Kansas City Star
Possted on Thu, Sep. 29, 2005
www.kansascity.com/

Developments in Kansas' evolution debate

Associated Press

DEBATE RAGES ON: Intelligent design advocates Thursday released a letter to the State Board of Education, responding to a letter earlier this month from 38 Nobel Prize winners criticizing proposed science standards.

WHAT THEY SAID: The intelligent design advocates' letter took issue with the Nobel laureates' suggestion that proposed science standards for Kansas public schools promote intelligent design.

OTHER CHOICE WORDS: Intelligent design advocates also said the laureates were "clearly ignorant" of the proposed standards and were using "demeaning rhetoric" to stifle debate over evolution.

ACTION PENDING: The board hopes to vote by the end of the year on the proposed standards, which would replace standards that treat the theory of evolution as well-accepted and crucial to understanding science.

ARE THEY RIGHT? The proposed standards, backed by intelligent design advocates, carry a disclaimer that they do not endorse intelligent design.

ON THE OTHER HAND: The language in the proposed standards suggesting there's a controversy about evolutionary theory comes from arguments made by intelligent design advocates.

There is no controversy over evolution, period. The controversy is about a group of Dominionist Christians trying to slide Genesis into the state curriculum.

I know that. I just thought the entire issue needed to be posted in a Kansas thread. I don't have time right now to collect all the data and information prior to this post.

I'm surprised no one else has gathered the information and posted it here -- in the Kansas section where it belongs -- so that it won't get archived and forgotten.

The only conflict in the scientific community concerning evolution has been wether it happens gradually, in great leaps or both.

From the Johnson County Sun, Johnson County, KANSAS

IF HIDDEN AGENDA EXISTS FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, SOME FOLKS BETTER INVEST IN ASBESTOS UNDIES

By: Jack "Miles" Ventimiglia, Editor November 03, 2005


Arguably, anyone who by design sets out to take a stand on intelligent design cannot be too intelligent.


Taking a side, one way or another, will make somebody madder than a Cardinals fan stuck in a Don Denkinger tribute parade. Still, because anyone without some sort of an opinion is likely to get kicked out of the columnists' club...


Evolution theory supporters frame the debate around the zealousness of the Christian right - laughing at the seemingly self-righteous clan via Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and related venues; deriding them as the sideshow freaks in the lean-to built next to a marble science museum; and in still other cases the evolution supporters try as patiently as Job, and as uselessly as Sisyphus rolling his boulder endlessly up a hill, to explain that what is scientifically "reasonable and observable" is not meant to be an affront to God, at least not anymore than God would be offended to hear the world does not actually have four corners and is not the center of this universe or any other. Why should God be offended, after all, that man in the Middle Ages at last began to realize what God knew all along?


Those who support evolution observe, correctly, that no real debate regarding the now embattled Theory of Evolution would exist within the scientific community but for the religious right, which some consider the religious wrong, or at least the religious confused.


This is not to suggest all or even any scientists think evolution explains the origins of life perfectly, only that as a testable, observable means to explain how life began and continues, evolution is the best theory among any others offered.


Evolution supporters say religion, not science, is the foundation for the "intelligent design" thesis - the idea that if life in such infinite variety cannot be explained in a neat little package by evolution, then "someone" really smart must be behind creation - here the public can substitute "God" for "someone" as there could be no other source for such omnipotent ability, except maybe the Kansas Board of Education.


Intelligent design supporters protest much about how their views are not about religion and are not designed to provide a way to tiptoe religion through the back door and into public schools. They certainly must be being honest to say such things. I mean, holy Moses, if in their hearts they were to entertain the notion that they could sneak God into the public schools via intelligent design, then they would be lying to everyone in violation of the Ninth Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," or in the case of Catholics, the Eighth Commandment, which says the same thing only in a different order.


The reason I hope intelligent design supporters are not lying about their motives is that I suspect God would be pretty upset with anyone who not only lied, but did so in his name, as if God needs or wants the help of "stealth" Christians who hide their lights under bushel baskets. Remember how Jesus reacted to hypocrites? Whipped their little fannies out of the temple. And in the "Inferno," Father Dante takes a bright view of liars, depicting them as constantly ablaze, with the lies coming from their mouths also on fire.


