Red State Rabble

Reader Joe D. of Pennsylvania sent this letter to the Smithsonian:

Dear Mr. Kremer,

Please don't sell out the scientific integrity of the Smithsonian by accepting the payment from the Discovery Institute and endorsing their film. Surely you are aware of their completely unscientific agenda. I understand that the film in question, "The Privileged Planet", does not directly expound Intelligent Design, but that is not how they will spin a showing at the Smithsonian. Their record of intellectual dishonesty is well documented; they are very likely to claim nothing less than total endorsement of ID by the Smithsonian; your clarifications after the fact will be ineffective.

Even if the Smithsonian has a precedent of permitting NON-scientific organizations to use it's facilities, I think it's your responsibility to avoid dealings with actively ANTI-scientific groups. The Discovery Institute is not your friend; their agenda is not in your best interests. It is not dismaying that they could buy their way into the Smithsonian so cheaply; it is dismaying that they could buy their way in at all.

Please do right by science and sever your relationship with the Discovery Institute.

Reader Davin F. shares this letter to the Smithsonian:

I was shocked and outraged to read in the New York Times today of the Smithsonian's sponsorship and screening of the Discovery Institute's film "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."

The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History represents the highest standard of scientific research about the history of our planet and the Universe. To host a screening of this film, whether it is a paid rental or not, is completely against the mission of the Smithsonian. I am sure you have refused to screen other films and host other events due to their nature - this film should have certainly set off alarm bells at the highest levels of the administration there.

I've worked my entire life in museums spanning the entire country, and I can tell you that none of them would ever consider hosting an event, rental or otherwise, that went against our mission of presenting science to the public. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and given that its proponents are currently trying to replace science with this religious-based dogma in the nation's classrooms, the Smithsonian's responsibility seems very clear.

You still have plenty of time to come out on the correct side of this issue, and restore your institution's sterling credibility. Cancel the event. To let the screening continue with a carefully worded press release is show that the Smithsonian's scientific principles can be set aside for a sum as low as $16,000. From a public relations point of view, it will be a disaster. This issue will snowball in the media, not to mention with your supporters and colleagues in political and scientific circles. It won't be long until irreversible damage to the Smithsonian has occurred.

I hope you take the immediate action of cancelling the event. I look forward to seeing the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History make the course correction that is consistent with its noble mission.

Some readers are sharing the protest letters they've sent to the Smithsonian with Red State Rabble, and we're sharing them with you...

I am writing to protest your co-hosting this event. The Discovery Institute, the home of so-called "intelligent design"creationism, is behind this movie, "The Privileged Planet." Your PR staff may not have detected a religious theme to it; however, it is based on the idea that the earth was created in just such a way that human beings could live here. That is decidedly a religious idea, namely, the anthropic principle.

I don't believe your staff knew what it was okaying. The Discovery Institute is now crowing about the SI "coming around" to intelligent design, implying not only co-sponsorship due to their $16,000 donation, but also acceptance of the ideas in that film.

A few years ago, the Yale Campus Crusade, under the name of the Rivendell Institute, sponsored a visit by the "godfather of ID," Phillip Johnson. The Discovery Institute trumpeted their "Yale Conference" far and wide, implying Yale had sponsored the event, when the university had decidedly not.

The "Wedge Strategy" of the Discovery Institute (Google it and read) is to garner credibility for intelligent design creationism by drawing reputable scientists and institutions into involvements with the Discovery Institute. They have no science, no research, no nothing without the cooperation of unwitting participants and sponsors of their supposedly non-religious events.

I will lose a great deal of respect for the Smithsonian, one of our country's greatest and most reputable institutions, if it does not return the $16,000 to the Discovery Institute and cancel this religious sneak invasion. It is being used as PR which can only hurt the SI, and it should be stopped ... NOW.

Sincerely,Liz Craig
Kansas Citizens For Science
www.kcfs.org

Welcome back. Most of you -- the sane ones at any rate -- took the Memorial Day weekend off. You went to the lake. You went for long bike rides. You read a book. You broke the routine. While you were gone, the ever vigilant Red State Rabble, Thoughts from Kansas, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, and James Randi were on the job. That probably makes us a little batty, but, there you are.

