Right off the Poo Poo platter of ignorance:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Jul/28/ln/ln06a.html Posted on: Saturday, July 28, 2001

BOE plan would add creationism

By Jennifer Hiller
Advertiser Education Writer

Some members of the state Board of Education are open to discussing the introduction of creationism in Hawai'i's public schools even though the proposal will likely ignite a firestorm in the community.

The political and religious implications of changing the language in the new science performance standards that relate to evolution — the basic principle of teaching the life sciences in Hawai'i from kindergarten through 12th grade — are likely to produce an academic and constitutional battle.

The issue of evolution versus creationism pits the theory that living things evolved from earlier species against the biblical theory that God created humans essentially in their current forms. Although it is hotly debated in some areas on the Mainland, the issue has not been dealt with in Hawai'i so far.

Board members Thursday will discuss changing the language in the new science performance standards that relate to evolution. The proposal would emphasize biological evolution as a theory among theories. It would also require that high school students be taught that there are multiple theories of origin.

Board member Denise Matsumoto, chair of the Regular Education Committee that has approved the changes this week, said she suggested it because she was bothered by the science performance standards' current language.

The DOE's science adviser or other science teachers were not consulted about the possible change in policy, she said.

"My concern was that we were teaching this as a fact and not as a theory," Matsumoto said. "Evolution hasn't been validated by any concrete evidence. I had a concern about it being taught as a fact and the only way the world began. It wasn't that the department was mandating that creationism be taught. (Evolution) needs to be a theory amongst other theories. How in depth you go would depend on the individual teacher."

According to Hawai'i's standards, graduating students should be able to explain the molecular and anatomical evidence for evolution, evaluate the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change over time and explain the basic idea of biological evolution.

Although the proposed change in policy does not mention the word "creationism," Matsumoto has offered that as the competing theory to evolution.

Sheila Conant, professor of zoology at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, said she was dismayed to hear about the possible change.

"There is no scientific data to support creationism," Conant said. "That's my view as a zoologist. There isn't any question in the minds of the greater scientific community that evolution takes place. It would be a great disservice to the students of Hawai'i to teach, number one, that creationism is a scientific theory and number two, that it is equally deserving of consideration in the schools."

Conant said opening up the discussion of creationism in a science class also would require that schools teach other religious beliefs about the origin of the Earth and humanity in science classes, which she said are an inappropriate forum. Evolution is distinguished from those by its basis in a large body of scientific evidence, she said.

"Evolution is the unifying thread in the biological sciences," she said. "To say it's just a theory among theories is grossly inaccurate in my opinion."

More than a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot teach creationism.

Matsumoto, however, said there is no "missing link" to explain evolution. She also said there are differing beliefs about the Big Bang theory and the age of the Earth, which she said people believe can range from billions of years old to just 8,000 years old — a belief held by many creationists.

"I just feel like it's not that big of deal if you want to teach it as a theory among other theories," she said. "If they think it's a good theory then they shouldn't be concerned about other theories being taught."

Ed Clark, president of the Hawai'i chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said he is not surprised that the issue came up, but that it made it out of committee so quickly.

"It would cause an enormous stink," Clark said. "Hawai'i is not of one philosophical or religious persuasion as the South is. We have religious and ethnic diversity to a great extent."

Even so, no religious viewpoints should be taught, Clark said. "Science must be taught in our schools without conflicting ideology interfering." Board member Carol Gabbard said she is uncertain of how the proposal would be implemented, but that her initial reaction is that there would be no constitutional issues raised by mentioning the existence of other theories.

"The most important thing that I think students can learn in school is critical thinking," she said. "Debating the origins of life would be very valuable in this regard, as long as no certain religion is pushed."

Board members, however, appear conflicted about how much time would be given to teaching other theories of origin or whether they would simply be mentioned as a part of the teaching of evolutionary biology.

Board member Karen Knudsen said her understanding was that evolutionary biology would be taught as a theory of science and not a fact. "They should teach the predominant theory as the predominant theory," she said.

Knudsen did not see any controversy in the idea. "I would like to not see it sensationalized, but at the same time I know this is a hot topic," she said.

