# Re ID could colleges legally screen out KS HS students for inadequate science educ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2005, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542 "2005-11-24T04:21:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/81 "2005-11-30T18:48:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, this is about ID and ID only. Unless, of course, you have cites to show us that Physics and Chemistry are taught differently in Kansas than in other states. > [@John Mace](#): > > No, this is about ID and ID only. Unless, of course, you have cites to show us that Physics and Chemistry are taught differently in Kansas than in other states. That’s my point. I have no way of evaluating Kansas students individually, neither do universities. I have to trust that their school board is putting together an adaquite program, and in my opinion its up to the school board to prove their students are worth considering. If their school board cannot tell the difference between science and folklore, what conclusion should I draw? I don’t have the time or resourses to evaluate each of their students or each of their courses on a case by case basis. I’m sorry if that seems unfair, but you certainly can’t evaluated each Canadian student individually. You are left to judge them based on, unfortunately, their reputation. I was willing to assume the Kansas biology program included generic biology concepts, taught by competent teachers, using challenging testing methods. I had no reason to assume otherwise. But if their school board believe that ID is a valid part of biology, what do they believe? Now I’m left looking at all of their programs and wondering what other non-sence their including. Consider this: How do you rate Canadian highschool students? Are they on par with American students? Why, why not? Now, what if I told you that in chemistry class we learned that hydrogen and oxygen from water because Jesus wants it to. We don’t learn about valence electrons, S and P orbitals, vanderwal forces. We learn that Jesus said, “as I turn water into wine, I also turn 2H2 and O2 into 2H2O.” Honestly, what would that say about our chemistry program? Sure, maybe that only relates to H2 and O2, but would have have any faith in the rest of the program? Oh, we also learn about Inteligent Falling, and that gravity is just a theory. Now what does that say about our physic program? In history I learned the Earth is only 6000 years old, and aparently nothing happened before that. Would you have any respect for Canadian students? That’s the point here. Thankfully my school board saw fit to make sure I had the most challenging science program they could afford, and as a result I went on to a masters in mechnical and biomedical engineering. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/82 "2005-11-30T18:55:07Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Now, what if I told you that in chemistry class we learned that hydrogen and oxygen from water because Jesus wants it to. We don’t learn about valence electrons, S and P orbitals, vanderwal forces. We learn that Jesus said, “as I turn water into wine, I also turn 2H2 and O2 into 2H2O.” Honestly, what would that say about our chemistry program? I would say that that is a Strawman Argument because no one is proposing to teach that concept. Sorry, but as much as I dislike ID, I can feign a mountain of outrage over this molehill of an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/83 "2005-11-30T19:45:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, this is about ID and ID only. Unless, of course, you have cites to show us that Physics and Chemistry are taught differently in Kansas than in other states. Well they did attempt to [rewrite the definition of science](http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/) so that it would no longer be “limited to natural explanations.” If that doesn’t qualify as a definitive statement about how the KSB feels about science education, I don’t know what does. How could any college possibly have any faith in the kind of science education which comes from a system which refuses to recognize the very definition of the word? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/84 "2005-11-30T20:08:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Why did you respect the biology teachers when they have five minutes having a pizza party, but not 5 minutes discussing ID? > > Regards, > Shodan No one expects every single minute of every single day to be used for teaching in high school. Its expected that a portion of it will be devoted to pizza parties and just sitting around chatting. High school isn’t merely a place where you get educated its also where you learn how to interact socially. Building relationships through pizza parties and sitting around chatting is fine and no different from “team-building” activities at work. Teaching ID on the other hand wastes a portion of the education time for absolutely no benefit. The two situations are not comparable. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/85 "2005-11-30T20:10:57Z")
Several of you seem to be forgetting that nearly every student who applies to college will be submitting standardized test scores. And if it is the ACT, it will have a section on scientific reasoning. Rather than proposing some other new ‘test,’ why not use the evidence that is before them, and part of every student’s college application. Why not look at ACTs, and subject matter tests that students take as part of the SAT and AP exams? ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/86 "2005-11-30T20:31:12Z")
