The standards also promote an overly simplistic approach to such complex subjects as speciation. While the writers have deleted all references to the controversial subject of neo-Darwinism (macroevolution)[19] evolution, many questions remain. Standard 3, Benchmark 5, tells 8th graders to "observe the diversity of living things and relate their adaptations to their survival or extinction," (microevolution) [20] [21], but we see no guidelines for discussing the
big questions of macroevolution: Does speciation precede or follow adaptation to local ecological conditions? Is speciation a by-product of genetic divergence among populations or does it occur directly by natural selection through lower fitness of hybrids? How quickly does speciation occur? What evidence is necessary to show that a speciation event has taken place? None of these questions can be resolved given the vague parameters set forth in the Kansas standards. The writers give little attention to the conflict among biologists as to the definition of the term "species" itself.[22] Some biologists now deny that "species" are real entities. The Kansas Educational Standards, however, simply use the term without much explanation. This kind of broad-brushed approach leaves teachers ill-equipped to prepare their students to handle the challenge of college science.
The Kansas BOE decision seems a mixed bag. While the Board may have at least temporarily blocked efforts to adopt Darwinian evolution as the "unifying concept" in biology, the document's ambiguity and deletion of big bang cosmology are issues of concern. So, while students may not be learning about Darwinian evolution, they may not be receiving an adequate science education either. The Kansas BOE decision actually represents a victory for science illiteracy. One also wonders how this decision will affect the state's educational system over the long haul. Will the state BOE eventually develop curriculum and standardized tests based on these standards? If so, how will the board flesh out the vague parameters set forth in the standards? Will there be any repercussions for Kansas-educated students when they apply for college? Critics are already suggesting that students who take high school biology in Kansas should be excluded from admittance to science programs at top universities.[23] The Kansas educational standards may also foster an environment of fear among Christian science teachers who want to instruct students about big bang cosmology, yet fear disciplinary action by their superiors. The safe road for these teachers will be to stick to the mandates and not venture into untested territory. Rather than equipping teachers to show their students about how to investigate controversial questions regarding origins, the Kansas curriculum standards actually create an academic environment that makes the responsible study of science unsafe for people of faith. Sadly, the long-term effects of this decision will most likely only perpetuate the myth that Christians are not concerned with "facts" but prefer to cling to "blind" irrational faith.
In actuality, however, the opposite ought to be the case. Christians, above all people, should concern themselves with compiling an accurate and coherent view of reality. When rightly discerned, our understanding of the physical world stands in perfect harmony with the Word of God. We concur whole-heartedly with scientists who write in
Nature, "If more children were taught science as a means of interrogating nature, rather than as a toolbox of rules, the `debate' between creationism and Darwinism would come to be seen in a clearer light."[24] Exactly! Let the research commence. Let all theories for origins be tested out in the open for all to see. Which model best explains reality? Which model best predicts future scientific discoveries? Our main point of disagreement with the
Nature article is with its prediction of what the
outcome of such research will be. Instead of believing that the evidence for Darwinism will continue to mount, we believe it will decline and that the evidence will continue to mount for divine design. Since the Bible is true, science will eventually mirror our position.
One of the foundational premises on which good science rests is that its results must be publicly verifiable. In other words, if scientists with conflicting worldviews perform the same experiment they should derive the same results. This prevents one's worldview from manipulating the science. Of course, the scientist's worldview may influence the
kinds of experiments he chooses to perform or his
interpretation of the significance of the conclusion. This approach does not in any way deny the far-reaching effects of sin in the thinking of the unbeliever, however. Atheist scientists may, for example, resist a certain interpretation of certain facts that point to a Divine Designer. Or they may resist belief in the Christian God due to other reasons, such as a philosophical objection like the "problem of evil," or because of emotional obstacles, such as trauma as a child. We do not deny that the unbeliever's sinful mind is capable of going to great lengths to resist an admission of guilt before a holy God. Nor do we deny that a Christian's mind is capable of going to great lengths to resist admitting a faulty interpretation of Scripture or of nature's record. But in the scientific realm, the experiment itself and the data rendered ought to be the same no matter
who performs the experiment or what their worldview may be.
The point is that since the Christian worldview is correct, we have nothing to fear from the facts of science. In fact, scientific discoveries will confirm the truth and, in turn, be in harmony with the reality put forth in the Bible. This is why good science
must involve the unbelieving community. Scientific models must be studied out in the open, in an environment that can predict, test, and verify the results. It is not enough for Christian scientists to do science among themselves, read each other's papers, and confirm one another's conclusions. Such a methodology belongs neither to good science scholarship nor to effective evangelism. As my grandfather used to say, "When churches want converts, they don't preach to the choir."
