Would The President of C.O.P.E. Please Stand Up?

[phank]

OK, let's wait for the letter. I'm sure they'll be glad to provide it. I added that post because it included part of the letter itself, from page 7, to wit

“… the Standards are designed to influence the worldviews of ‘all children’ and ‘all citizens.’ They explicitly have as their goal to cause children to relate their lives to the world around them. Thus, the Framework and Standards studiously ignore the religious rights of parents, children and taxpayers. Instead, the document explicitly and implicitly promotes an atheistic worldview.”

[Roy]

I think I can smell camels...

Roy

[Jorge]

Earlier in the week, phank linked to a piece concerning Ken Willard, a Kansas State Board of Education member who criticized the state's proposed inclusion of evolutionary science standards in its high school curricula. Willard, as evidence of evolutionary science's tenuous nature, distributed a nine-page letter provided to him by the group "Citizens for Objective Public Education," an organization which lists Jorge Fernandez as its president. There is excellent reason to believe that same Jorge Fernandez posts here on TWeb under the handle "Jorge."

I have reached out to Mr. Willard requesting this nine-page letter, assuring him that I intended to post it here and review the critiques in a serious manner. Since I have yet to hear back from Mr. Willard, I am also calling out for Jorge to provide a copy of this letter so that we might review the objections to evolutionary science that were distributed to the Kansas State Board of Education. If our Jorge Fernandez is indeed the president of C.O.P.E., this should be a very easy request to fulfill.

So, Jorge . . . I can haz dokumentz?

—Sam

*********************************************************

Other than confirm that it is indeed me, I cannot say any more at this time.

I am going to kindly and nicely ask that all of you refrain from speculations
and comments especially given the fact that you have little if anything to
go on. At the right time, you will know more.

I did ask kindly and nicely, right?

Okay ... 'nuff said for now.

Jorge

[Ansgar Seraph]

*********************************************************

Other than confirm that it is indeed me, I cannot say any more at this time.

I am going to kindly and nicely ask that all of you refrain from speculations
and comments especially given the fact that you have little if anything to
go on. At the right time, you will know more.

I did ask kindly and nicely, right?

Okay ... 'nuff said for now.

Jorge

I certainly second the request to refrain from speculation, Jorge. But, given as your organization is a public policy group and as the letter in question has already been distributed to Board of Education members in Kansas, is there a specific reason why you cannot release this document at the present time? Having access to this already-distributed document would greatly reduce the chance of speculation.

—Sam

[little_monkey]

Same concerns about the antics of Ken Willard are expressed on this blog:

ken-willard-continues-to-kick-up-dust

[phank]

*********************************************************

Other than confirm that it is indeed me, I cannot say any more at this time.

You said it to the politicians. Why not say it to us?

I am going to kindly and nicely ask that all of you refrain from speculations
and comments especially given the fact that you have little if anything to
go on. At the right time, you will know more.

Again, the best way to get anyone to refrain from speculation is to produce the actual document so there's no need to speculate.

I did ask kindly and nicely, right?

Okay ... 'nuff said for now.

With all due respect, saying "I won't tell you what you're asking, I won't tell you WHY I won't tell you, so shut up and stop speculating" isn't kind or nice, it's insulting.

I'm reminded of the story of a man with a wooden leg. The neighborhood kids were always pestering him about what happened, so finally the man said "OK, kids, if I tell you what happened to my leg, do you all promise never to ask me about it again?" And the kids promised.

So the man said "OK, it was BIT OFF!" And he stomped off.

Sounds just like Jorge.

[Tiggy]

Other than confirm that it is indeed me, I cannot say any more at this time.

I am going to kindly and nicely ask that all of you refrain from speculations
and comments especially given the fact that you have little if anything to
go on. At the right time, you will know more.

I did ask kindly and nicely, right?

Okay ... 'nuff said for now.

Jorge

Wow. It must really be abysmally bad if Jorge Fernandez is too embarrassed to let it be seen publicly.

- T

[Mandalorious]

That's the subject of the OP, Mandalorious

D'oh!

Oh well. Anyway, I've posted this thread to the Florida Citizens for Science people so that they can keep track of Jorge's responses and the discussion of that document.

[pancreasman]

I am reminded of the mysterious silence on the 'Cornell Symposium'.

