Kansasin "kengurut"

Lueskelin kuuluisan Kansasin "kenguruoikeudenkäynnin" vuoropuheluja vuodelta 2005. Vaakalaudalla oli luonnontieteiden opetuksessa käytettävä standardi, ja se miten sitä sovelletaan. Vastakkain oli enemmistön raportti ja vähemmistön raportti. Vähemmistössä oli IDeistien luoma versio standardeista ja heidän omat lausunnot siitä miten enemmistön versiolla kannatetaan ateismia, naturalismia, humanismia ja "heikolla pohjalla olevaa makroevoluutiota." Tuomarina toimi opetuslautakunta, joka päätti mitä versiota käytettäisiin kouluissa. On ilo huomata kuinka hienosti enemmistön asianajaja, herra Pedro Irigonegaray ottaa esiin IDeistien ontot väitteet.
Otetaan esimerkiksi tohtori William H. Harrisin puheenvuoro ja kuulustelu. Hän esittää erilaisia väittämiä siitä mitä standardit edustavat. Niistä kumpuaa humanismia ja naturalismia, eli tiedettä ilman yliluonnollista. Huomatkaa, että IDeisti itse ottaa esiin oppeja jotka jättävät selvästi yliluonnolliset asiat pois itsestään. Harris myös huomauttaa, että standardeissa mainita sanallakaan sitä, että evoluutio toimii pelkkien vahinkojen kautta - siis ilman älykästä ohjausta.

"[E]volutionary theory is presented to the public as meaning change over time and that's that and nobody has any problem with change over time. Everybody agrees that change over time has happened. If that is all evolution is, the room would be empty. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory is not just that things changed over time, but they changed over time by total accident. Everything that we see today simply showed up by the random interaction of matter and energy, law and luck. And that is how we all got here. That is what is at issue, that particular piece of evolutionary theory. That is what we think children need to know is the definition of evolution. Not just that things changed over time because that's the part that's particularly contradictory."

- William Harris

Harris myös vastustaa enemmistön määritelmää tieteelle. Se on "naturalistinen," ja jättää heti kättelyssä yliluonnollisuuden pois kuvioista. Mutta toisaalla sama Harris sanoo selkeästi, että Älykkäässä suunnittelussa ei ole mitään yliluonnollista. Siitä huolimatta...
Harris vaati myös oikeutta kertoa lapsille keskustelun kaikista tieteellisistä osapuolista. Oppilaiden pitäisi saada tietää esim. evoluutioteorian kimpussa olevista vaihtoehtoisista selityksistä.

"Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range-- the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discovery can profoundly effect society. And we would ask that that language be put in in a sense of the Kansas standards that we agree with that attitude."

- William Harris

Noh, Harris ja monet muut IDeistit esittävät tällaisia asioita todistusvuoroillaan. Sitten areenalle tepastelee Irigonegaray. Hän aloitti aina kysymällä kuinka vanha Maa on todistajan mukaan. Tällä kertaa Harris vastaa hieman kierrellen, että jopa neljä miljardia vuotta, mutta se on vain hänen mielipiteensä. Ei sovi suututtaa laajinta tukijakuntaa, eli nuoren maailman kreationisteja.

Seuraavaksi Irigonegaray kysyy missä kohtaa standardeja mainitaan termi "humanismi?"

Sitä ei löydy standardeista.

Entäpä "naturalismi?"

Sitäkään ei löydy.

Entä kielletäänkö standardeissa opettajia kertomasta oppilaille evoluutioteorian vaihtoehdoista tai kritiikistä?

Ei. Tosin eräs IDeisti yritti väittää, että standardeissa kielletään tämä, mutta ei onnistunut mainitsemaan kohtia.

Onko standardeissa yhtään kohtaa jossa mainitaan ateistinen maailmankuva osana osavaltion toimintaa?

Ei ole.

Missä kohtaa standardeja on määritelmä tai viittaus ateismiin tai materialistiseen maailmankuvaan?

Ei missään. Harrisin mukaan ne on kirjoitettu "rivien väliin."