If not to advance the banner of Christianity in public schools, what is the intelligent design advocates' point?


Why argue about evolution when more interesting, relevant theories are open to debate?


Such as?


How about whether life exists on Mars and if so, what are the ramifications for this planet - medically, "evolutionarily" and spiritually?


Is our government ignoring global warming to the peril of the next generation to bolster the financial gains of this generation's corporations, such as Pepsi, which no doubt sells better in a heat wave? Hmmm.


Should astrology be a scientific theory, as the odds of being right are not so different from being wrong, sometimes and sort of? Maybe it's in the stars.


But the debate is on evolution.


One of the big things I do not understand about the debate is why supporters would think God cares about whether intelligent design or evolution is taught in public schools. Jesus apparently had no problem separating a similar secular issue from a spiritual issue. Asked whether paying tribute to Caesar violated the law, Jesus did not suggest that the "theory of tribute" allowed anyone to get out of the reality of Roman taxes, and neither did he attempt to subvert that government.


Jesus instead replied unequivocally, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."


Refreshingly forthright. Abundantly clear. Words that take the breath away. No wonder Jesus has inspired so many.


How and do those words apply to intelligent design?


Extrapolating from what Jesus said, teaching secular science in public schools seems as if it would be no more of an affront to God than paying taxes, though every April 15 I might feel "affronted" personally.


Anyway, who's right in this debate? The fundamentalists? The scientists? The martians?


I'm left to hope those smarter folks in Topeka will make it all clear to me. Someday.


©The Johnson County Sun 2005

And they have just votet 6-4 to use the creativism together whit evolution in the corriculum, it should be real fun having a degree from Kansas the next coulple of years, wonder if it will place the student in the front row when he tries to further his education elsewere of tries to get a job!!

It all depends on the way it's taught, so it's up to the instructor to either inspire questioning, skepticism, and further inquiry -- or to pound into the brains of students someone's agenda.

I LIVE IN kANSAS AND EVERYONE HERE AND EVERYONE IS SICK OF IT. Not one person I know is in a debate. It's not your fault I am not hating on ya.

Science is limited to what can be tested and repeated. Sadly religion is a mystery to science because it can not be replicated the same way at every time. And every year science makes new discoveries and creates new paridigms. Like when the earth was flat that was proven not to be the case yet at the time it was a hot debate now we are in a new paridigm.

And rember the fire in rome where historical records were lost man did this. And time goes forward not back. It CAN NOT BE repeated wich leaves a whole new debate.

www.kansascity.com
Kansas City Star, Online Edition

Posted on Mon, Nov. 14, 2005

MORE QUOTES IN EVOLUTION DEBATE



Associated Press

More comments on evolution and new science standards for Kansas public schools that treat the theory as flawed:

"Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution. Evolutionists are the ones minimizing open scientific inquiry from their explanation of the origin of life." - Steve Abrams, chairman of Kansas' State Board of Education.

"Opponents of intelligent design don't want science classrooms to become a platform for pseudoscience. Would it be intolerant for high school health classes to exclude material about the healing power of pyramids or about demonic possession as a cause of mental illness? Is it intolerant not to teach Holocaust denial in history classes?" - Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine, in a Boston Globe column.

"The signs of God's love are seen in the marvels of creation and in the great gifts he has given to his people. The Fathers of the Church teach us to recognize in created things the greatness of God and his merciful love towards us." Pope Benedict XVI, in an audience last week, in which he also said the universe was made by an "intelligent project."

"Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs - religious or otherwise - about the origin of humankind, but science teachers should not be forced to replace experimentation and observed data - the very definition of science - with faith-based or supernatural ideas." - the Minneapolis, Minn., Star Tribune, in an editorial.

"Kansas Schools to teach the controversy over evolution ... Mainstream media are suckered into getting the story wrong" - headlines over a story about the Kansas standards on Focus on the Family's CitizenLink Web site.

"The state has redefined science so that it is not limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. This distortion of credible science is a setback for civilization, which has fought so hard to pull itself from medieval superstition and darkness. What's next, werewolves and vampires being discussed in the same class as mammals and amphibians? Are witch trials far behind? Can psychics testify in court?" - The Berkshire, Mass., Eagle, in an editorial.