[Jorge]

Earlier in the week, phank linked to a piece concerning Ken Willard, a Kansas State Board of Education member who criticized the state's proposed inclusion of evolutionary science standards in its high school curricula. Willard, as evidence of evolutionary science's tenuous nature, distributed a nine-page letter provided to him by the group "Citizens for Objective Public Education," an organization which lists Jorge Fernandez as its president. There is excellent reason to believe that same Jorge Fernandez posts here on TWeb under the handle "Jorge."

I have reached out to Mr. Willard requesting this nine-page letter, assuring him that I intended to post it here and review the critiques in a serious manner. Since I have yet to hear back from Mr. Willard, I am also calling out for Jorge to provide a copy of this letter so that we might review the objections to evolutionary science that were distributed to the Kansas State Board of Education. If our Jorge Fernandez is indeed the president of C.O.P.E., this should be a very easy request to fulfill.

So, Jorge . . . I can haz dokumentz?

—Sam

*********************************************************

NOTE : You should know that although I do hold the title of President of COPE, I have been on other work-related duties during most of the last 10 weeks. The Science Standards issue came up while I was on extended travel and was handled mostly by the rest of the COPE organization. Nonetheless, I concur with all of the essential content of the letter. The letter is 10 pages long - following are the first 2 pages. Feel free to comment all you want - for now I probably cannot reply. A website for COPE is being constructed at this moment and should be up sometime soon.


FIRST PAGE OF LETTER

Citizens for Objective Public Education, Inc.

June 1, 2012


SENT TO: Achieve, Inc.
1400 16th Street NW, Suite 510
Washington, DC 20036

RE: Response of Citizens For Objective Public Education, Inc. (COPE)
To 2012 Draft of National Science Education Standards (the “Standards”)
and the Framework for K-12 Science Education (the Framework) upon
which the Standards are based

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We sought to provide general comments with respect to the above on the web site
developed for public comment. However, the field permits a comment of only a couple of
pages. Accordingly, we provided in that field a very brief comment and explained that this more
lengthy comment would be mailed to your address as provided on your “Contact Us” web page.

The following are our more detailed comments regarding the Framework and Standards:

1. The “stakeholders” COPE represents are children, parents and taxpayers who share our
views regarding the need for objectivity in public education that addresses religious issues.
COPE is a nonprofit organization that seeks to ensure neutrality in the teaching of subjects in
public schools that touch on religious issues. Curricula that address religious questions should
objectively inform students in a manner that produces a religiously neutral effect, given the age
and maturity of the expected audience. This approach not only seeks to preserve the religious
rights of children, parents and taxpayers, but it also promotes critical thinking and logical
analysis important to good education.

Subject to the rights of parents to direct their religious education, children have the right to
choose what to believe about important religious issues, whether theistic, pantheistic or atheistic.

If the curriculum promotes only one of competing religious viewpoints then it will indoctrinate
in the preferred view rather than objectively teach about it. This will effectively deprive the
child of the right to make an informed decision about the religious issue. Religious
indoctrination will also take away the right of parents to direct the religious education of their
children. Similarly, it will offend the rights of taxpayers who do not support the particular


SECOND PAGE OF LETTER

religious position being presented to students and classify them as outsiders within the
community.

The State may satisfy its First Amendment obligations by excluding religious subject matter
from the curriculum. It can also include the subject matter if it does so objectively and in a
neutral manner that respects the Constitutional rights of children, parents and taxpayers. This
may be accomplished with some subjects through carefully designed programs that inform
students of the competing or alternative viewpoints that lead to differing religious implications
and inferences. Neutrality may also be achieved through an objective consideration of the
strengths and weaknesses of explanations that support a particular religious viewpoint.
Objectivity opens rather than closes the minds of students. It encourages critical thinking about
answers to ultimate questions that may profoundly affect the way they choose to lead their lives.
Objectivity and neutrality will also enhance science education by encouraging critical and
independent thinking and analysis.

We are furnishing this comment because the Framework and Standards address religious
questions and then provide Atheistic/materialistic explanations in a manner that is not likely to
produce a religiously neutral effect.