Sama lista kysymyksistä toistuu muiden IDeistien kohdalla. Kaikki tarjoavat samat vastaukset. Standardit eivät sisällä kohtia joissa mainittaisiin ateismi, humanismi tai naturalismi. Eikä siellä oikeastaan mainita muitakaan asioita joista IDeistit pitivät meteliä koululautakunnan edessä.
Mutta kaikkein herkullisin kohta purskahti pinnalle, kun Irigonegaray hoksasi kysyä suhteellisen olennaisen kysymyksen. Vuorossa oli tohtori Carlson. Hänet, kuten muutkin IDeistit, oli kutsuttu paikalle kertomaan koululautakunnalle miksi vähemmistön kanta standardeihin on parempi kuin enemmistön (Luonnos 2). Laitan tähän suoran lainauksen kuulustelusta:

Q. Is there in Draft 2 any discussion about the origin of life?
A. Well, I've just read the-- I haven't read the entire draft.
Q. They brought you here to testify about the standards for science education for our children and you did not read it; is that correct?
A. I've-- I haven't read-- no, I haven't read the whole thing. I've read the-- the portions I was asked to give testimony on.
Q. So you have-- they-- who told you selectively what to read?
A. Nobody told me anything, it was sent to me.
Q. What-- who sent to you only selective pieces of Draft 2 and the minority-- strike that. Were you sent the minority report in toto (=kokonaisuudessaan)?
A. No.
Q. Were you sent--
A. Wait. The minority report? Let me see. I believe I do have the minority report.
Q. You were sent the minority report in toto, but you were only sent selective pieces of the majority report. Correct?
A. Well, let me-- actually, I don't have a copy of what I actually received so I can't-- I can't answer that question.
Q. But one way or the other, you were instructed to be familiar with only a portion. Correct?
A. I was instructed-- they asked me for a-- expert testimony in the various aspects of the changes that they were suggesting, to see whether these are reasonable changes. And so that's what I'm doing.

Juuri ennen tämän kuulustelun aloittamista tohtori Carlson kehui kuinka vähemmistön raportti muovaisi standardit huomattavasti objektiivisemmaksi. Carlsonia seurannut todistaja - tohtori John Sanford - sanoi myös vähemmistökannan olevan parannus ja muutokset olisivat vain minimaalisia enemmistön kantaan verrattuna. Tällä kertaa Irigonegaray osasi kysyä sitä asiaa, joka oli tullut esiin vahingossa Carlsonin kohdalla:

Q. Have you read in toto the majority report to the Board of Education?
A. I have not.
Q. So you have been brought here to criticize the majority report without having read it. Correct?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. It is true you have not read it?
A. It is true I have not read it. I-- I didn't come here to criticize anything.
Q. Sir, just answer my question.
A. I am answering your question.
Q. The answer was no, you haven't read it. That's all I asked for.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Do you believe that science teachers in Kansas when teaching science and evolution as outlined in the current standards, and although you haven't read them, based upon what you've been told--
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- are leading students to this conclusion; that they are meaningless accidents with no intrinsic purpose?
A. I believe that's a very common teaching in many public schools.
Q. I wasn't asking about many public schools. Based upon what you've been told, is that your opinion as to what's going on in Kansas?
A. You're asking me to assess things I can't assess. I-- I come here to offer my expert testimony in my area, and I'm sorry if I can't give you satisfactory answers to everything you would like to know.
Q. Do you agree with-- have you read the minority report in toto?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you-- strike that. Do you agree with the minority report that teaching science as it is currently practiced constitutes an indoctrination in the philosophy of naturalism, a philosophy key to known theistic belief systems? Yes or no.
A. I believe that statement is correct.

Ja myöhemmin:

