Aaron White

Pluralism Project Research Report

The Debate over Evolution in Kansas Public Schools.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the debate over the role of religion in United States public schools

has become especially prominent. Issues such as holding baccalaureate services in public

high schools, including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and student

prayer have been the source of much disagreement in the public arena as of late. Debates

over the teaching of evolution are no exception. Currently a controversy over evolution

exists in Kansas, the focus of which has been the Kansas State Board of Education. In

May 2005 the Board of Education held hearings to discuss a "Minority Report" written

by eight of the twenty-five members of the Kansas Science Standards Writing

Committee. This Minority Report proposes altering state science standards to include

strong critiques of biological evolution and has been met with much contention.

These hearings became the center of media attention when groups such as Kansas

Citizens for Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science

supported a boycott of the proceedings. Pro-Evolution scientists from across the country

considered the hearings to be a political show trial, the outcome of which had been

predetermined. The group who testified at the hearings, comprised largely of those in

support of "Intelligent Design" theory, supports including critiques of evolutionary theory

in the state's science curriculum standards and affirms that this effort maintains a critical

and fair examination of the development of life on earth. Those boycotting the hearings,

however, charge defenders of Intelligent Design and critiques of evolution in curriculum

with bringing "creationist" views into the classroom under the banner of "fair" scientific

inquiry. The present dispute is the most recent edition of a six-year long struggle within

the Kansas educational system, and the Kansas State Board of Education is set to release

a decision on the proposed changes science standards sometime this summer.

CREATIONISM, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND EVOLUTION

In order to gain a clearer perception of the current controversy in Kansas, it is important

to have a basic understanding also of the terms "Creationism", "Intelligent Design", and

"Evolution." It is important, also to remember, however, that the terms are not

necessarily mutually exclusive, and not all individuals involved in the controversy fit into

easily definable categories.

Creationism This term usually refers to the belief that the universe and life in it were

created by a divine force in a single act. It is most commonly associated with a literal

interpretation of the biblical conception of creation from the book of Genesis, in which

God created the universe and its inhabitants in six days. "Young Earth" creationists

argue from Biblical evidence that the Earth is anywhere from around six-thousand to ten-

thousand years old. Other creationists, sometimes referred to as adhering to "Old Earth"

creationism, are comfortable with associating the events in Genesis with a process that

could have occurred over a range of thousands to billions of years, and some Old Earth

creationists are comfortable with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe.

Intelligent Design Intelligent Design, or "ID", is used to describe the notion that the

complexity of life in the universe points to the existence of an intelligent force which

aided in its design. Proponents of Intelligent Design tend to claim that Darwinian

evolution cannot account for certain aspects of this complexity or that the origins of life

itself stem from inanimate matter.

Evolution The term "evolution" can refer to any change over time in an individual or

system, however in this debate it tends to be associated with the development of life and

different species through the process of natural selection made famous in the 1800's by

Charles Darwin. It is also often associated with the notion that all life shares a common

ancestor.

A SERIES OF EVENTS

The debate concerning how to approach the topic of evolution in Kansas schools

has been ongoing since August 11, 1999, when a conservative-dominated state school

board made the controversial decision to remove large parts of the state's science teaching

standards which included references to evolution. The standards are a set of guidelines

suggesting how science should be taught in Kansas schools. While local districts

maintain the power to make decisions concerning curriculum, the standards alter what

appears on state tests given to students. The New York Times reported that the 1999

decision removed "not only most references to biological evolution, but also references to

the big bang theory."1 A recent article in Time Magazine notes that the effort to

"downplay the importance of Darwinism" also included the deletion of "references to

dinosaurs, the geological time line and other central tenets of the theory."2 Mention of

evolution in the new set of teaching standards was restricted to instances of

microevolution, or the "occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a

population over a few generations,"3 a process easily observable in nature. References to

macroevolution, "the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of

large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time,"4 was absent from the state's

standards. The Kansas State Board of Education also noted that local school boards

should be given the authority to make decisions concerning the teaching of evolution in

classrooms. A statement concerning this type of local authority was not made for any

areas of study other than science curriculums.

