Unfettered Letters

Questions about evolution

The editorial of 7/24 (Opinion, “Top GOP choice for Kansas school board”) expresses a desire to avoid the embarrassment that would follow if the folks in northeast Johnson County were to select the wrong candidate for the state Board of Education.

The primary issue is evolution. I am not proposing the teaching of any viewpoint. I am proposing that students and parents be permitted to question what is being taught. We are told that it all started with a big bang. Why should parents and students not be permitted to ask questions such as:

What was it that went “bang?”

Where did it come from?

Where did the energy that caused the explosion some from?

How did life come forth from that which had no life?

How did the life forms make the change to sexual reproduction?

Is evolution a faith-based theory?

Is a person stupid for asking these questions?

David F. Robinson
Overland Park

‘Kansas vs. Darwin’

“Kansas vs. Darwin,” shown at the Kansas International Film Festival at the Glenwood Theatre last week, masquerades as a documentary about the 2005 Kansas Board of Education science hearings. Unfortunately, it failed to document what happened there.

Of more than 20 hours of testimony from 23 internationally known scientists, only a few moments were shown. Powerful testimonies, such as Michael Behe on the complexity of the human cell and Bill Harris on DNA, were not shown.

Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, certainly not a scientist, was the only person who spoke at the hearings for the evolution-only side. His major concern was whether any of the scientists could tell him the age of the earth.

Time was wasted interviewing hearing panel members outside the hearing about their personal lives, as that had nothing to do with whether Kansas schools would teach all the science evidence or only one theory.

Fortunately, for those open to the truth of the scientific evidence presented at the hearings without commentary, the DVD “Teaching Origins Objectively” is available on Amazon.com.

Donna Gillett
Leavenworth

Science debate avoided

Lance Erickson’s letter (4/3) stated that “science welcomes debates of controversial ideas that are supported by well-reasoned, objective data.”

In May 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education held hearings in Topeka to do just that.

Some of what was discussed: DNA, the complexity of the human cell, experimental evolution, amino acids, pre-biotic soup, RNA, PNA, pre-cellular life, direct panspermia, materialistic naturalism, operational science vs. historical science, the Y chromosome, SRY gene, bacterial flagellum and many, many other scientific areas that relate to the study of evolution.

What happened was that every single one of the pro-evolution scientists boycotted the hearings. Why?

Those scientists did not welcome debate on the controversial idea of evolution. They are totally closed-minded on this subject, and accept evolution on the basis of faith, not science.

Brian Barkley
Overland Park

Science education

The Kansas State Board of Education’s latest science standards decision (2/14, A-1, “Kansas science guides revised”) reminds me of the farmer who bought an old steel-wheeled John Deere tractor, painted it up and parked it in front of his house. The tractor looked sharp but as an implement was worthless.

When asked why he would spend so much money for yard art, the farmer related that he was retired and had more money than he could spend. He simply wanted to make the place look good.

Like the paint hiding a nonfunctional tractor, the “acceptable” science standards hide the pitiful science education that children receive. The show over substance in science education will do little to impress upon children that science is serious business and not just something to endure to graduate.

The government education monopoly will cry for more money to put on a good show. And the federal government will raise the minimum wage, which applies mainly to service jobs, so American children will not be in poverty as they make meals for the people we import from other countries to take the high-paying jobs that require knowledge of science and mathematics.

No substance, just lots of paint.

Don Small
Burlington, Kan.

Science standards

On Tuesday the Kansas Board of Education will vote on new science standards based on the recommendations of the Science Standards Writing Committee. As a member of that committee and as president of Kansas Citizens for Science, I encourage all board members to vote yes on this important issue, for two compelling reasons:

The committee’s standards represent the mainstream scientific consensus on the nature of science and on evolution. The current standards do not.

The committee’s standards were developed according to the proper process, and the current standards were not.

The previous board badly abused established procedures. They allowed members of the Intelligent Design movement to subvert both content and process based on their entirely false belief that mainstream science is atheistic.

Adopting the committee’s standards now is simply finishing the proper process — restoring mainstream science to our standards and credibility to our state.

New board members Jana Shaver and Sally Cauble ran on clear platforms of replacing the current Intelligent Design standards. I encourage all Kansans to join me in supporting them and their fellow board members in fulfilling this campaign pledge.

