NEW MEXICO SPEAKS

Dear Fellow New Mexican:

Thank you for visiting our "NEW MEXICO SPEAKS" web page.  The purpose of this page is to familiarize you with the Science Standards and their role in public education; to acquaint you with the dogmatic language in the Science Standards in the area of biological evolution; provide you with the IDnet-NM analysis of the Standards and proposed alternative language; and to give you contact information for your elected and appointed members of the State Board of Education.  Since five of the fifteen members of the State Board of Education are appointed by the Governor, it is essential that you also make your comments to Governor Richardson .

The State Department of Education is now putting the Science Standards into final form for presentation to the State Board of Education during the last week in August.  IDnet-NM was informed by the State Department of Education in early July that there will be no opportunity for public review prior to presentation to the Board so the comments you will make must be in reference to the Draft Standards even though they are no longer available for public review.  This is not a problem because the final version of the Standards in the area of interest is likely to be nearly identical to the Draft.  You will see the language of concern shortly.
It is disturbing that up to this point, the public has been essentially unaware and uninvolved in this process.  It would be appropriate for you to express that concern to the State Board of Education.   

Time is short.  In order for the members of the State Board of Education to have time to respond to public input, they must have that input as soon as possible but not later than August 20 , however, input after August 20 is better than no input at all.  As a matter of consideration for members of the State Board of Education, we are asking that you write letters instead of using fax, phone calls, or e-mail.  If your circumstances are such that you need to call, fax, or e-mail, then by all means call, fax, or e-mail.  Regardless, any form of contact will count.  If your input is made after August 20, we suggest you make that input by fax or e-mail.

As stated before, the State Board of Education will meet during the last week in August for the purpose of adopting the 2003 revised Science Education Standards.  In the area of biological evolution, they will have to make a choice between language in the final version of the Standards recommended by the State Department of Education and alternative language proposed by IDnet-NM.  Some members will hold to dogmatic Darwinism...regardless.  Some will hold to objectivity and integrity in science education...regardless.  Some will be torn between moral conviction and political pressure.  It is these members that will likely determine what will be taught about biological origins in New Mexico public schools in the years ahead.   

Members of the State Board of Education have heard persuasive arguments from IDnet-NM calling for objectivity and integrity in science education.  They know that most New Mexicans favor objective treatment of evolution and that there is growing dissent among New Mexico scientists from Darwinism.  Yet it is almost certain that it will be the public response that sways those members of the Board who are at the moment undecided.  An overwhelming public response will encourage undecided board members to vote their moral conviction even in the face of tremendous political pressure.  If public response is meager then members of the Board will have little motivation to endure the ridicule that will follow a vote for integrity in science education and adoption of the alternative language.

It is difficult for most of us to understand the political pressures that come to bear on the members of the Board of Education.  There is little doubt that the issue concerning the teaching of biological origins in public education is one of the most intense, the most important, the most controversial, and the most difficult decision they have to make.  If they are to stand against the political and media pressures and take the side of objectivity and integrity in science education, and if they are to adopt the alternative language proposed by IDnet-NM, then they need the overwhelming support of the public . We need 1000 New Mexicans to stand behind each member of the Board of Education in support of integrity in science education.  

For your convenience we urge you to consider group mailings where a statement is prepared and signed by several individuals...tens or even hundreds.  This approach would allow one or a few individuals to do the homework, get the addresses, prepare the statement, and then collect signatures.  What is essential is that each individual must include their name, complete home address, and signature. 

Admittedly, there is a lot of information here.  If you are already familiar with the issues and know what you want to say to your elected and appointed members of the State Board of Education, then you can go to the link to the State Board of Education under the heading " CONTACT YOUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION " near the end of this document to get names and addresses and be done with it.  If you want to get informed as to the scientific, educational, legal, and religious issues, then read on.  We suggest that you settle in with a big glass of iced tea, a bag of Tostitos, and some salsa to fortify you for the work ahead.  

