This page provides links to PDF versions of letters I have recently written to the Kansas State Board of Education with regard to its proposed science curriculum standards. These letters are intended to argue for the right of public school students and teachers under the United States Constitution to dissent from orthodox evolutionism, both at school and in class.
First, the letters show that, while "intelligent design" describes a group of scientific theories built on a religious assumption, the strictly naturalistic view of evolution espoused in the science standards drafting subcommittee's majority report also consists of a group of scientific theories built on a religious foundation. The religion of strict naturalism is pantheism—the belief that the only god that exists is Nature and its Laws. Pantheism is an ancient religious concept, well recognized as a religion in other contexts.
Then, the letters argue that, because state statutes give schools and school districts financial and accreditation incentives to seek to "convert" dissenting students to the pantheistic world view espoused by the draft standards, the First Amendment's establishment clause is implicated. I also argue that the religious test clause of Article VI of the Constitution is implicated by the application of the draft standards to teachers, and that the First Amendment free speech right of students not to be compelled to speak things one does not believe is implicated.
The first letter is a 21-page, carefully referenced study of the subject. It contains numerous quotations from the draft standards, from the writings of the Founding Fathers (particularly James Madison and Thomas Jefferson), and from other sources. The second letter is a much shorter summary of the argument, written in reply to a letter sent me by a member of the Kansas State Board of Education in response to the first letter. This summary of the argument contains no references..
I support the minority's report. As presently written, it does not establish "intelligent design" as the official position of the State or prescribe the teaching of "intelligent design" theories, as its critics charge. Instead, it reverses the official adoption of the pantheistic world view and the authorization for censorship of competing views implicit in the majority's draft (as well as the current standards). It gives schools and teachers the option to engage in critical discussion of evolution. It does not command the teaching of "intelligent design." It would also recognize the right of both students and teachers to declare their true beliefs in this area without fear of official repercussions. Therefore, I support the minority's report, even though I do not regard it as perfect.
I urge my readers to review both the majority's draft standards and the minority report. I have posted links to them below.
Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education regarding intelligent design, evolution and the proposed science curriculum standards, the 21-page, carefully-referenced letter. (PDF).
Letter to Dr. Bill Wagnon regarding the rights of dissenting teachers and students in the evolution controversy, the short and unreferenced summary of the 21-page letter. (PDF).
The issue of curriculum standards is still up in the air in Kansas. The Board is considering a substantially weakened version of the minority's report, which would simply permit teachers to discuss, if they wish, the criticisms of standard evolutionary theory posited by the proponents on intelligent design. But even this weakened version of the minority standard has the scientific community incensed. Yesterday, yet another group of renowned scientists issued a statement opposing the weakened version of the minority report, stating that students must not be allowed to even consider intelligent design because it is scientifically unverifiable. The point they miss is that the occurrence of evolution millions of years before observable time began is also scientifically unverifiable. It is an assumption. However, it is an asumption so critical to their philosophical position that they believe students must be thoroughly indoctrinated with it and forbidden to consider any alternatives.
Uniform indoctrination of all students to unquestioningly believe the evolutionary assumption is the real political goal of much of the scientific community. This is well demonstrated not only by their opposition to the very moderate proposal to permit discusion of intelligent design in Kansas, but also by their spirited defense of the Caifornia Board of Regents' recent decision to reject applications for admission from students who graduated from from Christian high schools or home schools. The California Regents' objection to these schools was not that Christian schools fail to adequately teach the academic basics, since students from Christian schools and home schools consistently rank higher than public schools on standardized tests. Rather, the Regents' only objection to these schools is that they use biology curricula from Christian publishers which do not teach evolutionary theory only, as the established scientific truth. In other words, the very large California Regents System of universities, a public, state-run system, will not accept for admission any undergrduate student who has not been sufficiently indoctrinated to believe in the absolute truth of evolution (and, hence, in the irrelevance of God).
The organized scientific community's opposition to even the weakened Kansas minority report and its support of the California Regents' decision are of one piece. They show that the political agenda of the scientific community in the matter is to enforce indoctrination of students with the doctrine that God did not create anything and is irrelevant, if He exists at all. This is a religious philosophical position which should not be imposed on us, or our children, by the state. Discussion of the alternatives should be allowed in school, and students and families who take the "minority" position that God is the Creator and is relevant to our lives should not be discriminated against.
Yesterday, the Kansas State Board of Education formally adopted, by a 6-4 vote, a substantially weakened version of the minority's report. The document ultimately adopted by the Board merely permits teachers to discuss, if they wish, the criticisms of standard evolutionary theory posited by the proponents on intelligent design. It also removes biological evolution from the list of topics which must be included in the state's student assessment tests. Thus, if these standards remain in effect until 2009, they may also have the effect of removing questions about evolution from the assessment tests, though this result is unceratin (since the Board does not itself actually write those tests).
