We, the undersigned faculty and professional staff of Kansas State University science departments, express our continued commitment to maintaining the highest quality science education for the children of USD 383 and Kansas. We are also concerned about the negative impact the Science Standards recently passed by the Kansas State Board of Education will have on our children, our community, and Kansas State University. We are especially concerned about the continued high quality of science teaching, and the continuing recruitment efforts to bring talented workers and educators to our community. We ask that you adopt the following resolution:
USD 383 endorses the following definition of science developed by the Kansas Science Education Standards Revision Committee on March 9, 2005, a definition consistent with that of all major professional science organizations in this country:
Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 27st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.
The Science Standards that use this definition will be used in science curricula in all appropriate USD 383 K-12 science courses.
USD 383 does not support the redefinition of science included in the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State Board of Education on November 8, 2005; this document changed the definition of science to allow non-natural (including supernatural) explanations of natural phenomena.
The reasons we urge you not to support the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State School Board that redefine science include the following:
1. Adoption of these standards will diminish the quality of science teaching in USD 383 and disadvantage our children relative to their peers in states that adhere to the standard practice of science.
2. The Kansas State Board of Education standards have created enormous negative publicity, which threatens to compromise K-State and local business efforts to recruit and retain highly qualified professionals to the district.
3. The Kansas State Board of Education standards singled out evolution for criticism while excluding other scientific theories from such criticism. We think this is unfair and suggests there may be ulterior motives at work, such as the introduction of a particular religious viewpoint into the curriculum. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a federal district judge has ruled actions such as this to be unconstitutional.
4. There is clear concern in all quarters that U.S students are falling farther and farther behind worldwide norms. It is highly predictable that students from other countries will gain even more on U.S. students, as measured by achievement, if we accept the modified definition of science recently adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education.
5. The changes made to the science standards are based on the utterly false belief that evolutionary science, and the scientific method itself, is based on an atheistic philosophy. Promoting this false conflict between science and faith erects unnecessary barriers to student learning, discourages many students from pursuing careers in the sciences, and perpetuates public misunderstandings of the nature and conclusions of science.
Signed,
Michael Herman Associate Professor Biology
Gary W. Conrad University Distinguished Professor Biology
Walter Dodds Professor Biology
Carolyn Ferguson Assistant Professor Biology
Anthony Jeorn Professor Biology
Loretta Johnson Associate Professor Biology
A. Lorena Passarelli Assistant Professor Biology
A. Spencer Tomb Associate Professor Biology
Mark Ungerer Assistant Professor Biology
John Staver Professor Education Center for Science Education
Ruth Douglas Miller Associate Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering
Keith B. Miller Research Assistant Professor Geology
Bruce Glymour Associate Professor Philosophy Director, Center for Origins
Timothy Bolton Professor Physics
Bharat Ratra Professor Physics
Michel D. Ransom Professor Agronomy Assistant Head for Teaching
Charles W. Rice Professor Agronomy
James P. Shroyer Professor Agronomy
John Tatarko Adjunct Professor Agronomy
Paul White Research Assistant Agronomy
Kimberly Kramer Assistant Professor Architectural Engineering and Construction Science
Larry Davis Professor Biochemistry
Michael Kanost University Distinguished Professor and Mead Biochemistry
Karl Kramer Adjunct Professor Emeritus Biochemistry
S. Muthukrishnan Professor Biochemistry
Thomas Roche Professor Biochemistry
Qize Wei Assistant Professor Biochemistry
Anna Zolkiewska Associate Professor Biochemistry