2. Religion under the First Amendment includes non-theistic beliefs. Religion has been
defined by the courts very broadly to include theistic and non-theistic religions: Atheism,
Religious (“Secular”) Humanism, Buddhism, Ethical Culture, et al. In McGowan v. Maryland,
366 US 420, 461 (1961), the Supreme Court described religion as an “activity that profoundly
relates the life of man to the world in which he lives.” This is an explicit goal of the Framework
– to relate the lives of the children to the world in which they live. The courts indicate religion is
an organized set of beliefs about “matters of ultimate concern,” such as ultimate questions about
the cause, nature and purpose of life and how it should be lived. Religions provide answers to
questions like “Where do we come from?” “What is the nature of life – is it just an occurrence or
is it a creation made for a purpose?” “What happens when we die?” “How should life be led
from an ethical and moral standpoint or from a standpoint that logically denies the idea of
absolute ethical and moral standards?”

3. It appears that the Framework and Standards promote Religious (“Secular”)
Humanism. The particular religious view that appears to be promoted by the Framework and
Standards is an Atheism referred to as Religious (“Secular”) Humanism. The Humanist
Manifestos define “Religious Humanism” (now called “Secular Humanism”) as an organized set
of atheistic beliefs that (1) deny the supernatural, (2) claim that life arises via unguided
evolutionary processes rather than as a creation made for a purpose, and (3) claim that life should be guided by naturalistic/materialistic science and reason rather than traditional theistic religious beliefs. These tenets imply that life has no inherent purpose and that it ends on death. The manifestos also explain that this religion is evangelistic as it seeks to replace all traditional theistic beliefs in all public and private institutions. The word “Religious” in the 1933 Manifesto was replaced with the word “secular” after the Supreme Court held that the First amendment was applicable to the states in the 1940s.


END OF SECOND PAGE ........................................


Balance to follow in future post(s) ...........

Jorge

[Jorge]

Earlier in the week ..........................
So, Jorge . . . I can haz dokumentz?

—Sam

*******************************************************

THIRD PAGE OF LETTER

In a court proceeding in 1987 where the belief system was held to be a religion, Paul Kurtz, a coauthor of Manifesto II (who had previously acknowledged it to be a religion), was asked what
the belief system was if, as he then argued, it was not a religion. Kurtz replied that “Secular
Humanism is science.” This is interesting because the science Framework and proposed
Standards certainly promote all of the tenets of Religious (“Secular”) Humanism. However the
courts have found it to be a religion and not science. Judge Hand clearly articulated his reasons
as follows:

“Dr. Paul Kurtz testified that secular humanism is a scientific methodology, not a
religious movement. . . . Dr. Kurtz’s attempt to revise history to comply with his
personal beliefs is of no concern to this Court. For first amendment purposes, the
commitment of humanists to a non-supernatural and non-transcendent analysis,
even to the point of hostility towards and outright attacks on all theistic religions,
prevents them from maintaining the fiction that this is a non-religious discipline.
This Court is concerned with the logic and consistency, the rationality, one might
say, of Dr. Kurtz’s contention that secular humanism is not a religious system, but
science. Secular humanism is religious for first amendment purposes because it
makes statements based on faith-assumptions.” [Smith v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of
Mobile County, 655 F. Supp. 939, 982 (S.D. Ala. 1987), rev’d on other grounds,
827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1987).]

Since the Framework and the Standards address all of the issues important to all religions, they
should be revised to ensure that the subject matter is objectively presented in a way that has a
religiously neutral effect. Some of our key concerns are very briefly listed below.

4. The use, purpose and effect of Methodological Naturalism are not explained.
“Materialism” or “naturalism” is “a doctrine, theory, or principle according to which physical
matter is the only reality and the reality through which all being and processes and phenomena
can be explained.”1 “Methodological Naturalism” (MN) is the idea that science is not permitted
to explain the cause of events within the natural world with anything other than a materialistic
explanation through the use of “material” or “natural” causes (that is a cause resulting from the
unguided interactions of matter, energy and the forces). Thus MN effectively requires
materialistic explanations. Accordingly, when applied to the ultimate questions of life, only
atheistic or unintelligent cause explanations are permitted. MN requires that all evidence of an
intelligent cause be ignored or somehow attributed to a natural cause. MN is a logical
assumption when dealing with experimental physical science in the present-day world.
However, it is problematic when applied to historical life sciences that address questions that are
both religious and scientific.