"To anyone who can explain away the mind-boggling complexity of human life and everything else found in the cosmos as just a big, happy coincidence, I say you've got far more faith than I, a believer in the God of the Bible, will ever have." - Allan Allnoch, a Bluffton, S.C., in a letter to the editor in the Hilton Head Island Packet newspaper.

"They are on the warpath and aiming to overthrow the most basic foundations of science - they want to turn science into something that actively promotes religion. They want to cripple scientific thinking and turn science itself into its opposite - as part of making even more sweeping changes in all of society and culture." - An editorial in the online edition of Revolution, based in Chicago, which describes itself as "the voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party."

Maybe the real Kansans are being held hostage in Oz - trapped by the Wicked Witch of the Right.

Quick, get them some ruby slippers and bring them all back before it is too late.

I'll sic Toto on her.

Letters published in the Kansas City Star, Opinion Section, November 10, 2005

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editor's note: Because of a high volume of mail received on the question of intelligent design and evolution in Kansas public schools, today's column is devoted entirely to the topic.


A SIGN OF THRIFT?

All Kansans should feel a sense of gratitude for the Kansas Board of Education's decision endorsing the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes. By adopting this approach, the board has created a potential windfall for Kansas taxpayers.

Think of the money we can save if the teaching of ID is extended to the other sciences, to mathematics and, one would hope, to the social sciences and humanities. Students will soon discover that the Intelligent Designer is responsible for everything. Teachers? Lab equipment? Textbooks? Computers? The world is too complicated to even try to understand. Just check with the Designer.

(Leawood, Kansas)



IGNORE LAUGHTER

What if science discovered God? Would we then have to call that knowledge something besides science just because it was so revolutionary? Or because some don't want a God, should we close our eyes lilke an opossum and play dead to evidence that points to something other than evolution?

In the wake of Tuesday's vote, Kansas parents should fight to have the pitfalls of evolution theory exposed and the arguments for intelligent design examined so that children will be informed enough to argue their side, whether it be evolution or otherwise.

I, for one, have carefully researched every corner and am educating my children in depth in evolution as well as intelligent design so that they will be prepared to clearly enunciate their views before any critic. Careful, Kansans: Don't flinch just because someone is laughing.

(Leavenworth, Kansas)



IT WAS NO 'GREAT DAY'

"It's a great day for science," said Kansas Board of Education member John Bacon in the wake of the board's jaw-dropping vote. Excuse me if I gag on my breakfast at that.

All I can say is this: see you at the polls in 2006.

(Fairway, Kansas)



CRITICISM IS HEALTHY

What is the problem with allowing criticism of evolution? If it is true, it will stand the test. One thing to remember is that evolution is a theory, not a scientifically proven fact. Scientifically proven, that is, under the classic definition of science, not under some definition that has been reworded to exclude competing theories.

Evolution is a theory with many flaws, and presuppositions have to be made in order for it to be viable. To deny this cannot possibly be good science. Have an open scientific debate.

Stop personal attacks on evolution opponents. Allow criticism. Let true science win.

(Belton, Missouri)



THEY'RE PROSELYTIZING

God created something, all right: greed, hubris, self-righteousness, haughtiness, self-aggrandizement and ignorance. Where's the proof? Those six zealots on the Kansas Board of Education are proselytizing instead of doing their jobs. They should simply be observants in their own homes and churches. Using the school system to further one's own religious beliefs is shameful.

For the record, our kids will be home "sick" the day intelligent design is discussed.

(Overland Park, Kansas)



IT'S MUCH LIKE 1999

The front page of Wednesday's (11/9) Star was sadly reminiscent of the one in 1999. Then, too, conservatives attempted to enforce their religious beliefs upon schoolchildren.

Please, conservative board members: If you feel that strongly about your religion, then start your own schools. You're trying to do it on the cheap by using my tax money to pay for your beliefs.

(Shawnee, Kansas)



IT'S CLEAR NOW

A couple of years ago my wife and I were traveling across the country in our RV, and we had stopped in eastern Colorado. We struck up a conversation with some other travelers. One woman mentioned that she was from Kansas.

My wife said, "Oh, we're going to Kansas next."

The woman asked, "Why?"

Thanks to the antics of that state's Board of Education, we now understand the question.

