Kansas State School Board At It Once Again

It took me seven years - fortunately all accomplished in the same location. When I was started my grad work, it was normal to do one or two years of post-doc before getting a permanent position. Now four to seven is more the rule, unless you're in a discipline in special demand. But I know capable scientists who have done ten and more.I actually have a good friend who has published in Science and Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., has probably thirty plus publications, and is still only a non-tenured 'Assistant Scientist' - after 15 years of post-docs at five different universities !?
He used to call himself an 'academic gypsy' .If America really wants to educate more good scientists from its own population, a good way to start would be to try stabilizing the career development process for becoming a scientist. I have often said we need to create a new category of research position for accomplished scientists to have some job security as part of a research team, even if not in a lead 'professor' position. Projects get funded in this system not the scientists themselves. We should support the 'teams' that work well on projects and invest in the people instead of the projects. And this from a committed career scientist. Politicians please take note.

The latest article I could find is May 9.Here are some exerpts.Evolution curriculum defenders not silent in spite of boycottBy John Hanna
The Associated PressWhile Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings.But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony.Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory.But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates."They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum."I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates.All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater.""There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."Intelligent design advocates argue they are trying to give students a balanced view of evolution.Some Kansas scientists who support the evolutionary model contend that the real goal is trying to sneak intelligent design -- which they criticize as repackaged creationism -- into the classroom.During the round of hearings that ended Saturday, witnesses said repeatedly that the study of molecules, embryos and fossils challenges evolution. But other scientists said their arguments have been discredited repeatedly."These people are willfully ignorant, and they choose to ignore the facts," said Timothy Parker, a Kansas State University biologist.Intelligent design advocates said questions about evolution aren't going to stop.Edward Peltzer, a Monterey Bay, Calif., ocean chemist, said scientists and philosophers have debated for several thousand years whether life or features of the natural world were designed. He was a witness at the hearing."They think they're going to outlast us," Peltzer said of evolution's defenders. "It's one of the questions people keep struggling with."Another witness, Charles Thaxton, who lives near Atlanta but is a visiting assistant professor of chemistry at the Charles University in the Czech Republic, said the boycott is a sign of weakness."They've lost so many debates over the years, even their own supporters say, 'Don't do it,' " he said.But Leshner said scientists don't fear having theories debunked.Leshner, a neuroscientist, cited two examples. First, until the 1970s, he said, people believed newborns couldn't learn, and there is now evidence a fetus can learn in the womb. Ten years ago, he said, a prevailing view was that human brain development stopped around age 10, and when scientists theorized that it continued into early adulthood, colleagues were "hysterical," he said."Scientists love to fight, and they love to argue in public, and they love to refute each other's point of view," he said.BEFORE THE BOARDThe hearings: A three-member subcommittee of the Kansas State Board of Education is taking testimony on how evolution should be taught.The schedule: Evolution critics finished presenting their case Saturday, and evolution defenders get their chance Thursday.The boycott: National and state science groups have refused to participate in the hearings, meaning their side will call no scientists as witnesses Thursday.WHY THE HEARINGS: The entire state board plans to consider changes this summer in standards used to test Kansas students statewide on science.Who's Presiding: Board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, and board members Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis. All three are Republicans, and all three are receptive to criticism of evolution.Abrams' past role: In 1999, Abrams was part of a conservative board majority that deleted most references to evolution from the science standards."Topeka Capital Journal

While I sort of saw that angle coming, I don't think it will 'operationally' affect the teaching of science in Kansas that much. Just because a bunch of ignorant politicians change the wording of the teaching guidelines to placate their fundamentalist supporters doesn't mean that the science teachers are going to change the way they actually do anything. It may actually backfire on them by serving to unite teachers and scientists in an open rebellion against the guidelines. Then they will all be made to look like the idiots they really are. That Connie Morris person, for example, sounds like she never got much of a science education herself.In the University system we see tons of completely useless 'guidelines' coming down from adminstration all the time regarding 'desired learning outcomes', 'evaluations of clientele impact' and other such drivel. Most of scientists/teachers/researchers just go on about our lives, teaching/researching however we think it should be done.Although it annoys hell out of me that they should be changing the guidlines in this way, I am really optimistic that it will have little actual impact on the whole system. At least until they start replacing the science teachers with priests and clergy...This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-23-2005 06:02 AM

