Comments for Topeka
1717 SW Topeka Blvd
(NE corner of the Expocenter grounds)
7:00 - 8:30 pm (but show up early)
My name is Joshua Rosenau, I'm a graduate student in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at KU.
I want to thank the committee for these public hearings. Like many people here, I'm disappointed that the Board has circumvented these open meetings in order to push their ideas through.
The recommendations that the committee made in Draft 1 of the revised standards are an excellent and honest description of science as it is practiced. In contrast, the minority report is a distortion of the definition and practice of science, and I hope the Board accepts the draft you've approved.
The minority report would falsely insert supernatural explanations into the definition of science. Scientists look for testable explanations of the world. Evolution is accepted and used by scientists because it generates testable hypotheses and predictions, and those predictions are consistently borne out.
To demonstrate this, compare two web pages, The Evolution Project and The Non-Evolution Project. At the first, we catalog research demonstrating or relying on evolution. The second would collect biological research which demonstrating or relying on the supernatural. In the last week, The Evolution Project has collected nearly 300 pieces of research published since January. The Non-Evolution Project is still waiting for its first submission.
The research highlighted at the Evolution Project ranges from hypotheses about Martian life, to the process of speciation, the evolution of the eye, and treatments for Huntington's disease, schizophrenia, and leukemia. None of those researchers could have achieved their results with theories about supernatural designers, or without understanding and applying evolutionary science.