Brentwood schools curriculum on evolution: superintendent

Brentwood School District Superintendent David Faulkner on Tuesday sent 40 South News Brentwood’s curriculum regarding teaching evolution in science classes. It was in response to a request from 40 South in mid-March.

Faulkner on teaching evolution/creationism in Brentwood Schools:

The science curriculum of the Brentwood School District is in alignment with the Missouri Learning Standards in each content area. In science courses, students are asked to explain those phenomena that may be analyzed utilizing a scientific framework. Missouri Learning Standard LS4.A.1 for high school biology asks students to “Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.”

MRH had responded earlier:

“Evolution is a component of the overall science curriculum and taught as part of those classes. Creationism would be integrated as part of a larger discussion of various world religions and their respective beliefs in various social science classes.”

Candidates for the Brentwood School Board took part in a League of Women Voters forum on March 9; one question they were asked was how evolution vs. creationism should be taught. Later, a resident challenged their opinions.

See statements from each candidate at vote411.org — enter your address to see your ballot and candidate information for all races. This is a service of the League of Women Voters.

2 thoughts on “Brentwood schools curriculum on evolution: superintendent

  1. Common ancestry is the materialist, naturalistic view but it is just as easily seen as evidence of a common creator who used the same construction materials and processes. It is obviously something that began in the past so the scientific method requiring repetition cannot be applied today. It is forensic science we deal with when looking at past events, while operational science governs our understanding of processes and events taking place today.

    Time, chance and mutation do not explain how life began and certainly does not account for why we see the complexity and diversity of life around us. DNA has limits and governs toe development of all the kinds of life we see, it allows for adaptation and variation as the environment changes over time but clearly one kind of live form does not become another kind.

    As to fossils and their significance to the debate, I think they are best explained as:
    billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

    • “Time, chance and mutation do not explain how life began” The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how life began. Learn what you are talking about before you try to make an argument next time.