E-mail This Story

TOPEKA, Kan. — The Kansas State Board of Education has closed the book for
now on evolution vs. intelligent design in the classroom.

But the debate continues as parents, educators and politicians struggle to
settle on definitive answers to life's origins. Each camp can point to
recent victories — and defeats — in Kansas.

The board voted Wednesday to restore evolution to a central place in the
state's science testing standards, making it one of the unifying concepts
that students should know.

The new standards replaced a set approved in August 1999, when
conservatives prevailed on a 6-4 vote. The old standards omitted many
references to evolutionary concepts that a writing committee had
incorporated into what would be the basis of statewide tests.

Between the two votes, Kansas became the target of ridicule and the
subject of editorials, lectures and late-night talk shows. Gov. Bill
Graves called the board's action "terrible, tragic, embarrassing."

Not everyone thought the criticism was entirely fair. Other states were
considering changes in science standards, but many Americans, particularly
on the coasts, had their negative images of Kansas reinforced by the state
board's action.

"Arizona did the same thing, but Arizona doesn't have Dorothy and Toto,"
said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science
Education.

Scott said Kansas is known for its solid education system. De-emphasizing
evolution was a temporary flaw corrected last summer when Kansans
mobilized to defeat two board members who had supported the standards.

Ken Bingman, a longtime high school science teacher in Johnson County,
said his students campaigned to get Sue Gamble elected. She defeated Linda
Holloway, who was chairwoman of the board in 1999 when the standards were
changed.

"It was a lesson in politics and science," Bingman said.

The lesson learned, he said, is that the academic community has to be
vigilant in preserving good science. Advocates of intelligent design,
which holds that a higher power created the universe, will not let the
issue die, he said.

"I give them an 'F' in science, but I give them an 'A' in political
savvy," Bingman said.

However, Bingman said that throughout the debate, students learned — out
of curiosity — about what was objectionable about the theory of evolution.

Some say the debate is not all bad.

State Rep. Ralph Tanner, R-Baldwin City, chairman of the House Education
Committee, said he's not troubled by continuing arguments over evolution's
validity. He was president of Baker University for eight years.

"You don't arrive at the truth through unanimous consensus," Tanner said.
"Let those ideas clash and let kids look for answers that are based on
evidence."

Ed Hammond, president of Fort Hays State University, doesn't believe the
board's vote will end the debate because too many people have strong
opinions.

He said the last elections show that the public supports what he called
the "scientific model," although creationism and naturalism can coexist.

"I don't see a conflict between the two thoughts, but there are those who
do, and as long as there are, there will be a debate," he said.

John Calvert, of the Intelligent Design Network, said he knows the debate
will continue in other states, where school boards have tried to
de-emphasize evolutionary concepts.

Despite obstacles, students will find out about intelligent design
concepts, he said.

"You can't hide the truth," Calvert said. "At some point in time, I think
the decision will be overturned one way or another."

Graves predicts the debate will continue into 2002, when another five
board seats will be up for election.

He expressed doubts that conservatives who promoted the standards that
de-emphasized evolution had a strong interest in policy, adding "if we had
a few more reasonable people" the board could have prevented the
controversy.

Instead, he believes the August 1999 standards were about social
conservatives energizing activists and "scoring philosophical points."

"Sometimes people's goal is not necessarily victory," he said. "Sometimes
the goal is simply fighting the fight."

He added: "There clearly are still members on the board who have strong
feelings who aren't going to back down one iota."

Oryginal:
http://www.foxnews.com/national/021801/evolution_kansas.sml