The truth is, the issues involved with the Science Standards are poorly understood by most educators and scientists as well as the media and most New Mexicans.  As long as New Mexicans are kept in the dark about these issues, materialistic science will have free reign in public education.
If you run out of Tostitos, just go ahead and get names and addressees and look at suggested comments.  Regardless, mail those letters!
Here is what follows:
·        basic information regarding the Science Education Standards,  
·        a brief discussion of Intelligent Design theory and First Amendment Law,  
·        IDnet-NM Position on Integrity in Science Education (this may be tough going with lots of new ideas, but essential if you are to understand the extent to which these Science Standards, in their present form, compromise the integrity of science, raise Constitutional concerns regarding religious and philosophical neutrality in public education, and betray public trust),  
·        an analysis of the portion of the Science Standards dealing with scientific thinking and practice (Strand I),  
·        an analysis of the portion of the Science Standards dealing with instruction in biological evolution, (Strand II),  
·        information on elected and appointed members of the State Board of Education and contact information,  
·        contact information for Governor Richardson, and  
·        suggestions on what comments might be appropriate.  

********************************************

THE SCIENCE STANDARDS
 Policy set down by the New Mexico State Board of Education establishes standards for academic performance in science education through a document called the Science Education Standards.  This policy requires that science curriculum, instructional materials, and state and local assessments be aligned with content, benchmark, and performance standards mandated in the Science Standards.  Consequently, if there is an area of education that is controversial... such as theories of biological origins, and there is to be a battle over that controversy, it will be fought over the content and language in the Standards.  If the scientific and educational establishments wish to protect the Darwinian dogma and maintain its exclusive status in science education, then it must do so through the language that is used in the Science Standards.  Likewise, if New Mexicans want theories of biological origins taught with integrity and objectivity rather than with materialistic bias, then that must be reflected in the language that deals with that area of instruction.    

The Draft Science Standards were developed during the past year by the State Department of Education.  We believe that with the exception of the area of biological evolution, these are very good standards that New Mexicans can be proud of.  The State Department of Education and all who participated in this effort are to be commended for their outstanding work.

The Science Standards are organized into three Strands that establish the overall framework for the Standards.  Within each Strand there are Content Standards ,Benchmarks , and Performance Standards . Each Strand is graded K-4, 5-8, and 9-12.
Strand 1 - Scientific Thinking and Practice
Defines what students are required to understand regarding the basic nature and processes of scientific investigation.  
  Strand 2 - Content of Science 
Defines what students are required to understand in the areas of the Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Earth and Space Sciences.  
Strand 3 - Science and Society 
Defines what students are required to understand about the ways in which science influences society and how society influences the conduct and progress of science.
*********************************************

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY AND FIRST AMENDMENT LAW
Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific hypothesis that claims that there are certain features observed in the cosmos and in biology that cannot be explained by chance and the laws of physics and chemistry alone, and that these features exhibit unique properties commonly attributed to “design”.  Examples are the genetic language, the complex specified information found in biological cells, irreducibly complex biological systems, the appearance that the laws of physics have been finely tuned for life, and the extraordinary specialized arrangement of our galaxy, solar system, and earth systems to provide a habitat for mankind.  
The phenomenal observations made by science in the last half of the twentieth century revealing design-like features in the cosmos and in biology constitute nothing less than an empirical mandate that "design" be considered as a causal agent in nature.  Yet, as a matter of educational policy, these observations are being withheld from school children.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence of design in nature, IDnet-NM does not advocate that the State Board of Education mandate the teaching of ID as a theory of biological origins  - as it does evolution.  We simply hold that ID should not be censored from science classrooms.  

An important question is whether or not it is constitutionally permissible to teach ID.  Some of the details are discussed in our Position Paper but in summary, what the courts have said is that with respect to instruction by public education in the area of biological origins, it is the source of a theory that comes under scrutiny of the First Amendment, not the implications of the theory.  The source of ID theory is evidence from observations made in nature by secular scientists working in secular universities and laboratories and funded with secular funds.  And the fact that there are religious implications for ID theory is irrelevant to First Amendment Law.
There is no scientific or legal justification for censoring design theory from public education.  New Mexicans would be completely justified in expressing their concern to the State Department of Education regarding censorship of ID by public education.  If you choose to make such a comment, you might also indicate that you have taken the time to inform yourself of the scientific and legal issues.   
*********************************************

INTEGRITY IN SCIENCE EDUCATION  
Current educational policy, as expressed in New Mexico's 1999 Revised Science Education Standards, enforces a dogmatic "evolution-only" curriculum that in effect teaches school children that they are a result of natural, unguided, non-purposeful material processes; that they share a common ancestor with modern apes; and that there is nothing special about them.  They are just another species.  This "evolution-only" policy does not allow students to hear about the problems with evolutionary theory nor does it allow students to hear about evidence in nature that points to an intelligent design of life.  The language in the area of biological evolution written into the 2003 Standards includes important improvements over the 1999 Revised Standards but still retains the dogmatic "evolution-only" policy.   