(Tucson, Arizona)



GRASPING COMPLEXITY

Were it not for science, the backers of intelligent design wouldnot have a clue regarding the complexity of creation.

(Independence)

[unknown whether the above is from Missouri or Kansas as there is a city called Independence in both states ~ MC]



EVIDENCE IS AMPLE

Tuesday was a sad day for Kansas.

Yes, there is controversy surrounding evolution, but only among non-scientists. Those who reject evolution present no arguments scientists haven't heard (and adequately countered) again and again and have no special knowledge that scientists have overlooked.

Organic evolution is so well established that to allow room for doubt is to misrepresent science. Evolution is supported by population biology, comparative anatomy, cell biology, biochemistry, genetics and artificial breeding, and by observations of how bacteria and viruses respond (over time) to antibiotics. Computer algorithms invoking simple Darwinian rules are being used to solve a wide range of previously intractable problems. Important biochemical molecules (including RNA and DNA) have been improved in astonishing ways in test-tube experiments using Darwinian principles. Any one of these mutually corroborating approaches could stand by itself as strong evidence for evolution. Together, they are indistinguishable from proof.

Non-scientists have no business meddling in the content of science classes. Intelligent design if not science.

Congratulations to those on the board who voted sanely.

(Syracuse, New York)



PHILOSOPHY, PART I

I am tired of the conservatives' arguments on evolution that run on the opinion page. One thing that moderates and liberals point to seriously damages conservatives' positions, but it has not been fully spelled out.

I write this as a graduate student in philosophy at KU. One of the things we talk about is the principle of non-falsificability. Watch closely when people are explaining their position. If they talk past, explain away, or make no effort to take seriously possible counterexamples to their position -- i.e., they do not allow people to disagree with them about the grounds of their position -- then their principle becomes trivial.

Major writers in philosophy of science have pointed to this problem about both creation science reasoning and intellilgent design theory. When moderates or liberals attempt to point out this problem in reasoning, almost every conservative letter on the issue that The Star received carries this flaw.

(DeSoto, Kansas)



PHILOSOPHY, PART II

As a teacher of philosophy, I find it encouraging that Kansas will be encouraging the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas' proof of the existence of God, called Argument from Design. I wonder if they will also be teaching or explaining the many arguments of later philosophers who have found it to be an example of the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, which can be explained as stating that we don't know something, from which it follows we know something. (We don't [know] who designed the universe; therefore, God designed the universe.)

(Edwardsville, Illinois)

The Washington Times
Nation/Politics

KANSAS UNIVERSITY TO TEACH INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS MYTH
November 23, 2005

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

The university's Religious Studies Department is offering a course next semester titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies."

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, chairman of the department.

"Creationism is mythology," Mr. Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

Earlier this month, the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.

Although local school boards still decide how science is taught in the classrooms, the vote was seen as a major victory for proponents of intelligent design, which says that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation as the handiwork of God -- camouflaged in scientific language as a way to get around court rulings that creationism injects religion into public schools.

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, said Mr. Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes [intelligent design] to be simply a religious nut," Mr. Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."

Mr. Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers.

University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said he didn't know all the details about the course.

"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.

www.ksdp.org (forum)

ANOTHER EVOLUTION POST (SORRY 'BOUT THAT)

Submitted on November 19, 2005 - 1:11am.

Unless you believe saber-tooth poodles were scampering around dodging brontosauruses, evolution is a fact, not a theory. Evolution wasn’t invented by Darwin any more than gravity was invented by Sir Isaac Newton. Evolution, like gravity, is fact and always has been. What Newton did was try to explain gravity. What Darwin did was try to explain evolution. Both scientists did a pretty good job but both scientists’ observations and deductions were flawed.

“A body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest.” That’s Newton’s work, and pretty nifty in its elegant simplicity. Except, of course, others have followed along in Newton’s footsteps and noticed, among other things, that there is no such thing as a body “at rest.” We live on a spinning planet that orbits a sun that migrates through a galaxy that wafts through an ever-expanding universe.