But board member Sherwood Hapa said that exclusively teaching evolution is a mistake. "Young people should be exposed to the creation, evolution, Darwinism and the different kind of thoughts that are coming out now," Hapa said. "One should not be promoted over another."

The schools also should be careful about using the word "evolution," he said. "To bring focus on evolution to me is the department promoting one perspective. I think we need to be careful in terms of the board promulgating a perspective like that."

The National Academy of Sciences calls evolution the most important theory in modern biology, and urges schools to teach it.

Hawai'i's policy of teaching biological evolution in the public schools won it an "A" grade on a December report card from the Thomas Fordham Foundation, a privately endowed Washington research and policy organization.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina also received an "A" for introducing at least some of the basic processes of biological evolution early, building on them later and making evolution the centerpiece of the life sciences.

DOE spokesman Greg Knudsen said evolution would remain the foundation of the district's science curriculum. Students begin to learn about evolution by the third grade in Hawai'i.

The debate over teaching evolution and creationism is as old as the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species," which stated that species arise and develop through the natural selection of inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to survive and reproduce.

In the famous 1925 Scopes trial, also known as the "Monkey Trial," Rhea County High School science teacher John Scopes was accused and convicted of teaching the theory of evolution to Tennessee students.

As recently as 1999, a national debate on the issue centered on Kansas when state education officials voted to stop teaching the theory of evolution altogether, as well as the "Big Bang" and all references to the age of the Earth.

Kansas is one of a handful of states — including Arizona, Alabama, Illinois, New Mexico, Texas and Nebraska — where, in recent years, school boards have attempted to take evolution out of state education standards or de-emphasize the theory.

The Board of Education will meet at 7 p.m. Thursday in the Queen Lili'uokalani Building.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Answers

Luckily, the Bd. of Ed. ended the matter in days and made sure they didn't join Kansas as one of the Know-Little States.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Aug/03/ln/ln01a.html/?p
Posted on: Friday, August 3, 2001

Board votes against creationism in school

Do you think creationism should be taught in Hawai'i's public schools? Join our discussion.

By Jennifer Hiller and Jessica Webster
Advertiser Staff Writers

After more than three hours of debate, the Board of Education voted unanimously last night to keep evolution as the only theory of origin taught in Hawai'i classrooms.

Most of the people at last night's Board of Education meeting rejected the idea of public schools teaching creationism as a competing theory to evolution. The meeting was at the Queen Lili'uokalani Building downtown. Cory Lum • The Honolulu Advertiser

More than 100 people signed up to speak at the meeting — but only 55 of them addressed the board members.

At times, Darwin stickers and theatrics dominated the discussion. People overflowed into the hallways where speakers projected the sounds of the debate.

More than 200 people turned out for the meeting. Most of the those lining the hallway at the Queen Lili'uokalani Building downtown said they didn't want to see creationism taught alongside evolution in science courses in Hawai'i's public schools.

The Board of Education was considering allowing multiple theories of origin besides evolution to be taught in the classroom. Evolution is the basic theory used in Hawai'i to teach the life sciences to students in kindergarten through 12th grade.

Hawaii State Teachers Association president Karen Ginoza said both theories — evolution and creationism — have a place in schools, but evolution should be taught in science and creation should be taught in literature, social studies or history classes.

"There is a place, but not in science," she said.

Prior to public testimony, board member Denise Matsumoto, who has been considered the driver of these plans, made clear that she did not steer the issue.

"I did not act alone ... the committee voted," she said. "But the committee never intended for creationism to be taught."

The proposed change in policy does not mention the word "creationism," but Matsumoto had offered "creationism" as a competing theory to evolution last week.

Some people present last night toted the Bible and books on creation. Others carried Darwin, science textbooks and theories of relativism. Many wore "Darwin" stickers, and science-praising T-shirts.

And those representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i and the Hawai'i Citizens for Separation of State and Church, swapped ideas about possible legal action should the board change the policy.

Several creationism supporters said they felt silenced by the evolutionists, and Matsumoto was disparaged in low-tone mumbling.

Mililani science teacher Sandy Ingraham, who stood clutching two life and earth science textbooks, emphasized that evolution and creationism shouldn't be saddled together.

"I'm a Christian," she said. "I go to church to practice my faith and I get up every morning to teach science. And I know the difference."