What you need to know is this: intelligent designers at the Discovery Institute have made a $16,000 donation to the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural Science to have the premier showing of their ID film "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" held there on June 23rd. The invitation-only event is being billed as "co-sponsored" by the Smithsonian. (You can see a copy of the invitation here)

While the saying attributed to the Russian Communist leader Lenin that,"[t]he capitalists are so hungry for profits that they will sell us the rope to hang them," is apparently apocryphal, it may be that for a pitiful 16 grand we have now sold the imprimatur of science to the antiscience mob.

Doubt that it will be used against defenders of science? Here's the headline on a post by Denyse O'Leary on the ID friendly Post-Darwinist blog: "News Alert: Smithsonian Museum Warming to Intelligent Design." Get the picture?

All along, we've been hearing from ID "theorists" that there is a legitimate controversy among scientists over evolution. The only reason they're willing to pay $16,000 to rent a room to show their movie in, is because that room is located inside one of the premier science institutions in the world. It drives that ol' wedge in just a little deeper.

A response is being organized -- and we need your help. Pro-science websites and bloggers are asking readers to make protest calls and send protest e-mails to Randall Kremer, National Museum of Natural History Director of Public Affairs 202-633-2950 giving@si.edu or nhevents@si.edu.

Red State Rabble is asking you to do more. Please send a personal e-mail note to five reality-based friends, relatives, or colleagues asking them to take action, as well. If you run a list-serve, website, or blog and you're just getting back, please let people know about this issue.

The James Randi Education Fund has gone one step further. They've offered the Smithsonian a no-strings attached donation of $20,000 if they cancel the antiscience Discovery Institute film showing.

Here are some resources for following the story. Be sure to read the May 28 New York Times article by John Schwartz, "Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution." Panda's Thumb has posted a series of links on the film. Scroll down for Red State Rabble's coverage from over the weekend.

Now get busy and send those e-mails.

Via Pharyngula: In response to the Discovery Institute's games with the Smithsonian, James Randi has made an interesting offer:

On the James Randi Educational Foundation site:

We need to be alarmed and militant about this situation. The "Discovery Institute" is the center of the Intelligent Design movement, which is only a semantically-disguised support group for creationism. By donating a mere $16,000, it has purchased the use of the Smithsonian facilities along with their implied co-sponsorship of the film, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."

Readers, do something about this. Please send an e-mail to giving@si.edu addressed to Mr. Randall Kremer, Public Affairs. Tell him of your concern over this situation. And, you might add that the JREF is willing to donate $20,000 to the Smithsonian Institution if they agree to give back the "Discovery Institute" $16,000 and decline to sponsor the showing of the film. And the JREF will not require the Smithsonian to run any films or propaganda that favor our point of view...

This news has broken around the web over the Memorial Day weekend when many are on vacation and away from their computers. Red State Rabble is asking members of list-serves, bloggers, and web site administrators to redouble their efforts to build a strong protest beginning tomorrow when many people will become aware of the issue for the first time. Readers can help by calling or e-mailing the Smithsonian, and by sending personal e-mail notes to at least five of their friends, relatives, or colleagues asking them to do the same.

We often observe how the right uses the power of the internet to further their own aims. This is an opportunity for science and reason to flex its very powerful, if perhaps not quite ripped, muscles to deliver a powerful blow to the ambitions of the Discovery Institute and their antiscience followers.

The Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy" to attack science -- which they see as the source of all that's wrong in Western Civilization -- is to claim that there is a genuine controversy between scientists over the theory of evolution. Key to this strategy is the false claim that intelligent design is real science and that mainstream scientists are dogmatists.

The intelligent design "theorists" are now trying to purchase scientific legitimacy from the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. They've paid $16,000 dollars for the privilege of screening The Privileged Planet at the museum, and they're already crowing about the supposed "co-sponsorship" of the event.

The money is no big deal for the Discovery Institute. They've got piles of it. They're financed, in part, by Howard Ahmanson, a savings and loan heir who has maintained a long-time relationship with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace American democracy with a harsh fundamentalist theocracy.

"Reconstructionists believe conservative Christians should take "dominion" over American society," says Steve Benen of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "Under their version of "biblical law," the death penalty would be required for over a dozen categories of offenders, including adulterers, homosexuals, witches, incorrigible children and those who spread 'false' religions. They regard the teaching of evolution as part of a 'war against Genesis.'"

