We ended our earlier post about Brandon Kenig by listing three issues that still troubled us concerning his stated positions on the Kansas Science Standards issue.
Kenig quickly and courteously responded to those issues and gave us permission to post his response here. His email is reproduced below the fold in its entirety.
Jeremy,
Some answers to your questions...
1. We asked Kenig why he was inclined to believe the earth is 10 or 15 thousand years old, rather than ~4.5 billion as determined by geologists and accepted by 99.9% of scientists in the field. He did not respond to this question. When I stated this on my personal blog, this was my own personal religious belief. I have not yet completely reconciled the overwhelming scentific evidence of the age of the earth with my religious beliefs and teachings, but that it is inconsequential, because I do not think my personal, religious belief should be taught in the classroom. This is a personal issue and I may resign myself to the fact that they may never be reconciled. But that is too be expected--religion and science complement eachother, but we must accept that we cannot always reconcile the two--each has its place in our lives and in society.
2. In his response to our questions, Kenig asserted that "scientific critiques of evolution or missing data or holes in the theory can and should be discussed and taught if they are scientific in nature and technical--and that is consistent with my stated position all along." Unfortunately, Kenig did not explain which "scientific critiques" of evolutionary theory he thinks should be discussed and taught. After all, the 2005 standards included a litany of so-called "critiques" of evolutionary theory that had already been thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. We cannot help but wonder, are these the kind of "scientific critiques" that Kenig has in mind? No, this is not what I have in mind. Any missing data or critiques or new information that comes along must be supported by a consensus of the scientific community. Critiques in the 2005 standards attempted to shroud themselves in scientific reasoning, but they were undoubtedly religious and philosophical-based. To be completely honest, I am unsure of specific, scientific advances or changes to the current theory that have been embraced by the scientific community, but if these modifications or addtions come along and are supported by a consensus of the scientific community, they should be taught in the classroom. Discoveries such as the one that led to the finding and naming of the skeleton "Lucy," or findings that found additional hominid species or discounted ideas believed about the discovery of an existing hominid would be worthy of being taught if they were supported by a consenus of scientists. I would imagine that if they were, these new insights would also start appearing in scientific textbooks.
3. Throughout Kenig's Facebook group page, a recurring theme seems to be that local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates whenever they so choose. He even specifically lists evolution as one of the topics for which state mandates should be reduced. This is in direct opposition to Kenig's stated support of the current science standards. Indeed, this same "local control" stance was promoted by the instigators of the infamous 1999 standards. That is completely untrue. I don't think local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates, I just think they should have the ability to augment state mandates as they see fit. On my Facebook page, I say "I want to give control to local boards and local districts to add or expand on these topics as to how they see fit." Not once do I say that local boards or districts should have the power to detract from existing standards or water them down or reduce them in any way. Any attempt to teach creationism in the classroom would be a reduction in science standards, as would any attempt to detract from evolution or downgrade it or teach any less of it then required by the state. I just want local schools and districts to have the power to go above and beyond in certain areas. In areas like appropriating state funding, extra-curricular activities, preparation for state testing--local districts and boards should be able to innovate and adjust to the state's policies in the ways they see fit. With sex education and evolution--these policies are directly related to the curriculum and must be mandated by the state, so school districts must follow the state's mandates in these areas, but there is still room for some local control--in sex education, some school districts and boards may choose to provide more information beyond the state board's broad policy. In the teaching of evolution, some schools or districts may choose to offer an entire class on evolutionary biology or supplement in-class teaching on the subject with a visits to research centers or natural history museums. Obviously, the state mandate on evolution is much more specific, so there is less opportunity to expand it and supplement it in a pro-science approach, but teachers and schools should still be able to engage students in the topic in exciting ways without fear of reprisal or reprimand by parents or anti-evolutionists who counter that these schools and districts are going beyond the intent of the state's mandate.
I hope this helps. I'm not inconsistent. I've never run for office before, but I'm learning quickly and I will try to be much more clear on these issues. I see that my position on local control in many areas is too unspecific and some believe that I'm for local control in all areas or unconditional local control which isn't true. No matter what, no district or local board should have the power to ignore or dilute an existing state mandate--they should only have the power to expand or augment an existing state mandate. I'm learning a lot about how words can be interpreted and how statements can be phrased incorrectly and I will do my best to articulate my positions much more clearly in the upcoming months. Also, please remember that I've "evolved" on this topic as well. You have to remember, as a high school student taking biology, the pro-science majority was in control, so the controversy was at bay and my education was unaffected, so it was not something I initially thought about or was concerned about. Two years ago, I was 20 years old, and while I had a pro-evolution stance, I was still not 100 percent informed on the exact nature of the controversy and what was happening in KS. After doing my homework and realizing how serious this was and the extent to which some of the board members were willing to dilute real science and use standards that no other state in the country was following, I gradually realized this was of greater importance that I thought, especially when I learned exactly what the board was trying to do back in 2005 and how that really affected students and teachers in the classroom as well as outsiders' perceptions of Kansas.
