Public schools have been around in the United States for hundreds of years (Massachusetts - 1647). The first compulsory school attendance law was enacted in 1850. Public school funding has come from all levels of government but mostly from local real property taxes. Curricula has been set primarily through locally elected school boards. It has long been assumed that the education of children in the United States is the mandate / privilege of parents, largely through their control of those taxes and school boards.
    In recent years Douglas County voters rejected the school property tax, shifting school funding primarily to the state. It should have been no surprise to see control of many aspects of local school operations, including curriculum, shift to the state as well (follow the money). Douglas County parents effectively surrendered a major part of their mandate / privilege. At the same time the federal No Child Left Behind program introduced (and funded) a number of mandatory school performance criteria which, in turn, influenced significant changes in operations, testing, and even curricula (follow the money).
    In the early 1990’s the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences began to formulate K-12 national science standards. These are not governmental agencies they are private, non-profit institutions that, under congressional charter, provide science and technology advice (federal science “think tanks”).
    In 1996 the NRC published the first version of their National Science Education Standards (NSES). The goal of these standards is to define what (the NRC believes) a scientifically literate person should know and understand after 13 years of public school education. While there are continual reviews of the content of these standards, this same “elite” group very likely supplies peer reviews of suggested changes. A classic setup for “GroupThink”.
    So here we have a small group of un-elected, unaccountable, “elite” scientists and education administrators ostensibly determining exactly what it is they know is known in science and, therefore, what our children must know before they can be allowed to graduate. In a recent poll of several hundred NRC members (Nature, 1998) only 7% expressed a personal belief in God. More typical Americans, like parents of the children being taught the NRC beliefs in school, are the opposite -- 70-90% say they believe in God.
    Now if you really don’t believe in God then there simply is no way that the universe and life could have originated and developed other than through accidental or “natural” causes (“naturalism”). NRC writings clearly start with the assumption -- that leap of faith -- that there is no creator, and then proceed to marshal all the evidence they can find to support and prove that preconceived notion. From time to time they even admit that they have no real idea how something might work but they know (for a fact) that they will one day uncover the natural explanation -- because there is simply is no other way it could have happened.
    A Webster definition of religion: “a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” There are two systems of belief expressed with ardor and faith in the NSES, atheism (no creator) and naturalism (all by accident). Therefore, the NSES dealing with origins and evolution do not represent the teachings of objective science but that of personal beliefs -- the negative religion of atheism and the positive religion of naturalism.
    The First Amendment allows “no law respecting an establishment of religion” (teaching in the public schools). By the above definition that includes religions advocating a creator, those denying a creator, and those advocating naturalism. None of those can be considered scientific fact because none are falsifiable. So, it might be said that it is unconstitutional to teach the NSES in our public schools.
    There is no federal mandate requiring that the states adopt the NSES but the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has chosen not only to accept some of the NSES but to mandate that local school districts teach to those standards. And now they are preparing to institute testing to verify that Oregon students have, in fact, been taught and learned that science to those standards (or else!).
    The teachers unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the Oregon Education Association (OEA), thoroughly endorse and support the NSES / OSES. In real life in Oregon, the NEA / OEA essentially control implementation of education standards, not only because of their “peer” status (the authority of the “science / education establishment”) but in their overwhelming financial support of appropriate elected officials (follow the money). Differences of opinion on curricula from local school administrators (if any) invite repercussions not only from the powerful NEA / OEA but from their elected “representatives” in the ODE. Local school boards are virtually powerless in this regard.
    This whole NSES thing, of course, is not teaching science it is indoctrination. (Indoctrinate: to imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view.) Nobody knows enough about such things as the origin / evolution of the non-living / living universes to force and limit the education of our children in such areas. It was just a few centuries ago that elite scientific / educational groups were demanding that we recognize and acknowledge that the earth is the center of the universe. This concept held sway as “known fact” for almost two millennia, until Galileo had the courage to openly challenge -- and was thrown in jail for his efforts.
    True science critically depends on unlimited alternatives and virtually endless logical critique. It can be said that a true scientist really “knows” nothing, He simply observes, hypothesizes, and does experiments to “prove” his hypothesis -- and then he and the rest of the scientific community try to see if it is possible to disprove it. Only if all that experimentation and study fail to do so might that theory (perhaps) be considered “known”. Any hypothesis which is immune to falsification simply cannot be considered a scientific principle. Belief in the existence or non-existence of a Creator is immune to falsification.
    And there is massive danger to our country. Our young people, our new generations of scientific researchers, will be coming out of school convinced not only of these “known facts” but that there was/is no creator. As a result they will be virtually unable to think “outside of the box”, to advance scientific understanding in these areas -- and they will feel that the whole thing has no meaning or purpose anyway (who cares?). The rest of the world does not restrict their children to the NSES, our new scientists and our country will be no match.
    There is no intent herein to teach a priori leaps of faith, of either the religious or non-religious variety. The intent here is to highlight what it is about these scientific subjects that we really do not “know” and, in some cases, to suggest possible alternatives. Guiding principle: If it is not falsifiable we do not “know” it.
    We strongly encourage young people, for their own good and for the good of our country, to look beyond the personal leaps of faith, to Recognize What We Don’t Know, and to thoroughly examine all the alternatives.