Children should be informed that MN is being used in the historical and life sciences and that
there is a significant body of evidence that conflicts with its materialistic assumption. Many
recognized scientists believe it should be abandoned in certain areas of historical science, where
it impedes rather than aids open-minded inquiry.

1 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (2003).


FOURTH PAGE OF LETTER

The assumption of materialism (MN) is incompatible with science education that must respect
the religious rights of children, parents and taxpayers. The effect of MN is to lead children to
accept atheistic explanations of the origin and nature of life, rather than to question them. Not
only must use of this assumption be explained, students must also be informed of the evidence
and alternative explanations that are excluded by the assumption so that they acquire a genuine
appreciation and understanding of its overall effect. The Framework and Standards do none of
this. Instead, while using the assumption, they effectively hide its use.

5. No distinction is made between experimental and historical science. Most science takes
place via experimentation and observation in the present-day world. This may be called
“experimental” (or empirical) science. However, some branches of science use a form of
abductive reasoning in an attempt to reach a “best explanation” for the cause of past events. This
type of “historical” science is practiced in such disciplines as cosmology, astronomy, historical
geology, paleontology, archaeology, and origins science (studies of the origin and development
of life on earth). Biologist Ernst Mayr put it this way:

“[Charles] Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in
contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist
attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and
experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and
processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative
reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to
explain.” [Ernst Mayr, Scientific American, 283 (2000) 78.]

Philosopher of science Carol Cleland explains that “there are fundamental differences in
methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists….” She goes on to say
that “good historical scientists focus on formulating multiple competing (versus single)
hypotheses…. Their main research efforts are directed at searching for a smoking gun, a trace
that sets apart one hypothesis as providing a better causal explanation (for the observed traces)
than the others.” [Carol E. Cleland, Geology, 29 (2001) 987.]

Abductive reasoning requires one to show that evidence offered in support of a historical
hypothesis also rules out alternative or competing explanations. Evolutionary explanations
regarding the origin and development of life on earth depend to a large extent on imagination and speculation about past events rather than experimental testing and direct observation. It is
crucial to note that the Framework and Standards do not inform students that alternatives to
unguided evolutionary explanations exist.

The historical versus experimental distinction is extremely important in the context of modern
evolutionary theory. This is because it is grounded in the incontrovertible assumption of
Methodological Naturalism (MN). MN, as explained above, rules out the primary competing
historical hypothesis that life arises via a guided or designed process. Thus, MN allows only one
of the competing ideas – the materialistic explanation that all of the diversity of life arises via the
unguided evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural sorting (“selection”). The
excluded teleological hypothesis arises not from a religious text, but from direct observations,
experiment and statistical analysis of biological systems, and other aspects of the natural world


FIFTH PAGE OF LETTER

which appear exquisitely designed, including human consciousness. The appearance of design is
evidenced by the adjectives and metaphors found both in the Framework and all of the scientific
literature. Although MN has application in many areas of physical science, it is
counterproductive in the context of historical evolutionary science. This is because its
materialistic/Atheistic assumption has the effect of ruling out the competing hypothesis, not on
the evidence but by enforcement of its dogma. This causes so-called “scientific” explanations to
be functionally Atheistic when it addresses religious questions like the origin of life and its
diversity. The Atheistic effect arises because the dogma requires one to ignore evidence
inconsistent with materialism and consistent with teleological inferences.

Accordingly, we believe the Framework and Standards must (1) describe methods of testing
historical hypotheses in historical sciences by seeking the best of competing explanations, (2)
state the fact that this method is not generally used in the development of unguided evolutionary
explanations about the origin of life and its diversity, as MN rules out the competition by
assumption rather than by the evidence, and (3) include a showing of the evidence that would be
considered but for the use of MN, and (4) describe how that evidence would affect the
plausibility of the evolutionary explanations. Unless this kind of objectivity is required, then the
effect of the NGSS will not be religiously neutral as it will inexorably lead children over their
thirteen years of education to accept the atheistic view of how life is related to the world in
which it is lived.