I think we’ve established in this thread so far that schools are certainly within their legal rights to reject students based on their academic preparation. Indeed, if they didn’t, their reputations would surely plummet. We seem to have migrated onto the topic of whether or not the specific teachings in Kansas would merit such a reaction. How about we actually look at them? Now, my experience as a teacher is that I have to file regular lesson plans, and the content of those lessons must be shown to align with our published curriculum guidelines, which are based in part on the state standards. If I showed a pattern of refusing to adhere to the standards, it would be grounds for disciplinary action. On the Kansas Department of Education Website, there are [two science standards](http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html). the more sober one approved in 2001, and the new one approved in 2005. Standard #3 is Life Science. In both sets of standards, Benchmarks 1 and 2 of that standard are more or less identical, detailing that by the end of grade 12, students must understand about the cell and genetics. It is at Benchmark 3 that we see the discrepancy. > [@2001 standard](#): > > (Students will understand…) 1. That the theory of evolution is both the history of descent, with modification of different > lineages of organisms from common ancestors, and the ongoing adaptation of organisms > to environmental challenges and changes (modified from Futuyma, et al., 1999). > [@2005 standard](#): > > (The student…) 1. understands biological evolution, descent with > modification, is a scientific explanation for the history > of the diversification of organisms from common > ancestors. The 2005 standard, however, includes “additional specificity”. > [@](#): > > 1. a. Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has > no discernable direction or goal. > b. The presence of the same materials and processes of heredity > (DNA, replication, transcription, translation, etc.) is used as evidence for > the common ancestry of modern organisms. > c. Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented > in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life > may have existed billions of years ago. However, in many cases the > fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences > postulated by biological evolution. > d. The distribution of fossil and modern organisms is related to geological > and ecological changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration). There are > observable similarities and differences among fossils and living > organisms. > e. The frequency of heritable traits may change over a period of > generations within a population of organisms, usually when resource > availability and environmental conditions change as a consequence of > extinctions, geologic events, and/or changes in climate. > f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified > descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a > branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by: > i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in > relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) > previously thought to support that view. > ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity > (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the > absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady > gradual increases in complexity, and > iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical > early stages of embryological development. Chew on that one while I get the rest. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/87 "2005-11-30T20:37:56Z")
> [@2001 standard](#): > > 1. That biologists use evolution theory to explain the earth’s present day > biodiversity—the number, variety and variability of organisms. > > Example: Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in > the fossil record. The fossil record provides evidence of simple, > bacteria-like life as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago. > Natural selection, and other processes, can cause populations to change > from one generation to the next. > A single population can separate into two or more independent > populations. Over time, these populations can also become very > different from each other. If the isolation continues, the genetic > separation may become irreversible. This process is called speciation. > Populations, and entire lineages, can go extinct. One effect of extinction > is to increase the apparent differences between populations. As > intermediate populations go extinct, the surviving lineages can become > more distinct from one another. > [@2005 standard](#): > > 1. understands biological evolution is used to explain the > earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety > and variability of organisms. > > Additional Specificity: > > 1. a. Separate populations within a species may become sufficiently > different enough that new species develop. This process is called > speciation. > b. Changes in inherited traits accumulate in populations. > c. Historically only a small percentage of species have survived to > modern times. > d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be > extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new > complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which > appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of > macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct > observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences > from indirect or circumstantial evidence. So they seem to buy speciation as a result of natural selection, but not that specific structures in different species resulted from evolution. Riiiiiiight… ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/88 "2005-11-30T20:46:25Z")
