In Evolution Debate, a Counterattack

[Thom Little]

In the 2005 culture war over evolution, the prime battlefields were Kansas, where the state school board voted to require that criticism of Darwin's theory be taught in biology classes, and Dover, Pa., where parents sued the school district for promoting the alternative theory known as intelligent design.

.......

In 2006, the focus will again be on Kansas, where a raft of politicians from both parties are plotting to wrest control of the 10-member state board of education from a conservative majority.

What used to be sleepy contests that drew little publicity and even less voter turnout are expected to attract attention, and money, from Kansans riled up by 2005's skirmishes and from national interest groups on both sides. Connie Morris, who represents the wide open spaces of the state's western flank, spent less than $10,000 to win her seat in 2002; Sally Cauble, one of two candidates trying to unseat Ms. Morris, is planning to raise $100,000.

The four conservatives up for re-election are expected to face moderate Republicans in the August primary and Democrats in the November general election, with five candidates already campaigning well ahead of the June filing deadline. The state legislators and school board members in 20 states and dozens of districts across the country pushing to modify how evolution is taught will be watching the results.

If the moderates succeed, they could erase the new science standards before state tests based on them are ever administered. The tests are scheduled to be introduced in 2008.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/weekinreview/01wilgoren.html

[ixion]

1. of course, the problem with the "new science standards" is that they are

NOT science.

This is what the fuss is all about, and what this article seems to do everything it can to avoid talking about. By approaching this as an argument with merit, they lend credibility to ID proponents.

ID is not now, nor ever will be, a scientific theory. It should be discussed in a church, not a classroom.

[quaker bill]

2. It seems a rather short article to be doing "everything it can"

I agree with you on ID. But getting it out of the classroom will require more than just calling it "not science". It will take defeating politicians who would impose it on us. This seems to be the subject of the article.

[seabeyond]

3. if we started with just adam and eve, there was a lot of incest

going on. and the bible does say that is a sin. religious literal interpreters, please explain

[Posteritatis]

4. How much effect would losing that board have on the ID/evolution row?

The impression I got from the Kitzmiller ruling (such a beautiful piece of work that is, too!) is that teaching intelligent design at all is every bit as unconstitutional as teaching young-Earth creationism as fact was. So now, by that ruling, it simply Can't Be Done At All in public schools.

Barring a judge higher up overturning that (I'm not sure how likely that is) or major constitutional amendments (pfft, just try it), doesn't that effectively bury the ID question politically until the creationists figure out yet another way to repackage the whole thing?