KCFS Home | KCFS News and Resources | Discussion Forums (Archived) | Contact Us | Join KCFS | Subscribe | About Us
April 1st, 2006

Evolution Benchmark, ST3, BM3, GR 8-12

Grades 8-12

– The student will develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.

Benchmark 3: The student will understand biological evolution.

Read the rest of this entry »

April 1st, 2006

The Nature of Science, ST 7, BM 2, GR 8-12

From the Recommended Standards

Grades 8-12

STANDARD 7: HISTORY AND NATURE OF SCIENCE – The student will develop understanding of science as a human endeavor, the nature of scientific knowledge, and historical perspectives.

Benchmark 2: The student will develop an understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Read the rest of this entry »

April 1st, 2006

The Nature of Science, from the Introduction to the Recommended Standards

From the Introduction to the Recommended Standards

Nature of Science
Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.It is important to note that science cannot answer all questions. Some questions are simply beyond the parameters of science. Among the conditions that help define the boundaries of scientific explanations are the following:

  • Scientific explanations are based on empirical observations or experiments. The appeal to authority as a valid explanation does not meet the requirements of science. Observations are based on sense experiences or on an extension of the senses through technology.
  • Scientific explanations assume cause-effect relationships. Much of science is directed toward determining causal relationships and developing explanations for interactions and linkages between objects, organisms, and events. Distinctions among causality, correlation, coincidence, and contingency separate science from pseudoscience.
  • Scientific explanations are tentative. Explanations can and do change. There are no scientific truths in an absolute sense.
  • Scientific explanations are historical. Past explanations are the basis for contemporary explanations, and those, in turn, are the basis for future explanations.
  • Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining the likelihood of events in actual situations.
  • Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific explanations sometimes are limited by technology, for example, the resolving power of microscopes and telescopes. New technologies can result in new fields of inquiry or extend current areas of study. The interactions between technology and advances in molecular biology and the role of technology in planetary explorations serve as examples.
  • Scientific explanations are made public. Scientists make presentations at scientific meetings or publish in professional journals, making knowledge public and available to other scientists.

Hypothesis, law, and theory are frequently misunderstood terms used in science. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to design experiments and to build more complex inferences and explanations. A law is a descriptive generalization based on repeated observations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that incorporates observations, inferences, laws, well-tested hypotheses and experimental findings to explain a specific aspect of the natural world. Theories drive research because they draw attention to areas where data or understandings are incomplete, suggesting additional directions for research.

Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as additional evidence becomes available and/or as new technologies extends our abilities to explore. This open-endedness of science is its greatest strength, and allows for constant refining and improvement of explanations. Although all scientific knowledge is in principle tentative, science has a high degree of confidence in explanations that have been repeatedly tested and shown to be valid. The effect of these criteria is to ensure that scientific explanations about the world can be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. The willingness of scientists to change explanations based on evidence, actually results in more reliable information. The early 21st century is a time of quite rapid scientific advancement, characterized by a high rate of both discovery and accumulation of knowledge. Rather then developing “new” theories however, the current explosion of knowledge has greatly expanded the basic and well-accepted principles from physics, chemistry, earth sciences, and biological sciences. Scientists recognize that there will always be new frontiers of science.

April 1st, 2006

Final Recommendations of the Science Standards Writing Committee

In November, 2005, the state Board of Education adopted science standards which included most of the suggested revisions made by the Intelligent Design Minority on the Science Standards Writing Committee. In response, the committee voted to have their names taken off of the state standards, as the standards no longer represent the views of mainstream science nor of the majority of the committee.

The committee then continued to meet privately, without the blessing or endorsement of the BOE, to work on finishing the standards by responding to suggestions made by McRel and the Fordham Foundation. A copy of this set of final recommendations for the standards can be downloaded here.

The committee, as well as KCFS, encourages school districts to use these Recommended standards rather than the state standards. If you are interested in discussing having your school district adopt these Recommendations, please email us at kcfs@kcfs.org and we’ll get back with you.

March 10th, 2006

Download the *Recommended* Kansas Science Standards

Download the good standards here

These recommendations are the recommendations of the majority of the appointed (Science Standards) committee and reflected the recommendations that would have been made to the State Board of Education if the process had been allowed to continue.