Pedro Irigonegaray, the Topeka lawyer cross-examining witnesses,
reacted incredulously every time one of the witnesses admitted to not
reading 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.
From The The Wichita Eagle, 5/6/05:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11585742.htm
Those seeking change on evolution haven't read science standards
BY JOSH FUNK
Knight Ridder Newspapers
TOPEKA, Kan. - (KRT) -
None of the eight intelligent design proponents who testified at the
Kansas 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 and not the full 107-page draft of proposed
science standards, most of which is not controversial.
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 state 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,
reacted incredulously every time one of the witnesses admitted to not
reading 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.
Rose Hill eighth-grade teacher Jill Gonzalez Bravo was the only
witness who testified as part of the minority's case for a more
critical approach to evolution who had read both the full majority
draft of science standards and the minority report.
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 where the minority
group is explaining its case.
The hearings will continue Saturday.
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
is considered likely.
Currently, students are expected to know and understand evolution
because it is the 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.
Since then other state boards, local school boards and legislatures in
43 states have all debated evolution's merits.
Most eventually reject the argument that evolution is a flawed theory,
but some have endorsed versions of it.
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 the 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, Kan., 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 isn't likely to have happened.
"There are big problems with the scientific theory of the origin of
life," Peltzer said.
But 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 was left
out.
"It's not in the standards because the scientific community has not
reached a consensus," McDonald said.
One of the other main complaints the minority group's witnesses repeat
about the proposed science standards is they think the standards are
biased in favor of naturalism.
They see that as an endorsement of atheism, which many scientists
deny.
So when one of the slides in Millam's presentation mistakenly quoted
that the majority's proposed standards included "methodological
naturalism" Irigonegaray objected sharply.
"That is incorrect and should not be made out to the public as our
standards," Irigonegaray said, interrupting Millam's presentation.
_____________________________________________________
Clarence Darrow must be chuckling.
Harry
.
|
