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

I've been somewhat inundated lately by emails from Intelligent Design (ID) supporters who have issues with my recent public comments in support of quality science education. I thought that some of my responses might actually be interesting reading for others. The following comments are from some of those emails. Some wording has been changed to make them easier to read in this context.

From a recent email to an ID supporter and fellow believer:

To me, ID concepts like "specified complexity" are simply attempts to solidify the scientific mysteries rather than continue searching for scientific explanations. In my view, ID appears to be just another search for scientific evidence of God. Consider what Phillip Johnson (the "Father of the modern ID movement") said:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast

Most ID supporters I've talked to (and there have been quite a few lately) complain about how "methodological naturalism" is unfairly preventing ID from getting a fair shake in the scientific community. But interestingly, these same people often admit that natural causes are sufficient to explain most of natural history. If they can accept that the "Intelligent Designer" was "hands-off" most of the time, why is it so hard for them to accept that the "Intelligent Designer" might have been "hands-off" all of the time? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. They believe in God and they want to have scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Personally, I believe in God because I see "evidence" of Him everyday. When I look at my daughter, I see the grace of God and know that I am blessed. When I benefit from the compassionate acts of other believers, I feel the love of God and know that He is faithful. When I am in worship, I feel the powerful presence of God and know that He is holy. These experiences mean more to me than any "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagella ever will. Apparently, some believers need something more tangible.

From another email to a newspaper reporter:

First of all, let's make it clear that this is not an issue of "science vs. religion." There are many, many religious people, myself included, who have no problems with evolution, as long as it is not described as an "unguided" or "impersonal" process. Unfortunately, that is precisely the description of evolution found throughout the IDnet proposals. In my opinion, this philosophically-biased description amounts to "viewpoint discrimination," exactly the kind of thing that the minority of the committee claims to be trying to prevent.

An "objective" news story on this issue should point out that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community. This controversy is a socio-political one, often perpetuated by those who feel that science threatens their faith. They often misrepresent legitimate debates within the scientific community about the mechanisms of evolutionary change in an attempt to try to make it appear as though scientists are debating whether or not evolution actually happened. Such misrepresentations are disingenuous at best.

Personally, I believe that religious people should not have to deny reality in order to experience their faith. Although particular scientists are entitled to their viewpoints, science itself remains neutral on matters pertaining to religious belief. In my view, there is nothing about the science of evolution that denies the existence of a personal God.

When believers insert God into the gaps in our scientific knowledge, they set themselves up for disappointment. As the steady march of scientific progress continues, those gaps will likely be filled. As this happens, the "intelligent designer" will be pushed back into an ever-shrinking corner. This could spell disaster for those who base their faith in God on a perceived lack of scientific understanding.