Josh Funk, "Witnesses haven't read standards. Evolution critics testify against the proposed state science standards but admit they haven't read them" (2005)

  Witnesses haven't read standards
> &nbsp; Evolution critics testify against the proposed state science standards but admit they haven't read them.<br>   BY JOSH FUNK
> &nbsp; <em>The Wichita Eagle<em>

  *TOPEKA - *None of the eight intelligent design proponents who testified at the State Board of Education's evolution hearings Friday have read the science standards they want changed.

  Under cross-examination, all eight admitted they simply read the 28-page "minority report," compiled by eight members of the standards writing committee, and not the full 107-page draft of proposed science standards.

  State board member Kathy Martin spoke up during the meeting to reassure University of Georgia professor Russell Carlson that reading the standards wasn't really important.

  "Please don't feel bad that you haven't read the whole thing because I haven't read it myself," Martin said.

  After the hearing, Martin said what she meant was she hadn't read the second draft of the science standards presented to the board March 9, because she had read the first draft.

  Martin and fellow board members Connie Morris and Steve Abrams make up the committee listening to testimony at the hearings. Both Morris and Abrams said they had read the proposed science standards.

  But Morris agreed with Martin that she didn't think it was important for the witnesses to have read the whole document.

  "It's important they've read the sections that are proposed to be changed," Morris said.

  Pedro Irigonegaray, the Topeka lawyer cross-examining witnesses on behalf of pro-evolution scientists, reacted incredulously every time one of the witnesses admitted to not having read the standards.

  "You have been brought to Kansas to tell us how to educate our Kansas children, and you have not bothered to read the majority draft?" Irigonegaray asked as a follow-up question.

  Jill Gonzalez Bravo was the only witness who testified as part of the minority's case who had read both the full majority draft of science standards and the minority report. She is an eighth-grade teacher in Rose Hill.

  Bravo said she thought adopting the changes suggested in the minority report would be a good idea because it would give teachers more guidance about how to handle the subject of evolution in class.

  "I'm just not sure what can be covered," she said.

  Friday was the second of three days of hearings in which the minority group, which advocates a more critical approach to evolution, is explaining its case. The hearings continue today.

  The state board plans to use the testimony from these hearings to help decide what should be included in the science standards when they are adopted later this summer.

  Because conservative Republicans control six of the 10 seats on the board, some changes in the way evolution is treated in the standards are considered likely.

  Currently, students are expected to know and understand evolution because it is considered a central theory of biology and supported by the vast majority of the scientific evidence. But students are not required to believe evolution, and teachers are cautioned to be considerate of students' beliefs.

  When conservatives last controlled the Kansas board in 1999, they voted to de-emphasize evolution in the standards, leaving the decision whether to teach evolution up to local school boards.

  That decision earned the state ridicule nationwide and prompted voters to elect a moderate majority to the board. Moderates restored evolution to the standards in the spring of 2001. In the most recent statewide election, voters returned a conservative majority to the board.

  Several times during Friday's testimony, the exchanges between Irigonegaray and witnesses grew testy, particularly when they tried to evade his yes-or-no questions.

  After Carlson finished explaining how he doesn't think evolution affects his bacterial research, Irigonegaray asked whether Carlson believes in the theory that all life descended from a shared ancestor.

  "No, and I..." Carlson said, trying to explain.

  "I'm not interested in an explanation," Irigonegaray said, cutting him off.

  Do you believe humans descended from pre-hominids, he asked next.

  "I don't accept that as a fact -- scientifically proven fact," Carlson said.

  Then how can you explain human life, Irigonegaray asked.

  "I don't have an alternate theory," Carlson said. "That is not my area of research."

  Several of the witnesses also admitted under questioning that the subjects they were testifying about were not areas they study.

  For example, Edward Peltzer, an ocean chemist in California, testified about the likelihood of chemical evolution because he studied it as part of his doctoral thesis on the content of a meteorite more than 20 years ago.

  And John Millam, a computational chemist in Lenexa, testified about the history of science and the origins of naturalistic philosophy because researching that history is a hobby.

  Peltzer said the chemical reactions needed for the start of life in the prevailing theory aren't likely to have happened.

  "There are big problems with the scientific theory of the origin of life," Peltzer said.

  The minority group wants to insert a section about theories of the origin of life into the standards because it would reveal flaws in evolution.

  Harry McDonald, president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for Science, said there's a good reason why the origins of life were left out.

  "It's not in the standards because the scientific community has not reached a consensus," McDonald said.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> &nbsp; Reach Josh Funk at 268-6573 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>./