Dear Board Members,

As a Biology teacher in Kansas, I am writing to let you know how disappointed I am with your recent decisions concerning the Kansas Science Standards. The writing committee you appointed has followed the required procedures to produce a set of standards that represent the mainstream viewpoints of the scientific community. As a result, the committee has produced standards that describe evolution as a theory central to our understanding of biological science. You have the right to be displeased with the outcome. However, you do not have the right to subvert the normal review process and put off hiring independent scientists to review the science standards.

Contrary to the opinion of the Board majority, the review process has not marginalized those who hold views critical of evolution. The critics of evolution have simply failed to present their objections in a manner that is persuasive to the other professionals on the committee. Having failed to convince others in the marketplace of ideas, they now depend on the Board to provide them with a government handout. Sadly, you seem overly willing to indulge them.

Kathy Martin was recently quoted in the Wichita Eagle saying:

"We just want to address it by putting something in our standards to allow critical analysis of the theory of evolution."

This statement offends me because it conveys a lack of confidence in the professional integrity of Kansas science teachers. Our current standards already allow for critical analysis of evolution. I have been teaching Biology in the state of Kansas for the last five years. Throughout this time period, I have continually encouraged my students to critically analyze all scientific concepts they learn about in my classroom. Your recent decisions have the potential to make my job more difficult by unnecessarily singling out evolution as a concept that somehow requires extra skepticism. How do you expect me to explain this situation to my students?

In my view, your recent departure from the normal review process reveals a disregard for your professional responsibilities. To me, your recent decisions expose a desire to alter the Kansas Science Standards so that they promote your personal viewpoints, even though such an alteration may not coincide with the viewpoints of the general public you represent. Combine this with your apparent willingness to skirt the provisions of the Kansas Open Meetings Act by intentionally meeting in groups of three to discuss this issue with the Attorney General, and your motivations become even more questionable. Together, these actions convey the message that if you do not like the rules, you should do whatever you can to bend them in your favor, even if others might be adversely affected. In my opinion, your actions set a bad example for the young people of Kansas.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Mohn