Q. Is it your opinion that the science and the study of science in our school should include supernatural explanations to natural events?
A. No. I believe the educational process should encourage students to examine the alternative hypotheses and all the evidence, pro and con, so they can make intelligent decisions.
Q. Would it surprise you to learn that that is precisely what the majority opinion states in this Draft 2, that students are encouraged--
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- and, in fact, are encouraged with their teachers to discuss a broad range of ideas about evolution? You were not aware of that, were you?
A. I think that's great.
Q. You were not aware of that, were you, because you have not read the standards.
A. Yes, I don't feel bad about not having read the standards. I came here as a courtesy to the committee to share my expert opinion. If you don't like that, that's your problem.
Sanfordin jälkeen esiin astui tohtori DiSilvestro, joka kehui ennen Irigonegaray aloittaa kuulustelua kuinka vähemmistön raportti esittää spesifisiä asiota ja selventää standardeja. Mutta katsotaan miten Irigonegaray käsittelee DiSilvestroa:
Q. I would like for you to listen first to the sentence I'm about to read. "There are many issues which involve morals, ethics, values, or spiritual beliefs that go beyond what science can explain but for which solid scientific literacy is useful." Would you agree with that sentence?
A. Partly. I would agree that there's more to learn, but in science we have to make opinions based on data we have. And in terms of origins, we actually have a lot of data that goes against the Darwin ideas.
Q. Sir, I just asked you if you agree or disagree, yes or no, with that sentence.
A. I'm not on trial, I can't answer that yes or no.
Q. You're not on trial. Sir, you're just simply being questioned, this is not a trial. Do you agree or disagree with that sentence?
A. Partly.
Q. Were you aware that that sentence is in the Draft 2 of the standards?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You took the time to read the standards?
A. I read the parts that I considered controversial. I skipped over some of the parts that I didn't think were relevant to what I was going to discuss.
Q. Is it fair to say then that you have not read the totality of the standards?
A. That's fair to say.
Seuraavaksi Bryan Leonard kertoi kuinka hyvin hän oli tutustunut enemmistön raporttiin:
Q. Have you read the Majority Opinion, draft two of the standards?
A. The Majority, no, sir.
Q. You have been brought to Kansas to challenge the Majority Opinion and you have not taken the time to read it?
A. I read the part of the Minority Report that --
Q. I didn't ask you about the Minority. Listen carefully to my question. Have you read the Majority Opinion and the answer was no?
A. Yes.
Q. And the follow-up question is, you have been brought to Kansas to tell us how educate-- how we should educate our Kansas children and you have not bothered to take the time to read the Majority Opinion. Correct?
A. Again, yes-- no, I have not read the Majority Opinion.

Ja kun koululautakunnan jäsen Abrams kysyy Leonardilta kumpi kanta on hänen mielestä parempi, tapahtui seuraavaa:

Q. (By Chairman Abrams) Concerning the Minority Report and the corresponding areas in the Majority, do you have an opinion concerning which will allow a curriculum that will help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist?
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: I'm sorry, sir, can you repeat the question, I did not hear you?
Q. (By Chairman Abrams) Concerning the Minority Report and the corresponding Majority Report, do you have an opinion concerning which will allow a curriculum which will help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist?
A. I think that's-- the Minority Report shows that. Again, showing both sides of the fence. That's something I've been doing. I'm experienced in doing that and, again, the research data strongly supports that this is something that's going to benefit, again, the students. That's basically our goal, trying to increase the students' knowledge as it goes to evolution.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, if I may, just as point of order, I would ask that that answer be stricken from the record. He did not compare the Majority or Minority opinion if he has not read the Majority.
MR. CALVERT: I would disagree with that, because the Minority Report contains changes in context and so those changes reflect what the Majority Report proposes with respect to that issue and the precise suggested change. And I think it's wholly disingenuous for this counsel to be badgering these witnesses because they have not read the four corners of the document.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: It's the least they can do for Kansas children, counsel.
A. Again, my research has suggested that I don't think there's much of big difference between Ohio students and Kansas students. I haven't lived out here, but, again, the research basically says the students will benefit from it, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Thank you, Mr. Leonard.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, that was the reason I stated the question, the Minority Report and the corresponding, because I understood your question when he answered he did not read the entire document.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: He told me he did not read it.

IDeistit olivat pyytäneet useita asiantuntijoita selittämään miksi vähemmistön raportti on parempi lapsille, mutta he eivät kuitenkaan lukeneet enemmistön raporttia kokonaisuudessaan. Ehkä tämä selittää miksi he esittivät vihjailuja ateismista, humanismista ja naturalismista. Niitä ei ole enemmistön teksteissä ja koulujen standardeissa.
Kansasissa tapahtui myös jotain muuta jännää. Itse Stephen C. Meyer suostui vastaamaan Irigonegaray kysymyksiin. Mutta kerron siitä ensi kerralla.