An election in the year 2000 brought a more moderate group of individuals to

power in the Kansas State Board of Education. It was appearant from the beginning of

this particular election that the topic of evolution in the science curriculum had become

more of a political issue than ever. Campaign contributions rose to levels previoulsy

unheard of, as citizens fought to ensure that members of the Board of Education agreed

with their notions of the role of evolution in science classrooms. In 2001, the moderate

2

majority overturned the 1999 decision and restored references to evolution that had been

erased from the state's science standards. The 2002 election brought a small change to

the board's makeup, providing an even split, with five conservative Republicans making

up one half of the board and five moderate Republicans and Democrats the other. This

split created a stalemate in Kansas' evolution debate that would last two years.

It was not long, however, before the evolution debate resurfaced and became

front-page news in Kansas. The 2004 election once again changed the configuration of

the Board of Education, this time restoring the 6-4 conservative majority present during

the initial 1999 revisions of state science standards. In June of 2004, a Kansas Science

Standards Writing Committee, made up of 25 teachers and scientists, was commissioned

to update Kansas state science standards. In December of 2004, the first draft of the

revised standards was presented to the Board of Education, which included information

maintaining that evolution was an important concept to be included in Kansas science

curriculums.

A "Minority Report" was also submitted to the Board via email. The American

Geological Institute states that this report was "authored with the assistance of the

Intelligent Design Network, which criticized the draft for promoting a 'naturalistic'

definition of science and for not sufficiently encouraging students 'to critically analyze

the theory of biological evolution.'"5 (The Intelligent Design Network is a Kansas based

group which describes itself as a "nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins

science."6)

On February 9, 2005, the Kansas state Board of Education released a proposal

stating that there was a "significant disagreement within the Science Curriculum Writing

Committee regarding revisions to the proposed science curriculum

standards particularly with respect to the issue of the definition of science and the issue

of origins and evolution."7 The Board of Education, therefore, voted six-to-four to create

a website where minority reports and public statements would be made available

alongside proposed curriculum standards. A decision was also made to "conduct

hearings focused on the areas of disagreement,"1 where those in support of the Minority

Report would present their ideas alongside the Pro-Evolution scientific community. It

was determined that these hearings would be chaired by three conservative members of

the Board of Education: Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin, and Connie Morris. The newly

formed Science Hearing Committee was set to present its finding to the entire Board of

Education no later than June 15, 2005.

3

THE HEARINGS ARE BOYCOTTED

From the moment the hearings were announced, they were accompanied by

controversy that would again bring the Kansas state Board of Education to the center of

the media's attention. The members of the Science Hearing Committee originally

scheduled the hearings for May 5-7, and May 12-14, allotting the first three days for

those in support of Intelligent Design and critiques of evolutionary theory, and the latter

three days for those in support of maintaining evolution's central role in the science

curriculum. However, the Kansas Board of Education found itself unable to find any

member of the Pro-Evolution science community willing to participate in the hearings.

Thus, May 12 was scheduled as the last official day of the hearings. A mass boycott of

the hearings was carried out by many in the scientific community, supported by such

groups as Kansas Citizens for Science and the American Association for the

Advancement of Science. The New York Times reported that those boycotting the

hearings gave two major reasons for their decision. They argued that "the outcome of the

hearings was a foregone conclusion" and also that "participating in them would only

strengthen the idea in some minds that there was a serious debate in science about the

power of the theory of evolution."8 Concerning the approach of evolution's critics in the

current dispute, Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, noted:

They are trying to establish that ID [Intelligent Design] is, in fact, a science

theory because scientists debate it in science forums. For too long now, scientists

have fallen into this trap of participating in rigged debates which aren't conducted

in any way consistent with how scientific discord occurs. As such, science has

played into the hands of creationists who set the rules so that they can claim

victory. KCFS calls upon the science community to halt such practices. If ID

wants to gain acceptance as science, they need to participate in scientific forums

under the rules which govern scientific discourse.9

Dr. Bill Wagnon is a member of the current moderate minority of the Kansas

Board of Education and was also a member of the board for the 1999 controversy. Dr.

Wagnon had similar feelings concerning the validity of the May hearings and considered

the boycott to be justified because:

The Regular Science Curriculum Standards Writing Committee held extensive

hearings and did a thorough job of pulling together reputable science curriculum

standards. The ID minority felt their views were locked out and got the

conservative majority on the board to hold special hearings for them. The regular

science community, research scientists and science educators, had already done

their jobs and the hearings were unnecessary.10

4

Those in support of the hearings, however, are disappointed about the boycott,

and feel it has denied critics of evolution a chance to participate in a fair debate of the

issues. Board of Education and Science Hearing Committee member, Connie Morris,

was quoted by Beliefnet as saying, "I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to

present their case in the shadows I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say

in a professional, ethical manner."11 Others in support of the hearings point out that the

boycott may suggest evidence of weakness in the arguments supporting evolutionary

theory. In a New York Times article, John West states, "If the evidence for modern

Darwinian theory is so overwhelming, they should have called the bluff on the other side

and come and made their arguments."12 West is a senior fellow at the Discovery

Institute, a Seattle-based think-tank, whose Center for Science and Culture is the nation's

leading source of research supporting Intelligent Design.

THE ARGUMENTS

Although no witnesses in support of evolutionary theory were present at the

hearings held on May 5, 6, 7, and 12 of 2005, lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray was present to

defend the unaltered second draft of the "Kansas Curricular Standards for Science

Education" as written by the Kansas Science Writing Committee as well as the views of

what he referred to as "mainstream science."13 Supporters of the "Minority Report"

which included stronger critiques of evolution were represented by John Calvert, a retired

lawyer and current Managing Director of the Intelligent Design Network. During the

proceedings, Calvert offered his assessment of the Minority Report:

What is it the Minority Report is asking for? Is it asking that we put theism into

the standards? No. It's asked that we put objectivity into the standards, that we

simply treat evolution honestly and candidly as we subject it to the very same

critical analysis that other scientific theories are.14

The Minority Report mentioned by Calvert is a set of proposals by eight scientists

and educators that served on the Kansas Science Writing Committee given in response to

the second draft of the state science standards prepared by that committee. The report

lists specific proposed revisions to the Writing Committee's draft. For example, the

Minority Report requests that in a portion of Kansas' Seventh Grade science standards, a

statement be made "that evolution is a theory and that the observed facts may not always

be consistent with its explanations and predictions."15 The report also suggests that

Twelfth Grade standards include evidence for the "scientific controversy which surrounds

[evolution]" as well as encouraging students to "understand that science: a) affects beliefs

about a broad range of issues, b) uses empirical methods where possible; and c) has

influenced both positive and negative cultural consequences."16 The Minority Report

suggests a number of other similar alterations to the Writing Committee's second draft of

science standards. An explanation of the proposed changes in the report states that the

absence of critiques of Darwinian evolution in the state's science standards amounts to an

"indoctrination in the philosophy of Naturalism" that would "offend Constitutional

principles."17 In the opinion of the Minority Report, its authors' revisions will ensure that

Kansas' science standards "reflect the best of science while also putting the State in a

5

position of Constitutional neutrality rather than that as an advocate for Naturalism, a

philosophy key to non-theistic belief systems."18 While not explicitly supporting the

inclusion of Intelligent Design theory in the curriculum, the Minority Report does spend a

number of pages dealing with scholars in support of "design" as opposed to

"methodological naturalism" which they say is "scientifically problematic in origins

science."19

In response lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray began his final statements to the Board of

Education by stating that "Draft Two accurately represents science as neutral in respect to

the nature of spiritual reality. The Minority Report, however, advances a narrow,

theological view of science that conflicts with mainstream Christianity and many other

faiths."20 Among many other arguments, Irigonegaray proposed that the hearings

themselves were an "unjustified waste of taxpayer money intended first to justify the

Board's support for inserting creationist claims into the science standards."21 Similar to

statements made by many boycotting the hearings, Irigonegaray denied the presence of

the "scientific controversy" surrounding evolution which proponents of Intelligent Design

often use as a foundation from which to argue for a fair representation of ideas in public

schools. Mr. Irigonegaray continued:

The Minority Report's position on allowing supernatural causes in science and

their denial of a common descent are not, I repeat, are not genuine scientific

controversies. The Intelligent Design Movement's anti-evolutionary claims have

had virtually no impact on mainstream science.22

Though absent from the hearings, scientists in support of keeping evolution in the

classroom have made numerous public arguments against those proposing adaptations to

Kansas science standards. Generally, two main themes appear in the arguments of those

supporting an "evolution-friendly" curriculum. First, the argument is made that

proponents of the Minority Report and Intelligent Design base their opinions on bad

science and manipulations of discussions within the scientific community. The second

theme that emerges is the notion that Intelligent Design supporters are promoting a

specific theological viewpoint as science and attempting to bring it into public schools.

In January of 2005, Time Magazine quoted Ken Bingman, a Kansas City public

school biology teacher of forty-two years, critiquing statements like those in the Minority

Report highlighting evolution as a "theory" and criticizing its factual foundations.

Bingman says, "They are playing on the public's lack of understanding on what a

scientific theory is. It's more than a guess. It's a set of hypotheses that has been tested

over time."23 Similarly, University of Kansas professor since 1965, Roger Kaeseler,

states that, "To say that evolution is just a theory is like saying that chemistry is just a

theory. We have tested it so many ways and have never found reason to doubt that it

happened."24

6

The specific religious motivations of those endorsing the Minority Report and

supporters of Intelligent Design in general are also sometimes called into question by

those who wish to maintain evolution's central role in science curriculums.

For example, supporters of the unaltered draft of Kansas science standards point out the

large role which the Discovery Institute has played in shaping many of the arguments

used in the Kansas case. One example is the Discovery Institute's attempt at writing

national policy. A great deal of the argumentation for allowing critiques of evolution in

public schools is supported by the Santorum Amendment, proposed by Republican

senator, Rick Santorum, for the United States 2001 education funding bill. While the

amendment did not become law, the use of its language is widespread in the Kansas case.

The Santorum Amendment states that:

Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological

evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of

scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how

scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.25

A June 18, 2001 Washington Times article quotes Phillip Johnson, Program

Advisor for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture as saying, "I offered

some language to Senator Santorum, after he had decided to propose a resolution of this

sort."26 In addition, four individuals who testified at the May hearings were either current

or past Senior Fellows at the Discovery Institute, and the "teach the controversy"

language espoused by the Board of Education comes directly from Discovery Institute

materials.27 This type of involvement by the Discovery Institute makes many supporters

of evolution wary. They argue that the Discovery Institute promotes a specific

theological viewpoint, citing a document made public by the Discovery Institute in 1997

titled, "The Wedge Strategy," which has come to be known as "The Wedge Document" in

current debate. In this document, the goal of the Discovery Institute's then named Center

for the Renewal of Science and Culture is stated as "nothing less than the overthrow of

materialism and its cultural legacies."28 The document then goes on to define the overall

goals of the new Intelligent Design movement, stating, "Design theory promises to

reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a

science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."29 In order to complete this

goal, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture voices that it plans on gaining "a

popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians."30

Critics who charge the Intelligent Design movement as a "Trojan Horse" for

creationism call attention to the development of how organizations like the Center of

Science and Culture have presented themselves over the past few years. The banner for

the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture from November 1996 - April 1999

displayed the picture of God touching Adam from the Sistine Chapel. The October 1999

August 2001 banner features God alone, a double-helix extending from his fingers.

