When the Kansas decision was rendered, changing the standards in the science curriculum, the outcry from the press was very loud and dramatic. Their distortions were great. The headlines screamed: "Evolution Banned in Kansas", "Creation to be Taught in Kansas" and many more. We are going to show you here exactly what the decision was and how it is an expansion of what is to be taught and not a narrowing. Here are the two standards (benchmarks).
THE OLD ONE
Benchmark 4. As a result of activities in grades 9-12, students should develop an understanding of the universe, its origin and evolution.
Indicators: The students will understand
1. Formation of the universe
Examples: The origin of the universe remains one of the greatest questions in science. The "big bang" theory places the origin between 10 and 20 billion years ago, with the universe beginning in a very dense state.
THE NEW ONE;
Benchmark 4. Students should develop an understanding of the universe. The origin of the universe remains one of the greatest questions in science. Studies of data regarding fossils, geologic tables, cosmological information are encouraged. But standards regarding origins are not mandated.
Indicators: The students will understand
2. The structure of the universe
Examples: Galaxies are found in clusters and clusters of galaxies are grouped together into super clusters
First, the change removed the "Big Bang" cosmology from being the mandated only explanation of the origin of the universe. This is a very good step since even secular cosmologists are having a great deal of trouble supporting it today. Stephen Hawking, probably the best physicist alive today, has stated he is looking for a better model.
Second the standards moved from theoretical science ("Big Bang") to observational science. This is much firmer ground since scientific data is always subject to interpretation.
Finally, since about half the US population believes in some form of creation it is only fair to allow both views to be expressed. Students must be taught to think in a critical manner rather than just repeat, by rote, dogmatic but unsubstantiated theories.