Fred Cutting, a member of the framing committee who helped create the new draft of the state science standards, doesn’t like how evolution is presented in the standards. (Previous posts about Cutting here and here.) Since he’s apparently not being heard by his fellow committee members, he decided to offer his own minority report (as reported in The Gradebook). Cutting recommends a few changes. My favorite is this one:
SC.912.L.1.5 Origination of Eukaryotic Cells
Explain the extent of the evolutionary proof as demonstrated by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biogeography, molecular biology of the origin of the eukaryotic cells (endosymbiosis).†(Please note the leading nature, implied conclusion, and overstatement of data available.)Change to: “Use critical and logical thinking to explain and analyze the origin of eukaryotic cells (endosymbiosis).â€
In other words, he doesn’t like all that doggone evidence and so demands that it be erased.
I like how he says stuff like, “We thus recommend†in his report. Who is this “we†he speaks of? His name is the only one on the document.
“We thus recommend” – straight out of the Kansas playbook! Have an anti-evolution “minority report” written by a few members of the standards-writing committee, present it to the creationist school board as an option, and POOF, suddenly you have sub-standards.
FYI, Cutting has a column in today’s Tallahassee Democrat as well. In it, he explains his objections to teaching evolutionary theory to the exclusion of whatever else there is and claims that he’s not religiously motivated. He also makes some boilerplate arguments, including drawing an artificial distinction between micro- and macroevolution. He even manages to conflate the latter with abiogenesis!
Why is it always the engineers?
There’s a link to Cutting’s editorial and a rebuttal I’ve written on Hyphoid Logic. I’ve also emailed Cutting directly, notifying him of the rebuttal and inviting him to comment.