From The New York Times, 8/16/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/sciencespecial2/15essa.html?ex=1156564800&en=83309fa6b0401fc8&ei=5070

How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate

By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS, professor of physics and astronomy at Case
Western Reserve University


Voters in Kansas ensured this month that noncreationist moderates will
once again have a majority (6 to 4) on the state school board, keeping
new standards inspired by intelligent design from taking effect.

This is a victory for public education and sends a message nationwide
about the public's ability to see through efforts by groups like the
Discovery Institute to misrepresent science in the schools.

But for those of us who are interested in improving science education,
any celebration should be muted.

This is not the first turnaround in recent Kansas history.

In 2000, after a creationist board had removed evolution from the
state science curriculum, a public outcry led to wholesale removal of
creationist board members up for re-election and a reinstatement of
evolution in the curriculum.

In a later election, creationists once again won enough seats to get a
6-to-4 majority.

With their changing political tactics, creationists are an excellent
example of evolution at work.

Creation science evolved into intelligent design, which morphed into
"teaching the controversy," and after its recent court loss in Dover,
Pa., and political defeats in Ohio and Kansas, it will no doubt change
again.

The most recent campaign slogan I have heard is "creative evolution."

But perhaps more worrisome than a political movement against science
is plain old ignorance.

The people determining the curriculum of our children in many states
remain scientifically illiterate.

And Kansas is a good case in point.

The chairman of the school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is
not merely a strict creationist.

He has openly stated that he believes that God created the universe
6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in The New York Times this
month as saying that his personal faith "doesn't have anything to do
with science."

"I can separate them," he continued, adding, "My personal views of
Scripture have no room in the science classroom."

A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams's religious views have
a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views
require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be
chairman of a state school board.

I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in
print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by
some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others.

However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter
of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is
flat.

It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence.

To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of
essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy,
biology and geology.

It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic,
rather than by empirically testable laws.

Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught
in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent
with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children.

Another member of the board, who unfortunately survived a primary
challenge, is John Bacon.

In spite of his name, Mr. Bacon is no friend of science.

In a 1999 debate about the removal of evolution and the Big Bang from
science standards, Mr. Bacon said he was baffled about the objections
of scientists.

"I can't understand what they're squealing about," he is quoted as
saying.

"I wasn't here, and neither were they."

This again represents a remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of
the scientific method.

Many fields -- including evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics
-- use evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses.

But they do not stop there.

Science is not storytelling.

These disciplines take hypotheses and subject them to further tests
and experiments.

This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or
gravitation.

As we continue to work to improve the abysmal state of science
education in our schools, we will continue to battle those who feel
that knowledge is a threat to faith.

But when we win minor skirmishes, as we did in Kansas, we must
remember that the issue is far deeper than this.

We must hold our elected school officials to certain basic standards
of knowledge about the world.

The battle is not against faith, but against ignorance.

_______________________________________________________________

It's about your children's futures, folks.

Harry