Money is no problem, but can we allow them to use it to buy scientific legitimacy without a fight? If, like Red State Rabble, your answer is a resounding no, then make a call or send an e-mail to:

Randall Kremer, Director of Public Affairs 202-633-2950,
Events Staff nhevents@si.edu

Don't know what the film is all about? Here's an excerpt from The Privileged Planet:

"Is it possible that this immense, symphonic system of atoms, fields, forces, stars, galaxies, and people is the result of a choice, a purpose or intention, rather than simply some inscrutable outworking of blind necessity or an inexplicable accident? If so, then it's surely possible that there could be evidence to suggest such a possibility...

"Perhaps we have also been staring past . . . a signal revealing a universe so skillfully crafted for life and discovery that it seems to whisper of an extra-terrestrial intelligence immeasurably more vast, more ancient, and more magnificent than anything we've been willing to expect or imagine."

Jim Remsen of the The Philidelphi Inquirer recently ran an exchange between evolutionary biologist Stacey Ake and biblical creationist Paul G. Humber over teaching the concept in science classes. Here's a sample:

Inquirer(to Humber): Critics say that where the evolutionary approach is always adjusting and is open to the results as they appear, your side knows its conclusion already and isn't open to evidence that's contrary to the biblical account.

Humber: One of the things I have found interesting is how very faithful the Bible is to anticipating modern science. George Washington, the science of his day said if you had bad blood, you have to drain the blood. And in Leviticus, it says the life of the flesh is in the blood. Now, how does man know that? Well, it's revealed. In Psalm 74, it talks about God stretching out the sky, the heavens, and that is very consistent with the idea of an expanding space.

Ake: What I have a problem with is saying it's OK that we have an expanding universe because the Bible says it's so, and science agrees with us. Good science. But when it disagrees, bad science. This is something that scientists from experience have a negative gut reaction to, because they're right back into the Soviets trying to control genetics, the Nazis trying to do the same thing... . Science can say nothing about God qua science. That's why science cannot say that there isn't a God, either. And people who say that evolution thus proposes atheism are also wrong.

RSR wants to thank reader T. Flatley for bringing it to our attention.

David Ewing Duncan, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, says that a new method for cloning human embryos developed in South Korea and a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to lift restrictions on using federal funds for stem cell research imposed by Bush in 2001 mean that "there is nothing anyone can do to stop their progress. To insist otherwise is like trying to unsplit the atom, or to insist that the world is flat, although this does not seem to be stopping the White House and conservatives from trying."

"The question now is: who will do this research -- Americans or others? And will the research be done in a country where research is subject to regulation for safety and transparency such as the United States and South Korea, or in societies where such safeguards are not part of the system?"

The antics of the Kansas board of education have given the state an anti-science reputation. This is highly ironic given that Kansas is home to a number of world-class science education resources. The Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center in Hutchinson and the Sternberg Museum in Hays are but two examples.

Exploration Place in Wichita is another. Exploration Place features a state of the art digital planetarium called the CyberDome Theater. It's one of the world's best astronomy theaters, and the largest domed theater in Kansas.

Now, they've started Stars Over Kansas, a new blog devoted to promoting astronomy news and information, and getting people involved in science through participation.

The antiscience crowd grouped around the Discovery Institute is opening a new front to challenge Physics and Astronomy with the screening of "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe."

First class science resources -- such as Exploration Place -- that talk to people about subjects like the age of the Universe, the vast distances involved in space, other planets and their evolution over billions of years, will help people understand the huge amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution and the natural history of the Earth.

Take a look at the Stars over Kansas blog, and next time you're in Wichita, visit Exploration Place -- it's an especially good place to take the kids.

Until now, the intelliegent design controversy has focused primarily on evolution. Scientists in other fields have been relatively unaffected. Today, on the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views blog there is a post on the controversy over the screening of the intelligent design film "The Privileged Plant: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" which takes issue with an article by John Schwartz published in the New York Times.

Here's an excerpt from that post:

Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it's important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

The Dutch purchased Manhattan from the Indians for 60 guilders. With condos in the Big Apple currently going for a median price of $878 per square foot, that has to go down as one of the astute real estate deals in history.

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory, about 800,000 square miles of land extending from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, from France for 60 million francs, or about $15 million dollars. A dollar was worth more then, but still, this was a great, great deal.

History's verdict on Napoleon's fire sale of the Louisiana Territory and the Native Americans who traded the world's hottest real estate market for a handful of gold or beads hasn't been kind. They'd been had.

What, then, are we to make of the sale of scientific legitimacy to the pseudoscience (Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy blog calls it antiscience, and RSR thinks that may be more accurate) of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute by one of the premier science institutions in the world -- the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History -- for $16,000 dollars?