From the Topeka Capital Journal:Published Tuesday, June 14, 2005Board member: Evolution a 'fairy tale'By John Hanna
The Associated PressEvolution is an "age-old fairy tale," sometimes defended with "anti-God contempt and arrogance," according to a Kansas State Board of Education member involved in writing new science standards for Kansas' public schools.A newsletter written by board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, was circulating Monday. In it, Morris criticized those who defend evolution.She called evolution "a theory in crisis" and headlined one section of her newsletter "The Evolutionists are in Panic Mode!""It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution," Morris wrote.Morris was one of three board members who last week endorsed proposed science standards designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom. The other two were board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, and Kathy Martin, of Clay Center.She was in Topeka for meetings at the Kansas State Department of Education's headquarters and wasn't available for interviews.But her views weren't a surprise to Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, an Oskaloosa educator."Her belief is in opposition to mainstream science," he said.The entire board plans to review the three members' proposed standards Wednesday. The new standards -- like the existing, evolution-friendly ones -- determine how students in fourth, seventh and 10th grades are tested on science.Everything else in the article is just re-cap.Isn't it just great that our state board of education sets such a good example for our students? I suspect Ms. Morris is herself a product of the education system she's trying to handicap.

Yes, but not to those who want their kids to have a fighting chance for a decent education. But of course we agree.I would have to say that ignorance, even familial ignorance, can be tolerated within society as statistically inevitable. But that doesn't oblige us to use public funding to *propagate* ignorance, and it certainly doesn't mean that the politically militant ignorance of Connie Morris can be tolerated in the school system.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-14-2005 08:08 PM

Thursday, June 16.Board trades barbs over evolutionBy Barbara Hollingsworth
The Capital-JournalModerate and conservative factions of the Kansas State Board of Education on Wednesday wrangled over the latest version of science curriculum standards.Presented with changes crafted by three conservative members, board members argued about the definition of science and efforts to weaken the theory of evolution in the standards. The four moderate members -- still stinging from insults hurled at them in a newsletter put out by conservative member Connie Morris -- said the state board needs to listen to the advice of mainstream scientists....Board member Bill Wagnon, of Topeka, said conservative members have allowed themselves to be manipulated by outside interests with fraudulent information...Carol Rupe, a board member from Wichita, objected to saying that science, in part, uses "logical argument" to explain the world. The board's writing committee had sought to explain science as seeking "natural explanations.""What might be logical for me may not be logical for Bill," she said, suggesting that changes could open the door to religion in science courses.(Ms. Connie) Morris adamantly said the changes weren't about religion."I don't know how more clearly we can say it -- and the rhetoric has become comical -- we are not putting in religion," she said. "We are not embedding intelligent design. We are getting criticisms, scientific criticisms of evolution."Rupe countered that such criticisms haven't earned widespread respect among mainstream scientists. She rejected assertions that scientists refuse to listen to evidence refuting evolution -- a common remark at the hearings."For crying out loud, the very nature of science is that if any new evidence is presented and is credible then I would think that person would be some kind of Nobel Prize winner or automatically famous with new information," Rupe said.Instead, she said, school boards are being targeted by people whose ideas don't withstand peer review by scientists.Amen to that - EZ

June 20, 2005.I had to laugh when John Stewart covered the story of the world's first map to actually depict a continent named 'America' being sold at auction in England for over $1 million. The map, dating from circa 1550, was also the first to depict the world as globe, marking the beginning of what is known in the state of Kansas as "The Round World Theory"...ABE: Are we a f***ing laughing stock or what !?This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-21-2005 09:13 PM