Intelligent
Design network, inc.
P.O. Box 14702, Shawnee Mission,
Kansas 66285-4702
(913) 268-0852; (913)-268-0852
(fax); IDnet@att.net
www.IntelligentDesignnetwork.org
Remarks Made to the Kansas State Board of
Education
on December 12, 2000
by
Dr. William S.
Harris [as read by Brad Cook]
John H. Calvert, J.D., B.A. (Geology)
TO THE KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
as read by
Brad Cook
December 12, 2000
Good Morning! I’’m here at the request of a friend, Dr. William
Harris, a nutritional biochemist and professor of medicine at UMKC. He couldn’t
make it this morning and asked me to stand in for him.
Dr. Harris writes: ""I have recently examined a text book entitled
""Biological Science –– A Molecular Approach"" which is
used in my daughter’’s 10th grade biology class at Shawnee Mission East High
School. This book contains all of the classic Icons of Evolution, from
Darwin’’s Tree of Life to the Peppered moth. The book states on page 13
regarding Darwin’’s theory of evolution that ""virtually no
opposing data have yet been found."" Dr. Harris takes serious issue
with this statement.
For example, the Miller-Urey experiment involved sending an electrical current
through an atmosphere producing simple amino acids.
This is presented as proof that life originated by the random interaction of
chemicals and electrical fields. The textbook writers fail to tell the students
two critical facts: 1) Most researchers today agree that the methane and ammonia
rich atmosphere used by Miller-Urey was NOT
present in the early earth’’s atmosphere; (points to gas chamber on
overhead) and 2) nobody has ever been able to produce functional proteins by
natural processes.
The proper role of curriculum standards, as Jack (Krebs) has just said, require
examination and correction of error and misinformation.
Current biology textbooks do not present the whole truth. Why are students left
with the impression that this important experiment was successful?
The new board will more than likely reverse the 1999 science standards. Although
I welcome some revision of those standards, I would urge you to NOT revise the
definition of science. To assert that all phenomena must be explained by natural
mechanisms is a philosophical, not scientific, restriction. When discussing
origins, students should be given all pertinent data and allowed to draw their
own conclusions free of philosophical or religious agendas.
Thank you!
TO THE KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
December 12, 2000
My name is Yongsoon Park. I have a Masters and a PhD degree in Nutritional
Biochemistry and currently work as a research scientist at the UMKC School of
Medicine.
I would like to make a few comments on the proposed revisions to the Kansas Science Education Standards. I want to point out a serious problem with the presentation of the tree of life as a fact.
On p. 102 of Biological Sciences, the text used in 10th grade biology in
the Shawnee Mission school district, Darwin's tree of life is displayed clearly
linking all 5 kingdoms to each other beginning with a single common ancestor. It
is false and misleading. This is important issue
since descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory.
The branching tree of life is inconsistent with major features of the
fossil and molecular evidence. First, the Cambrian fossil pattern does not fit
Darwin's prediction since the major phyla appeared right at the start in the
early Cambrian. The Cambrian explosion happened quickly and was very
extensive. It turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Second, using
protein sequence differences as a "molecular clock" to estimate how
long ago species shared a common ancestor has also failed. In a February 2000
article in Scientific American, Doolittle suggests that the early history of
life is a tangled web rather than a branching tree.
Science should be unbiased fact-finding and logical weighing of evidence. The 1999 standards endorse the open-minded evaluation of evidence. In considering what to do with these new standards, please do not limit the students' right to hear all the relevant evidence.
Thank you so much for your attention!
Remarks
to the Kansas State Board of Education
12 December 2000
Jody F. Sjogren, M.S., CMI
Good morning. My name is Jody Sjogren. I am here to encourage you again to
rethink your plans for the Science Standards in light of current evidence
against Darwinism.
Last month we introduced this new book, Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells.
This book analyzes ten of the so-called evidences for evolution most often seen
in science textbooks. Today we will briefly address several of these icons. For
your further study, we have a copy of the
book for each of you, as well as the feature article in this month's American
Spectator magazine, which is a condensed version of the book.