6. Evidence which is inconsistent with the unguided materialistic assumption of MN and
which supports the idea that the apparent design of many aspects of the natural world may
be real is not included. Some of this evidence (none of which appears in the Framework or Standards) is summarized below:

(a) The characteristics of the matter, energy and forces that comprise the physical
universe have discrete values, which if changed by any small amount, would not
permit the existence of human life. This phenomenon suggests that the universe itself
and its matter, energy and forces have been “fine-tuned” or “designed” for life. If any
one of these constants were changed by a small amount, human life would not be
possible within the universe. This evidence supports the view that the universe itself
is a design rather than a mere random occurrence.

(b) The intangible genetic code and other codes in living organisms have no known
natural or material cause. Furthermore, these intangible codes are far more
sophisticated than any designed by man, suggesting an intelligent cause for their
origin. The genetic code was found in 1998 to exhibit “Eerie Perfection.”2

(c) Natural cause explanations are inconsistent with the intangible messages of life that
are carried in sequences of four bases in DNA. Investigation has shown that the
sequences are not ordered by any physical or chemical necessity. The lack of such
necessity caused renowned geneticist Jacques Monod to describe this as the “ultimate

2 In Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (2003, p. 13), paleontologist Simon Conway Morris devotes a sub-chapter to the extraordinary efficiency of the Genetic Code, which he calls “Eerie Perfection.” See also Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 47 (1998) 238.


The rest to follow later (I'm out of time) .................

Jorge

[rogue06]

Thank you Jorge

[phank]

Yes, thanks.

[wattsr1]

I agree. Thanks for putting this all up, Jorge.

When the rest comes, we will have something to chew over.

[Jorge]

Earlier in the week...............
So, Jorge . . . I can haz dokumentz?

—Sam

**********************************************

SIXTH PAGE OF LETTER

mystery of life.”3

(d) There are no known coherent materialistic explanations for the origin of life itself.
Even the Framework describes the initial cellular information processors needed to get life started as “programmed.” In particular we believe the Framework and Standards should include an objective presentation of the state of our existing scientific knowledge relative to the origin of life.

(e) Major increases in organized biocomplexity require numerous additions to the
information content of DNA before selectable function can arise, thereby casting
doubt on the plausibility of stochastic processes to explain all of those increases. The inherent problem of trying to explain large pre-function increases by a random gradual process is that the probability of the occurrence of the new beneficial function decreases exponentially as the number of necessary steps or mutations increase only incrementally. This statistically increases “waiting times” for the occurrence of new function far beyond available probabilistic resources.

Examples of increases which are challenges to the gradual Darwinian process are the ubiquity of orphan genes which have no detectable homolog in other organisms, the ubiquity of biological convergence, and the sudden appearance of novel body parts and body plans without adequate evidence of a series of gradual transitions.

(f) Many scientists now believe that the neo-Darwinian mechanism for macroevolution
(random DNA mutation and natural selection) is inadequate to explain major rapid
increases in organized biocomplexity. An example is James A. Shapiro’s Evolution:
A View from the 21st Century (2011) in which he "explains how conventional
evolutionary theory (as elaborated from the Darwinian synthesis) has become
outdated....”

(g) A number of statistical analyses and experiments show that random mutation and
natural selection are implausible explanations for increases in organized
biocomplexity that require multiple integrated steps before function arises. The issue
is also intuitive as probability decreases exponentially as the number of integrated
steps necessary for function increase only incrementally.

(h) Although the Framework and Standards describe mutations as “beneficial ... harmful,
and some neutral to the organism,” much of the data indicate that mutations that are
beneficial are extremely rare and that mutations generally result in a loss of functional
or prescriptive information rather than a gain of information. This evidence casts
doubt on the plausibility of random mutations accounting for major increases in
biocomplexity within plausible “waiting times.”

7. Definitions of key terms are omitted. The Framework and Standards contain no glossary of
key terms and phrases. In particular important concepts such as “science,” “scientific

3 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (Austryn Wainhouse trans.), 1971, pp. 95-96. “[I]f one were able not only to describe these sequences but to pronounce the law by which they assemble, one could declare the secret penetrated, the ultima ratio discovered.”