The teaching of biological evolution as an explanation for the history, diversity, and complexity of life is controversial in public education because its religious and philosophical implications challenge the fundamental belief held by most New Mexicans that a Creator was responsible for creating the cosmos and all of life.  However, if evolution is being taught objectively, if students are allowed to evaluate its claims in light of the evidence and be exposed to competing theories, then it has a place in the science classroom of New Mexico's public schools.  

If however, science education makes unsubstantiated claims about what macro-evolution can do, protects it from criticism, and censors competing theories such as intelligent design, then it is evident that biological evolution is being taught to promote a materialistic ideology.  If this is in fact the case, then the materialistic bias in all of its forms and effects, must be identified and exorcised from public education so that students can learn the science of biological evolution instead of being indoctrinated into a materialistic ideology.  

The fact is that Organized Science embraces a philosophy called Scientific Materialism.  Materialism is the philosophy that says that nature is all that there is, that the cosmos and all of life came into existence through unguided material causes, there is no transcendent designer or Creator in nature, and no ultimate purpose or plan.  If you have the idea that Organized Science is tolerant toward religious views, especially those having to do with a Creator, the following quotes from well-known international leaders in science should dispel such notions.

“...Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.”

                                                               Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

  “Darwinism is… a universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view”                                       

                                        Daniel Dennett, Darwins’s Dangerous Idea

  “…We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated...we must not let the Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons”

                    in New York Review of Books (Jan 9, 1997), 31

  "The ancient covenant is in pieces: Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance."

Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, 1970.

"Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

    Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,

Third Edition, p.5 (a widely used university textbook)

As a result of its materialistic philosophy, Organized Science imposes a mandate...the Materialistic Mandate...on the practice of scientific investigation that requires that only material causes will be discovered and that they produce only material explanations for what is observed in nature.  Teleological or purposeful causes (design) are ruled out.  Science gives this mandate a formal name called "Methodological Naturalism" and claims that it only imposes a naturalistic methodology on science, not the naturalistic philosophy itself. 

“A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism -- it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.”  

                                         John Rennie, 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense,

Scientific American, July 02

                                                        Editor in Chief, Scientific American

This is doubletalk.  Its purpose is to exclude...especially in public education...design as a causal agent in scientific investigation.  It is crucial for Organized Science to take this position because evidence of design in nature is so abundant and so compelling that it must be deposed before students have a chance to evaluate the evidence.  Design poses a devastating threat to evolution and the materialistic philosophy upon which it rests.

The Materialistic Mandate and its intended effect is not disclosed in the 2003 Science Standards.  Einstein made an important statement in a paper he presented in 1941 that is an appropriate commentary on the fact that the Materialistic Mandate...or Methodological Naturalism if you prefer...is not disclosed in the Science Standards.  What is interesting about his statement is that its context was in regard to the harm that a hidden and destructive religious doctrine can do to society.  But it applies equally to scientific theories that are derived from a hidden materialistic ideology rather than scientific evidence.  Einstein said...  

“For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose [release] its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.”  

...and to science education, we might add. 

British scientist and philosopher Bertrand Russell, atheist and relentless critic of Christianity, had this to say along the same lines.  

"If Science was ever to become the driving influence of political decision, it would be even more repressive than religion has been in the past."  

That day has come for public education in America.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the largest science organization in the world with 138,000 members.  In October 2002, in response to rumblings in Ohio about intelligent design, the AAAS Board of Directors passed a resolution on Intelligent Design Theory... 

"calling for citizens across the nation to oppose policies that would permit the teaching of 'intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curricula of the public schools."  

The Materialistic Mandate requires that science will discover only material causes that produce only material explanations for what is observed in nature.   Objective science however operates under a different mandate, the Empirical Mandate that requires that science follow the evidence wherever it may lead.  Albert Einstein expressed his views on this subject in the same 1941 paper referenced above which we will call Einstein's Mandate... 

"For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be."    

By integrating Einstein's mandate with the Materialistic Mandate and the Empirical Mandate we obtain a clear picture of the effect of materialistic bias on science and science education.  

Materialistic Mandate :  

“What should be” is only material causes...regardless of the evidence to the contrary."  