Michal Zolkiewski Associate Professor Biochemistry
James K. Koelliker Professor Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Kyle R. Mankin Associate Professor Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Kasutra Asano Assistant Professor Biology
Susan Brown Associate Professor Biology
Stephen K Chapes Professor Biology
Rollie Clem Associate Professor Biology
Abigail Conrad Research Professor Biology
Jack Cully Associate Professor Biology
Robin Denell University Distinguished Professor Biology Director, Johnson Center for Basic Cancer Research
Keith Gido Assistant Professor Biology
Lynn Hancock Assistant Professor Biology
David C. Hartnett University Distinguished Professor Biology
Helmut Hirt Assistant Professor Biology
Eva Horne Research Assistant Professor Biology
Ari Jumpponen Assistant Professor Biology
Donald Kaufman Professor Biology
George Marchin Associate Professor Biology
Mark Mayfield Research Assistant Professor Biology
Beth Montelone Professor Biology Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
David Rintoul Associate Professor Biology
Robert J. Robel Professor Emeritus Biology
Judith Sabah Research Associate Biology
Jyoti Shah Associate Professor Biology
Brian Spooner University Distinguished Professor Biology Director
Chris Thorpe Assistant Professor Biology
Larry Williams Associate Professor Biology Associate Director for Undergraduate Education
Gail Wilson Research Assistant Professor Biology
Samantha M. Wisely Assistant Professor Biology
Peter P. Wong Professor Biology
Larry A. Glasgow Professor Chemical Engineering
Keith Hohn Associate Professor Chemical Engineering
Peter H. Pfromm Associate Professor Chemical Engineering
Mary Rezac Professor and Head Chemical Engineering
Christer B. Aakeroy Associate Professor Chemistry
Stefan H. Bossmann Professor Chemistry
Daniel A. Higgins Associate Professor Chemistry
Duy H. Hua Professor Chemistry
Ryszard Jankowiak Professor Chemistry
Kenneth J. Klabunde University Distinguished Professor Chemistry
Christopher J. Levy Assistant Professor Chemistry
Eric A. Maatta Professor and Head Chemistry
Maria K. Paukstelis Instructor Chemistry
Sundeep Rayat Assistant Professor Chemistry
Lou Wojcinski Instructor Chemistry
Maarten van Swaay Professor Emeritus Computing and Information Sciences
Alley Stoughton Associate Professor Computing and Information Sciences
Luba Roitman Application Developer Continuing Education
Larry Scharrnann Professor Education
Richard Beeman Adjunct Professor Entomology Research Entomologist, USDA-ARS
Ming-Shun Chen Adjunct Associate Professor Entomology Research Scientist USDA-ARS
J.P. Michaud Assistant Professor Entomology
James Nechols Professor and Interim Head Entomology
Brenda Oppert Adjunct Assistant Professor Entomology Research Molecular Biologist- USDA-ARS
John Reese Professor Entomology
Susan Romero Research Associate Entomology
Greg Zolnerowich Assistant Professor Entomology
Ludek Zurek Assistant Professor Entomology
George Clark Professor Geology
Robert Cullers Professor Geology
Mary Hubbard Professor and Head Geology
Kirsten Nicolaysen Assistant Professor Geology
Jack Oviatt Professor Geology
Iris Totten Assistant Professor Geology
Matf Totten Associate Professor Geology
Ron West Professor Geology
Bradford W. Seabourn Research Chemist and Adjunct Professor Grain Science
Paul Seib Professor Grain Science
Feng Xie Research Associate Grain Science
Zhikai Zhong Research Associate Grain Science
Chen-Yen Cochrane Research Associate Professor Human Nutrition
Margaret J. Rys Associate Professor Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering
Tom Barstow Professor Kinesiology
David Dzewaltowski Professor Kinesiology
Craig Harms Associate Professor Kinesiology
David C. Poole Professor Kinesiology Anatomy and Physiology
Stewart Trost Associate Professor Kinesiology
Maria Angeles Alfonseca Assistant Professor Mathematics
David Auckly Professor Mathematics
Andrew Bennett Professor Mathematics
Robert Burckel Professor Mathematics
Todd Cochrane Professor Mathematics
Marianne Korten Assistant Professor Mathematics
Zongzhu Lin Professor Mathematics
Genevra Neumann Instructor Mathematics
Michael Roitman Assistant Professor Mathematics
Yan Soileiman Professor Mathematics
William L. Stamey Professor Emeritus Mathematics Former Dean of Arts and Sciences
Huanan Yang Associate Professor Mathematics
Kevin Carnes Associate Research Professor Physics
C. Lewis Cocke University Distinguished Professor Physics
Brett DePaola Professor Physics
Glenn Horton-Smith Assistant Professor Physics
Hongxing Jiang University Distinguished Professor Physics