SEVENTH PAGE OF LETTER

knowledge,” “evolution,” “natural cause,” “mechanism,” “materialism,” “methodological
naturalism,” “intelligent design,” and the like need to be carefully defined. Without clear
definitions the Framework and Standards are ambiguous, open to interpretation, confusion and
conflicting messages. Definitions are needed to enable clear communication of concepts and
core ideas of science. This is particularly the case when the boundaries between science and
religion are so closely intertwined.

A particularly egregious omission is the failure of the Framework and Standards to explain the
various definitions of evolution. One common definition is simply “change over time,” which
means that different species lived during different time periods on earth. This is not
controversial. “Microevolution” is small-scale change within a species (adaptation, change in
gene frequency). This is also generally not controversial. However, “Macroevolution” is a
controversial historical hypothesis. It seeks to explain all major increases in organized
biocomplexity via unguided descent with modification from a common ancestry. The
Framework and Standards ignore the distinction and controversy and therefore assume by
extrapolation and the use of MN that microevolution leads to macroevolution over long periods
of time. This supposition is the subject of much scientific debate. Students should be informed
of the debate and not be given the impression that all forms of “evolution” are the same, and that
if one form is true then all are true.

8. There appears to have been no vetting for First Amendment compliance. We note that
the Framework and Standards have apparently not been analyzed for First Amendment
compliance. A word search of both the Framework and the Standards for the word “religion”
results in a “not found” response. This is odd given the clear recognition that the Standards are
designed to influence the worldviews of “all children” and “all citizens.” They explicitly have as
their goal to cause children to relate their lives to the world around them. Thus, the Framework
and Standards studiously ignore the religious rights of parents, children and taxpayers. Instead,
the document explicitly and implicitly promotes an atheistic worldview.

9. Religious groups are not included within the concepts of “Equity and Diversity.” The
emphasis of the Framework and Standards on “Equity and Diversity” omits any mention of
equity and non-discrimination among diverse religious groups and beliefs. Although the
Framework and Standards discriminate in favor of a religious worldview that is atheistic, they
mask that discriminatory effect by omitting any explicit mention of “religion” at all. This leads
the student and patrons of science to believe that atheism is not religious and that the Standards
are not religious, when in fact atheism is a profoundly religious viewpoint that actively seeks to
change the religious views of traditional theists.

10. The religious beliefs of the Committee are not disclosed. Given the religious nature of the
Framework and Standards it would be helpful to children, parents and taxpayers to know more
about the religious beliefs of the Framework Committee and those who assisted with its
development. The Framework is copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences, and a
number of the members of the committee are members of the Academy. A study published in
the journal Nature shows that ninety-three percent of Academy respondents disbelieved (72.2%)


8TH PAGE OF LETTER

or doubted (20.8%) the existence of a “personal god.”4 Thus, nearly 92% of the Academy might
be classified as sympathetic to the tenets of Religious (“Secular”) Humanism. Indeed, one of the
major contributors to the Framework, Eugenie Scott, who is the CEO of the National Center for
Science Education, is a signatory to Manifesto III and has been listed among the top 50 Atheists
in the country.

11. The Framework and Standards are not age appropriate. Since the Standards and
Framework address religious issues, then they must ensure that the children have the knowledge
and intellectual maturity needed to allow them to make informed judgments about the religiously
sensitive material before it is presented. In this respect we find the Framework and Standards
inappropriate as they begin teaching these religious concepts in Kindergarten. We believe
teachings about religious issues relating to the origin and nature of life should not be introduced
before the ninth grade. The complex issues relating to the origin of life and its diversity require a
good understanding of a number of scientific concepts dealing with physics, chemistry, geology
and biology. Because the origins issue unavoidably addresses religious questions, objective
teachings about it will necessarily involve high intellectual capacities but also a substantial
grounding in many scientific disciplines. If the teaching of unguided materialistic evolution
begins in Kindergarten, one may reasonably conclude that the children will lack the knowledge
and maturity necessary to reach informed decisions about what to believe about that “dangerous
idea.”5

12. Coherence and progression can become tools of indoctrination and evangelism. The
Framework and Standards are designed to cause all children to accept the core ideas presented.
To achieve this result they utilize a method of progressively increasing knowledge about a “core
idea” over the 13-year educational experience so that by the end of the 12th grade the child will
be proficient in understanding and accepting the core idea. In addition the idea is used in
connection with other ideas so that all of the ideas “cohere” into a single organized belief system
or world view. This method has significant merits if one is trying to train a child to play baseball
or learn how to read or do math. However, when applied to an idea about religion, it becomes a
tool of indoctrination and evangelism. Thus, beginning to teach children uncritically the tenets
of unguided materialistic evolution, a “dangerous idea,” in Kindergarten and continuing that
teaching for the next thirteen years will have the likely effect of causing the child to come to
believe in that religious idea and to eventually become one who embraces an atheistic view
regarding the origin and nature of life.