Ingraham said there are "practical" reasons for teaching evolution, and she wants her students to understand the necessity of saving endangered species and fighting resistant bacteria.

But computer scientist and Christian minister Robart Morgan said all he wants is fair space for his perspective. He said he is aghast at the way creationists have been portrayed in the media.

"What happened to a free exchange of ideas?" Morgan said. "There is a lot of unfair and unwarranted criticism of creationists, and they deserve respect for their viewpoints. There's a lot of good and bad science out there. I'm just tired of all the evolutionists chortling at the creationists, calling it bad science."

William Geyman, who calls himself a student of Biblical prophecy, said the "slant and bias" are always toward the theory of evolution.

"I personally feel evolution is a false theory for a variety of reasons, and I would like to see creationism offered as a viable body of knowledge," he said. "I'm not sure what form it ought to be in, and it does require some faith. But so does evolution."

In one dramatic display, Jody Haworth pulled out $5,000 in cash to make his point, and said anyone who could prove molecular evolution by creating a living cell out of dead matter could have the money.

The issue of evolution versus creationism pits the theory that living things evolved from earlier species against the biblical theory that God created humans essentially in their present forms. Although it is hotly debated in some areas on the Mainland, the issue has not been dealt with in schools in Hawai'i until now.

The board office was deluged with phone calls all week about the proposal. University of Hawai'i science faculty members fired off letters and organized petitions against the proposal, and the Hawai'i Citizens for the Separation of State and Church promised a federal lawsuit if the board approved the new language.

A packet of e-mails, letters and faxed testimony greeted board members before the meeting.

The Department of Education's science adviser and other science teachers were not consulted about the possible change in policy.

More than a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot teach creationism, and the National Academy of Sciences calls evolution the most important theory in modern biology, and urges schools to teach it.

The debate over teaching evolution and creationism is as old as the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species," which stated that species arise and develop through the natural selection of inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to survive and reproduce.

As recently as 1999, a national debate on the issue centered on Kansas when education officials there voted to stop teaching the theory of evolution altogether, as well as the "Big Bang" and all references to the age of the Earth.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

Says it all:
Mililani science teacher Sandy Ingraham, who stood clutching two life and earth science textbooks, emphasized that evolution and creationism shouldn't be saddled together.

"I'm a Christian," she said. "I go to church to practice my faith and I get up every morning to teach science. And I know the difference."
Ingraham said there are "practical" reasons for teaching evolution, and she wants her students to understand the necessity of saving endangered species and fighting resistant bacteria.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

[William Geyman said "...I would like to see creationism offered as a viable body of knowledge."]

Is this a joke? Creationism consists of only two parts -- rote recitation of scripture, and deliberately dishonest misrepresentations of evolution. Nowhere can anyone find a "viable body of knowledge" ANYWHERE in creationism. No data, no logic, no possibility of disproof. This "explains" observation no better than psychics pick lottery winners.

One has to wonder how this "body of knowledge" would be taught. Perhaps "Everyone chant this bible verse until committed to memory"? After all, creationism fails every single test a true theory must meet. Surely someone in a genuine science class would notice this.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

GONG. Turns out there are more than one form of 'creationism'. That should come as a shock to the little ones of the world.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5200_creationism_ideology_an d_sci_6_24_1996.asp

Creationism, Ideology, and Science
by Eugenie C. Scott

Many causes and movements were discussed during the "Flight from Science and Reason" conference. Most reject science as a way of knowing, or denigrate logic or reason. Creationism differs in some important ways: supporters are science fans, not detractors, and they believe science is useful, important, and something that students should be exposed to. But creation science illustrates extremely well one of the themes of "The Flight from Science and Reason" conference: the ignoring or denying of empirically-based knowledge when it conflicts with ideology. Opinions and values are more important than facts and reason, which is shown in their selective choice of data to accept or to reject. Whereas T. H. Huxley warned of the Naturalistic Fallacy of assuming that what is, is what ought to be, creation scientists, like extreme Afrocentrists, radical feminists and several others discussed at the "Flight from Reason" conference, apparently see what ought to be as what is.