The Board is to be commended for standing up to worldwide ridicule in the media to declare that the public schools should not be used to indoctrinate students in an essentially religious philosophy, even if it is a philosophy that most scientists wrongly insist is absolutely essential to science.
The Board's action is a victory for freedom of thought, freedom of scientific inquiry and freedom of speech.
Earlier this week, I heard a report on NPR news that alarmed me. NPR—usually a very accurate source—reported that, in the Pennsylvania intelligent design case, Judge John Jones of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania had entered an order that, among other things, "forbade any mention of intelligent design" in public school science classes. So, the next time I could get to a computer, I found the news article on the same subject referenced on Netscape.com's entry page, and it said the SAME THING.
I was alarmed. Censorship is censorship, even if it imposed by a federal judge who thinks the opinion he is censoring is "inane." The way the first two news stories I found stated the situation, the court had prohibited anyone—even students and parents—from merely mentioning the words "intelligent design" or suggesting the concept that the universe or anything in it (but most particularly life) might be too complicated to have evolved randomly. I could all too readily imagine the possibilty of a ten-year-old being expelled from school and haled before a Federal Court to answer charges of contempt for merely having the innocent impudence to say in class that his parents taght him to believe that the Genesis account is true. Such are the implications of a court order that a particular concept must not even be mentioned. A government entity like a school district that does not enforce the order zealously enough may find itself punished for contempt for merely "condoning" a violation of the order.
The early news reports also alarmed me because an order prohibiting private, nongovernmental persons from even mentioning an idea would introduce a dangerous new concept into First Amendment law. Specifically, it would imply that the "Establishment" Clause sets self-executing limits on private speech. That is, if a federal judge can really order that a particular concept must not be mentioned in a particular context, in order that the First Amendment may not be violated by the content of that speech, this means that the Constitution itself tells me what I may not say and where I may not say it. It also gives other people who are offended by what I say the right to sue me for violating the Constitution—specifically, their constitutional right never to hear anyone say the thing that offends them—and it gives the government, at least theoretically, the power to fine or imprison me for saying it.
As it presently stands, the free speech clause prohibits government entities from imposing content-based restrictions on what individuals, speaking in their private capacities, may say. It prohibits government units from muzzling certain opinions, even when they believe those opinions are stupid or offensive. The free exercise of religion clause concomitantly protects from governmental interference an individual's right to believe, to express his or her beliefs, and to act on those beliefs free of restrictions based on the content of those beliefs. The "Establishment" clause, which has, since its adoption, been judicially replaced by the concept of a "wall of separation between church and state," generally prevents government from taking sides in disputes between religions, doing things which favor one religion over another religion or over no religion.
But all of these restrictions are restrictions on GOVERNMENT entities, not restrictions on the words or behavior of private individuals. If Judge Jones had actually entered an order forbidding ANYONE to mention the concept of intelligent design in a science class, he would have had to conclude that the "Establishment" clause was intended to limit the behavior of private individuals. That is, he would have to have concluded that one may violate the First Amendment and become subject to official sanction by merely mentioning a religious idea (or maybe just a stupid one) in the wrong context. This extension of the First Amendment from a shield into a sword that the federal courts may use to suppress debate when they think the ideas being presented are too religious (or merely too inane) would be very dangerous.
However, later news reports removed the assertion that the judge had forbidden any mention of the concept of intelligent design. Apparently he did call it an "inane" idea, and enjoined the school district from requiring it to be presented in science classes. But he did not forbid the mere mention of it by anyone in a science class.
What a relief!
Kansas State Department of Education, Proposed Science Education Standards, Draft 2, the March 9, 2005, on Department of Education's web site, the drafting subcommittee majority report to which my letters respond.
The subcommittee minority report which I reference, on the Kansas Science Standards 2005 web site. Regardless of its name, this site supports the minority report.
The Clear Creek Bible referendum of 1981—"Constitutional history" vs. real history.
Evolution Controversy not Caused by Religious Fanatics, an editorial from the Montgomery Journalexplaining the deceptive tactics of the supporters of evolution since 1989, or earlier, attempting to prohibit all debate in the name of intellectual freedom.
Thephysics and cosmology topic in the author's personal blog, developing an alternative to the current standard evolutionary cosmological model of an unbounded expanding universe.
Common Divisive Fallacies, a web site that includes a catalog of logical fallacies (of which there are many in this debate).
God is, an essay on self-existence, eternity and creatorhood as fundamental attributes of God.
Christian-oneness.org mission statement
New Life Network, Inc. Home of the award winning 