Accordingly, we believe that subjects that deal with religious issues be taken out of the
coherence and progressions and treated separately in upper grade classes (if covered at all) where
the curriculum has been carefully designed to present the subject matter objectively to a mature
and knowledgeable audience so that the effect of the curriculum is religiously neutral.

4 Edward J. Larson & LarryWitham, Nature, 394 (1998) 313. The article closes with these remarks: “As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools. . . . The booklet assures readers, ‘Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.’ NAS president Bruce Alberts said: ‘There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.’ Our survey suggests otherwise.”

5 “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” is the title of a book by Atheist Daniel Dennett (1995) that is also the title of a PBS video that features Dennett and his views about evolution. Dennett explains that the idea is “dangerous,” because it has the effect of destroying the idea of a creator God that is the foundation of traditional theistic beliefs.


9TH & 10TH PAGE OF LETTER (THE END)

13. The Framework and Standards cause science to be an enterprise promoted by
consensus. The Framework abandons the scientific method and converts science into an
enterprise that rules by consensus. This so-called “consensus” then purports to speak for all
scientists. This would seem to convert it from an enterprise that investigates into one that seeks
to make social policy. We know that many scientists disagree with this move. This is important
as the scientific method holds the definition of scientific knowledge to a high standard. In
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals [509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993)], the Supreme Court found,
based on the testimony of scientists, that scientific knowledge is knowledge gained by the
scientific method. The scientific method limits scientific knowledge to intersubjectively
accessible knowledge that has been tested by observation and experiment, where possible.
However, the ambiguous Framework description of scientific knowledge appears to cast it in
terms of knowledge that has been agreed to by a “consensus” of an unspecified group of
scientists based on assumptions, models and speculations that may or may not be
intersubjectively accessible. This puts the classification of what is and what is not scientific
knowledge in the hands of those who control the “consensus.” Rather than having knowledge
defined by tested evidence, it appears to be defined by what some group of scientists say it is.
Often funding for scientific endeavors depends on a particular form of “consensus,” which
renders the entire notion of scientific objectivity questionable. This formula for science
undermines the trust of patrons of science and tends to make science an advocacy enterprise that favors particular religious beliefs and political ends.

14. Politically correct, big government solutions are promoted. The Framework and
Standards appear to set societal goals to be achieved by increased governmental involvement and
regulation. This is inconsistent with the role of science as an unbiased and objective
investigator. It puts science in the role of a public policy advocate that promotes a progovernment, atheistic bias. Government regulations can sometimes be helpful, but they also
reduce individual rights and individual freedom. It appears that the Standards and Framework
are being used to promote increased government and reduced human freedom.

15. The mechanisms used for obtaining public feedback are biased. It appears from the
report on public feedback that most of the feedback came from institutions of science already
committed to a functionally atheistic view of life. The only evidence of any contrary response
came from those who “wanted evolution excluded.” A number of focus groups were conducted,
but were any held that involved scientists not committed to the use of methodological naturalism
or to groups of open-minded parents or groups of scientists that might be classified as
unconvinced with standard atheistic explanations of origins? Given the lack of objectivity in the
Framework with respect to the question of origins, it is understandable that parents and students
would want evolution omitted. We believe it can be included in the Standards, but only in a
manner that is truly objective so that the presentations are both scientifically valid and religiously neutral. This can be accomplished without discussing origins narratives found in religious texts such as the Bible.

In conclusion we do not believe the Standards and Framework produce a
religiously neutral effect required by law and should be revised to achieve that effect and render science truly objective.

Very truly yours
s/Anne Lassey
Anne Lassey, VP
For the Board of Directors

***********************************************

Jorge