In this paper, I will first discuss who the creationists are, stressing the many varieties of creationism and how they differ in their approaches to both science and theology. I will discuss a brief history of the movement, the emergence of creation "science" and also the current, "neocreationism" period. I suggest that a characteristic of neocreationism is the rise of more moderate antievolutionists, some of whom are located on secular campuses. Some of these argue that a "Christian perspective" is equivalent to a "feminist perspective", or a "Marxist perspective", or some similar approach extant on campuses today, and thus deserves a place in the curriculum.

The presence of so many "isms" on college campuses today begs the question, "what happens when ideologies become 'scholarly perspectives?'" Can there be a "Christian perspective" that is truly scholarly? I discuss reasons why I am doubtful that a supernatural ideology, especially, can be consistently scholarly.

I then discuss the importance to public science literacy of teaching evolution and suggest some ways that university and professional scientists may assist in this important endeavor. To do so will require teachers to distinguish between where science leaves off and philosophy begins.

CREATIONISM, BIBLICAL LITERALISM, AND ANTIEVOLUTION

There is not one creationism, but many varieties, ranging from strict Biblical literalist young-earth creationism, through a variety of old- earth creationisms ("Gap Creation;" "Day-Age Creationism"), to progressive creationism, to continuous creationism, to theistic evolutionism. Specific terms may have slightly different connotations depending on who is using them, but in general, young-earth creationism is concerned with the universe being created at one time, within the last 10,000 years. Noah's Flood is an essential element to both young-earth theology and science. It was an historical occurrance, wherein water covered the whole globe. During the year the Flood waters receded, all the geological features of the world (such as the Grand Canyon, the Himalayas, etc.) were established. Old-earth creationists accept modern geology and radiometric dating and an old earth. Among them, "Gap creationism" allows for there to have been a long period of time before the six days of creation described in Genesis (Numbers, 1992), or alternately for the six days in Genesis to be separated by thousands or hundreds of thousands of years of time. "Day-Age creationism" accommodates some of modern geology by claiming that each of the six days in Genesis is actually an immensely long period of time.

In "progressive creationism," God created the original species, but subsequently they have "progressed" by diverging (i.e., evolving) into new forms. The Flood is considered a local, not a universal event. "Continuous creationism" and "theistic evolutionism" are further along the continuum, referring to a Christian perspective that accepts a considerable amount of evolution. In continuous creationism, God plays a very active role in directing the evolution from the created kinds. Theistic evolution in the most general sense is the idea that God created, but through the process of evolution. By and large, theistic evolutionism accepts the evidence of science, and fine-tunes the theology if necessary. The Flood of Noah is not an historical event, but a metaphor of the importance of obedience to God, and ultimately of God's love for humankind. Theology varies as to how involved God is in guiding the evolutionary process.

The above continuum is largely organized by the degree of biblical literalism, with theistic evolutionism (the perspective of most mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church) being the least literal. It can also be organized as a continuum of how much of modern science is accepted, with the young-earth creationists being the most out of touch. Some theistic evolutionists, especially those of a more Deistic inclination (God created the universe and its laws, and left it to operate without further intervention), are scarcely distinguishable from nonreligious evolutionists, which is why the conservative Christian world with its stress on a personal God, often speaks harshly of theistic evolutionism.

Whether God created is therefore in fact not the main issue in the creation/evolution controversy, since "God created" does not rule out the possibility that God created through the process of evolution. Catholics, mainline Protestant denominations, and Reformed, Conservative, Reconstructionist, and most Orthodox Jews hold to some form of theistic evolution (see McCollister, 1989, for examples.) The term "special creationist" has come to refer to the belief that God created according to a literal interpretation of Genesis: the universe was created all at one time, in essentially its present form.

Special creationists, especially at the more conservative end of this continuum, are fundamentally antievolutionists. They believe that evolution is an evil idea that children should be protected from. Their theology says that if evolution occurred, then God did not create mankind specially. Mankind, then, is not particularly special to God, which makes the Fall of Adam and Eve irrelevant. Without Adam and Eve's sin, the death of Christ is irrelevant -- and the death of Christ is the foundational event of Christian theology. Everything in Christianity, in this view, relies on the literal truth of Genesis: six 24-hour days of creation, a flesh and blood Adam and Eve, a literal Noah's Flood, and so on. If evolution is true, then, salvation itself is in jeopardy, for how can Revelations be true if the rest of the Bible is not? To protect children from evolution is to save their souls; obviously, a powerful motivator.