Empirical Mandate :  

Follow the evidence wherever it may lead to discover "what is"...regardless of philosophical or religious beliefs to the contrary.  

Further, we can evaluate how these mandates influence science education.  

Under the Materialistic Mandate...  

...students are indoctrinated to believe, obey, repeat, and conform.  Knowledge and discovery are imprisoned to protect "what should be".  

Under the Empirical Mandate...  

...students think, challenge, explore, and learn.  Knowledge is set free to discover "what is".   

It is the Empirical Mandate that should guide scientific discovery, not materialistic philosophy. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The basic problem IDnet-NM has with the 2003 Science Standards is that in the area of biological evolution, unproven claims about unobserved and unobservable events and processes of the remote past are presented as facts and incorporated as benchmarks and standards that establish requirements for student knowledge.  There is the appearance that the State Department of Education is more interested in convincing students that evolution is true than in teaching them about the science of evolutionary biology.  The "spirit" of the language in the area of biological evolution is dogmatic, not scientific.

For the benefit of scientists and science educators, our analysis in this section is a little on the technical side but many who are familiar with this controversy will understand the concepts.

Science establishes certainty in its findings through observation and experiment.  Because of the historical nature of evolutionary science it is impossible to observe the actual events and processes of macro-evolution.  Neither have they been observed in present day laboratory experiments.

There is no scientific or educational justification for requiring students to accept as fact that which has not been established with scientific certainty.

Circumstantial evidence in the form of molecular sequences and homologous structures in vertebrate limbs is certainly relevant to the claims of macro-evolution but it is also subjective and highly susceptible to being "shoe-horned" into a favored theory.  One can never really know for sure if what is being observed is due to one thing or another.  And one can never know with certainty that all possible causal agents have been discovered and evaluated.  For circumstantial evidence to carry weight in scientific investigation it must be evaluated against competing hypotheses.  In the science of biological origins, the only competing hypothesis to macro-evolutionary theory is intelligent design.  However, design is ruled out on the basis of the Materialistic Mandate even before the merits of the evidence can be considered.    

Biological evolution is not the only historical science.  The Earth and Space Sciences (Strand II, Standard III) are also historical in nature, but we do not encounter the same dogmatic language in this portion of the Standards that is found in the area of biological evolution.  Geologists know quite well that they cannot make statements of certainty regarding major events and processes of the earth's remote past because they know that those events were not and cannot be observed.  Astronomers, even though they are able to collect information on distant and ancient astronomical events through observation of electromagnetic emissions associated with those events, show appropriate caution in their attempts to reconstruct a narrative of cosmological history.  Evolutionary biologists do not seem to be troubled by such details.  

The fossil record, on the other hand, is directly observable and reveals strong non-Darwinian features that contradict interpretations given to the circumstantial evidence...at least those interpretations typically incorporated in science education.  The problems with the fossil record such as the sudden appearance of the great variety of Cambrian animals in the Burgess Shale followed by progressive major extinction of most of the Burgess animals, is not a prediction of evolution by natural selection.  Sudden appearance of fully formed species with no apparent ancestors, followed by stasis and extinction are, according to leading paleontologists such as Gould, Eldridge, Patterson, and Carroll, the dominate features of the fossil record.  Only by incorporating a superficial selective examination of the data (as is typically done in high school biology textbooks) can the fossil record be reconciled to Darwin's predictions.  (See Gould, Wonderful Life, 1989; Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 1998; and Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge Paleobiology Series, Cambridge University Press, 1998).

In the preface and first chapter of his book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Carroll makes some extraordinary statements about pervasive problems in the history of life constructed from examination of the fossil record compared to the history predicted by Darwin.  He even criticizes textbooks for perpetuating this false history.  Here is Carroll.. 

"Instead of showing gradual and consistent change through time, the major lineages appear suddenly in the fossil record, already exhibiting many of the features by which their modern representatives are organized."

"..few fossils are yet known of plausible intermediates between the invertebrate phyla, and there is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by which the individual phyla or classes are characterized"

"Progressive increase in knowledge of the fossil record over the past hundred years emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species."

You will not find even so much as a hint in the 2003 Science Standards that there are problems with the fossil data, much less profound problems such as described by Carroll above.  In the 2003 Science Standards students are encouraged to ignore the problems with the evidence and consider only the positive evidence that can extracted from the fossil data only through a selective and superficial examination.  This not only represents a compromise to the integrity of science and science education, it is simply dishonest and blatantly attempts to mislead students for the purpose of trying to convince them of the truth of evolution.  This is not science.  This is indoctrination.   

W. F. Doolittle, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Dalhousie University, says in Science 284, 1999 that molecular phylogeneticists  

"...have failed to find the 'true tree' [reference Darwin's tree of life], not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" 

C. Wolse wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pgs 6854-6859...

"No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.  Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree from its root to the major branchings within and among the various [groups] to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves." 

The 2003 Science Standards call for students to explain how evolution by natural selection can explain molecular similarities (protein phylogenies) among species but Wolse and Doolittle say in essence that scientists have not been able to make much sense of the molecular data in light of the Darwinian prediction (tree of life).   Yet, under educational policy that will be enforced in the 2003 Science Standards, students will not be told about these problems.  More indoctrination. 

Finally, in spite of the arguments put forth by scientists about the wonders of natural selection, science has yet to discover an even remotely conceivable material mechanism for explaining the source of the genetic language, the information, the software, and the molecular machinery...much less the extraordinary complexity of their interactions and functions...found in the biological cell.  The emergence of "systems biology" as a discipline within the biological sciences is an unwitting testimony to the design-like features observed in biology that cannot be explained by an appeal to the laws of physics and chemistry and chance alone. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The IDnet-NM objective is not to have evolution removed from public education or promote the teaching of creationism or even the teaching of intelligent design.  Neither do we challenge the possibility of the truth of evolution even though we are skeptical of its claims.  Rather our purpose is to promote the teaching of objective unbiased science that necessarily includes the principles and practices that protect the integrity of science and the credibility of its findings.   

But there are formidable forces in science that work against this goal. 

Organized Science is not bound by the Constitutional requirement of religious and philosophical neutrality .  Public education is.  Organized Science has no direct accountability to the public in any of the 50 states.  Public education does.  Organized Science does not pay for public education.  The public does.  The children who are being educated are the people's children.  They do not belong to the state and they do not belong to Organized Science.  There is no direct "contractual" relationship between Organized Science and the people of the 50 states even though much of science and science education is funded by the people through taxes and tuition.  Yet Organized Science wraps materialistic philosophy in evolutionary science and demands that it be accepted "as is" for incorporation in Science Standards and instruction in science classrooms.  Public education is a willing accomplice.  

If public education is to protect the integrity of science education, if it is to honor the Constitutional mandate of religious and philosophical neutrality in public education, and if it is to honor the public's trust that the classroom will not be used to indoctrinate children into religious or philosophical beliefs, then they must unwrap the evolutionary package, remove the materialistic philosophy, and incorporate a bias-free version of evolutionary science in the Standards.  This is precisely what the alternative language proposed by IDnet-NM, in its entirety, will do.  

Unfortunately, these Standards will be presented to the State Board of Education by the State Department of Education for adoption without a hint of the compromises to the integrity of science education that are embedded in the benchmark and performance standards in the area of biological evolution.  It will be left to the members of the State Board of Education to decide whether or not schoolchildren in New Mexico will be taught to hold the integrity of science in high regard or if science education will be used to promote materialistic belief.    

The integrity of science education in public schools will be assured if the principles and practices that protect the integrity of science are made to be an integral part of science curriculum.  In Strand I, Scientific Thinking and Practice,  the principles and practices that protect the integrity of science and the credibility of its findings must be defined.  In Strand II, The Content of Science, those principles and practices must be put into effect and reflected in the language of the benchmarks and standards that establish requirements for student knowledge. 

Current language in the area of biological evolution cannot stand up to even the most rudimentary critique with respect to scientific integrity and objectivity.  The idea of such compromise to the integrity of science is troubling.  However, when this compromise in incorporated into the Science Standards as educational policy, then New Mexicans have a right to be outraged at this blatant compromise to the integrity of science education.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IDnet-NM supports the teaching of macro-evolution, but as a scientific theory, not as an ideology.  We want students to understand the mechanisms of variation, the predictions of evolutionary theory, and the evidence that supports and challenges the theory.  We want New Mexico’s students to learn to employ critical thinking and analysis as opposed to being indoctrinated in a belief system.

Given the present state of scientific knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, the assertion, in the absence of confirming observational and experimental evidence, that macro-evolutionary theory and all of its components is fact, compromises the integrity of science, the integrity of the Science Standards, and the integrity of science education.  Likewise, educational policy that excludes contradictory evidence and censors the teaching of alternative theories of biological origins such as intelligent design, also compromises the integrity of science and of science education. 

To make unsubstantiated claims that macro-evolution is fact, to exclude contradictory evidence, and to censor competing theories of biological origins for the purpose of protecting and promoting a materialistic ideology, violates the Constitutional requirement for religious and philosophical neutrality in public education and constitutes a betrayal of public trust. 

Consider what Justice Brennan wrote in the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)...  

“The court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools.  Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family...”

In other places the Court has made it clear that reference to religious views applies to anti-religious or non-religious views as well. 

In summary, we want New Mexico’s students to hold scientific integrity in the highest regard.  We want them to understand how reliable conclusions are obtained by scientific methodology.  The integrity of science must not be violated in an effort to protect any ideology...either theism or naturalism.  We believe our views and our proposed alternative and added language fully satisfy this ideal and are consistent with the guidance recently provided by an overwhelming majority of the US Senate:            

“The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science.   Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.”  

*********************************************

  IDnet-NM Analysis and Proposal for Alternative and Added Language

Our proposal has four objectives.   

·        The first objective is to clarify or enhance meaning in existing language.  The IDnet-NM proposed alternative language will be followed by the bracketed term [ Clarification] to indicate this objective.  I do not expect that these changes would be controversial.  

·        The second objective is to add essential language that for whatever reason did not make it into the Draft Standards.  The proposed added language will be followed by [Added] to indicate that objective.  I feel that the added language will add greatly to the substance and content of these Standards, especially in the effect it will have on critical thinking.   

·        The third objective is to remove existing dogmatic language in the area of biological evolution that cannot be supported by the most rudimentary principles of scientific investigation and replace it with objective language that can be supported by these principles while retaining the basic sentence structure and concepts of the original language.  The proposed alternative language will be followed by [Objectivity] to indicate this objective.  Controversy is expected. 

·        The fourth objective is to change existing language that misleads students by a disgraceful misrepresentation of observational evidence.  The proposed alternative language will be followed by [#%@&] because I can't think of a suitable word that I would be willing to put in print.  Controversy is expected.   

I remind you that our primary interest is not in engaging in the debate over creation and evolution - though we are skeptical of macro-evolution's broad innovative claims.  You will see IDnet-NM challenging macro-evolutionary claims in the Draft Science Standards but our challenge is directed not at the macro-evolutionary theory, but at how claims of the theory are portrayed in the Science Standards.   

It is quite clear that the State Department of Education wants evolution portrayed in the Science Standards as fact.  The simple question is "does the scientific evidence support this portrayal?".  Our argument will show why the answer to this question is "no".  That does not mean that evolution is not true.  It only means that there is no scientific basic for claiming that it is.   

Science education in America today is troubled by the controversy over how the science of biological origins should be taught in public schools.  This battle rages over and over again as various states undertake to revise their Science Standards.  However, the real problem, the underlying cause of this controversy in science education, is a sickness of the soul, the soul of science and the soul of science education.   That sickness is the loss of scientific integrity. 

Once the principles and practices that protect the integrity of science are understood, and once those principles and practices are incorporated in the Science Standards, then all other issues become moot.  It is far, far more important that we write Science Standards that do not compromise the integrity of science than it is to promote someone's favored theory - even if that someone is the State Department of Education and their favored theory is biological evolution.  

NOTE:

  Item of concern in blue

Recommended alternative language in green

Comments in red

Strand I: Scientific Thinking and Practice

Grades 9-12

Standard I: Understand the processes of scientific investigations and use inquiry and scientific ways of observing, predicting, experimenting, and validating to think critically.  

Remarks:  Critical thinking underlies scientific thinking and practice.  It is not produced by or is it the end result of inquiry, observation, prediction, experimentation and validation.

Recommended alternative language:

Understand the nature and processes of scientific investigation and apply critical thinking to the activities of skeptical inquiry, observation, predictions, experiments, and validation. [Clarification]  

9-12 Benchmark I: Use accepted scientific methods to collect, analyze, and interpret data and observations and to design and conduct scientific investigations and communicate results.  

