National Groups Call Proposed Kansas Science Standards Misleading

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Two national groups say the state of Kansas can't use their copyrighted material in proposed science standards that critics contend promote creationism.

The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association called the proposed standards misleading and objected to language -- sought by intelligent-design advocates -- suggesting some evolutionary theory isn't solid.

SPECIAL REPORT Evolution & Intelligent Design PART 1 An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution This Trojan Horse for Creationism has become very popular. But who is being duped? And what does it all mean for morality? PART 2 'The Death of Science' Intelligent design is presented as a legitimate scientific theory and an alternative to Darwinism, but a close look at the arguments shows they don't pass scientific muster. So why are scientists worried? PART 3 Belief Posing as Theory As evolution takes a beating, scientists remind us of the difference between fact, theory and belief. PART 4: Anti-evolution Attacks on the Rise Each time the effort to introduce creationism into classrooms starts up again, so does legislation aimed against evolution. Learn about the rash of recent cases, plus a look at historically pertinent court cases.

"To say that evolution is sort of on the ropes is unfair to the students of Kansas,'' said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the teachers' association.

The Kansas State Board of Education is set to vote Nov. 8 on whether to adopt the new standards, which must be updated periodically under Kansas law. Current standards treat evolution as a well-established theory that is crucial to understanding science.

Six of the board's 10 members have shown support for the proposed standards, saying they want to give students a more balanced view of evolution.

The standards are used to develop student achievement tests but don't mandate how science is taught.

It was not immediately clear whether the 107-page proposed standards use direct language from any of the groups' copyrighted material. If the revised standards are adopted, state officials would have to review them for copyright violations.

Phillip Johnson, a retired law professor who sometimes is called the father of the intelligent-design movement, called the groups' decision, announced Wednesday, "panicky and hysterical.''

"We're not out to damage science,'' he told a student group at Washburn University on Thursday. "We're out to make science more interesting. We think we're friends of science -- true science.''

Intelligent design says some natural features are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they're well-ordered and complex. Its advocates also attack evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes could have created the building blocks of life, that all life has a common origin and that apes and man have a common ancestor.

Mainstream scientists contend intelligent design is repackaged creationism, which the Supreme Court has banned from classrooms as promoting a narrow religious view.

• Kansas Education Board Deny Supporting Intelligent Design Over Evolution
• Top 10 Missing Links in Human Evolution
• Poll: Public Divided on Evolution
• Evolution's Vestigal Organs
• Top 10 Creation Myths