The newest banner removes the picture of God altogether, instead displaying a picture of

a planetary nebula taken from the Hubble telescope. In 2002, the organization's name

underwent a change as well and was renamed the Center for Science and Culture.31

7

The current argumentation and goals of evolution critics on the Kansas Board of

Education has changed as well since the beginning of this debate. In the original 1999

decisions, almost all references to evolution were deleted altogether. Also, after deleting

these references, Steve Abrams and two other Board members inserted "240 sentences

that they took verbatim" from a document authored by Tom Willis, President of the

Creation Science Association of Mid-America.32 Willis, a "Young Earth" creationist,

was quoted by the Topeka Capital-Journal at the time as stating the dinosaurs existed on

earth until the 20th century. Wills said, "You find descriptions of dinosaurs in every

culture. Government reports in the late 1800's were reporting flying reptiles. They just

didn't know it was politically incorrect to report them."33 In the current debate, Steve

Abrams and others have taken a different approach in their move to allow critiques of

evolutionary theory to enter into science classrooms. Now, they draw support not from

explicit creationists, but from proponents of Intelligent Design, and their proposed

alternative science standards now focus on displaying what they see to be the weaknesses

of Darwinian evolution.

The motives of those funding the Discovery Institute have been called into

question as well by evolution supporters. For example, savings and loan heir Howard F.

Ahmanson, Jr. provided 1.5 million dollars as start-up funds for the Discovery Institute.

In the past, Ahmanson has been a supporter of the Christian Reconstruction movement

and one of its founders, Rev. Rousas John Rushdoony. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

reported in 2003 that, "For 10 years ending in 1995, Ahmanson contributed a total of

$700,000 to Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation and served on its board of directors."34

The Christian Reconstruction movement formerly led by Rushdoony seeks the

application of biblical law in society. In recent years, however, Ahmanson and his wife,

Roberta, have said that they disagree with Christian Reconstructionist philosophy.35

Questions concerning the religious motivations and scientific methodology of

those at the Discovery Institute and those desiring revisions of Kansas state science

standards have not gone unanswered, however. Board member, Connie Morris, has said

that all supporters of the revised science standards desire is a fair and scientific approach

to the study of evolution in public schools. The Kansas City Star quotes Morris as

saying, "The rhetoric has become comical. We are seeking to get criticism scientific

criticism about evolution in. How much more clearly do I have to say that?"36 The

authenticity of these criticisms is something Morris has commented on as well. In the

Wichita Eagle, Morris stated that students "need to understand there are many criticisms,

and they're backed up. This is not a shot in the dark, a flaky proposal."37 John West,

Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, stated recently that he does not wish the

teaching of evolution to be taken out of schools, but like Morris, desires that critiques of

the theory accompany it. West said, "The majority of biologists obviously support

Darwinian evolution in its full-fledged view. The questions is, are there legitimate, peer-

reviewed criticisms? If there are, students should know about them."38

Official material from the Discovery Institute website provides links to a

"Bibliography of Peer-reviewed & Peer-edited Publications Supporting the Theory of

Intelligent Design,"39 and notes that "open hostility from those who hold to neo-

8

Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their

ideas, research and articles."40 Also, in response to the question of whether or not

members of the scientific community are working in support of Intelligent Design theory,

the Discovery Institute provides this response:

Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and

theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the

world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University,

microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at

the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco

State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and

quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.41

Concerning the allegation that Discovery Institute research promotes a specific

theological viewpoint, official materials explicitly state that the institute is "a secular

think tank" and not a religious organization.42 The Discovery Institute website points to

the religious diversity which exists within its ranks, citing that its "Board members and

Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman

Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of

Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish."43

The Discovery Institute has also published an article titled, "The 'Wedge

Document': 'So What?'" which serves as a response to criticisms of its "Wedge Strategy"

and the document that outlined it. One of the major portions of this article is devoted to a

rebuttal of the objection made by critics of the institution for the phrase in the "Wedge

Document" stating that "Discovery Institute's Center wants to reverse the stifling

dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with

Christian and theistic convictions."44 The article offers an extended statement on this

portion of the text as follows:

Please note first, that "consonant with" means "in harmony with" or "consistent

with." It does not mean the "same as." Recent developments in physics,

cosmology, biochemistry, and related sciences may lead to a new harmony

between science and religion. Many of us happen to think that they will, and we

are not alone in that. But that doesn't mean we think religion and science are the

same thing. We don't. Nor do we want to impose a religious agenda on the

practice of science.

This passage instead was referring to our conviction that science, rather than

supporting a materialistic philosophy, is at least consistent with theistic belief,

including Christian belief. In fact, some of our fellows actually go further than

this. They think that new developments in science may actually support a theistic

world-view or have "theistic implications," even thought they do not think that

science can "prove" the existence of God or specific religious doctrines.45

9

The article continues to state the importance of realizing the key difference

between the basis for an argument, and its implications, which the Discovery Institute

sees as an important distinction in this matter.46

Those involved in the Kansas case who support critiques of evolution have turned

the claim of religious indoctrination on its head in a way by alleging that it is, in fact, the

ardent supporters of evolution who are taking part in indoctrination. Some witnesses and

members of the Board of Education are cited as equating Darwinian evolution with

atheism and asserting that evolutionists themselves push for a specific theological world-

view to be presented in classrooms. Board member Connie Morris is quoted by the

Topeka Capital-Journal as saying "Evolution is an 'age-old fairy tale,' sometimes

defended with 'anti-God contempt and arrogance'"47 in a newsletter that she circulated in

early June of 2005. Stephen Meyer, witness in the May 2005 hearings and vice-president

of the Discovery Institute, in 1999 claimed, "Scientific materialism (evolution) as taught

in schools is a religion that denies the existence of God."48 In reply to issues of the

religious motivations of Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and others who help fund organizations

such as the Discovery Institute, Meyer said, as quoted in the Washington Post, "We'll

take money from anyone who wants to give it to us. Everyone has motives. Let's

acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part."49

RESPONSE FROM VARIOUS FAITHS

Formal responses to the revisions in state science standards from non-Christian

religious communities in Kansas have been few and far between. However, those that

have been highlighted are wide-ranging, and span the spectrum of opinions concerning

this matter. A May 2005 article in the Lawrence World-Journal placed a spotlight on

people of varying faith traditions who had reservations about possible changes to science

curriculums. Kansas resident Judith Roitman is a practitioner of both Buddhism and

Judaism. When questioned by the World-Journal, this Kansas University math professor

and teacher at the Kansas Zen Center shared her fears about a specific form of

Christianity taking dominance in public education. "This is not just a Christian agenda,

but a particular brand of Christianity, and they are trying to impose it on everyone else,"

Roitman said.50 Saibal Bhattacharya, a Hindu and assistant scientist at the Kansas

Geological Survey, said that he is "concerned about where it might lead. Compulsory

prayers in schools, whether people might have to acknowledge a common

creator That's very disappointing for me, as a Hindu."51 Similar reservations were

expressed by Stephen Hurst, an attorney and president of the Lawrence Jewish

Community Center. Hurst stated, "I have the concern that it's the camel's nose in the tent,

so to speak that the rest is soon to follow."52 More open to the idea of allowing a

different set of viewpoints into the science curriculum was Moussa Elbayoumy, a

physician and member of the Islamic Center of Lawrence. The World-Journal quoted

Elbayoumy as saying, "As Muslims, we believe in a creation in a way not much different

from Christians and Jews Teaching any theory whether it is evolution, creationism, or

intelligent design should not be an issue, as long as they are treated equally and

subjected to the scientific method and not presented as unquestionable facts."53

10

Two particular visitors to the Kansas Board of Education over the course of the

debate have been distinctly in favor of the push to add critiques of evolution to science

standards. In October 1999, only two months after the initial controversial decision to

remove most references to evolution from Kansas state science standards, Danavir

Goswami visited the Board of Education to inform them of his support for their decision.

Goswami is the president of the Rupanuga Vedic College in Kansas City. The RVC is

the "first and only degree-granting seminary of the International Society for Krishna

Consciousness."54 In a statement on his college's website, Goswami states, "We happily

explained that Darwin's Theory of evolution is not scientific in the least and that the

Kansas Board of Education called Darwin's bluff."55

Almost six years later at the 2005 hearings, the Kansas Board of Education

invited Mustafa Akyol to be a witness supporting the Minority Report's suggestions.

Akyol is a columnist for a Turkish daily newspaper and the Director of International

Relations at the Intercultural Platform. In addition, Akyol has been a past fellow of the

Science Research Foundation, the "main champion of the ID cause in Turkey"56 and has

authored the article "Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design" for Islam Online.

In his testimony Mr. Akyol stated that, rather than provide more scientific support for

critiques of Darwinian evolution, he would rather inform the board of "the cultural

implications of this whole debate, whose importance can't be overemphasized."57 Akyol

commented to the Board of Education that "design and Darwinism's no design resonate

with different philosophical worldviews" and that in "the current situation, the ones who

feel deprived and alienated are theists, including Muslims."58 Akyol linked what he felt

to be a monopoly of materialism in curriculums to a desire by "virtually all" Muslims in

the United States to remove their children from public schools.59 He expressed his view

that cases like this have great implications in the world, and can affect the beliefs that

Muslim's across the world have of the United States:

Muslim's think that the West is a completely materialistic civilization that has

turned its back on God Since America is the leading country within the whole of

Western Civilization, it attracts much of this distaste. Unfortunately, that is one

of the factors that create a breeding ground for radical Islamists and even the

terrorists. Public school curriculum that focuses on an objective approach to

origins can be a very crucial key in altering this bad impression about the United

States for the better.60

THE FUTURE OF THE KANSAS DEBATE

On June 15, 2002, the three members of the Science Hearing Committee

presented their post-hearing findings to the whole of the Kansas State Board of

Education, and a final decision is expected to be given in August concerning the future of

the science standards in Kansas public schools. However, the standards are a guide and

not a rule as to how science should be taught in Kansas schools. Local districts still have

control over what is taught in their classrooms, and if the altered curriculum is taken on,

the effects of the changes might not be visible until after a significant number of students

have taken state-wide tests that have adopted the new standards. In addition, it is

11

important to keep in mind that over the past six years the political and religious makeup

of the Board of Education has had much to with how the question of evolution is

approached. Given that the matter has become a political as well as an educational issue,

the August announcement of the Board's decision is not expected to be the end of the

evolution debate in Kansas.

SIMILAR CASES

The debate over the role of evolution in state science standards in Kansas is far

from an isolated one, and if Kansas does, in fact, adopt the revised curriculum, it will be

alongside six other states with proposed legislation that reduces the importance of

evolution in public school curriculums in 2005 alone: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,

Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina.61 The debate has also spread outside of the

United States and into Europe as well. Just weeks ago, the Dutch Minister of Education,

Maria van der Hoeven, announced that she plans to "initiate a debate" between supporters

of evolution and those who believe that a divine intelligence could lie behind the creation

of the universe, the results of which could possibly affect Holands science curriculums,

she says.62

12

CITATIONS

1

Belluck, Pam. 1999. Board from Kansas Deletes Evolution from Curriculum. New York Times. August

11th, Section A; Page 1.