On June 23, the National Museum of Natural History will co-sponsor the premier of the intelligent design film "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe." They are doing it because the Discovery Institute paid them $16,000 dollars.

As reported in the New York Times, Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute says, the museum staff itself asked to see the film. "They said they liked it very much -- and not only would they have the event at the museum, but they said they would co-sponsor it. That was their suggestion. Of course we're delighted."

This is another in a long series of attempts by the proponents of intelligent design to gain the imprimatur of science without actually having to do any. As statements by Chapman, and blogger Denise O'Leary, already indicate, the antiscience crowd will use this event to prove to the unwitting that there is a legitimate "controversy" over evolution between scientists and science organizations.

In RSR's humble opinion, this constitutes a blatant violation of the museum's policy which states that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted.

If we allow the Smithsonian to sell the realm of science -- vaster and ultimately more valuable than Manhattan or the Louisiana Territory put together -- for a paltry $16,000 dollars without a fight, we should expect to go down in history as the sort who are easily taken advantage of.

Fortunately, there is still time to fight back. According to the New York Times, when museum spokesman Randall Kremer was informed about the language of the Discovery institute announcement, he said, "We'll have to look into that."

Let's help him understand the issues.

You can call Randall Kremer at 202-633-0817. You can send an e-mail to the Special Event staff at nhevents@si.edu. Snail mail can be sent to National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 10th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20560-0135.

Kansas Education Commissioner Andy Tomkins is leaving his post to take a job at the University of Kansas, where he will work with graduate students in school leadership.

According to a report by John Milburn of the Associated Press, "Tompkins acknowledges the (science curriculum) issues have been a distraction and he often gets teased by peers from other states."

Always a good soldier and consistent advocate for Kansas school children Tomkins "takes exception with those who say downplaying evolution will hurt the quality of students Kansas produces and that they won't be able to do science or get into college."

Even so, supporters of education in Kansas should ask why he chose to announce his resignation in the middle of the battle over science curriculum -- and school finance -- and what sort of person the current board will be able to attract under the circumstances.

Tom Heneghan of Independent Media TV, an independent media outlet for views and artistic expression which are currently not being represented by the corporate media, reports that Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, the of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Iraq's largest Christian community has denounced American evangelical missionaries.

Delly says American evangelical missionaries attempt to convert poor Muslims by flashing money and smart cars. Many Protestant activists came to Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and set up what he called "boutiques" to attract converts.

According to Heneghan's report, Delly said the evangelicals were not real missionaries. They attracted poor youths with displays of money and taking them "out riding in cars to have fun."

If you missed the origninal broadcast, make sure you catch NPR Commentator Ruth Levy Guyer, an immunologist and bioethicist, as she explains the difference between theory and hypothesis in science, and muses on why the theory of evolution, and Darwin himself, have engendered so much resistance over the ages.

The events calendar at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture proudly proclaims that,"The Director of the National Museum of Natural History and Discovery Institute are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception for The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" on June 23. Attendance at the event is by written invitation only.

What, the premiere science institution in the U.S. is sponsoring an intelligent design film?

Denise O'Leary, who writes the ID Post-Darwinist blog, has been crowing now for several days about the Smithsonian Institution sponsorship of the screening of the intelligent design film.

They believe the sponsorship implies a new acceptance of the "science" of intelligent design, or, in O'Leary's case, that sufficient political pressure has been brought to bear.

John Schwartz of the New York Times reports that it may have little more to do with a $16,000 contribution made by Discovery Institute to the Smithsonian. Panda's Thumb also has a post up about the controversy that is developing.

Red State Rabble likes the idea that $16,000 samoleans have been taken out of the coffers at Discovery to be put to good use by science, however, we also think the showing may violate the museums sponsorship policy, which states that, "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted.

Because -- as the posts at Discovery Institute and Post-Darwinist already demonstrate -- this supposed "sponsorship" will be used in the political battle to incorporate intelligent design into public school curriculums by falsely insisting there's a genuine scientific controversy over evolution, it is RSR's opinion that defenders of science education should contact museum officials to complain that the museum's "sponsorship" is being misrepresented and constitutes a violation of museum policy.

