Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Same party, different views
(By MELODEE HALL BLOBAUM, The Kansas City Star, July 22, 2006)

Janet Waugh and Jesse Hall say they have a passion for education.

And they agree that skirmishes over evolution, sex education and other issues have distracted the Kansas Board of Education from more important work.

But the two Democrats campaigning for the 1st District seat on the board come down on different sides of those and other issues, and they have pointedly different views of how well public schools are serving children.

Waugh, the incumbent, sees steady progress in student achievement in the four counties she represents.

"For my district, education is the only escape for many children from a life of poverty or crime or, frankly, death at a young age," she said. "I'm passionate about all children being educated."

Hall, however, is alarmed by the dropout rate in the district and across the state and wants schools to focus more on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.

"If we can lower the dropout rate, go back and teach the basics, then we'll have a much-improved local economy," he said.

The 1st District includes Leavenworth and Jefferson counties, most of Wyandotte County and the eastern portion of Douglas County, including part of Lawrence.

Once a low-profile body, the 10-member board drew attention in 1999 by downplaying evolution in the state's science standards. Those changes were reversed by a newly elected moderate majority in 2001. But when voters elected a conservative majority in 2004, evolution and science standards became an issue again.

Five board seats are up for election this year. Waugh is the only moderate incumbent facing re-election; the four other seats are held by conservatives.

Waugh touts her experience on the Turner Board of Education. She also has an understanding of the difficulties faced by urban school districts that she said was not shared by her fellow board members.

"Hopefully, I can bring their attention to these challenges and make them recognize that the needs we have may be different than the needs of a rural community," she said.

Hall also brings experience with urban schools. He works for the Kansas City School District, and his children attended Kansas City, Kan., public schools until he and his wife decided to homeschool them.

"I saw the great need of kids not really getting the basics," he said. "I've tutored kids after school for years. And instead of the situation getting better, I saw it getting worse."

Waugh wants the board returned to a moderate point of view and has suggested that all 6-4 decisions made since January 2005 be revisited if it happens.

Among the hot-button decisions since then:

Science standards: Standards approved in November encourage students to look at the theory of evolution and criticism of it, and changes the definition of science from the search for natural explanations to a search for "more adequate" explanations.

The standards did not reflect the majority view of the 26-member standard-writing committee.

Critics say the standards include intelligent design terminology and many of its arguments against evolution.

Hall supports the standards, saying that they do not specifically advocate teaching creationism or intelligent design.

Waugh voted against the revisions. She says the state should adopt standards that are accepted by the mainstream science community as good science.

What happened to my post about the symbolism enshrined in the words Los Angeles. That's an aspect of the psuedomorphosis like the cross on the stationary?

You critique those who wish to affect some change in their ed systems, but it sounds more like you want to be in there with your own ideas? neh? Or do you only wish to be getting your share of free food and booze?

Public school science standards a key issue
(By Tim Vandenack, The Hutchinson News, July 24, 2006)

One of the hottest topics the Kansas Board of Education has tackled of late - and a key issue in the contests for the open seats on the body - is science standards for the state's public schools.

The six conservatives on the 10-member body adopted revisions to the standards in December, inserting new critiques and question marks about evolution that they say make study of the topic more objective.

Many, however, blast the revisions as misleading and an underhanded attempt to allow creationist-friendly concepts like intelligent design into science classrooms. Intelligent design posits that some aspects of nature are so complicated that an "intelligent cause," which critics equate with God, must have had a hand.

Broadly, John Calvert of the Shawnee Mission-based Intelligent Design Network said the revisions introduce students to apparent question marks related to random mutation and natural selection as the motors behind all biodiversity.

"That's where the huge controversy is," said Calvert, who backs the changes.

More specifically, the changes:
•Say extrapolating microevolution, change within a species, to explain macroevolution, the development of new species, "is controversial."
•Say the view that all living things descended from a common ancestor "has been challenged" by molecular evidence and fossil records.
•And expose students to criticism about theories about the origin of the first specs of life.

More subtly, Calvert said the changes help dispel evolution as a stand-alone "origin story" of life bolstering nontheistic belief systems like atheism and agnosticism to the detriment of traditional theistic religions.

The changes, he says, "mean we won't be indoctrinating students one way or another."

On the other side of the spectrum, critics decry the changes as unneeded and deceiving.

"The idea that evolution is a theory in crisis is nonsense," said Jack Krebs of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the revisions. Noting what he called overwhelming acceptance of evolution in the scientific community, he said the changes "create doubt that really isn't out there."

Scientists are constantly delving into the apparent question marks pointed out by the new standards, Krebs said, "but it's not calling evolution into question, it's deepening our understanding of evolution." What's more, he said the notion that evolution precludes the possibility of theistic religion is incorrect, noting the range of creeds represented by his group's members.

More specifically, Krebs pointed to the wordage of the changes, which he said mimics intelligent design tomes, as evidence that the revisions aim to bolster that notion.

He also said the new definition of science in the revised standards paves the way to "supernatural" explanations of happenings in the world. The old definition described science as "seeking natural explanations ... in the world around us" while the new one defines science as searching for "more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

"A small change of words has really got a great big important story behind it," Krebs said, blasting the "slippery language" of the revisions.

the Darwinian, loses it or is able to evade it by setting up a secretless 'scientific world-view' between himself and the alien."

Conservatives may be tough to shake off

KANSAS UPDATE

Quote:

Conservatives may be tough to shake off
(By Dave Ranney, Lawrence Journal-World, July 25, 2006)

..."I don't think we're going to lose any seats," she said. "As we've seen before, I think conservative voters are motivated; moderates aren't."
And why is that?

"Where do conservatives gather?" Duckett said. "They gather in church. They meet, they talk, they get motivated. Now, where do moderates meet?"

She paused.

"That's just it," Duckett said. "They don't. They may go to church, but they're not motivated by church."

Conservatives may be tough to shake off

And if that weren't enough,