A secondary motivation is to prevent society from going further downhill, believing as they do that evolution (because it supposedly denies God) removes the source of morality. As Henry Morris, arguably the most influential creationist of the late 20th century puts it, Evolution is at the foundation of communism, fascism, Freudianism, social darwinism, behaviorism, Kinseyism, materialism, atheism, and in the religious world, modernism and neo-orthodoxy. Jesus said "A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit". In view of the bitter fruit yielded by the evolutionary system over the past hundred years, a closer look at the nature of the tree itself is well warranted today. (Morris, 1963:24) This is not evolution as seen by scientists. Evolution is the idea that the universe today is different from what it has been in the past: that change through time has occurred. Regarding organic evolution, the evolution of plants and animals, the conclusion is reached that living things share common ancestors in the past from which they are different. Darwin called organic evolution "descent with modification", and it is still a useful phrase. Morris' and mainline science's two contrasting perceptions of evolution illustrate again how ideology shapes interpretation of empirical data.

The antievolution movement has had a long history in the United States, dating from the first introduction of Darwin's ideas during the latter part of the 19th century. Creation "science" is only a recent manifestation of this antievolutionism. CREATION "SCIENCE"

Creation "science" is a movement of largely biblical literalist Christians who seek to get evolution out of the public school curriculum. They differ from other antievolutionists in their attempt to demonstrate the truth of a literal biblical interpretation of Genesis using data and theory from science -- not just through theology. The Young Earth creationists are the most numerous, but many old earth creationists use scientific arguments as well.

Although attempts to "prove" the literal truth of the Bible have been around since the 19th century, the most recent version of this approach hails from the mid 1960's, stimulated by the publication of John Whitcomb and Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood (1961) and the founding of both the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. Why the 1960's? The answer is simple: the post-Sputnik science education panic of the late 1950's and 1960's resulted in improved textbooks that returned evolution to the curriculum at levels not seen since before the Scopes Trial of 1925 (Numbers, 1992). Giving an extra nudge to the process was the Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas, which overthrew antievolution laws such as Tennessee's under which John T. Scopes had been tried.

With evolution no longer able to be banned, antievolutionists developed the strategy that its "evil effects" could be ameliorated by teaching biblical Christianity alongside it. Because the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly disallows advocating sectarian religious views in the classroom, "scientific" creationism was developed to be an alternate scientific view that could be taught as a secular subject. During the 1970's and early 1980's, creationists campaigned to pass "equal time" laws wherein creation science would be mandated whenever evolution was taught. This approach had to be abandoned when the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that creationism was inherently a religious concept, and that to advocate it as correct, or accurate, would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But Justice Brennen's decision left a couple of loopholes that antievolutionists have been exploiting ever since (Scott, 1994). Subsequently, antievolutionism has evolved into new forms which are characterized by the avoidance of any variant of the "c word"; phrases like "intelligent design theory", or "abrupt appearance theory" are used instead of "creation science", "creationism", and related terms. I call this newest stage of antievolutionism "Neocreationism".

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

That is a "good thing" as Maaartha would say. For just as certain as the fact that you can't put 4 Baptists into the same room without expecting a new church to be formed by at least one of them because of "doctrinal differences", we can look forward to the same effect taking place with the assorted "creationists". Ultimately, this will allow their real enemy, those Devil Worshipping Secular Humanists to gain.

Funniest part of this is that Gary North (another Biblical Literalist) calls Isaac Newton the founder of Secular Humanism but the little one cites Newton as a believer in the creation story. Newton is probably laughing at both of them.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001

http://starbulletin.com/2001/08/03/news/story1.html Friday, August 3, 2001

KEN IGE / KIGE@STARBULLETIN.COM
Board of Education member Denise Matsumoto
addressed the gathering before the meeting last night.

---

Ed board rejects
Bible as science

The BOE votes unanimously
against teaching multiple
theories of origin

---

By Crystal Kua
ckua@starbulletin.com

Multiple theories on the origin of life such as Bible- based creationism will not be taught in public school science classes alongside evolution as the result of a state Board of Education decision last night.