Here is who to contact:

National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
10th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20560-0135

Phone: 202-633-2950
Fax: 202-786-2982

Randall Kremer, 202-633-0817
Michele Urie 202-633-0820

Special Events e-mail address: nhevents@si.edu

If you are of a certain age, Red State Rabble's age, for example -- statistically, of course, there's an excellent chance that you're younger, much younger -- you will have learned the reason our country hasn't had to fight an endless series of bloody, senseless religious wars is because our founding fathers, sickened by the religious bloodshed of the 18th century -- based our constitution on laws, not God.

That Americans have been denied the pleasures of killing their neighbors simply because they worship at a different church was thought, in those innocent times, to be a good thing. We used to feel smugly superior to the benighted people of countries such as Iraq, where Sunnis drive car bombs into Shiite mosques by day, and Shiites dump the bound bodies of executed Sunnis into the Euphrates at night.

In those days, we puzzled over the reason religious fanaticism would drive countries such as Pakistan and India to the brink of nuclear war. We just couldn't fathom why the people of a country such as Lebanon -- once known as the Switzerland of the Middle East -- would destroy everything they had built in order to engage a senseless and seemingly endless cycle of revenge. We thanked our lucky stars we weren't stuck in a country divided by religious strife such as Northern Ireland.

Lately, we have become aware that some on the religious right are unhappy with this state of affairs. They say this is not a nation of laws, after all, but of God. America, they say is a Christian nation. Our country has a hidden history that they have uncovered and now want to teach our children.

Red State Rabble first heard this revisionist history preached in the Rotunda of the state capitol in Topeka on National Prayer Day. Here's a recent example of this hidden history from Linda Kimball writing in the Sierra Times:

"Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the ‘shining city on the hill.’ America, the most radical experiment in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian (sic) nation where God of the bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all. America was the land of hope, promise and opportunity, where not only all men were equal before God’s eyes, but where all human life from conception to natural death, was gifted by God with intrinsic worth. Because our Founders believed in the existence of a transcendent sovereign Creator, they declared that belief in the Declaration of Independence where it is written that our rights are endowed to us from our Creator and thus are inalienable, which means not from man...

"Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by Darwin’s theory of evolution, she has been turning her back on God and the Judao-Christian (sic) moral principles upon which she was founded. As a result, our once decent, orderly civilization has regressed to a state of ‘almost anything goes’ permissiveness and outright barbarianism where the common good has been displaced by the demands and desires of the few. Human life is no longer sacred and is now liberally aborted away even as militant atheist bio-ethicists are busily seducing Americans, to accept the idea of euthanasia, under the guise of quality of life. Where before, our Creator had endowed all human beings with a natural right to life, secular militant atheists have taken away that right and very predictably, replaced it with the 'right to die.'"

The more astute among you -- and Red State Rabble readers are nothing if not astute -- will recognize that the writer of this revisionist history ignores certain facts about our history, such as slavery.

It also ignores the fact that it is the Constitution that is the founding document of our nation and its laws -- not the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers are the founding fathers because they are the authors of the Constitution, and the Constitution derives it’s powers not from God, but from…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see, if you are a defender of the rule of law, of the Constitution, of science and reason, you have by definition become a militant atheist and a transnational socialist. You have been dehumanized. You have had a target painted on your back.

You have become a citizen of a country you weren't born in and didn't choose. A country where Birmingham has morphed into Baghdad. Burlington to Beirut. Buffalo to Bangalore. Bangor to Belfast. A country where chaos, religious warfare, even nuclear Armageddon are no longer things to be dreaded, but hopeful signs of the second coming.

A survey conducted by the American School Board Journal finds that 59 percent of respondents agree with the statement "Don't mix science and religion." Of those, 45 percent say teach evolution only, and 55 percent say "teach about intelligent design, but include it as part of a class in something like religion or philosophy, not science."

Supporters of intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania are floating a rumor that Dover CARES -- the group that defends science education there -- stands for Citizens Against Religious Education in Schools.

This dishonest rumor is typical of those who want to take over school districts around the country in order to force their narrow religious and ideological beliefs on our children.

The fact is, Dover CARES stands for Citizens Actively Reviewing Educational Strategies.

Here's how Dover CARES responds to the rumor on their website:

"Dover CARES candidates are all willing to support adding an elective of comparative religions or world religions, which will serve our students well into the future. This rumor is just another example of the misinformation and miscommunication of the current school board members. Although they all value their own personal and ministerial belief systems, the Dover CARES candidates realize that Dover, being a public school system, must abide by the law. Faith plays a vital role in many students' lives; however, the public school system may not legally endorse any particular denomination. The students are best able to make those decisions in the home and in the church of their choice. Because religion does play an important role in our society and our history, the Dover CARES. candidates encourage open discussion and critical thinking about religious beliefs and concepts in classes such as comparative religions, world theology, creation mythology, philosophy, world cultures, world literature, and humanities. In the right classroom context, intelligent design could promote research, spark spirited discussion, and deepen cultural understanding."