Somewhere in the middle of that celestial toilet swirl is Kansas. Here in Kansas, the State Board of Education is putting evolution on trial. If the board treated physics class the way they’re trying to corrupt biology class, the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky would get equal billing with Einstein’s theory of relativity. (Of course that would have meant Douglas MacArthur trying to end World War II by marching around Hiroshima blowing a ram’s horn in hopes that the walls come tumblin’ down. But I digress…)

Geometry class escapes religious fundamentalist scrutiny, too, as a careful reading of Second Kings reveals. The circular altar in Solomon’s temple, we’re told, is nine cubits in diameter and 27 cubits around the rim. Fine, except that makes pi an even three-point-zero instead of that pesky ol’ 3.1416… that’s been vexing every eighth grade geometry student since Pythagoras. Pythagoras, it turns out, wasn’t born-again and besides, all he had about the hypotenuse was a “theory.”

Why physics and geometry get a pass from folks who claim to read the Bible literally and Biology gets subjected to full-blown monkey trial frenzy is beyond me. Nevertheless, the political climate in Kansas these days makes it apparent that science teachers will soon have to include the story of a naked lady and a talking snake in their science class curricula. And the sooner we accept it, the better. It will give us more time in arithmetic class to compute how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I feel real sorry for all the Kansasnites in here and out there, it is not fun to made a laughing stock, and favorite stand-up comic victim. there is realy only one way to get writ of that problem, vote the bastards out in 06' and develop a good sence of humor in the meantime

You betcha, Alexander!

www.kansascity.com
Posted on Thu, Dec. 01, 2005

KU CANCELS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CLASS

By DAVID KLEPPER

The Kansas City Star

The University of Kansas withdrew its controversial religious studies course on intelligent design today.

University officials pulled the course from next spring’s offerings at the request of Paul Morecki, head of the university’s Religious Studies Department. Morecki, who proposed the course and was to teach it, came under fire when e-mails he had sent came under public review. In one e-mail, he said the course would irritate conservative Christians.

“The fundies (fundamentalist Christians) want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology,’” Mirecki wrote.

Intelligent design is the belief that nature shows evidence of a creator. Proponents were a driving force behind the Kansas Board of Education’s recent decision to insert significant criticism of evolution into the state’s science curriculum standards.

Over the objections of conservatives, KU officials said it was appropriate that intelligent design and creationism be analyzed in a religious studies class.

The course, entitled “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism,” sparked criticism as soon as it was announced last week. The class was to be taught as an elective to upper level undergraduates and graduate students next spring. Already, 25 students had signed up for the course.

Conservative lawmakers demanded hearings into how the course was created and how it would be taught, and reacted with outrage after Mirecki’s e-mails came to light. In e-mails posted to the KU Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, Mirecki, who was the group’s faculty adviser, criticized fundamentalists and made sarcastic comments about conservative Jews and Catholics.

KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway strongly condemned the e-mails, calling Mirecki’s words “repugnant and vile.”

In a written statement released by the university, Mirecki cited the controversy as reason to cancel the class. He also apologized for the e-mails.

“Students with a serious interest in this important subject matter would not be well served by the learning environment my e-mails and the public distribution of them have created. It would not be fair to the students,” Mirecki wrote. “It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.”

Hemenway said the course still has a place, but there’s no word when it will be taught or by whom.

“This unfortunate episode does not in any way diminish our belief that the course should be taught,” Hemenway said. “It is the role of the university to take on such topics and to provide the civil, academic environment in which they can be honestly examined and discussed.”

This one is from back in June, but it tells it like it is.


http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=145...7&PAG=461&rfi=9
The Johnson County Sun


FAST FORWARD TO REPLAY
Bob Sigman, Opinion Page Editor June 16, 2005

Are the ultraconservatives on the State Board of Education overplaying their hand on evolution as those on the board did in 1999? This politically driven issue is pertinent now as the latest conservative-driven evolution-instruction controversy rages.

In recent months members of the 6-4 right-wing majority of the state board have made a mockery of the issue, notably by staging unneeded hearings that cost the state precious dollars - dollars that could have been better spent on classroom teaching.

And what purpose did the hearings serve? The six conservatives have the votes to shove through any changes they want in the way evolution is taught in Kansas schools.

When is too much conservative game-playing simply over the top for the mainstream of Kansas? A look back to the 1990s and the early years of this decade is instructive.

In 1999, right-wingers on the education board succeeded in putting together enough votes to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in K-12 schools. The controversy that followed, similar to the current fiasco, made the Sunflower State the laughing stock of the world.

