On August 11, 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education (KBOE) approved the new State Science Education Standards. In doing so, Kansas has entered center stage in the debate over religious fundamentalism and creationism in public schools. So what exactly was approved by the Kansas Board of Education and who authored it?

The Science Standards Document submitted by the external committee of science educators was heavily edited to remove any concept that might conflict with fundamentalist Christian views. In addition, material was added to promote young-earth creationism and other non-scientific agendas.

The draft that was approved was not the original version prepared by the 27-member external writing committee (composed of professional educators and scientists) over a period of 13 months. Instead, a core group of board members with a fundamentalist agenda enlisted the assistance of a Missouri-based creationist organization leader (Tom WIllis of the Creation Science Association of Mid-America or CSAMA) to secretly re-write the externally prepared-draft. In fact it has been shown that virtually all the additions made to the science standards in August actually came verbatim from a alternative draft of the standards written by Tom Willis of CSAMA.

Scott Hill said, "As the primary author of the compromise standard that were passed, I guarantee that it was not input from fundamentalist religious zealots that did the work."- completely false

This is rather interesting given that Steve Abrams, Scott Hill, and Harold Voth (of the board) claimed authorship of the adopted standards. At a forum at Kansas University, Scott Hill said, "As the primary author of the compromise standard that were passed, I guarantee that it was not input from fundamentalist religious zealots that did the work."- completely false. The Science Standards Document submitted by the external committee of science educators was heavily edited to remove any concept that might conflict with fundamentalist Christian views. In addition, material was added to promote young-earth creationism and other non-scientific agendas. The Board's public comments, diverting attention from the full scope of their intentions, proclaimed that all they did was to remove "macro-evolution" from the list of required testing items- "give control to the local districts". This sound-bite largely understates the scope of the changes made.

Why pick on evolution? This question is key. Science sometimes gives us answers that challenge our other beliefs, and THIS is at the heart of the boards decision. It is a gesture to make the concept of evolution into something that does not challenge their faith.

It is true that macro-evolution was removed from the list of tested subjects, but that is a mere by-product of a wider agenda applied to the standards (as you will see). If local control is the issue, then the very narrow application of that dictate to evolution, while ignoring all other concepts taught, is ludicrous. This obvious goof exposes the falsity of their claim. Why pick on evolution? This question is key. Science sometimes gives us answers that challenge our other beliefs, and THIS is at the heart of the boards decision. It is a gesture to make the concept of evolution into something they won't view as a challenge to their faith. It is an intellectually dishonest action that many people of faith, including many members of the scientific community that happen to be Christians, find appalling.

This page contains several specific examples of the changes made by the Board of Education to the standards document prepared by the external writing committee. Much of the material here appeared in a very well conceived comparison document prepared by Peter A. Gegenheimer of Lawrence. The comparison document identifies in exacting detail every change the board of education made. This material is copyrighted and used with permission. Additional commentary and editorial assistance for the comparison document was provided by David Collins, Jack Krebs, Steve Case, and Adrian Melott of Lawrence. I found the end result of their work to be very revealing. Here on this page I have included some of the more noteworthy changes made by the Board in a kind of "damage report" format. These focus on just the instances of changes, without including the standards document as a whole. I encourage others to visit the Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) web site and get a first hand look at the standards and comparisons. Kansas Citizens For Science is an organization composed of parents, educators, scientists, students and others to support the teaching of sound science in Kansas public schools. For more information, see the KCFS website. Thanks to Todd Poindexter for suggestions on presentation.

The reader will likely uncover recurring themes in the material inserted by the Board. If the reader is at all familiar with standard creationist "arguments", these inserted items will immediately be identifiable as one or more of the following:

• Standard creationist diatribe.
• Very specific statements that fall just short of "explicitly teaching creationism" (that is still illegal....for now) but instead pre-load and bias subsequent discussion in ways that would lead the student away from mainstream scientific thought and (what the creationist hopes) into slanted, non-scientific ways of thinking about the natural world.

While examining each instance of deletion, insertion, or change, ask yourself these questions :

• Why was this particular change necessary?
• Out of countless other illustrative and relevant examples, why was this specific example inserted by the board?
• Are there trends in the editions and insertions?
• Do the insertions or changes in the section represent mainstream science?
• Are value judgments being inserted?