Air Force Captain MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran minister and executive officer of the chaplain unit at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, has been relieved of her position and transferred to Okinawa.

Captain Morton has said she was fired for exposing the pervasive influence of evangelical Christians at the academy, systematic proselytizing, and harassment of cadets of other faiths by evangelical Protestants.

Reported incidents include:

• Yale theology professor Kristen Leslie reported that an academy chaplain told cadets last year to tell fellow cadets who are not born again that they will burn in hell.
• Jewish cadets have been called "Christ killers" by evangelical Christian cadets.
• Cadets are pressured to attend religious services.
• Public prayers are held before official events.
• Flyers for the movie "The Passion of the Christ" were placed on all the chairs in the dining hall which said, "This is an officially sponsored USAFA event."

Last year, football coach Fisher DeBerry hung a banner in the team locker room that read, "I am a Christian first and last. I am a member of Team Jesus Christ."

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has produced a report on "Religious Coercion and Endorsement of Religion at the United States Air Force Academy."

The Air Force announced May 3 that it would create a "cross-functional task force on the religious climate at the United States Air Force Academy" in response to the complaint from Americans United.

However, Jennifer Stephens, the Air Force spokeswoman on the task force, said the task force did not meet with Capt. Melinda Morton, the Air Force chaplain who first called attention to the problem.

Red State Rabble is curious. Where do the real loyalties of these officers -- and future officers -- lie? With the country, or with their religion?

Here in Kansas, we thought we were ahead of the curve, but it seems we're only experiencing the tip of the wedge. The Air Force Academy is where they've shoved it in a little deeper. When our country resembles Iran, we'll know it's all the way in.

Following the election last November, President Bush began to push for Social Security privatization. When people learned the facts about his proposal, they opposed it in large numbers. What did President Bush do? He stopped calling it privatization and began to say he was for personal accounts. His apologists then accused anyone who said the president was calling for privatization of slandering him.

Sen. Frist planned to push the president's unpopular, right-wing court appointees through the Senate over Democratic objections by employing what he called the "nuclear option." That is, he would use Senate rules to do away the filibuster. When polling showed that the nuclear option was unpopular with voters, he changed it to the "constitutional option." Republicans then accused reporters who attributed the nuclear option to Republicans of shilling for the Democrats.

Creationists have wanted to teach the biblical story of Genesis in science classes for years. Knowing that idea is unpopular -- and illegal -- they've changed their name, too. They now insist we call them intelligent designers. What does the Discovery Institute think of people who call them creationists -- well, we think you see the pattern.

They may not believe in biological evolution, but they are masters of locution evolution.

Sam Kornell writes in the Santa Barbara Independent:

"ID'ers cannot mask the fact that theirs is unquestionably a religious movement, with Christian leaders and an overwhelmingly Christian constituency.

"This might not be such a problem if ID bore even a passing resemblance to research-based science, but it does not. It is a sophisticated, technically intimidating burst of hot air that, by its very nature, violates a fundamental tenet of science: It can neither be tested nor proven wrong."

"We all fear that this movement toward a biblical interpretation of scientific facts will eventually make us look like some of the countries in the Middle East."

Red State Rabble readers who like their science leavened with a bit of wit will be rewarded by taking a look at the Borowitz Report post "Group Seeks Ban of Twentieth Century From Kansas School Textbooks." Here's a little appetizer before you go to the Borowitz Report for the full banquet:

"A political action group in the state of Kansas is applying pressure on the Kansas State Board of Education to ban any and all references to the twentieth century from school textbooks, a spokesman for the group confirmed today.

"The move to ban the twentieth century came up in a series of contentious school board hearings this week as the group loudly complained that the state’s current textbooks are rife with references to the controversial century, which they say may or may not have happened.

“'These textbooks state unequivocally that the twentieth century occurred, as if that were a proven historic fact,' said Gordon Lavalier, the group’s leader and spokesman. 'The simple truth is, the twentieth century is and has always been nothing but a theory.'”

We must admit at the outset that Red State Rabble rarely agrees with conservative columnist George Will. However, in his May 23rd Last Word column for Newsweek titled, "The Oddness of Everything" Will comments favorably on Bill Bryson's book, "A Short History of Nearly Everything."

After recounting Bryson's description of DNA, plate techtonics, the immensity of the universe, matter, energy, and indeterminancy, Will writes:

"... the greatest threat to civility -- and unltimately to civilization -- is an excess of certitude. The world is much menaced just now by people who think that the world and their duties in it are clear and simple. They are certain that they know what -- who -- created the universe and what this creator wants them to do to make our little speck in the universe perfect, even if extreme measure -- even violence -- are required."

This is well said.

The Freestate Brewry in Lawrence, Kansas is a popular hangout there. They've added a new beer to the menu -- Evolution Ale.

Enjoy the flavors of this well developed beer. Occasionally we are inspired to move one of our beers in a different direction. This evolution takes place through careful adjustment s to the conditions and the materials used in the brewing process. Our Evolution Ale has its roots in our ever popular Ad Astra Ale. The aroma hops have been changed to Styrian Goldings and we've added a bit of biscuit malt for a little toastier malt flavor.

"Charles Darwin is often known as a man eager to destroy faith and tear down religion,” Michael Whiting, an associate professor in integrative biology at Brigham Young University told a student forum at the largely Mormon university in Utah, Tuesday. “Often these are the same detractors who paint Joseph Smith and the history of the church with a similar paintbrush. But this caricature is not true to the record. Certainly the ideas that have come from Darwin have had a profound influence on religion and continue to do so.”

Whiting continues:

“I know who’s responsible for the creation, but my research focuses on learning something about how it was done,” Whiting said. “I seek to learn something about the creator by studying creation.”

Apparently, this Mormon professor has no problem integrating evolution with his faith.

The right wing social agenda being pursued by Republicans in congress may be creating a rift between economic conservatives and social conservatives according to Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum.

From Wall Street to Main Street, the small-government, pro-business mainstay of the Republican Party appears to be growing disaffected with a party it sees as focused on social issues at its expense.

"I'm inclined to support the Republican Party, but the question becomes, how much other stuff do I have to put up with to maintain that identification?" asked Andrew A. Samwick, a Dartmouth College economics professor who until recently was chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

"I don't know a single business group involved in the judicial nominees," said R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Nada, none, zip."

One the other hand, the focus on Schiavo, judicial nominees, and stem cells may be a positive thing if only because it keeps Republicans from destroying Social Security and Medicare.

Intelligent design proponents never tire of telling the rest of us that their "theory" has nothing to do with religion -- it's science, pure and simple.

The problem for the intelligent design general staff at the Discovery Institute in Seattle is not so much with scientists and educators, but with its own foot soldiers. It seems they don't quite understand the strategy, and they're not very good at taking orders.

A case in point is Republican Daniel Hooker, a state assemblyman from Saugerties in New York. Hooker has introduced two bills in the New York assembly.

Hooker's first bill would require public schools to teach intelligent design. Remember now, the Discovery Institute's legal strategy is to "teach the controversy" not intelligent design -- they're waiting for the courts to move further to the right before they shove the wedge in a little deeper.

The second bill introduced by Hooker kind of gives the game away. It would allow display of the Ten Commandments in public places.

The publisher of the pseudoscientific intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," the Foundation for Thought and Ethics' wants to intervene in the Pennsylvania suit brought by parents against the Dover school district that requires ninth-grade students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

According to a motion filed Monday in Harrisburg federal court the Foundation for Thought and Ethics "will focus on plaintiffs' purpose to destroy both intelligent design theory as a viable scientific explanation to the origins of life and FTE's ability to market textbooks."

H. Allen Orr writes a must read article titled, "Devolution: Why Intelligent Design Isn't" in the latest issue of the New Yorker:

If you are in ninth grade and live in Dover, Pennsylvania, you are learning things in your biology class that differ considerably from what your peers just a few miles away are learning. In particular, you are learning that Darwin’s theory of evolution provides just one possible explanation of life, and that another is provided by something called intelligent design. You are being taught this not because of a recent breakthrough in some scientist’s laboratory but because the Dover Area School District’s board mandates it. In October, 2004, the board decreed that “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”

From the New York Times, May 25, 1925:

Scopes Is Indicted in Tennessee for Teaching Evolution Grand Jury Acts After Judge Reads Genesis on the Creation of Man
Nashville, Tenn., May 25 -- John T. Scopes, young Dayton (Tenn.) high school teacher, tonight stands indicted for having taught the theory of evolution to students attending his science classes in violation of a law passed by the Tennessee Legislature and signed by the Governor on March 21, 1925. The date for this trial has been fixed for July 10 at Dayton. The hearing of the case will bring many notables to the little mountain town, including William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow of Chicago and Dudley Field Malone of New York for the defense.

