It would appear that the end of the battle over evolution and intelligent design in Kansas schools soon will reach its inevitable conclusion with the adoption of new science standards which will permit – at least for the next two years – the teaching of intelligent design and downplay the significance of evolution. Certainly, from my perspective, and the perspective of many Kansans, this is an unfortunate result, but it is a result that was preordained as soon as the conservatives on the Kansas State Board of Education achieved a majority.

It is equally unfortunate, in my opinion, that the world was treated to the hearings that took place over the past several weeks. I can see no way in which those proceedings and the attendant publicity thereupon will help Kansas, and it may well significantly hurt efforts to bring high technology companies to the state. Nevertheless, I am a realist. As the old saying goes, there’s no point in “crying over spilt milk.” But I also believe that it would be a mistake simply to sit back and wait until the next electoral round and hope for a changed majority on the state board.

It is obvious that there are a significant number of Kansans who support the adoption of new standards that downplay the scientific significance of evolutionary theory. The adoption of the new standards will now create a situation where some school systems will teach little or no evolutionary theory and add intelligent design theory and others will, while doing what they must to comply with the new standards, maintain as much good science and teaching of evolution as they can.

The question is, for me, how can these latter schools be encouraged and how can students in these schools be protected, when applying to colleges and universities, from being tainted by outsiders’ beliefs that no Kansas high school graduates have been taught evolution? I think that there is an answer.

For decades, colleges and universities have voluntarily submitted themselves to outside evaluation by accrediting agencies. By submitting they agree to maintain certain quality standards and to permit accrediting agencies frequent access to ensure that these standards are being upheld. In exchange for such voluntary compliance, universities and colleges that achieve accreditation may then advertise this fact to potential students and faculty. In effect, they gain the accreditation agency’s seal of approval. I would suggest that this is precisely the sort of process which now needs to be established here in Kansas as regards science curricula in high schools.

A number of university faculty and administrators across the state have openly voiced their opposition to the new, anti-evolution standards about to be adopted. They can now do something concrete to protect good science in Kansas high schools. Our universities and their faculty can establish a voluntary association for Kansas high schools who wish to continue to teach evolution as good science. University faculty could serve on accrediting panels and study high school curricula and visit high school classes to ensure that good science is being taught.

When they find that this is so, they could then give these high schools a “sign of approval” that high schools could advertise and place on student transcripts so that all institutions of higher learning to which their graduates might apply would know that these graduates had adequate scientific training in high school. No high school would have to join this association and no high school would have to seek accreditation. It would be entirely voluntary. But those who chose to do so, could. And in so doing could protect their reputations and their students.

Such a voluntary association and accrediting process would not be without costs. Most of the costs, however, would be in faculty time and this could be contributed by the faculty. If we, at Kansas universities, truly do believe that high school science education must be protected, then we should be willing to put our own time on the line. I’ll be glad to be the first to volunteer.

–