Also consider this: the standards document prepared by the external writing committee was written by real-world science educators. This body of individuals includes parents with a vested interest in high-quality education for their own children. No hidden agendas lurk here, just a mainstream science education for our kids. In this light alone, changes to the standards document require substantial justification.

In the following report, specific instances where the Board of Education deleted, inserted, or made changes are examined on a case by case basis. Though many cases are shown in the report, it comprises only a subset of the changes made by the Board. From left to right the three fields in each row are defined as follows:

Draft	The passage as it appears in the original science standards document prepared by the external 27-member writing committee.
Board-Adopted Version	The passage as it looks after modification by the Kansas Board of Education / Tom WIllis of CSAMA.
Commentary	Commentary on the change(s) made.

Differences are highlighted in yellow in cases where some of the original text is maintained between the external committee's document and the Board's edited version.

Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.	Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.	Science is redefined. What's the big deal about one word? This is a change of sweeping scope. It is an overt attack on science's naturalistic method of inquiry. The original draft does not promote "materialism" or "philosophical naturalism" (the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena), but instead simply defines the bounds for scientific inquiry. This redefinition appears more than once in the board's version. "In a speech at a recent creationist seminar in Lawrence, Dr. Paul Ackerman, a member of the Kansas creationist group, emphasized that this change allowed the possibility that supernatural causation could be argued as the most logical explanation for a phenomenon, and therefore a creationist explanation could be considered truly scientific." (Jack Krebs, Kansas Citizens For Science ,"Science Standards in Kansas: The Real Issues", 11/16/99)
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.	No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory should be censored.	Anything goes. The original draft is concise, fair, and respectful of a student's religious views. The adopted version is vague and leaves the science class as an open forum for student-initiated filibuster. Pseudo-science becomes real science.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Patterns of Cumulative Change: Accumulated changes through time, some gradual and some sporadic, account for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural systems. The general idea is that the present arises from materials and forms of the past. An example of cumulative change is the biological theory of evolution, which explains the process of descent with modification of organisms from common ancestors. Additional examples are continental drift, which is part of plate tectonic theory, fossilization, and erosion. Patterns of cumulative change also help to describe the current structure of the universe.	[entire section deleted]	Tell-tale sign of SBOE's intent to remove concepts that conflict with fundamentalist agenda
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Example: Observe a variety of fossils.	Example: Provide a variety of fossils for observation. Discuss how fossils are formed; how long it takes an organism to decay or to be scavenged; how long it takes an organism to be fossilized; whether or not all fossilized organisms were dead at the time of burial (i.e. closed clam fossils).	Young Earth Creationist Agenda A set-up for the biblical flood account as an explanation for fossil record.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
10-3.10 3. Identify faulty reasoning or conclusions that go beyond evidence and/or are not supported by data. Example: Analyze evidence and data which support the theory of continental drift.	10-3.10 3. Identify faulty reasoning of conclusions which go beyond evidence and/or are not supported by data in a current scientific hypothesis or theory. Example: Analyze hypotheses about characteristics of and extinction of dinosaurs. Identify the assumptions behind the hypothesis and show the weaknesses in the reasoning that led to the hypothesis. 10-4. Suggest alternative scientific hypotheses or theories to current scientific hypotheses or theories. Example: At least some stratified rocks may have been laid down quickly, such as Mount Etna in Italy or Mount St. Helens in Washington state.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda Biased reasoning is encouraged: "show the weakness" rather than "show strengths and weaknesses". The statement about stratified rocks is not a hypothesis or theory. The statement promotes creationist notion that rock layers which extend back far beyond 10,000 years could have been produced in Bible-literal time frames.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
As students investigate different types of organisms, teachers guide them toward thinking about similarities and differences. Students can compare similarities between organisms in different parts of the world, such as tigers in Asia and mountain lions in North America. Instruction needs to be designed to uncover and prevent misconceptions about natural selection. Students tend to think of all individuals in a population responding to change quickly rather than over a long period of time.	As students investigate different types of organisms, teachers guide them toward thinking about similarities and differences. Instruction needs to be designed to uncover and prevent misconceptions about natural selection. Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation but does not add new information to the existing genetic code.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda Comparison of organisms implies that speciation has occurred. Creationists believe this is impossible. The implication that the mechanisms of evolution cannot add new information to the existing genetic code is false. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated experimentally.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
