Friday, June 17, 2005
Extensive Review
Kansas Citizens for Science President Harry McDonald catches science hearing sub-committee members Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin in -- how shall we put it delicately -- yet another in a seemingly endless string of falsehoods. (Well, maybe there simply isn't a way to put it delicately.)
Each of the sub-committee members claim their editing of the science standards is based on the testimony of intelligent design witnesses at the hearings, but...
"Several members of the subcommittee admitted both before and during the hearings that they couldn't understand the technical arguments," says McDonald. "The final transcript of the hearings was not available when the committee recommendations were drafted, so it can't be claimed that an extensive review of the hearings influenced the recommendations."
RSR attended the board meeting where Abrams reported the revisions -- our impression was that they were hastily drafted and poorly written -- Kathy Martin, undoubtedly trying to make a case that she'd finally read the draft, offered a number of grammatical and typographic corrections, although she was often overruled by Connie Morris.
If you've read Connie's newsletter, you already know she doesn't know any more about writing and grammar than she does about science.
If you haven't read the newsletter yet, Josh Rosenau has posted it on his Thoughts From Kansas blog.
Each of the sub-committee members claim their editing of the science standards is based on the testimony of intelligent design witnesses at the hearings, but...
"Several members of the subcommittee admitted both before and during the hearings that they couldn't understand the technical arguments," says McDonald. "The final transcript of the hearings was not available when the committee recommendations were drafted, so it can't be claimed that an extensive review of the hearings influenced the recommendations."
RSR attended the board meeting where Abrams reported the revisions -- our impression was that they were hastily drafted and poorly written -- Kathy Martin, undoubtedly trying to make a case that she'd finally read the draft, offered a number of grammatical and typographic corrections, although she was often overruled by Connie Morris.
If you've read Connie's newsletter, you already know she doesn't know any more about writing and grammar than she does about science.
If you haven't read the newsletter yet, Josh Rosenau has posted it on his Thoughts From Kansas blog.