Haeckel's Embryos are drawings done in the 1870s by German biologist Ernst
Haeckel (Figure 1). His purpose was to show that various classes of vertebrate
embryos (like amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) are virtually identical
in their earliest stages and become noticeably
different only in later stages of development. Darwin found this pattern
supportive of his theory that these animals are the modified descendants of some
ancient common ancestor.
For over 100 years these drawings have appeared in biology textbooks in support
of evolutionary theory, while embryologists have known that different species
are distinguishable from each other from the very earliest stages all through
development.
In 1997, British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team of
experts published an article comparing Haeckel's drawings with photographs of
actual vertebrate embryos. The real embryos look noticeably different from
Haeckel's stylized drawings (Figure 2). Richardson puts it this way: "It
looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."
And even Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould agrees.
I am sure that you do not want to promote a theory that uses inaccurate and
misleading illustrations to support a philosophy of naturalism. I urge you not
to turn a blind eye to the important work of credible scientists who have
exposed Haeckel's Embryos as frauds. This icon of
evolution is being toppled by contemporary science, and with it goes the
so-called evidence from embryology for Darwin's theory.
Thank you.
Jody F. Sjogren
Managing Director
Intelligent Design Network
TO THE KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
December 12, 2000
Good morning, my name is Brian Sandefur. I'm a mechanical engineer, living in
Lawrence.
I am here this morning to strongly urge you to adopt science standards that call
for seeking LOGICAL, and not strictly NATURAL, explanations for the world around
us.
By committing to naturalism a priori, which biological science admittedly does,
it is encumbered by unnecessary philosophical constraints not unlike those that
drive strict creationism. The effect is that for any given biological
phenomenon, Darwinian pathways are taken for granted, and
directed or intelligent causes are excluded from consideration by definition. In
many cases, assumptions become conclusions with little more supporting evidence
than just-so stories. What's worse, this restriction on potential causes is
quite possibly leading science to many wrong
answers, especially in light of the biomolecular revolution.
To date, the most popular response to this proposal is that we are merely trying
to further a religious agenda. This is a strawman, and completely neglects the
empirical substance of the argument. It does not follow that a theory with
religious implications is religious. The irony is that it is our position, which
is willing to systematically consider all possibilities, that will free
biological inquiry from artificial constraints.
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote: "I am well aware that there
is scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be
adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at
which I have arrived. A fair result could be obtained
only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each
question."
In this historical science of reconstructing the history of life on earth,
philosophical freedom at the outset is essential for intellectual integrity.
As the Kansas State Board of Education, you have the opportunity to provide for
that kind of analysis, but it can only happen by adopting standards that reject
unwavering adherence to naturalism, and embracing a mode of inquiry that
welcomes logical, empirical explanations.
Thank you.
NATURALISTIC LIMITS ON EXPLANATION
SHOULD NOT BE DICTATED BY SCIENTISTS -
SEEK GUIDANCE FROM OTHERS!
December 12, 2000
Hi I’m John Calvert.
A member of a local school board once said to me: "I have to rely on scientists to guide me on what to teach in science class."
This may be true as to most scientific issues. However, when it comes to origins science Board members need guidance from others as well as from scientists.
This is because modern science does not do origins science as an unbiased and independent investigator.
Modern science predicates origins explanations on a naturalistic philosophy that rules out one of the two possible causes of life and its diversity. As a consequence the explanations given reflect philosophy and not science.
Whether the philosophy of naturalism should be used to limit explanations about origins involves a cultural issue for the public to decide and not just the science community.
Teaching naturalism also raises a legal issue. When origins issues are discussed, you can not avoid religious implications. If you use naturalism to censor the evidence that favors theistic world views to promote explanations that favor atheistic world views you encounter a constitutional problem.
Who then should you rely on? I submit that in addition to scientists you need guidance from a number of other experts and interested parties.
Appoint a special committee consisting of scientists, philosophers, educators, attorneys and parents that will fairly represent both the naturalistic and logical approaches to the question of how origins should be taught. Have a respected and independent judge chair the committee. Encourage the committee to seek guidance from qualified witnesses and experts. Make your decision on new standards only after the committee has done its work and reported back.
Whatever you do about new origins standards, please do it openly, cautiously and after you have given the public a fair opportunity to comment on any proposal.
Thanks for listening.
John Calvert
Managing Director
Intelligent Design Network, Inc.