[Section noes not appear in original draft]	4. Understand that natural selection acts only on the existing genetic code and adds no new genetic information.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda The implication that the mechanisms of evolution cannot add new information to the existing genetic code is false. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated experimentally. Regarding the removal of macroevolution (among other concepts) from the standards, the core group of KBOE members have said, "The absence of those items in the standards does not prevent schools from providing instruction in those areas." Technically however, teaching macroevolution conflicts with the passage shown here. Therefore, NO, macroevolution cannot be taught without contradicting the board's standards.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
5. That evolution by natural selection is a broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology. Example: Evolution provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable applied answers, especially in agriculture and medicine. The more closely related species are, the greater their anatomical and molecular similarities; DNA sequences and other molecular evidence substantiate anatomical evidence for evolution and provide additional detail about the various lines of descent.	5. The effect of selection on genetic variation is a well-substantiated theoretical framework in biology. Examples: Selection (natural and artificial) provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable applied answers, especially in agriculture and medicine.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda Standard creationist belief that selection can occur today, but not in pre-history. Compelling and incontrovertible evidence for long-range evolution is removed. It is removed because it is obvious that the mechanisms employed therein are the same mechanisms that would allow speciation.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
7-1. Understand the dynamics of Earth's constructive and destructive forces over time. Examples: Construct models of rock types using food. Peanut brittle without the peanuts can illustrate a molten material crystallizing to forma solid substance similar to an igneous rock. Students take a piece of sandstone and apply destructive forces to change it into sand. Observe the effects of weathering on various rock types.	7-1. Examine the dynamics of Earth's constructive and destructive forces over time. Example: Discuss the destructive force of volcanoes and resultant rocks. Discuss major river floods and resultant sedimentary rock deposition.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda Standard creationist setup. The volcano and flood are recurring themes in creationist diatribe to give biblical reasons that rocks seem "old" and fossils are found in these rocks in the manner they are observed.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
5. Trace cultural, as well scientific, influences on the study of astronomy.	5. Trace scientific influences on the study of astronomy.	Ignore History Why even make the deletion? Is it to avoid topics like Galileo and the efforts to censor scientific inquiry through history?
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
2. Base decisions on perceptions of benefits and risks. Example: Evaluate the benefits of burning fossil fuels to meet energy needs against the risks of global warming.	2. Base decisions on perceptions of benefits and risks. Example: What temporary changes in the atmosphere are caused by the cars and trees in our community?	Technology / Anti Environmental The belief that the earth was put here to be used, and that technology can fix any limited resource problem that arises. What was wrong with the original example?
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Benchmark 3: Students will understand* major concepts of biological evolution. Indicators: The students will understand: 1. That the theory of evolution is both the descent with modification of different lineages of organisms from common ancestors and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes (modified from Futuyma, et al., 1999). 2. That biologists use the theory of evolution to explain the Earth's present day biodiversity. Example: Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. The fossil record provides evidence of simple, bacteria-like life as far back as 3.5 billion years ago. Example: Macroevolution has been defined as evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the product of evolutionary novelties such as new structures (Mayr, 1991). Macroevolution continues the genetic mechanisms of microevolution and adds new considerations of extinction, rate and manner of evolution, competition between evolving units, and other topics relevant to understanding larger-scale evolution. *Understand: "Understand" does not mandate "belief." While students may be required to understand some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical problems, they may accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where students' and/or parents' religion is at odds with science. See Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page 59	[entire section deleted]	Young Earth Creationist Agenda Note that this entire section is deleted even considering the finely written footnote that expounds on what is meant by the term "understand". It is clear that the committee of science educators that created the original version of the standards was very sensitive to a student's potential religious convictions. It is clear that the intent was to treat the student with respect. The full text deleted from this one section is even larger than what I have shown here, but it gets to be a healthy chunk of science, so I'll follow the board's lead and leave it out too :-) These types of off-hand wholesale deletion give chilling insight into the creationist mentality. Ignorance for the new millennium.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
