debunking ID is in a “Far-Side” cartoon: Scientist at a blackboard is writing out a very complex equation. Except in the middle, there’s a little note that bridges the first part of the equation and the last. The note says “and then a miracle happens.”

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Krebs published on December 5, 2004 7:50 PM.

Science Teachers Balk at Dover Decision was the previous entry in this blog.

Is Cass Sunstein a creationist? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter