Jack Krebs
Lawrence, Kansas
jkrebs@sunflower.com

Board member, Kansas Citizens for Science
www.kcfs.org

Dear Editor,

 I am writing to provide some background on the science curriculum situation in Pratt. I am a high school educator and Board member of Kansas Citizens for Science, and I have followed the science curriculum controversies in Kansas closely.

In a replay of the state science standards scandal, members of the Pratt school Board have rejected the recommendations of their own science teachers and worked behind the scenes to produce local science standards that challenge evolution and open the door to teaching creationism.

This is far more than a local issue. National and state organizations in the "intelligent design" (ID) movement are looking to Pratt as a possible test case for their goal of challenging the current legal restrictions on teaching creationism in public schools.

The people of Pratt should be aware that they are seen by these organizations as a means to an end. "Intelligent design" has made no progress at establishing itself as science. Therefore, its supporters have a strategy of using school systems as a vehicle for doing an "end-run" around the normal ways in which new scientific theories get established.

The Board members supporting these science standards are circumventing both established ways of developing curriculum and of establishing new scientific theories. Instead they are using their positions of authority to further a narrow religious and political agenda at the expense of the community of Pratt.

Here is some background information. Two Pratt citizens, lawyer Ernie Richardson and biologist Chris Mammoliti have been working with the Intelligent Design network in Kansas City. Both of these people were presenters at a conference on teaching intelligent design in public schools sponsored by the ID Network this summer. At this conference and others, the ID network has described how they are working with people in Pratt to insert ID into the curriculum, and that national attention is being paid to their efforts.

The ID Network is working closely with a national group, the Discovery Institute, which believes that science is inherently atheistic because it limits itself to natural explanations for natural phenomena. The Discovery Institute's avowed goal is to drive a wedge between those who accept evolutionary theory, claiming they are atheists (which is false), and those that believe in God.

Members of the Discovery Institute have written two works which are the basis of the strategy being used in Pratt. One is "Intelligent Design in Public Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook," by David DeWolf. (See arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm). Ernie Richardson used this document as the basis for his presentation this summer on why it would be OK to teach ID in school.

The other work is the book "Icons of Evolution," by Jonathan Wells, illustrated by a member of the ID network. The strategy of this book is to use weaknesses in textbooks as the wedge to attack evolutionary theory itself, and thus open the door to teaching "intelligent design" as an "alternative" theory of origins.

All of the outcomes and resource activities added by the Board to the science standards follow the outline of Wells' book, and the strategy of trying to insert ID as science (even though it has no scientific content) comes from DeWolf's legal guidebook.

Past attempts to insert creationism into the public science curriculum have led to protracted court cases. The current strategy advocated by the Discovery Institute is to try to pass ID off as science, not religion. It is likely that the legality of this tactic will eventually have to be determined by the courts also.

The people of Pratt should be aware of the role they are playing in this larger conflict. The public schools should not be the place where judgments about new scientific theories are made, and school Board members should not be the people making those decisions. The strategy being implemented in Pratt does your children a disservice, using their education as a tool in a conflict that should be taking place in the adult scientific and religious communities. If ID eventually gets established as science, it will show up in textbooks and science teachers will teach it. Until that time, school Board members should play their proper role and support mainstream science, as recommended by your science teachers.