Tina Kahniashvili Associate Research Professor Physics
Jingyu Lin Professor Physics
lgor Litvinyuk Assistant Professor Physics
Yurii Maravin Assistant Professor Physics
Michael O’Shea Professor Physics
Carol Regehr Assistant Scientist Physics
Pat Richard University Distinguished Professor Physics
Chris Sorensen Professor Physics
Uwe Thumm Professor Physics
Larry Weaver Professor Physics
Dean Zollman University Distinguished Professor and Head Physics
Robert Bowden Adjunct Professor Plant Pathology
Bernd Friebe Research Professor Plant Pathology
Bikram Gill University Distinguished Professor Plant Pathology Director, Wheat Genetics Resource Center
Scot Hulbert Professor and interim Head Plant Pathology
Doug Jardine Professor Plant Pathology
Judy O’Mara Plant Pathology Instructor
Xiaoyan Tang Associate Professor Plant Pathology
John E. Boyer Professor and Head Statistics
Suzanne R. Dubnicka Assistant Professor Statistics
Paul St. Amand Research Geneticist USDA Agricultural Research Service
Rachel Allbaugh Ophthalmology Resident Veterinary Medicine
James Carpenter Professor Veterinary Medicine Clinical Sciences
Lisa Freeman Professor Veterinary Medicine Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs
George Kennedy Professor Emeritus Veterinary Medicine
Donald C. Robertson Professor Veterinary Medicine Diagnostic Medicine
Chris R Ross Professor Veterinary Medicine Anatomy and Physiology
Masaaki Tamura Associate Professor Veterinary Medicine Anatomy and Physiology
Mark L. Weiss Professor Veterinary Medicine Anatomy and Physiology Associate Director, Terry C. Johnson Center for Basic Cancer Research
Kimberly D. Douglas Director Women in Engineering & Science
John Blair Professor Biology
Brad Logan Research Associate Professor Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work
Donna C. Roper Research Associate Professor Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work
Timothy H. Parker Research Assistant Professor Biology
George Strecker Professor Mathematics
Manhattan, KS, is one of the largest cities in KS state board of education member Kathy Martin’s district.
Kudos to USD 383!!
csadams post,Some of Kathy Martins are worth highlighting
Martin said, “Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts.”
While Martin was unable to provide examples of scientific facts that back up Intelligent Design Theory, she did explain that ID believes in micro evolution,” but not “macro evolution.”
Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is not well disguised.
“Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation,” said Martin. “Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,” said Martin. Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is not well disguised.
“Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation,” said Martin. “Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,” said Martin.Most high school students don’t care where they came from. They are more worried about where they are going on Saturday night,” said Martin. Lenny will have a great time with that
Sorry for the double post
I just think it’s funny that there are about 150 signatures of actual scientists on just this one single letter from this one single school in a district of Kansas. This slightly obliterates the pace of the Disco Institute’s Dissent from “Darwinism”, who claim that in 5 years, worldwide, they’ve accumulated about 150 biologists and lesser amounts each of chemists and physicists. And I thought Project Steve was illuminating.
And, all of the signers of the KSU letter are alive!
Double Bonus Score!
It’s people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.
“Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard…”
Typical Christofascist double-talk: “We’re the majority, but we’re also a persecuted minority and we have to speak up against all the bad people who are oppressing us!”
How these crybabies get to call themselves God’s children is beyond me.
Ha! Apparently not one single member of the Phys-Ed department has signed on to this letter. Teach the controversy!
Silencing the irrevocably stupid is not oppression, it’s public service.
Was the use of “fundamentally” a deliberate pun there? Or do I just over-think these things?
Either way, I think Kansas, should they not repeal such standards, is leaving the same kind of wildly religious paper trail that slaughtered the ID crowd in Dover. It seems the decision is almost already made…
In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for “mocking god” once. I should have kept a copy. She’s a full mooner to be sure.