Christians cannot afford to allow history to repeat itself. The Fundamentalist retreat from the university and culture in the wake of the Scopes trial only resulted in Christian ideas being further marginalized. For this reason we find ourselves still embattled in the same culture war 75 years later. Moreover, we must go beyond "evolution-busting" and challenging the atheist's worldview assumptions - although these scholarly endeavors are important and must be accomplished. At the same time, we need a scientifically responsible model to stand in the old one's place. The challenge before us is to make a concerted and positive effort to put forth an origins model that can be rigorously and openly researched and tested. Only then will Christians have the opportunity to demonstrate that the God behind the Bible is also the God behind the facts of nature.
[1] Kansas Curriculum Standards for Science Education, final version adopted August 11, 1999. This document was available for public viewing at
www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science81199.html, but unfortunately has been temporarily removed due to legal problems.
[2] Constance Holden, "Kansas Dumps Darwin, Raises Alarm Across the United States,"
Science, v. 285 (1999), pp. 1186-1187; "The Difference Between Science and Dogma: Scientists and science teachers can draw useful lessons from the Kansas Board of Education's efforts to expel Charles Darwin from the state's schools,"
Nature, v. 400, n. 6746 (1999), p. 697; S. Carpenter, "Kansas Cuts Evolution From Curriculum,"
Science News, v. 156 (1999), p. 117; Rex Dalton, "Kansas Kicks Evolution Out of the Classroom,"
Nature, v. 400 (1999), p. 701.
[3] Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes: Remarkable New Evidence is Filling in the Story of How we Became Human,"
Time, v. 154, n. 8 (1999), pp. 50-58.
[4] Stephen Jay Gould, "Dorothy, It's Really Oz: A pro-creationist decision in Kansas is more than a blow to Darwin,"
Time, v. 154, n. 8 (1999), pp. 59.
[5] For a thoughtful discussion about the Scopes Trial and its role in the debate over science and religion see: Edward J. Larson,
Summer for the Gods, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).
[6] 1925 Tennessee House Bill 185.
[7] For more about the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy, see: George Marsden,
Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1991); George Marsden,
Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1991).
[8] Constance Holden, "Kansas Dumps Darwin, Raises Alarm Across the United States,"
Science, v. 285 (1999), pp. 1186-1187.
[9] Not all "young-earth creationists" approach this topic in the same way. For a responsible discussion of the young-earth position, its strengths and weaknesses, consult: John Mark Reynolds, "Young Earth Creationism,"
Three Views on Creation and Evolution, J.P. Moreland, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998).
[10]
News Release - August 20, 1999: Kansas Science Education Standards, (Escondido, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999), p. 1. Available for public viewing at
News.
[11] Kansas Curriculum Standards for Science Education, "Nature of Science," under the sub-heading "Teaching with Tolerance and Respect."
[12] For a summary explanation about the historic connection between Fundamentalism and young-earth creationism, see: Ronald L. Numbers, "Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz, Part 1"
Facts & Faith, v. 9, n. 4 (1995), pp. 8-9; Ronald L. Numbers, "Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz, Part 2"
Facts & Faith, v. 10, n. 1 (1996), pp. 8-9; Ronald L. Numbers, "Creating Creationism: Meanings and Usage Since the Age of Agassiz, Part 3"
Facts & Faith, v. 10, n. 2 (1996), pp. 12-13;. This paper is available for public viewing at
General Apologetics | Reasons To Believe.
[13] Big bang cosmology states that there is an ultimate beginning to all the matter, energy, and space-time dimensions of the universe, that the cause of the universe brings it into existence independently of matter, energy, and all the space-time dimensions along which matter and energy are distributed.
[14] Kansas Curriculum Standards for Science Education, Grade 8, Standard 3, Benchmark 4.
[15]
Ibid, Grade 8, Standard 3, Benchmark 4.
[16]
Ibid, Grades 9-12, Standard 4, Benchmark 4.
[17]
Ibid, Grades 9-12, Standard 4, Benchmark 3.
[18] Kansas Curriculum Standards for Science Education, Grades 9-12, Standard 4, Benchmark 4.
[19] Macroevolution (or "neo-Darwinian evolution") involves the radical mutation of one "basic type" of animal called "reptiles" eventually turning into a different "basic type" called "birds."
[20] Kansas Curriculum Standards for Science Education, Grade 8, Standard 3, Benchmark 5.
[21]
Ibid, Grade 8, Standard 3, Benchmark 5.
[22] For a good summary of the main viewpoints, visit the Talk Origins web site.
Observed Instances of Speciation.
[23] Herbert Lin, "Kansas Evolution Ruling,"
Science, v. 285 (1999), p. 1849.
[24] "The Difference Between Science and Dogma: Scientists and science teachers can draw useful lessons from the Kansas Board of Education's efforts to expel Charles Darwin from the state's schools,"
Nature, v. 400, n. 6746 (1999), p. 697.
-
