The February 2nd Kansas City Star had a story about the recent public hearing for comments on the Kansas State Science Standards. It featured a quote from me and a picture. You can read the Star's coverage here (registration required).

Here are my comments from the hearing:

Tuesday, February 1st, 2005
Schlagle High School Auditorium
Kansas City, KS

Public comments of:
Jeremy Mohn
Biology Teacher
Blue Valley Northwest High School

As a Kansas Biology teacher, this issue concerns me because it has the potential to directly impact my professional obligations. The eight dissenting members of the writing committee want to make fundamental changes to the Kansas Science Standards, including changing the definition of science itself. According to their proposed revisions, teaching science as suggested by the majority of the committee amounts to “viewpoint discrimination” because it limits scientific explanations to using natural processes. But science, as understood by most scientists, is limited to natural explanations. This is because non-natural explanations are not testable using the methods of science. Therefore, non-natural explanations have no place in a science classroom. Changing the definition of science to include them would be counter to all widely accepted definitions of science.

Several days ago, I thought it would be valuable to closely examine the proposed revisions to see whether this concern about “viewpoint discrimination” was justified. What I found was surprising. By consistently defining biological evolution as an “unguided” natural process, the suggested revisions themselves could be seen as an effort to discriminate against a variety of widely held viewpoints. There are many Kansans, myself included, who accept evolution as a scientific explanation but also believe that God can undetectably “guide” the natural evolutionary process. The intentional depiction of evolution as an “unguided” process directly contradicts such a viewpoint. It is my opinion that the proposed revisions unnecessarily mix philosophical assumptions with scientific explanations. Ironically, this philosophically biased depiction of evolution comes from a group that claims to be against viewpoint discrimination!

Interestingly, the statement on teaching evolution from the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) is referenced to justify this description, even though the NABT has removed similar wording from its statement in response to valid criticism.

In conclusion, I think we should continue to teach science in science class. As a Kansas Biology teacher and as a religious person, I strongly encourage the Board to adopt the Standards produced by the majority of the writing committee because they represent the consensus viewpoints of the scientific community.