Rilke’s Granddaughter wrote:
True, but do you know a better system?
The only reason democratic representative government is fundamentally nuts is because human beings are fundamentally delusional.
Seeing as we’re not out to change the system of government, (at least I hope you aren’t) we have to learn to work within it. ID is a case of shrewd marketing and the recasting of a religious belief as science. In the end court cases will not win the war – we have to reach the whole monkey mass and change millions of minds.
Scientists are going to have to start marketing their ideas. And I see hope for a real interest in science movies after seeing how well “March of the Penguins” did at the box office. Though I wonder, if the word “evolution” had been inserted into the film, would it’s box-office have dropped?
I wish they would follow up “March of the Penguins” with a sequel called “Evolution of the Penguins.”
I remember you posting that. Either in whole or on part. IIRC it was on a thread about the FSM.
You posted replies from board members saying how funny and original most writers had been, while she said, “mocking God is a sin” or words to that effect.
Anyhoo, my point is that you may be able to find it in the archives.
Maybe Martin and her fellows are from the distant future, when major discoveries about the origin of life produce irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God, and the resulting collapse of major governments precipitates a nuclear holocaust that wipes out 99.9% of the human race and leads to the rise of giant flesh-eating squirrels, so their efforts to come back in time and undermine biology and science are a last, desperate attempt to save humankind from near-extinction!
Or maybe they’re just hyper-religious wackos.
Does Occam’s Razor apply to explanations for social behavior?
Government by elected representatives is predicated on the existence of a reasonably informed and intelligent electorate. If no such electorate exists (and I’d argue that the push towards universal sufferage that began in the nineteenth century made that inevitable), then perhaps we seriously ought to rethink how we create a government.
And this is what causes me to be a closet monarchist - we have no hope whatever of changing millions of minds. Worse yet, under our current system, we don’t have the right to change their minds. People in America (and most other places) possess the God-given, inalienable right to be stupid as bricks (e.g. Larry, Carol, and David: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil). Given that people aren’t generally interested in being educated; given that they really don’t care what’s going on, why should we include them as part of the electorate? I’d argue that we do so out of ‘moral’ fairness, not rationality.
But then, I’m a flagrant and unreconstituted elitist: I don’t believe that all men (and women) are created equal. And to predicate a governmental system on that demonstrably false idea is… well, nuts.
erm, not to derail… But, isn’t this just begging the question, in that I don’t think anyone believes it, in a strong sense, i.e. it’s clear that not everyone has the same abilities.
The point of operating on egalitarian principles, based on a “false idea” though they may be, is who gets to decide who is “more equal than others?”
You? I’m sure you’re a well-intentioned elitist, but we’ve heard that before. No thanks.
There is a very significant upside to democracy; when you have a large group of idiots in conflict with themselves, they often manage to accomplish nothing particularly bad, because there is no consensus on which idiotically bad thing they should be doing.
That barrier is removed with monarchic systems of government. Plato’s Republic is perfectly useful in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. There is no way to distinguish the philosopher king, so to speak.
I’m all for gridlock through stupidity. It sure beats efficient oppression by an organized elite.
Just remember: Democracy is a terrible form of governemt, but we use it because it’s still better than everything else we’ve come up with.
So your argument is that Democracy is good because it’s bad? %:->
I think he’s arguing that it’s good because it’s relatively difficult to make sweeping changes to the status quo without almost universal agreement.
Compare to dictatorship or monarchy where someone can immediately decree that all brown-haired people must be neutered/spayed.
The problem is that an individual with a good grasp of events and facts about how policies will affect them has as much voting power as someone who lives in a cave. And the fact that people are elected based not on their actual ability to lead or govern, but on how they present themselves to the public (via sound bites, TV, advertisements).
Well, they seem to be reasonably informed about prime time animation: Study: Few Americans Know 1st Amendment
No, I said terrible, in fact!