Recommended alternative language:

Use accepted scientific methods to design and conduct scientific investigations; collect, analyze, and interpret data and observations; and communicate results. [Clarification]

Grade Performance Standards

9-12

Insert performance standards as shown and renumber:

1.  Understand that observation and experiment form the basis of scientific investigation and are the principle means by which science establishes certainty or confidence in its findings. [Added]

2. Describe the essential components of an investigation, including appropriate methodologies, proper equipment, and safety precautions.

3. Design and conduct scientific investigations that include:

• detailed observation of phenomena under investigation [Added]

• formulation of a testable hypothesis based on a plausible mechanism [Clarification]

• establishing controls and variables to isolate causal mechanisms and their effects [Clarification]

• developing methods to collect, analyze, and interpret data [Clarification]

• design, conduct, and documentation of experiments [Added]

• testing hypotheses against results [Added]

• new predictions based on results

• re-evaluation of hypotheses and additional experimentation as necessary

• error analysis

• demonstrate repeatability and reproducibility of experimental results. [Added]

4 . Use appropriate technologies to collect, analyze, and communicate scientific data (e.g., computers, calculators, models, simulations, balances, microscopes).

5. Convey results of investigations using scientific concepts, methodologies, and expressions:

• scientific language and symbols

• diagrams, charts, and other data displays

• mathematical expressions and processes (e.g., mean, median, slope, proportionality)

• clear, logical and concise communication

• reasoned arguments.

6. Understand how scientific models are used to explain and predict natural phenomena (e.g., plate tectonics, ocean currents, structure of atom).

7. Pose and investigate questions that can, in principle, be answered by science but around which scientific consensus has not formed.  

9-12 Benchmark II: Understand that scientific processes produce scientific knowledge that is continually evaluated, validated, revised, or rejected.  

Grade Performance Standards

 9-12

  1. Understand how scientific processes produce valid, reliable results:

 Recommended alternative language:

 1.  Understand the features of the scientific process that protect the integrity of scientific investigation and the credibility of its findings.   [Clarification]

• consistency of explanations with data and observations

• openness to peer review

• full disclosure and examination of assumptions

• repeatability of empirical processes and reproducibility of results.

2. Use logic and detect faulty logic:

• valid logic

• cause and effect

• distinguish between results based on observation and unsubstantiated inferences and conclusions [Clarification]

• potential bias.

3. Understand how new data and observations can result in new scientific knowledge and understanding.

4. Analyze a proposed explanation by reviewing current scientific knowledge.

5. Compare the processes and logic used in scientific investigation of past events (e.g., using data from crime scenes or fossils), investigation that can be planned in advance but is only done once (e.g., expensive or time-consuming experiments such as medical clinical trials or some Hubble telescope work), and investigation of phenomena that can be repeated easily and frequently.    

Recommended alternative language:

5.  Distinguish between historical evidence (e.g., crime scene investigation or reconstruction of the history of life) and observational or experimental evidence (e.g., eyewitness to a crime or study of the fossil record); [Clarification]

·        understand the logical problems encountered when attempting to form conclusions based on historical data; [Added] and

·        understand how present scientific knowledge can be used to contribute to an understanding of past events. [Added]

Remarks:  Fossil studies involve direct observation made in the present that produces physical evidence that can be used to infer events and processes of the past. 

No further comments in Strand I

Strand II: Content of Science

Standard II (Life Science): Understand the properties, structures, and processes of living things and the interdependence of living things and their environments.

5-8 Benchmark I: Explain how living things have diverse forms, structures, and functions and that the relationships between living organisms and their environments are complex.

Grade Performance Standards

Grade 7

3. Know that biological evolution over time accounts for the diversity of species.

Comments:  This is an assertion that cannot be supported by evidence derived directly from observation of the macro-evolutionary events and processes under investigation. 

Recommended alternative language:

3. Describe the basic concepts of evolution by natural selection and how the evolutionary model is used to explain the diversity of species. [Objectivity]

Strand II: Content of Science

Standard II (Life Science ): Understand the properties, structures, and processes of living things and the interdependence of living things and their environments.

5-8 Benchmark II: Understand how traits are passed from one generation to the next and how species evolve.

Comments:  Language is not clear as to whether this Benchmark is addressing evolution within species or evolution that causes the diversity of species.  It is assumed that the State Department of Education would not devote a Benchmark to micro-evolution.  Again, we encounter the assertion "species evolve" which cannot be supported by evidence derived directly from observation of the macro-evolutionary events and processes under investigation.

Recommended alternative language: