http://alternet.org/story/22042/
In three days of testimony in Kansas, witnesses painted a picture of evolutionary biology as a tyrannical discipline that can be salvaged only by admitting the bright light of the supernatural.
The hours passed, and the chilling phrases kept on coming: "security police," "fear and tension," "significant personal sanctions," "enforcement of the Rule," "suppression of evidence," "conflict of conscience," "trampling on those who believe man is purposed."
The man on the stage might well have been talking about life in a totalitarian state, but John Calvert, a lawyer who directs the Intelligent Design Network of Shawnee Mission, Kan., was describing the state of science education in America.
For three days in May, in a cramped auditorium across the street from the Kansas Capitol building, Calvert and his 22 witnesses -- scientists, philosophers, teachers, and other scholars -- painted a picture of evolutionary biology as a tyrannical, "naturalistic" discipline that can be salvaged only by letting the bright light of the supernatural shine in.
...
Creationism Reincarnated
For a brief period between 1999 and 2001, Kansas science teachers had labored under state standards that de-emphasized evolution. In 2004, voters once more gave conservative religious members a majority on the state's Board of Education; as a result, science standards are to be rewritten yet again, in a way that deprecates evolution and permits discussion of intelligent design.
"ID," as it's often called, is the idea that natural processes cannot account for the appearance of new species of plants and animals throughout the earth's history -- that although genetic diversity may shift around a lot within species, the species themselves were designed by an entity outside of nature.
Mainstream scientists are nearly unanimous in rejecting ID, which they say is just a reincarnation of old-fashioned biblical creationism, carefully articulated to avoid going afoul of the Constitution.
...
Calvert's witnesses turned out in force. Their side was coming off a big win in Ohio, where, in 2002, they had fought for and gotten a change in school science standards. They knew that Kansas, with a newly elected, pro-creation majority on its school board, would be an easy mark.
But Kansas's mainstream biologists boycotted the hearings, comparing them to the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial." They said the outcome was already decided anyway, and that to defend evolution in what they called a "kangaroo court" would only give the proceedings a veneer of respectability they didn't deserve.
'A Good Product'
At the hearings, witness after witness spoke of gaping holes in evolutionary theory, the power of ID to fill those holes, and ID's potential to give students the complete and exciting science education they deserve.
...
Philosophy professor Warren Nord of the University of North Carolina, declaring himself a "liberal in every sense," explained that justice demands inclusion of religious groups in classroom discussion, just as it has ensured that "women and blacks" are included.
...
The biologists, chemists, and biochemists who spoke in favor of ID made a host of well-worn points that are regularly debunked by the scientific majority. (The pro-ID argument is laid out in detail on the Center for Science and Culture website of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Mainstream explanations of evolution as a natural process are well described for the non-scientist on the Kansas Citizens for Science site and a Science and Creationism publication by the National Academy of Sciences.)
Scientists boycotting the hearings, including members of Kansas Citizens for Science, kept an eye on the proceedings while they staffed a press-relations center on the fifth floor of the capitol. Among their many charges was that pro-ID forces had simply inserted into the science standards a lot of inflammatory language ("an unpredictable and unguided natural process"; "no discernable direction or goal") that was meant to make evolution sound "atheistic."
And by the time the hearings adjourned on Saturday evening, Calvert and his witnesses had made it clear that the formula "evolution = atheism" did indeed lie at the core of their legal case for the new standards.
Atheistic Darwinists
...
This was how witness James Barham, "independent scholar" and Ph.D. candidate at Notre Dame, introduced his testimony: "I was a convinced atheist Darwinist for 20 years. Slowly, it dawned on me that my interest in the spiritual side of humanity could not be reconciled with my study of science."
Jill Gonzales-Bravo: "At Kansas State University I learned quickly that anyone who believed differently [from evolution through natural selection] was not a true intellectual. I became part of the liberal movement and went into the Peace Corps. But I had children and my worldview changed." She came to see that "evolution takes from students the belief that they are here for a purpose."
...
Just Confused
The Board of Education had appointed Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray to argue the case for the science standards drafted by the writing committee's 18-member majority. With the scientific boycott in place, Irigonegaray's chief task was to cross-examine the pro-ID witnesses.
...
He asked James Barham, as he did several of the witnesses, if teaching evolution to Kansas children was equivalent to teaching materialism and atheism. "That depends on how it's interpreted by the child," said Barham. "But that is the framework. Teachers who disagree with that framework should be allowed to teach as they feel is right."
He asked Angus Menuge, a professor of philosophy at Concordia University, "How do you explain the many theists, including evangelical Christians, who don't see [evolution through natural mechanisms] as a contradiction of faith?" Menuge didn't flinch: "Some of those people are just confused."
During the two days of hearings that I attended, Irigonegaray began his cross-examination of each witness with the same three questions. In response to the first, "What, in your personal opinion, is the age of the earth?" nine witnesses cited the widely accepted figure of around 4.5 billion years.
Other witnesses bowed at least somewhat to biblical orthodoxy. Gene-gun inventor Sanford put the earth's age at "maybe 10,000 years" but "not as young as 5,000." Pressed for an answer, Roger DeHart finally concluded that "I'm fine with" an estimate of 5,000 to 100,000 years. Daniel Ely and Nancy Bryson gave themselves plenty of room for maneuver, putting the earth's age at somewhere "between 5,000 and 4.5 billion years."
...
Pressed to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the human species, some witnesses declined, while others offered earnest responses:
"Design, which implies a designer, but we don't go there."
"A creator, but I wouldn't expect the State to teach that."
"An intelligent designer, based on my theistic views."
"Humans and the non-human living world have qualitatively different features that are very mysterious."
"God, by special creation."
Warren Nord enthusiastically recommended that schools should wrap every subject, including biology, in its religious and philosophical context. An incredulous Irigonegaray asked him, "Is it important to have religion taught in economics class?"
Nord: "Yes."
Irigonegaray: "What about math class?"
Nord: "I can make a case for that."
...
Keeping the Designer Under Wraps
A biology teacher who discusses with her students the case for intelligent design -- as she would be allowed to do under the alternative science standards -- might well be asked by students, "So, tell me, who or what did the designing?" At the hearing, most witnesses wanted to discuss only design, not a designer. That often required some fancy footwork. Here is Irigonegaray's exchange with Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and microbiology at the University of Georgia:
Irigonegaray: "The intelligent designer is God?"
Carlson: "Well, yeah, I'd agree with that."
Irigonegaray: "Science should be neutral with respect to religion?"
Carlson: "Yeah."
Irigonegaray: "But intelligent design places faith in ... "
Carlson: "No, the designer is neutral."
Irigonegaray: "You said the designer is God."
Carlson: "We shouldn't discuss the identity [in the classroom]."
Irigonegaray: "We should keep that a secret?"
Carlson: "When children have questions about the materialist explanation, we now send them to their parents or pastors. Instead, design should be offered as an explanation."
Carlson later added that if a child asks about the identity of the designer, that is the point at which he or she should be sent to a parent or pastor.
Following Angus Menuge's testimony, I asked him what should happen when children ask, "Who's the designer?" Menuge said, "You should cut off discussion at that point, and pursue it in a forum other than the classroom."
...
Connie Morris, another pro-ID school board member, told me, "No, we can't mandate intelligent design or creationism in the school standards. But as the fellow from Ohio said, we have to let students go where the evidence leads. I'll give you an example. Did you know there is evidence now that prayer is beneficial in treating cancer?" I asked if teachers should be able to teach about that. Morris, her eyes brightening, said, "Absolutely!"
Those school board members gave substance to a scenario foreseen by Harry McDonald, spokesperson for Kansas Citizens for Science: "They don't even have to introduce ID into the standards. All they need is for a child to ask about it, and that will open the classroom door to religion."
In three days of testimony in Kansas, witnesses painted a picture of evolutionary biology as a tyrannical discipline that can be salvaged only by admitting the bright light of the supernatural.
The hours passed, and the chilling phrases kept on coming: "security police," "fear and tension," "significant personal sanctions," "enforcement of the Rule," "suppression of evidence," "conflict of conscience," "trampling on those who believe man is purposed."
The man on the stage might well have been talking about life in a totalitarian state, but John Calvert, a lawyer who directs the Intelligent Design Network of Shawnee Mission, Kan., was describing the state of science education in America.
For three days in May, in a cramped auditorium across the street from the Kansas Capitol building, Calvert and his 22 witnesses -- scientists, philosophers, teachers, and other scholars -- painted a picture of evolutionary biology as a tyrannical, "naturalistic" discipline that can be salvaged only by letting the bright light of the supernatural shine in.
...
Creationism Reincarnated
For a brief period between 1999 and 2001, Kansas science teachers had labored under state standards that de-emphasized evolution. In 2004, voters once more gave conservative religious members a majority on the state's Board of Education; as a result, science standards are to be rewritten yet again, in a way that deprecates evolution and permits discussion of intelligent design.
"ID," as it's often called, is the idea that natural processes cannot account for the appearance of new species of plants and animals throughout the earth's history -- that although genetic diversity may shift around a lot within species, the species themselves were designed by an entity outside of nature.
Mainstream scientists are nearly unanimous in rejecting ID, which they say is just a reincarnation of old-fashioned biblical creationism, carefully articulated to avoid going afoul of the Constitution.
...
Calvert's witnesses turned out in force. Their side was coming off a big win in Ohio, where, in 2002, they had fought for and gotten a change in school science standards. They knew that Kansas, with a newly elected, pro-creation majority on its school board, would be an easy mark.
But Kansas's mainstream biologists boycotted the hearings, comparing them to the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial." They said the outcome was already decided anyway, and that to defend evolution in what they called a "kangaroo court" would only give the proceedings a veneer of respectability they didn't deserve.
'A Good Product'
At the hearings, witness after witness spoke of gaping holes in evolutionary theory, the power of ID to fill those holes, and ID's potential to give students the complete and exciting science education they deserve.
...
Philosophy professor Warren Nord of the University of North Carolina, declaring himself a "liberal in every sense," explained that justice demands inclusion of religious groups in classroom discussion, just as it has ensured that "women and blacks" are included.
...
The biologists, chemists, and biochemists who spoke in favor of ID made a host of well-worn points that are regularly debunked by the scientific majority. (The pro-ID argument is laid out in detail on the Center for Science and Culture website of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Mainstream explanations of evolution as a natural process are well described for the non-scientist on the Kansas Citizens for Science site and a Science and Creationism publication by the National Academy of Sciences.)
Scientists boycotting the hearings, including members of Kansas Citizens for Science, kept an eye on the proceedings while they staffed a press-relations center on the fifth floor of the capitol. Among their many charges was that pro-ID forces had simply inserted into the science standards a lot of inflammatory language ("an unpredictable and unguided natural process"; "no discernable direction or goal") that was meant to make evolution sound "atheistic."
And by the time the hearings adjourned on Saturday evening, Calvert and his witnesses had made it clear that the formula "evolution = atheism" did indeed lie at the core of their legal case for the new standards.
Atheistic Darwinists
...
This was how witness James Barham, "independent scholar" and Ph.D. candidate at Notre Dame, introduced his testimony: "I was a convinced atheist Darwinist for 20 years. Slowly, it dawned on me that my interest in the spiritual side of humanity could not be reconciled with my study of science."
Jill Gonzales-Bravo: "At Kansas State University I learned quickly that anyone who believed differently [from evolution through natural selection] was not a true intellectual. I became part of the liberal movement and went into the Peace Corps. But I had children and my worldview changed." She came to see that "evolution takes from students the belief that they are here for a purpose."