2

Isackson, Noah, Michael D. Lemonick and Jeffrey Ressner. 2005. Stealth Attack on Evolution: Who is

behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin's critics, and what do they really want? Time,

31 January, 53.

3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

5

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/evolutionKS.html

6

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

7

http://www.kcfs.org/standards05/Board.Proposal2-9-05.html

8

Dean, Cornelia. 2005. Opting Out In the Debate On Evolution. New York Times. June 21,

Section F; Page 1.

9

McDonald, Harry. abpucj@r.postjobfree.com, Re: Questions from The Pluralism Project at Harvard

University, private e-mail message to Aaron White. 21 June 2005.

10

Wagnon, Bill. abpucj@r.postjobfree.com, Re: Questions from The Pluralism Project at Harvard

University, private e-mail message to Aaron White. 22 June 2005.

11

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/166/story_16629_1.html?rnd=41

12

Dean, Cornelia. 2005. Opting Out In the Debate On Evolution. New York Times. June 21,

Section F; Page 1

13

Kansas State Department of Education. Presentation Held Before The Science Committee of The

Kansas State Board of Education Transcript of Proceedings May 12th, 2005.

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearing05122005.pdf

14

Ibid, 30.

15

Proposed Revisions to Kansas Science Standards Draft 2 With Explinations. March 29th, 2005, p1

http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Proposed%20Revision%20to%20Draft%202%20KS%20Sci

Kansas State Department of Education. Presentation Held Before The Science Committee of The

Kansas State Board of Education Transcript of Proceedings May 12th, 2005, p 3.

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearing05122005.pdf

21

Ibid

22

Ibid

23

Isackson, Noah, Michael D. Lemonick and Jeffrey Ressner. 2005. Stealth Attack on Evolution: Who is

behind the movement to give equal time to Darwin's critics, and what do they really want? Time,

31 January, 53.

24

McLean, Jim. 1999. Creationism or evolutionism? Steadfast in their beliefs, disciples on each side insist

their position is bolstered by evidence. The result is a Fundamental debate. Topeka Capital-

Journal. August 22.

25

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=113

26

Witham, Larry. 2001. Senate bill tackles evolution debate; Advises states to allow academic openness on

concept. The Washington Times. June 18.

27

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery

28

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

29

Ibid

30

Ibid

31

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8325_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp

32

http://www.kcfs.org/KsSciSt1999-2001/Fliers_articles/Standardsissue.html

33

McLean, Jim. 1999. Creationism or evolutionism? Steadfast in their beliefs, disciples on each side insist

their position is bolstered by evidence. The result is a Fundamental debate. Topeka Capital-

Journal. August 22.

34

http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030921episcopal0921p3.asp

35

Ibid

36

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/11922484.htm

37

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/11857276.htm

38

Dean, Cornelia. 2005. Opting Out In the Debate On Evolution. New York Times. June 21,

Section F; Page 1.

39

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

40

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/061405/kan_evolution.shtml

48

1999. Design, perhaps, but just how intelligent is it? Topeka Capital Journal. November 9.

49

Slevin, Peter. 2005. Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens. Washington Post. March 14,

Section A; page 1

50

Baker, Jim. 2005. Christian agenda worries other faiths: push for intelligent design seen by some as

imposing Christianity on others. Lawrence World Journal. May 12.

Bavley, Alan. 2000. A Study in Faith. The Kansas City Star. October 24.

http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/printer.pat,local/3774dbc8.a23,.html

55

http://www.rvc.edu/meda.html

56

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sceptbioalyol.pdf

57

Akyol, Mustafa. Testimony to the Kansas State Board of Education.

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/scepttestimonyalyol.pdf

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/237_antievolution_resolution_propo_2_15_2005.asp

62

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/nl060610?view=Standard

15

Contact this candidate