> [@2001 standard](#): > > 1. That biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of evolution are natural selection > and genetic drift. > > Example: Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) heritable variation > exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to > reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of > resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with > advantageous traits generally survive to reproduce; 5) the advantageous > heritable traits increase in the population through time. > [@2005 standard](#): > > 1. understands populations of organisms may adapt to > environmental challenges and changes as a result of > natural selection, genetic drift, and various > mechanisms of genetic change. > > Additional Specificity: > > 1. a. Genetic changes occur only in individual organisms. New heritable > traits may result from new combinations of genes and from random > mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. Except in very rare > cases, mutations that may be inherited are neutral, deleterious or fatal. > b. Natural selection and genetic drift occur within populations or > organisms. > c. Variation among individuals in a population allows individuals to > respond differently to environmental challenges. > > AND > > 1. understands that the primary mechanism of > evolutionary change (acting on variation) is natural > selection. > > 2. a. Favorable heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction > and/or survival than others. > b. There is a finite supply of resources available for offspring; therefore, > not all survive. > c. Individuals with beneficial traits generally survive to reproduce in > greater numbers. > d. Favorable heritable traits tend to increase in the population through > time if the selective pressure is maintained. They’ve seen fit to remove genetic drift as an agent of evolutionary change, but I don’t see exactly why. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/89 "2005-11-30T20:54:43Z")
> [@2001 standard](#): > > 1. The sources and value of variation. > > Examples: Variation of organisms within and among species increases the > likelihood that some members will survive under changed environmental > conditions. > New heritable traits primarily result from new combinations of genes and > secondarily from mutations or changes in the reproductive cells; changes > in other cells of a sexual organism are not passed to the next generation. > [@2005 standard](#): > > 1. understands organisms vary widely within and > between populations. Variation allows for natural > selection to occur. > > Additional Specificity: > > 1. a. Heritable variation exists in every species. > b. New heritable traits result from new combinations of genes and from > mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. > c. Variation of organisms within and among species increases the > likelihood that some members will survive under changing environmental > conditions. > d. Times, populations, or entire lineages become extinct. One effect of > this is to increase the differences between the surviving lineages. The new standard really is dancing around the idea that genetic drift leads to macroevolution. They seem to have feinted the notion that very similar species have resulted from genetic drift, but that widely differing species never could have done so. They must think their students are true idiots not to put the pieces together. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/90 "2005-11-30T20:57:51Z")
> [@2001 standard](#): > > 1. That evolution is a broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology. > > Examples: Evolution provides the context in which to ask research questions and > yields valuable insights, especially in agriculture and medicine. > The common ancestry of living things allows them to be classified into a > hierarchy of groups; these classifications or family trees follow rules of > nomenclature; scientific names have unique definitions and value. > Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific > explanation for the fossil record that correlates with geochemical (e.g., > radioisotope) dating results. The distribution of fossil and modern > organisms is related to geological and ecological changes (i.e. plate > tectonics, migration). > [@2005 standard](#): > > 1. understands biological evolution is used as a broad, > unifying theoretical framework for biology. > > Additional Specificity: > > 1. a. Organisms are classified according to the rules of nomenclature, and > are given scientific names. > b. The behavioral, physical, and genetic characteristics upon which these > classifications are based are used as evidence for common descent. > c. Natural selection, genetic drift, genomes, and the mechanisms of > genetic change provide a context in which to ask research questions and > help explain observed changes in populations. However, reverse > engineering and end-directed thinking are used to understand the > function of bio-systems and information. A real bio person will have to comment on the validity of this last point. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/91 "2005-11-30T20:58:55Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > They’ve seen fit to remove genetic drift as an agent of evolutionary change, but I don’t see exactly why. Actually, they removed it from the “primary mechanisms”, which is more technically correct. Genetic drift does account for some evolutionary changes, but it is not a _primary_ agent. So in that sense, the 2005 version is actually more accurate than the 2001 version. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/92 "2005-11-30T21:09:53Z")