Kansas Republican moderates, concerned about the teaching of science and embarrassed by the notoriety, reacted as soon as possible - in the 2000 election. Middle-of-the-road Republicans, playing to an outraged electorate, won a board majority, and within a month of taking office rescinded the conservative mischief on the science curriculum.

Two years later, the moderates lost their momentum in the ballot battle against conservatism. That led to a conservative comeback and a five-five, conservative-moderate tie on the state board.

The moderates remained docile in elections two years ago, letting the conservatives slip back into board control with a 6-to-4 edge.

It is obvious from these board swings that when ultraconservatives went too far - and the moderates were sufficiently roused by their antics - the broad mainstream could win elections, especially Republican primaries.

Conversely, when moderates dozed at the switch, the Republicans at the extreme right won.

Whether this pattern will hold true in the 2006 state board elections could determine the future of Kansas education.

The political landscape has changed in Kansas over the last couple of years.

Two out-of-state anti-tax organizations have established bases here and have recruited Kansans attracted by the siren song of lower taxes.

It is unknown whether the right has expanded its bloc of the GOP primary vote, always critical in a state in which the winner of the office is determined in the first election.

Democrats are not strong enough in Kansas to challenge GOP candidates in many races.

So the power of the conservatives is crucial. It has been estimated that, depending on the issue at stake, the ultraconservatives can capture 15 percent to a quarter of the vote.

That often is enough for a conservative win. Voter turnouts in Kansas primaries are often extremely low, leaving the winning of the election to the faction that works the hardest, and despite their smaller numbers, the conservatives often outwork moderates.

Moderates, you see, have interests other than politics. For most conservatives, politics is their main concern 24-7. In our system, hard work and adequate campaign funding will win elections.

Conservatives could be helped in the 2006 elections by the anti-tax forces, which are better organized than they were two years ago. That is an ominous sign for moderates.

Look what happened in the 2004 state legislative elections. The anti-tax zealots claimed credit for the defeat of several moderates, among them two who sponsored a tax increase for education in last year's Legislature.

The Legislature did not approve it, but the two sponsors lost their bid for re-election to ultraconservatives in the GOP primaries. One of them was Cindy Neighbor of Shawnee.

So the conservatives on the State Board of Education may feel emboldened to shove through their changes and take the chance that the moderate sector of Kansas politics - both Republican and Democrat - will not bother to take up the battle next year.

A continued conservative majority on the school board could lead to even more foolishness.


©The Johnson County Sun 2005

www.kansascity.com

Posted on Thu, Dec. 15, 2005

BOARD MEMBER WANTS TO HELP TEACHERS TEACH CRITICISMS OF EVOLUTION
Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. - Now that criticism of evolution is in the state's science standards, one State Board of Education member is suggesting the board offer more guidance for teachers, including recommending textbooks.

Kathy Martin, a Clay Center Republican and among six of the 10 board members who voted for the new science standards last month, said Wednesday she wants more information about materials that deal with critical analysis of evolution.

The new science standards challenge some evolutionary theory, treating it as the subject of scientific controversies, prompting criticism from national science groups. Critics have accused board members of promoting creationism or intelligent design, which says an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex, orderly features of the natural world.

Martin, a former elementary science teacher, said she isn't interested in approving textbooks for the state's 300 school districts. But she added that the state should "provide leadership for teachers looking to teach the controversial issue objectively."

The state board's policy has been to set curriculum standards for each subject but allow individual districts to decide how the material is presented and what textbooks or other resources are used to teach students. There is no common textbook all districts are expected to use for any school subject.

The board took no action on Martin's suggestion, which caught those who oppose the revised science standards off guard.

"I was surprised that was even being mentioned," said board member Sue Gamble, a Shawnee Republican who opposed the new standards. "It is beyond our authority."

Board Chairman Steve Abrams, an Arkansas City Republican who voted for the new standards, said he didn't know when the issue would return to the board's agenda.

Mark Tallman, a lobbyist for the Kansas Association of School Boards, said evolution is a small part of the science curriculum, and the criticisms of evolution aren't among issues to be tested on the state's science assessment, which will be given next in 2008.

"I think there are very pressing professional development needs that go beyond this particular issue," Tallman said.