Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack

Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack

Harry E. McDonald, a moderate Republican seeking a board seat, campaigned door to door last week.
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: August 1, 2006

Two moderate board members, Sue Gamble, left, and Janet Waugh, visited a school the same day.

KANSAS CITY, Kan., July 29 — God and Charles Darwin are not on the primary ballot in Kansas on Tuesday, but once again a contentious schools election has religion and science at odds in a state that has restaged a three-quarter-century battle over the teaching of evolution.
Ed Zurga for The New York Times
Less than a year after a conservative Republican majority on the State Board of Education adopted rules for teaching science containing one of the broadest challenges in the nation to Darwin’s theory of evolution, moderate Republicans and Democrats are mounting a fierce counterattack. They want to retake power and switch the standards back to what they call conventional science.

The Kansas election is being watched closely by both sides in the national debate over the teaching of evolution. In the past several years, pitched battles have been waged between the scientific establishment and proponents of what is called intelligent design, which holds that nature alone cannot explain life’s origin and complexity.

Last February, the Ohio Board of Education reversed its 2002 mandate requiring 10th-grade biology classes to critically analyze evolution. The action followed a federal judge’s ruling that teaching intelligent design in the public schools of Dover, Pa., was unconstitutional.

A defeat for the conservative majority in Kansas on Tuesday could be further evidence of the fading fortunes of the intelligent design movement, while a victory would preserve an important stronghold in Kansas.

The curriculum standards adopted by the education board do not specifically mention intelligent design, but advocates of the belief lobbied for the changes, and students are urged to seek “more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Though there is no reliable polling data available, Joseph Aistrup, head of political science at Kansas State University, said sharp ideological splits among Republicans and an unusual community of interest among moderate Republicans and some Democrats were helping challengers in the primary.

Kansas Democrats, moreover, have a strong standard-bearer in the incumbent governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who has distanced herself from the debate.

“And if a conservative candidate makes it through the primary, there’s a Democratic challenger waiting” in the general election, Professor Aistrup said.

Several moderate Republican candidates have vowed, if they lose Tuesday, to support the Democratic primary winners in November. With the campaign enlivened by a crowded field of 16 candidates contending for five seats — four held by conservatives who voted for the new science standards last year — a shift of two seats could overturn the current 6-to-4 majority. The four-year terms are staggered so that only half the 10-member board is up for election each two years.

The acrimony in the school board races is not limited to differences over the science curriculum but also over other ideologically charged issues like sex education, charter schools and education financing. Power on the board has shifted almost every election since 1998, with the current conservative majority taking hold in 2004.

“Can we just agree God invented Darwin?” asked a weary Sue Gamble, a moderate member of the board whose seat is not up for re-election.

The chairman of the board, Dr. Steve E. Abrams, a veterinarian and the leader of the conservative majority, said few of the opposition candidates were really moderates. “They’re liberals,” said Dr. Abrams, who is not up for re-election.

He said that the new science curriculum in no way opened the door to intelligent design or creationism and that any claim to the contrary “is an absolute falsehood.”

“We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence,” Dr. Abrams said, “what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and unfalsifiable.”

In science, he said, “everything is supposedly tentative, except the teaching of evolution is dogma.”

Harry E. McDonald, a retired biology teacher and self-described moderate Republican who has been going door to door for votes in his district near Olathe, said the board might have kept overt religious references out of the standards, “but methinks they doth protest too much.”

“They say science can’t answer this, therefore God,” Mr. McDonald said.

Connie Morris, a conservative Republican running for re-election, said the board had merely authorized scientifically valid criticism of evolution. Ms. Morris, a retired teacher and author, said she did not believe in evolution.

“It’s a nice bedtime story,” she said. “Science doesn’t back it up.”

Dr. Abrams said his views as someone who believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago had nothing to do with the science standards adopted.

“In my personal faith, yes, I am a creationist,” he said. “But that doesn’t have anything to do with science. I can separate them.” He said he agreed that “my personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom.”

Dr. Abrams said that at a community meeting he had been asked whether it was possible to believe in the Bible and in evolution, and that he had responded, “There are those who try to believe in both — there are theistic evolutionists — but at some point in time you have to decide which you’re going to put your credence in.”

Last year’s changes in the science standards followed an increasingly bitter seesawing of power on the education board that began in 1998 when conservatives won a majority. They made the first changes to the standards the next year, which in turn were reversed after moderates won back control in 2000. The 2002 elections left the board split 5-5, and in 2004 the conservatives won again, instituting their major standards revisions in November 2005.

Critics said the changes altered the science standards in ways that invited theistic interpretations. The new definition called for students to learn about “the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.”

In one of many “additional specificities” that the board added to the standards, it stated, “Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.”


John Calvert, manager of the Intelligent Design Network in Shawnee Mission and a lawyer who wrote material for the board advocating the new science standards, said they were not intended to advance religion.

“What we are trying to do is insert objectivity, take the bias out of the religious standard that now favors the nontheistic religion of evolution,” Mr. Calvert said.

Janet Waugh, a car dealer and the only moderate Democrat on the board whose seat is up for election, said that just because some people were challenging evolution did not mean their views belonged in the curriculum.

“When the mainstream scientific community determines a theory is correct, that’s when it should be in the schools,” Ms. Waugh said. “The intelligent design people are trying to cut in line.”

The races have been hard-fought. With the majority of the 100,000 registered Republicans in Mr. McDonald’s northeast Kansas district usually ignoring primary elections, a few hundred ballots could easily be the margin of victory.

