Krauze is the smartest guy in the whole wide world, and I bow to his superior intelligence. Also, he’s quite the hunk.
For an explanation of how this relates to the heavy handed tactics
of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association, go here
So Krauze, would you really apply this requirement to male and female critics equally? Not that there would be anything wrong with that.
One of the complaints
by the science groups is that the definition of science in the revised standards "could lead students to believe that supernatural explanations also may fall within the purview of science." Really? Here is the definition of science to which they object:
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
Anybody see any supernaturalism in there?
One blogger called it "scientific blackmail." I am not sure that it rises to that level, since it really functions as just an annoyance. The copyrights protect the specific expression of ideas, but not the underlying facts, ideas or concepts. In addition, the fair use provision would allow for some quotation, even without permission from these groups. Kansas just has to rewrite the standards in their own words. Perhaps the new standards that Kansas develops will set the new "standard" for other open-minded states. I expect that Kansas will not be as petty as the science groups and will share the new standards freely with other open-minded states.
Phillip Johnson calls
the action by the science groups "panicky and hysterical."