Brandon
I've attended Shawnee Mission Public Schools from K-12th grade and I'm proud of the education I received. I want to ensure that other students receive the same type of education, and strong science standards grounded in science, not ideology, are the only way to ensure this.
Some answers to your questions...
1. We asked Kenig why he was inclined to believe the earth is 10 or 15 thousand years old, rather than ~4.5 billion as determined by geologists and accepted by 99.9% of scientists in the field. He did not respond to this question. When I stated this on my personal blog, this was my own personal religious belief. I have not yet completely reconciled the overwhelming scentific evidence of the age of the earth with my religious beliefs and teachings, but that it is inconsequential, because I do not think my personal, religious belief should be taught in the classroom. This is a personal issue and I may resign myself to the fact that they may never be reconciled. But that is too be expected--religion and science complement eachother, but we must accept that we cannot always reconcile the two--each has its place in our lives and in society.
2. In his response to our questions, Kenig asserted that "scientific critiques of evolution or missing data or holes in the theory can and should be discussed and taught if they are scientific in nature and technical--and that is consistent with my stated position all along." Unfortunately, Kenig did not explain which "scientific critiques" of evolutionary theory he thinks should be discussed and taught. After all, the 2005 standards included a litany of so-called "critiques" of evolutionary theory that had already been thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. We cannot help but wonder, are these the kind of "scientific critiques" that Kenig has in mind? No, this is not what I have in mind. Any missing data or critiques or new information that comes along must be supported by a consensus of the scientific community. Critiques in the 2005 standards attempted to shroud themselves in scientific reasoning, but they were undoubtedly religious and philosophical-based. To be completely honest, I am unsure of specific, scientific advances or changes to the current theory that have been embraced by the scientific community, but if these modifications or addtions come along and are supported by a consensus of the scientific community, they should be taught in the classroom. Discoveries such as the one that led to the finding and naming of the skeleton "Lucy," or findings that found additional hominid species or discounted ideas believed about the discovery of an existing hominid would be worthy of being taught if they were supported by a consenus of scientists. I would imagine that if they were, these new insights would also start appearing in scientific textbooks.
3. Throughout Kenig's Facebook group page, a recurring theme seems to be that local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates whenever they so choose. He even specifically lists evolution as one of the topics for which state mandates should be reduced. This is in direct opposition to Kenig's stated support of the current science standards. Indeed, this same "local control" stance was promoted by the instigators of the infamous 1999 standards. That is completely untrue. I don't think local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates, I just think they should have the ability to augment state mandates as they see fit. On my Facebook page, I say "I want to give control to local boards and local districts to add or expand on these topics as to how they see fit." Not once do I say that local boards or districts should have the power to detract from existing standards or water them down or reduce them in any way. Any attempt to teach creationism in the classroom would be a reduction in science standards, as would any attempt to detract from evolution or downgrade it or teach any less of it then required by the state. I just want local schools and districts to have the power to go above and beyond in certain areas. In areas like appropriating state funding, extra-curricular activities, preparation for state testing--local districts and boards should be able to innovate and adjust to the state's policies in the ways they see fit. With sex education and evolution--these policies are directly related to the curriculum and must be mandated by the state, so school districts must follow the state's mandates in these areas, but there is still room for some local control--in sex education, some school districts and boards may choose to provide more information beyond the state board's broad policy. In the teaching of evolution, some schools or districts may choose to offer an entire class on evolutionary biology or supplement in-class teaching on the subject with a visits to research centers or natural history museums. Obviously, the state mandate on evolution is much more specific, so there is less opportunity to expand it and supplement it in a pro-science approach, but teachers and schools should still be able to engage students in the topic in exciting ways without fear of reprisal or reprimand by parents or anti-evolutionists who counter that these schools and districts are going beyond the intent of the state's mandate.
I hope this helps. I'm not inconsistent. I've never run for office before, but I'm learning quickly and I will try to be much more clear on these issues. I see that my position on local control in many areas is too unspecific and some believe that I'm for local control in all areas or unconditional local control which isn't true. No matter what, no district or local board should have the power to ignore or dilute an existing state mandate--they should only have the power to expand or augment an existing state mandate. I'm learning a lot about how words can be interpreted and how statements can be phrased incorrectly and I will do my best to articulate my positions much more clearly in the upcoming months. Also, please remember that I've "evolved" on this topic as well. You have to remember, as a high school student taking biology, the pro-science majority was in control, so the controversy was at bay and my education was unaffected, so it was not something I initially thought about or was concerned about. Two years ago, I was 20 years old, and while I had a pro-evolution stance, I was still not 100 percent informed on the exact nature of the controversy and what was happening in KS. After doing my homework and realizing how serious this was and the extent to which some of the board members were willing to dilute real science and use standards that no other state in the country was following, I gradually realized this was of greater importance that I thought, especially when I learned exactly what the board was trying to do back in 2005 and how that really affected students and teachers in the classroom as well as outsiders' perceptions of Kansas.
Brandon
I've attended Shawnee Mission Public Schools from K-12th grade and I'm proud of the education I received. I want to ensure that other students receive the same type of education, and strong science standards grounded in science, not ideology, are the only way to ensure this.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