The board voted unanimously to delete language from performance standards for science that were added in committee -- language that would have opened the door to the teaching of creationism as another scientific theory.

"The original science standards will be intact," Board Chairman Herbert Watanabe said.

The vote came after three hours of testimony by those in favor of evolution and creationism.

"Religious views of creation is not science, and it can never be," said Chris Measures, University of Hawaii professor of oceanography. "We do not teach alchemy alongside chemistry nor astrology alongside physics; neither should we teach creationism in the biology classroom."

The testimony came in a debate over whether to include language in the state science performance standards to require students to identify "multiple theories of origin" as well as the theory of evolution.

In an unusual move, Watanabe allowed board member Denise Matsumoto to address the crowd before the start of the public testimony.

Matsumoto's Regular Education Committee gave initial approval to the science standards with the "multiple theories of origin language."

She said people have been "attacking" her for the move. "The committee never intended for creationism to be taught, and neither did I."

KEN IGE / KIGE@STARBULLETIN.COM
Robert Morgan, left, testified that "the creationist view
should be given a chance to be heard instead of contempt."

---

But at last week's committee meeting, Matsumoto offered creationism as another theory.

Scientists led the charge against creationism in the science classroom.

Michael Garcia, a UH professor of geology and president of the Hawaii Academy of Science, testified that his organization supports well-established scientific theories including the evolution of life.

Hawaii State Teachers Association President Karen Ginoza said that evolution and creationism should be taught in the public schools, but evolution -- and not creationism -- should be taught in the science classroom.

More than 50 people testified, and the board received more than 200 written comments.

Some in the standing-room-only boardroom wore T-shirts with the word "Darwin" -- as in Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution was being debated - - written within the outline of a fish with feet on it. The T-shirt design is a take off of the traditional Christian symbol of a fish.

Sue Arakawa testified that people choose to believe in evolution just like creationism. "Both views are religious in nature."

Robert A. Morgan called himself a creationist and said: "I was especially disturbed at the assertion that evolution is based on hard science while creation is based on bad science and whimsical faith. In reality, they are both equally viable theories of origin."

"As a pastor, I don't want your teachers teaching my kids about religion," the Rev. Mike Young said.

"Creationism and the flat Earth is not good science, and it's not very good theology," the Rev. Sam Cox said.

School board member Carol Gabbard said she would propose adding language to the science standards as a compromise, but did not present the board with the proposal last night.

Before the board meeting, she said it is proper to require a student to analyze and explain "the evidence which goes against or is critical of the theories of molecular evolution, natural selection and biological evolution."

KEN IGE / KIGE@STARBULLETIN.COM
Mitchell Kahle, above, testified against creationism
at last night's hearing, saying that science is not
to be feared, but revered.

---

A week ago, the board's Regular Education Committee approved language for proposed state science performance standards that would require students to identify "multiple theories of origin," not just evolution. The word "creationism" is not specifically mentioned.

In another paragraph, a reference to having students explain the basic idea of "biological evolution" was replaced with students having to explain "the basic idea of the multiple theories of origin."

The changes were made after Matsumoto complained that proposed science standards presented Charles Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection as fact rather than opinion.

Matsumoto, along with committee members Karen Knudsen, Donna Ikeda, Keith Sakata, Sherwood Hara, voted for the proposed science standards at last week's meeting. All five voted against the language last night.

The board approved two years ago revised standards for academic content, which set out what a child should know. Performance standards would gauge how well the students learn the subjects. Tests will be given to see if the students are meeting those standards.

The Hawaii Department of Education received a grade of "A" from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in December for the treatment of evolution in the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards.

The author of that report said that if the "multiple theories of origin" language had stayed in, Hawaii could expect its grade to diminish.

"It certainly will hurt," Lawrence Lerner, professor emeritus with the College of Natural Sciences & Mathematics at California State University at Long Beach, said by telephone.

Lerner called evolution the central organizing principle of biology, and he has seen language like the kind before the board being proposed by proponents of creationism across the country.

"It's really just an entree to creationism nonsense," Lerner said. "It stops students from learning basic science and biology."

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2001