David Klepper, "Evolution hearings end bitterly. Science standards go to vote this summer" (2005)

Evolution hearings end bitterly
> <b><span class="deck">Science standards go to vote this summer<span>
> <b><span class="byline">By DAVID KLEPPER <span>
> <b><span class="creditline">The Kansas City Star<span>
> <div>
> <p>TOPEKA &mdash; The Kansas Board of Education's hearings on the teaching of evolution ended Thursday with more name-calling than science.<p>

It was an acrimonious end to four days of hearings that had been heralded by some board members as a scientific dialogue for the public's education.

The hearings began last week to worldwide media scrutiny and a packed audience, but by Thursday there were fewer than 50 members of the public watching, and much of the debate focused on emotional accusations and not Charles Darwin.

With the hearings over, two things are clear: The three board members who had called for the hearings believe evolution is a flawed theory with atheistic overtones.

And mainstream scientists think the board members are creationists who want to insert their own beliefs in public schools at the expense of schoolchildren and the state's reputation.

A proposal now before the board would incorporate greater criticism of the theory of evolution and allow alternatives to be taught. It would also change the definition of science to allow for explanations that do not rely on natural causes.

The proposal will probably go to a vote before the full 10-member board this summer. The science guidelines are used by local districts to set curriculum, and are the basis for statewide assessment tests.

The proposal was pushed by John Calvert, a Lake Quivira resident and a leading proponent of intelligent design, the belief that some aspects of nature are so complicated that they can only be explained as being the work of a creator. During the first three days of hearings, Calvert called 23 witnesses who criticized evolution.

The witnesses led board member Kathy Martin, who had expressed doubts about the theory before the hearings began, to conclude that evolution is “an unproven, often disproven” theory.

On Thursday, it was the opposition's turn. Topeka lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray defended the way evolution is taught, and argued that intelligent design is a thinly veiled form of creationism. He called it “a narrow sectarian theological view” that is opposed by most people, including mainstream Christians.

Irigonegaray also accused the board of abusing the political process by holding the hearings, which he called “a gigantic waste of time” and tax dollars. The state paid about $10,000 for the hearings — for the travel expenses of witnesses and for the services of a court reporter.

“Each penny taken by you, Mr. Calvert, for your witnesses, is a penny taken from Kansas children,” Irigonegaray said. He went on to tell the board, “You have a responsibility to the children and to the future of this state — a responsibility that you have sadly, sadly failed.”

The proposed curriculum change was not supported by most of the 26-member panel of educators and scientists who reviewed the state science curriculum. Steve Case, a University of Kansas professor who leads the panel, said that if the proposal was adopted, he would support school districts that choose to ignore the guidelines or refuse to give the assessment tests.

“I would encourage schools and districts to practice civil disobedience,” he said.

Scientists and educators who accept the theory of evolution chose to boycott the hearings, which the president of the Kansas Citizens for Science, Harry McDonald, called a sham and publicity stunt. But those scientists supported Irigonegaray, who stepped forward to defend the teaching of evolution.

Board members critical of evolution said the scientists' boycott had backfired.

“I can only conclude that they don't have evidence (for evolution),” board member Connie Morris said.

Irigonegaray refused to answer questions from board members and from Calvert. That prompted Chairman Steve Abrams to say the rules of the hearings had been broken, and he gave extra time to Calvert. He defended the changes he wants to see in the science curriculum and blasted his opposition.

Then the board members, who all admit to having strong doubts about evolution, proceeded to criticize Irigonegaray, the media and scientists who boycotted the event.

Morris told Irigonegaray his tactics amounted to “abuse,” and blasted the media as a “propaganda machine” for reporting that some board members had not read the standards they criticize. Martin, who admitted that she had not read the entire standards, said the board had been unfairly criticized.

“The board has been accused of being close-minded, and the jury rigged,” she said. “I guess we'll leave it up to the public to decide.”

Calvert attacked the methods used by Irigonegaray and mainstream science groups, accusing them of “character assassination.” Throughout the hearings, Irigonegaray questioned the anti-evolution witnesses about their beliefs. Two told him they believe Earth is as young as 5,000 years, and most said they doubt that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Calvert said Irigonegaray's only weapon was “an attorney's rhetoric,” designed to make evolution opponents look like “ignoramuses.” In the end, he said, he couldn't even shake his opponent's hand.

“I don't think this strategy deserves a handshake,” Calvert said.

To reach David Klepper, call (785) 354-1388 or send e-mail to [email protected].