Jack Krebs
Member, State Science Standards Writing Committee
President, Kansas Citizens for Science
Lawrence

Kansas schools chief

In its recent editorial on Kansas schools and the state department of education (1/14, “Kansas curriculum is heading back on track”), The Star recommends that “the new administrator be, first, dedicated to public schools, and second, experienced in education administration.”

Solid experience as an administrator is valuable to anyone overseeing a budget of several billion dollars. But nontraditional administrators have served school systems well in cities ranging from Seattle to New York.

While being open to new forms of leadership is important, being innovative in how we think about “public education” is even more so. Public schools are part of public education. But so are home schools and privately run schools and new models such as charter schools and virtual schools.

Education is the goal; diverse schools are the means. Lawmakers and citizens alike should be open to alternative sources for administrators — and alternative ways of delivering education.

John R. LaPlante
Education Policy Fellow,Flint Hills Center for Public Policy
Wichita

Corkins resignation a loss

So Kansas Education Commissioner Bob Corkins has resigned (11/23, A-1, “Turbulent Corkins era ends”). What a shame!

In Corkins, we finally had a commissioner who was beholden to the parents and taxpayers and to the education of all our children rather than to the education establishment and the unions.

Corkins was an attorney who had a background in management, policy analysis, and promoting innovation for better effectiveness. He had a willingness to embrace education alternatives. The liberals on the Kansas Board of Education could not abide the latter because it included being open to charter schools.

Rather than thinking about what is best for our students, the liberal board members are doing what is best for the powerful teachers’ union.

It is unbelievable that liberal board member Janet Waugh made a fuss about accepting Corkins’ resignation “with regret.” Waugh and Sue Gamble are two of the members who bellyached continually about anything Corkins did. Before they help seat some retired establishment superintendent as the new commissioner, they need to read the solid research in the book Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn’t So by Jay P. Greene.

Donna Gillett
Leavenworth

Weiss for Kansas schools

Like many other Olatheans, I am a strong supporter of public education and know how important a solid educational foundation is for our children and our economy. Because of this, I strongly support Don Weiss for the Kansas Board of Education.

Weiss is committed to maintaining strong education standards, to preparing students to compete in a global marketplace, to promoting economic development by demonstrating Kansas’ interest in creating a solid science and research environment, and to restoring dignity and respect to the reputation of Kansas’ historically outstanding educational system and to the state Board of Education.

We could not find a better advocate for quality public education in Kansas than Don Weiss. I urge Kansans to vote for him on Tuesday.

Micheline Burger
Olathe

Low turnout

One of the things that make Johnson County schools so great is the level of parental involvement at the local level. So it is truly sad to see those same parents miss a golden opportunity to really make a difference for their children’s education quality by staying home for the primary election (8/2, Local, “Low turnout, minor glitch”).

It would have taken 20 minutes to stop by the election precinct to cast a vote for the Kansas Board of Education candidate that promised to stop playing politics with the science standards and get on with the real work of educating Johnson County kids, instead of constantly dragging the board down blind alleys of creationism and vouchers.

Barely 15 percent of Johnson County voters could spare 20 minutes to cast a vote for sanity in science education. Luckily the rest of Kansas voters realized the gravity of the situation and saved us complacent (lazy?) Johnson Countians from another round of debates that only serve to invite ridicule and scorn from science educators and practitioners across the country.

I only wish that those dedicated parents who provide hours of support in our schools had bothered to vote when it really counted.

Wendy Lund
Overland Park

Intelligent design

Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, has rightly corrected Bob Butler’s recent article about my film in which Mr. Butler wrote, “In Kansas, Texas and other states, ideologues work to elect school board members willing to introduce it (intelligent design) into the high school science curriculum.”

But let’s be clear. That’s Mr. Butler’s writing, not a quote from me. I am well aware that intelligent-design supporters are now very cautious. They have to be, after the Republican Bush-appointed judge in Dover, Pa., ruled last fall that intelligent design was not science.

Thus I applaud Mr. Chapman’s efforts to point this out. He is to be commended for making sure everyone knows that intelligent design should not be introduced into science classrooms.

Randy Olson
Los Angeles

Editor’s note: Olson is the writer and director of “Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus.”