|
A whirlwind
over Kansas
| Thank
you for the report on the Kansas Board of Education censoring
evolution ("Kansas cuts evolution from curriculum," SN:
8/21/99, p. 117). In 1997, Illinois had a new set of educational
standards ready to be used as the basis for its tests for comparing
schools. The state superintendent of schools decided to appoint an
External Review Committee, including the executive secretary of the
Illinois Christian Coalition and other creationists, to work it
over. They butchered a lot of areas and in the sciences, removed
every mention of evolution. Many of us protested, but nothing
changed, and it still hasn't. So Kansas is 2 years behind the times
in the creationist efforts.
I feel as
sorry for Kansas as for Illinois.
Jack
Bennett
DeKalb, Ill. |
| I was
disappointed to see Science News take the usual biased
approach to the Kansas Board of Education's recent vote on testing
requirements, especially the repetition of such comments as Kevin
Padian's reference to evolution as "the central organizing
theory of biology." Almost all biological studies can be
carried out without reference to evolution, and its central place is
due in large part to authoritarian fiat, not practical or
intellectual necessity. Many articles in Science News
related to biology have no reference to evolutionary factors, and
rightly so.
David
Bump
Flushing, Mich. |
| That the Kansas
Board of Education was able to chalk up a victory for the
antievolution forces is not really surprising. The general public
is, at best, only vaguely aware of all that evolution entails. They
might be cognizant of prehistoric wonders like the dinosaurs, but
that evolution is a continuing process that explains a great deal in
our current natural and manufactured world is downplayed in the
press. Evolutionary events are not described in evolutionary terms,
and Science News is just as guilty as other media
outlets. It seems that the concept of evolution and the sundry
conjugated forms of the verb "to evolve" are used only
when some new fossil is announced or the evolution controversy
itself is being discussed.
J.
Richard Shenkel
Covington, La. |
| One of the many
issues with the Kansas decision is the confusion of faith with
science. Faith and religious beliefs are, by definition, dogmatic
and not subject to scientific challenge. Scientific theories, on the
other hand, are only valid until someone finds an example that
refutes them. Creationism is not a scientific theory. What is even
more disturbing about the Kansas decision is that it is part of a
trend that is orchestrated by a well organized, purposeful movement.
Alfred
Kausel
Clearwater, Fla. |
|