3. Like other aspects of an organism's biology, behaviors have evolved through natural selection. Examples: Behaviors are often adaptive when viewed in terms of survival and reproductive success. Behavioral biology has implications for humans, as it provides links to psychology, sociology, and anthropology.	[entire section deleted]	Young Earth Creationist Agenda More of the same. The "E-word" is banished.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Benchmark 3. Students should develop an understanding of the origin and evolution of the dynamic Earth system.	Benchmark 3. Students shall understand the history of the Earth.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda This change furthers the creationist notion that the earth has not changed significantly after "creation". Removal of the terms "dynamic" and "system" leave one asking why the benchmark is included at all.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
10. Earth's history on the geologic time scale.	1. The geologic table is a listing of the common fossils found in various rock layers. Example: Research all published data on the fossils present in the layers of the Grand Canyon.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda The statement is a standard creationist setup for the (erroneous) assertion that geologists use fossils to prove rock ages and then use rock ages to prove fossil ages. Rather than the laughable circular reasoning that is begged by the statement made here, the strength in actual geology is that different independent disciplines of science support each other. "The results of studies of rock layers (stratigraphy), and of fossils (paleontology), coupled with the ages of certain rocks as measured by atomic clocks (geochronology), attest to a very old Earth!"- (U. S. Geological Survey; William L. Newman) And then the accompanying example is a setup for another popular creationist assertion that the Grand Canyon is 6,000 to 10,000 years old because there are apparently gaps or inversions in some areas of the so-called "geologic table". The use of wording "Research all published data" is interesting here. Why is that wording chosen rather than something more appropriate in scope, like "Research all published scientific data"?
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
1. Formation of the universe. Example: The origin of the universe remains one of the greatest questions in science. The "big bang"theory places the origin between 10 and 20 billion years ago, with the universe beginning in a hot dense state.	1. The structure of the universe. Example: Galaxies are found in clusters and the clusters of galaxies are grouped together into super clusters.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda The wild change in topic for this item is suspect. This is the common creationist "nobody was around to see it" treatment. Mainstream theories of origin are not allowed.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
5. Sexuality is basic to healthy human development.	5. Sexuality is a serious component of being human. and it demands strong personal reflection in light of the life-long effects on students.	Value Judgment Imposed Value judgments are outside the scope of science.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Natural resources limit the capacity of ecosystems to sustain populations.	[statement deleted]	Technology / Anti Environmental The belief that the earth was put here to be used, and that technology can fix any limited resource problem that arises. The statement that was deleted is a true statement.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Evolution - Biological: A scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The long-term perspective focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective centers on changes within lineages. In the long term, evolution is the decent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors. In the short term, evolution is the on-going adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.	Evolution: A scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The long-term perspective (macro-evolution) focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective (micro-evolution) centers on changes within lineages.	Young Earth Creationist Agenda Again, evolution seen through creationist goggles. No one but creationists get so fussy about distinguishing between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. The reason is that the two terms don't describe different biological mechanisms! They just denote a scope of influence in time. Sadly however, this almost artificial distinction in terms is of utmost importance to the creationist.
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Evolution - Cosmological: With respect to non-living entities, evolution accounts for sequences of natural stages of development. Such sequences are a natural consequence of the characteristics of matter and energy. Stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies are examples.	[entire section deleted]	Young Earth Creationist Agenda
Draft	Board-Adopted Version	Commentary
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses (e.g., atomic theory, evolutionary theory).	Theory: In science, an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses (e.g., atomic theory, evolutionary theory).	Young Earth Creationist Agenda / Non-science Some argue that this is the second single-most sweeping change made by the board, though simple as it appears. This redefinition of the term "theory" downgrades what complies with the term to a level of a guess, or hunch. Worst of all it validates the layman's misconception about what scientists mean when they use the term. Creationists count on this confusion. You've heard the refrain, "it's just a theory"? Well now you'll hear it more.

While examining each instance of deletion, insertion, or change, did you ask yourself the questions-

• Why was this particular change necessary?
• Out of countless other illustrative and relevant examples, why was this specific example inserted by the board?
• Are there trends in the editions and insertions?
• Do the insertions or changes in the section represent mainstream science?
• Are value judgments being inserted?

To download a PDF summary of this report, click here. If your viewer cannot display this file click here .

If I were not a parent with children in Kansas Public Schools, I might just just be laughing myself silly over what the board has done. However, I am a parent with children in Kansas Public Schools, so the joke is on me (my kids actually). Remember that you can speak with your vote. The 2000 primaries are in August. Meet the core group of Board members.

Copyright © 2000 Brian Poindexter