So Mr. McDonald, who with $35,000 is the lead fund-raiser among the candidates, printed newsletters showing his opponent, the conservative board member John W. Bacon, with a big red slash through his face and the slogan, “Time to Bring Home the Bacon.” Mr. Bacon did not respond to several calls for a response.

But many of the homeowners Mr. McDonald visited Friday night showed little interest in the race. Jack Campbell, a medical center security director, opened the door warily, and when Mr. McDonald recited his pitch, seemed disappointed. “I thought I won some sweepstakes,” Mr. Campbell said.

Last Thursday night at Fort Hays State University, Ms. Morris debated her moderate Republican challenger, Sally Cauble, a former teacher, and the Democratic candidate, Tim Cruz, a former mayor of Garden City, whom Ms. Morris once accused of being an illegal immigrant. (He said he was third-generation American, and Ms. Morris apologized.)

The audience asked about Kansas being ridiculed across the country for its stance on evolution.

“I did not write the jokes,” Ms. Morris said.

Spectators split on the winner.

“There are so many more important issues in Kansas right now,” said Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, a science teacher. “The issue is definitely a wedge issue, and I don’t want to see our community divided.”

[Ibby]

“What we are trying to do is insert objectivity, take the bias out of the religious standard that now favors the nontheistic religion of evolution,” Mr. Calvert said.

Who would have thought that science has a bias that supports what science has found?

What the hell is the problem with presenting both views, stating that most scientists believe that evolution is the most accurate?
If one is secure in their religion they would have no issue with it, right?

[Flint]

If they want to teach religion is childeren's science classes, we should also teach science in children's religion classes - and see who comes out ahead in that bargain.

(In Sunday School we can have a science advisor on hand to demonstrate, at length, everything that the rational adult mind makes note of while studying religion.)

[BigV]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

What the hell is the problem with presenting both views, stating that most scientists believe that evolution is the most accurate?
If one is secure in their religion they would have no issue with it, right?

Sure.

And in shop class, we could give instruction as to the use and usefulness of the hammer, with, say, a big rock, as an alternative all the while proclaming that most people agree that the hammer is better, buy your mileage may vary.

And in driver's ed, let them choose which side of the road to drive on because the pavement goes both ways, doesn't it?

And in English class phonetic spellings are acceptable and invented definitions on vocabulary tests will be given equal weight.

Hey, if you go put a [/sarcasm] tag at the end of your post, I'll delete this one. Deal?

That is not remotely the same thing and you know it.
There are scientists that believe in intelligent design, I have never been on a site where they wanted to replace my hammer with a rock. Waste of time V.

[Flint]

You are really serious, aren't you?!

[Ibby]

I'm with flint on this one... Teaching religion is fine and dandy... in religion class. If I'm taking science I want to hear SCIENCE, not religion. FACTS, not unsubstantiated beliefs. I am planning on studing religion in school at some point... then you can tell me all you want about what the bible/torah/koran/book of mormon/whatever states. Otherwise, give me the theory that is right, or tell me that it isn't.

I don't mind being told about the old theories of continental drift, because they have been disproven and they tell me exactly why the current theory must be right, or at least much more right than the old ones.

[Spexxvet]

Kansas test:

Q: 2 + 2 =
A: God works in mysterious ways

Q: Who founded Rome?
A: God caused Rome to be founded

Q: Describe a woman
A: Looks like Adam's rib

Q: How long can you survive A)in outer space? B)In the belly of a fish?
A: A)seconds B)3 days

Q: What is the shortest route from Cape May, NJ to Lewes, DE?
A: Part the sea, and drive

[9th Engineer]

The quote about evolution departing from tentitive science is interesting as well. I saw quite a change in attitude in my senior bio class once we entered the evolution chapter. Previously the teacher put in footnotes whenever he felt it was necessary to point out unsolved problems and dilemma's within the existing scientific framework. Come evolution time though, and it was a take-it-or-leave-it battle to the death. Questions about grey areas or contradicting theories were met with acusatory threats and veiled references to 'betraying science'. If the man wasn't holding my GPA over my head like a dagger I would've pointed out to him just how similar his behavior was to religious dogmatics.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I'm with flint on this one... Teaching religion is fine and dandy... in religion class. If I'm taking science I want to hear SCIENCE, not religion. FACTS, not unsubstantiated beliefs. ...

These people believe this stuff to be FACT! Because it's in the Bible, it is INDISPUTABLE FACT. Science is just what mere humans think. It's scary.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

how similar his behavior was to religious dogmatics

I disagree with this metaphor. The scientific community is reacting to an attack on reason. If the population loses the ability to think then what do you have?

A Dark Age.

[Pangloss62]

This reminds me of this awful talk show I heard on a road trip last week where the "archeologist" was being interviewed by Dobson or Robertson or whoever the fuck about the remains of Noahs Ark in Turkey. Two of every animal? Uh...what about fish, marine mammals, insects, on and on. The whole idea is so preposterous yet here they trot out the science of archeology to prove some myth. I got sooooooo mad I almost dropped my Slushie!

[9th Engineer]

He was making an attack on reason himself. He allowed no questions regarding assumptions about geology and genetics and if he found himself unable to answer something he attacked the student who brought it up, saying that the only reason they would have to ask such a question is that they obviously have no idea how science actually works and that they'd better talk less and listen more. A response of "hmmm, can't answer that now. I'll pass it around in the department and see what I come up with" would have be nice.

Once we had it through our heads that we were to simply shut up and accept what we were told he became almost liveable again.

[Flint]

Good for him. Fuck ID.