By John Hanna, Associated Press
March 14, 2005
Many scientists, science teachers and even some Kansas State Board of Education members are disturbed by the board hashing out how evolution is taught in Kansas schools.
Science, they argue, isn't a democracy, and the debate over evolution should occur on university campuses and in scholarly journals, with the outcome determining what children hear in classrooms.
But determining education policy is the State Board of Education's job, settled through political debates and, ultimately, elections. And many Kansans want to weigh in on evolution -- no matter how scientists feel about it.
That means politics will shape how evolution is taught as the board considers changes in the state's science standards this year -- and beyond. Scientists who see evolution's validity as well-established are likely to be frustrated well into the future.
"If you present that -- experts are developing this without consulting the people -- you'd run into Kansas populism in a pretty big way," acknowledged Steve Case, a University of Kansas assistant research professor, co-chairman of a 25-member committee writing proposed science standards for the board's review.
A three-member board subcommittee plans six days of hearings in May to examine evidence for and against evolution.
Existing science standards describe evolution as a key, "unifying" concept vital for students to understand. But the standards run dozens of pages, guiding how the state tests students, which influences classroom teaching.
The board reviews all testing standards regularly, to keep them academically current. But science standards garner the most attention because of evolution.
In 1999, the board, led by conservatives, removed many references to evolution and related concepts, sparking a sometimes furious and international backlash. In 2001, with a new, less conservative majority, the board adopted the current standards.
Now, some proponents of creationism and intelligent design want students exposed to more criticism of evolution.
A minority of Case's committee has been pushing for wording in the standards advancing such a goal. Others worry such changes will help sneak creationism or intelligent design into lesson plans.
Since Charles Darwin published the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, evolution has provoked deep emotions in nonscientists about big questions -- the origins of the universe, life and humanity.
"You just cannot hide from the fact that a theory that presents a story of where all of life came from on the earth has got religious implications," said Bill Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, leader of the minority group on the standards-writing committee. "That's why the populace is so up in arms about it, because it gets at very deep issues."
And the populace is up in arms, judging from public hearings on the science standards in February and the open forums at monthly board meetings.
Some Kansans contend evolution is treated as dogma that isn't supposed to be challenged.
"We're stifling our students' thought process and creating an atheist nation," Connie Ann Heilman, an Abilene science teacher recently told the board. "God is the foundation of our great nation."
Evolution says species change in response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many generations. Detractors argue it suggests man is a mere cosmic accident.
Intelligent design, a form of creationism, holds there is evidence of an intelligent design behind the origin of the universe, the formation of the Earth and biological change. Critics say it is religion gussied up to look like science.
The public hearings in May before the board's subcommittee are supposed to sort through those issues and, according to board Chairman Steve Abrams, educate Kansans about the science.
"I do not want to put creationism -- scientific creationism -- into the science standards," said Abrams, an Arkansas City veterinarian. "Nor intelligent design. In fact, I go further and say that I believe I'm a strong proponent of empirical science."
Kansas Citizens for Science, formed to answer attacks on evolution, is urging scientists to boycott the hearings, arguing they are rigged against evolution -- a Soviet-style show trial.
"If you have an issue with how science does business, why don't you take it up with science instead of taking it up with a lay school board and school districts in Kansas and imposing your rather limited opinion of science on our school children?" said group president Harry McDonald, a retired Olathe high school science teacher.
But it is worth remembering how the current, in-depth review of science standards began.
In 2003, with the board split 5-5, moderates pushed for a full review, rather than a mere touch up, which Education Commissioner Andy Tompkins suggested as an option. They wagered that voters, seeing the evolution controversy coming, wouldn't give conservatives a majority in 2004 elections.
They miscalculated. Conservatives now have a 6-4 majority, making the board more receptive to some Kansans' doubts about evolution.
Political Writer John Hanna has covered state government and politics since 1987.