I’m arguing it’s good, however, because it is LESS terrible than everything else. Dizzy hit the nail on the head - the primary benefit of a democratic system is that it makes it very hard to efficiently do anything highly negative. We’d actually have to pass an ammendment through congress and the senate, then have it ratified by a super-majority of states, and then signed into law by a president to start doing something like putting all people with “e” in their name to death. In a monarchy, you could just order it.
Find me a system that is better in practice (which is different than in principle - I don’t care how government works in some ideal world, I care how it works in this one), and I’ll support it.
Re “As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 27st century,”
27st?
Haha. You know, back in 17th-century China when the printing press started being put into widespread use, the vast majority of literate people were interested primarily in pornographic literature. So a Confucian scholar decided to write an erotic novel (“The Carnal Prayer Mat”) embedded with moral lessons in order to reach the masses.
Maybe they should start doing that with the Simpsons and CSI…
I can’t help but hear the subtext of Ms. Martin’s comment:
“Most high school students don’t care where they came from, nor should they; just read Genesis and shut up. They are more worried about where they are going on Saturday night, which of course is not to have ignorant, unprotected sex, since we have done our jobs as good Christian parents so well.”
Or perhaps I have become too cynical.
So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping? Did I miss something?
Yep! I mean…er…hmm.
Only the demolishing of the checks and balances that define our democratic form of government so that we are, in fact, moving closer and closer to the monarchic ideal.
Well, we modeled our government after the romans in part. I suppose it should come as no surprise we flirt with the Empire idea either.
Wow – look at all the physicists, engineers, mathematicians, etc., who signed the letter — all experts, no doubt, in evolutionary biology.
A layperson who accepts Darwinism is considered qualified to have an opinion about it, otherwise not.
Having a Ph.D. in a technical field that is unrelated to the origin of species is no evidence that one knows anything at all about the controversy. Of course, this applies to signers of anti-Darwinism letters as well as signers of pro-Darwinism letters, but I presume that the signers of the anti-Darwinism letters tend to have given the issue more thought because they are taking a position that is considered to be unorthodox in the scientific community.
Defining science as limited to natural explanations does not prevent scientists from admitting that there is no reasonable natural explanation for a particular natural phenomenon, e.g., the origin of species.
The letter has the usual phony scare predictions that the new state standards will hurt the state’s technological competitiveness and result in discrimination against the state and state residents.
Larry. you haven’t answered the questions:
1. Are you aware that posting in violation of rule 6 makes you look like an idiot?
2. Given that you have no credentials, experience, or study on any of these topics, why should we take anything you say seriously?
I’ve emailed her twice. Both times, my message consisted of a single word. In December, it was:
“Dover”.
And a few weeks ago, it was:
“Ohio”.
Never heard back from her.
Shut up, Larry.
I’m surprised that nobody’s quoted Winston Churchill:
“Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.”
But, RB and AD, aren’t we supposed to remember that we must always be polite and not offend the people on the opposite side of the debate with unnecessarily hostile, inflammatory language. Especially, RB, about their religion. Isn’t that right?
I do not necessarily advocate being polite or nice in all circumstances. I would go so far as to say that there are times when it is, in fact, counterproductive to do so.
However, what I do advocate is being impolite and not so nice to the correct target. Personally, I find it frustrating when I hear things like “most Christians” or “most scientists” or “most Darwinists” being thrown around, because it’s a giant, giant red flag that someone is rolling out a biased and unrealistic stereotype, then blasting a bunch of people who are entirely innocent as a result of their choice of language.
I think irrevocably stupid is a pretty clear target - I am specifically referring to, in this case, any group which is willfully ignorant, deliberately obstructive, and incapable of changing their beliefs based on those pesky things called facts.
I would cite Larry “Legion” as an example.
Larry: given your demonstrated — and often admitted — lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:
Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?
What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?
What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?
Um, no — that would be “on the SAME side of the debate”.
Unless you are debating something different than the rest of us are . . ?
Dudes, Larry (or whatever his name is this week) is a parasite. A tapeworm.
So why offer him your intestines? Let him find his nourishing sh*t somewhere else. (shrug)
Update