...
Just Confused
The Board of Education had appointed Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray to argue the case for the science standards drafted by the writing committee's 18-member majority. With the scientific boycott in place, Irigonegaray's chief task was to cross-examine the pro-ID witnesses.
...
He asked James Barham, as he did several of the witnesses, if teaching evolution to Kansas children was equivalent to teaching materialism and atheism. "That depends on how it's interpreted by the child," said Barham. "But that is the framework. Teachers who disagree with that framework should be allowed to teach as they feel is right."
He asked Angus Menuge, a professor of philosophy at Concordia University, "How do you explain the many theists, including evangelical Christians, who don't see [evolution through natural mechanisms] as a contradiction of faith?" Menuge didn't flinch: "Some of those people are just confused."
During the two days of hearings that I attended, Irigonegaray began his cross-examination of each witness with the same three questions. In response to the first, "What, in your personal opinion, is the age of the earth?" nine witnesses cited the widely accepted figure of around 4.5 billion years.
Other witnesses bowed at least somewhat to biblical orthodoxy. Gene-gun inventor Sanford put the earth's age at "maybe 10,000 years" but "not as young as 5,000." Pressed for an answer, Roger DeHart finally concluded that "I'm fine with" an estimate of 5,000 to 100,000 years. Daniel Ely and Nancy Bryson gave themselves plenty of room for maneuver, putting the earth's age at somewhere "between 5,000 and 4.5 billion years."
...
Pressed to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the human species, some witnesses declined, while others offered earnest responses:
"Design, which implies a designer, but we don't go there."
"A creator, but I wouldn't expect the State to teach that."
"An intelligent designer, based on my theistic views."
"Humans and the non-human living world have qualitatively different features that are very mysterious."
"God, by special creation."
Warren Nord enthusiastically recommended that schools should wrap every subject, including biology, in its religious and philosophical context. An incredulous Irigonegaray asked him, "Is it important to have religion taught in economics class?"
Nord: "Yes."
Irigonegaray: "What about math class?"
Nord: "I can make a case for that."
...
Keeping the Designer Under Wraps
A biology teacher who discusses with her students the case for intelligent design -- as she would be allowed to do under the alternative science standards -- might well be asked by students, "So, tell me, who or what did the designing?" At the hearing, most witnesses wanted to discuss only design, not a designer. That often required some fancy footwork. Here is Irigonegaray's exchange with Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and microbiology at the University of Georgia:
Irigonegaray: "The intelligent designer is God?"
Carlson: "Well, yeah, I'd agree with that."
Irigonegaray: "Science should be neutral with respect to religion?"
Carlson: "Yeah."
Irigonegaray: "But intelligent design places faith in ... "
Carlson: "No, the designer is neutral."
Irigonegaray: "You said the designer is God."
Carlson: "We shouldn't discuss the identity [in the classroom]."
Irigonegaray: "We should keep that a secret?"
Carlson: "When children have questions about the materialist explanation, we now send them to their parents or pastors. Instead, design should be offered as an explanation."
Carlson later added that if a child asks about the identity of the designer, that is the point at which he or she should be sent to a parent or pastor.
Following Angus Menuge's testimony, I asked him what should happen when children ask, "Who's the designer?" Menuge said, "You should cut off discussion at that point, and pursue it in a forum other than the classroom."
...
Connie Morris, another pro-ID school board member, told me, "No, we can't mandate intelligent design or creationism in the school standards. But as the fellow from Ohio said, we have to let students go where the evidence leads. I'll give you an example. Did you know there is evidence now that prayer is beneficial in treating cancer?" I asked if teachers should be able to teach about that. Morris, her eyes brightening, said, "Absolutely!"
Those school board members gave substance to a scenario foreseen by Harry McDonald, spokesperson for Kansas Citizens for Science: "They don't even have to introduce ID into the standards. All they need is for a child to ask about it, and that will open the classroom door to religion."
