Commentary: It's Science Because I Said So, pt. II

Here we go again. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a non-profit policy group in Washington, DC, has issued a report card grading each state's science standards, and, no surprise here, Kansas gets an F. Why do I say no surprise? Because any time any mention of intelligent design is made in science standards, the pro-evolution camp in the scientific community (which is the larger and more vocal part) circles the wagons and unleashes venomous rhetoric against any supporters of intelligent design. When challenged for a why, the reply inevitably boils down to something like "Evolution is science because we say so. Intelligent design is not because we don't want it to be." Therefore, anyone who teaches anything other than evolution in a dogmatic way is going to get a failing grade.
So, not surprisingly, Kansas gets an F. And, as also might be expected, I disagree with the grade wholeheartedly.
The reason the institute gave for the failing grade was the de-emphasizing of evolution. According to them, because of this, Kansas is now failing in the teaching of science to our children. Yet this reasoning is flawed. Science consists of far more than just biology. It includes physics and chemistry, to name two aspects, and both of these have nothing to do with evolution. In other words, the overall teaching of science has not been compromised. Newton's Second Law (Force = mass times acceleration) is still valid, regardless of whether humans evolved from monkeys. Water is still composed of hydrogen and oxygen, regardless of whether life began as single-cell protozoa. And that's to say nothing of the "soft" sciences such as psychology, sociology, etc. Therefore, the real problem the institute has is not with the teaching of most science in the Kansas schools. It's merely with evolution, a small component of science.
Is one aspect of one part of science so critical to everything that its removal warrants an F? The institute seems to think so. In its report, it claims that by de-emphasizing evolution, the Kansas School Board has "obfuscat[ed] the entire basis on which biology rests." This is good rhetoric, but it is bad science. De-emphasizing evolution does not affect the other sciences, as I've previously mentioned. Even within biology, though, most of the science is unaffected when evolution is removed. Cellular biology, species classification, human biology, anatomy, and every aspect of biology, except for the origin question, is unaffected by the removal of evolution. For example, house cats are classified in a certain genus and a certain species (felis catus). This classification does not depend on evolving from a common ancestor, but rather on the genetic and physiological traits that cats share with other felines, such as lions and leopards. So, as far as species classification, removing evolution has no effect on biology. This is only one example. Removing evolution, in other words, does not undermine biology as the report claims.
So, should Kansas get an F for the teaching of science? Abolutely not! As I have shown, the teaching of science has hardly been weakened. Instead, I think it has been improved, because once again, students learn that theories are based upon observation, not merely dogma. Kansas should get an A for allowing valid scientific criticisms of evolution to be presented. For too many years, evolution has been taught without mentioning any of the problems with the theory. It's time for students to be taught the full truth about evolution, including its flaws.