In addition, the 2001 standard states as a footnote to the word “understand”: > [@](#): > > \*Understand: “Understand” does not mandate “belief.” While students may be required to > understand some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical problems, > they may accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where > students’ and/or parents’ beliefs may be at odds with current scientific theories or concepts. See > Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page > 59. The 2005 standard specifies that the controversy over evolution must be included in the course curriculum: > [@](#): > > 1. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin > of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations. > > Additional Specificity: > > 1. Some of the scientific criticisms include: > a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically > hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere; > b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the > sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical > machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, > and the formation of proto-cells; and > c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time > that the Earth first became habitable. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/93 "2005-11-30T22:46:58Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > So you don’t see any value in my post. I get that. Do you have a point otherwise? I’m still waiting for some explanation of my question about how it’s not bigoted to exclude students with science backgrounds to admit Kansans with ID backgrounds, if you’re interested in posting something with content. Mainly because of the definition of bigot. If the meaning of bigotry is expanded from intolerance and prejudice to every possible discrimination, then how are you yourself not a bigot by selecting the student with a science background over the student with an ID background? I think you’re tilting at windmills. I interjected comment solely because you seem to fancy yourself to be “enlightened”, when in point of fact you seem decidedly otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/94 "2005-11-30T23:04:16Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Therein lies the key issue here, I think. We don’t know yet whether ID will be taught _instead of_ the Modern Synthesis, _alongside_ it, or if it just merits casual mention, alongside such topics as Lamarckism and spontaneous generation. Certainly, you will acknowledge that there is no harm in learning _about_ ID (just about everyone in this thread knows _about_ it, yet we are none the poorer for it, intellectually). > > If ID were to form the core of the biology curriculum in the state of Kansas, then I agree that there would be a significant, statewide problem, as well as providing a major disservice to the students. However, given, as was mentioned before, there really isn’t any substantial way to form a core curricuum out of ID, unless one plans on doing a whole lot of handwaving (and, in essence, teaching _nothing_ substantial, about ID or otherwise). What can really be taught? Dembski’s “theories” are so convoluted and vague that few university professors can make much sense of them, much less the typical high school instructor (and especially student!). Behe’s “irreducible complexity” sounds nice, and could actually represent a viable test of evolutionary theory - one that, unfortunately for Behe, evolutionary theory has passed at each turn. So you can’t really teach that as fact without buttloads of distortion (and any instructor who would willingly do as much wasn’t going to provide the students a great service regardless of the content). And really, there’s not much else out there, “theory”-wise. In second year university, I took a course called The History of Natural Science that dealt with how the development and progression of science impacted society. We spent about a 5th of the course covering the conflict between evolution and creationism/ID. We studied the life of Darwin, and examined the fators that influenced him as he developed his _theory_. We also looked at what was accepted before him. We then spent a great deal of time learning about the Creationist viewpoint, as well as ID. That understanding took several lectures of explaination, as my prof went through each and every aspect of how Creationists explain away evolution. So there is certainly enough material to fill up a week of highschool education. We would all like to assume that a good biology teacher would work hard to teach the facts of evolution, and then provide a 5min blurb on, “oh by the way, some people think God did it.” My feeling is that if there is an ID friendly school board, then there must be a significant number of ID friendly principals. Those ID friendly principals would no doubt select ID friendly biology teachers over and above evolution-friendly teachers. The result, I fear, is that a pro-ID teacher would begin by setting up a 5min evolution strawman, and then the remainder of the class using pseudoscience to knock it down. I was watching CNN the other day as the followed BC Tours (see link in previous post). The creationist has plenty to say about ID and plenty to say regarding the errors and lies of evolution (including one comment about how evolution says dinosaurs became cats). If a teacher wanted to devote his/her time to ID, they could certainly find sufficient material. Unfortunately, I can’t comment on what I think the result would be on students. I personally don’t see how a biology student could spend one day learning that the answer is, “God did it.” And the next day be expected to recite the complicated process from DNA to protein. As a smart-ass-student, I’d take every opportunity in every class to say, “God did it.” Protein? God makes it. I don’t need to prove the derivative of 2x is 2, because God did it. How does an acid and a base make a salt and water? Don’t care, because I’m pretty sure God did it. ID is not science. Using the supernatural to explain sceintific process is counterproductive to the education of students. My problem with this debate is that I can’t see past this superstitious fonybalony. Do you want a doctor that understands how anti-biotics works, and knows when to prescribe them? Or would you rather he just told you to pray? Religion does not belong is science class. Would you respect the doctors graduating from a medschool that taught prayer as a valid medical procedure? Why bother operating, a double blind study suggests that pray is equally affective. But as I said above, I think it would be great if students had a history of natural science class. In which they could learn all about creationism and ID. And while they’re at it they can learn about how the Earth is flat and how the sun goes around it. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/95 "2005-11-30T23:53:45Z")
From post #86: > [@](#): > > 1.c. Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented > in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life > may have existed billions of years ago. However, in many cases the > fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences > postulated by biological evolution. Actually, biological evolution does not specifically postulate gradual, unbroken sequences. There are many instances where sudden widespread diversification has taken place. These moments have not been shown to be inconsistent with the notion of variance as a result of biological evolution. To teach otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. As a member of any entity evaluating the quality of science education in the Kansas public schools, this would be a red flag. > [@](#): > > 1.f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified > descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a > branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by: > i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in > relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) > previously thought to support that view. Anyone know of a cite for these deiscrepancies? > [@](#): > > 1.f.ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity > (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the > absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady > gradual increases in complexity, Again, AFAIK, the lack of gradual change is not inconsistent with evolution, so this is problematic. > [@](#): > > iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical > early stages of embryological development. Again, if anyone has a cite for any such study, that would be of great help. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/96 "2005-12-01T05:12:59Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > From post #86: > > Actually, biological evolution does not specifically postulate gradual, unbroken sequences. There are many instances where sudden widespread diversification has taken place. These moments have not been shown to be inconsistent with the notion of variance as a result of biological evolution. To teach otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. As a member of any entity evaluating the quality of science education in the Kansas public schools, this would be a red flag. > > Anyone know of a cite for these deiscrepancies? > > Again, AFAIK, the lack of gradual change is not inconsistent with evolution, so this is problematic. > > Again, if anyone has a cite for any such study, that would be of great help. These are tbe exact points which caught my eye. They are all complete falsehoods. Punk eek does not conflict with any predictions made by the ToE. The idea that evolution predicts some kind of regular, unchanging gradulaism is a creationist strawman. I don’t know what they’re talking about with the molecular claim, but genetic and molecular evidence has actually served to _confirm_ common descent, not to undermine it (let’s see these bastards try to explain retrogenes). That’s the problem with this. It isn’t just teaching a bit of non-science or acknowledging that some people ferociously dispute the facts for religious reason, it’s LYING. It;s teaching falsehoods as fact and expounding on “criticisms” which don’t actually exist. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542/97 "2005-12-01T12:18:50Z")
From post #87: > [@](#): > > 3.d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be > extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new > complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which > appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. The notion of “irreducible complexity” of bodily organs or systems is not, AFAIK, a generally recognized biological principle. Again, seeing a school teaching that it is is a big red flag to anyone evaluating their science curriculum. > [@](#): > > These kinds of > macroevolutionary explanations generally are **not based on direct > observations and often reflect historical narratives** based on inferences > from indirect or circumstantial evidence. (bolding mine) And the notion that an ancient Hebrew mountain deity made it all happen in one big poof is what, exactly? Not that they feel they need to mention God, of course. It’s the old “If science is wrong, Brother Billy Bob must be right” fallacy made flesh. Introduce doubt into the minds of the students, and they will have nowhere else to turn but God. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-id-could-colleges-legally-screen-out-ks-hs-students-for-inadequate-science-educ/332542.md?page=4)