Are supporters of religious tolerance -- those who defend the right of people of all faiths to practice their religion -- anti-Christian?

Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, thinks they are.

The website of the Thomas More Law Center says it "is dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life."

Thompson is the lead attorney representing the Dover school board in a lawsuit brought by parents who oppose a statement they ordered read to ninth-grade biology students that casts doubt on the theory of evolution and promotes intelligent design.

Let's leave aside for a moment the question of why an attorney from an out-of-state legal advocacy group such as the Thomas More Center is representing a taxpayer funded school district in court.

Thompson took on the case, he says, because Christians support intelligent design, “and because Christians support it, the ACLU wants it out of the classroom,” according to Joseph Moldonado of the York Daily Record.

Thomas More, says Thompson "is like the anti-ACLU.”

Vic Walczak, the ACLU attorney for parents who are suing the district counters that the ACLU defends the constitutional freedoms for people of all religions, including Christians. He cites a number of cases from the past year that make that case.

The truth is, the religious right preaches -- and practices -- religious intolerance. A victory for Christian fundamentalists in the battle to inject creationism and intelligent design would, in effect, make that peculiar brand of belief a state sponsored religion and limit the religious freedom of Catholics, Jews, Bhuddists, Muslims, skeptics, and mainstream Protestants.

Born again Evangelical Christians make up only about 25 percent of the population in this country. They should not be allowed to ride rough shod over the rights and freedoms of the majority.

Practicing religious tolerance is not anti-Christian, it's as American as motherhood and apple pie.

The Associated Press is reporting a significant victory for supporters of science education in Cobb County:

Complying with a judge's order, workers in Cobb County have begun removing controversial evolution disclaimer stickers from science textbooks.

By the end of the day Monday, several thousand stickers, which said evolution was a theory and not a fact, had been scraped off. The school district had placed 34,452 stickers on textbooks across the county.

The evolution disclaimers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

“Evolution is a ‘theory’ like gravity is a ‘theory,’” says Associate Professor of Biology Colin Purrington. “The low-budget remake of the Scopes trial in Kansas will make educated Kansans want to flee the state so that their children will not be subjected to quack scientific ideas such as intelligent design.”

To combat what he sees as religious fundamentalism harming science education, Purrington has made available on the Web a series of resources for public school science teachers and their supporters. Included are news items on evolution cases around the country, a list of gifts for “brave science teachers,” editorial cartoons, and t-shirts and stickers of Charles Darwin. He also plans to have his students design exhibits on evolution for children.

A national survey of 1,472 physicians conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research reveals that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design.

An overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors -- 88 percent -- and more than half of Catholic doctors -- 60 percent -- said they agree more with evolution than intelligent design, while slightly more than half of Protestants -- 54 percent -- agree more with intelligent design.

You'll find more survey results here.

This "Short and Sweet" commentary from the Oregonian just came to our attention, and it's too good not to pass along:

"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."

Right-wingers on the Kansas State Board of Education haven't quite finished wrecking science education in the state's public schools, but that may not stop them from taking on a new and equally divisive project -- abstinence only sex education.

Scott Rothschild, of the Lawrence Journal World reports that the board planned to look at draft standards for the sex education curriculum at its May 11 meeting, but held off because some board members wanted to attend arguments on the new school finance law being heard by Kansas Supreme Court that day.

Moderate board member Carol Rupe thinks there may be another reason, as well. She thinks board conservatives may want to change the sex education curriculum from abstinence based to abstinence only.

The current abstinence-based sex education curriculum teaches students that the best way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is to abstain from having sex, but it also lets them know the facts about condoms and birth control. An abstinence only curriculum would not give any information to students who may be sexually active about how to protect themselves.

During the board's intelligent design circus we heard a lot about teaching the (non-existent) controversy between scientists over evolution. Board members -- when they weren't actively cheerleading for the intelligent design witnesses -- asked, "Why not just put all the evidence in front of the kids, and let them decide for themselves?"

Seems like the board may adopt a let it all hang out "teach the controversy" strategy for science classes, and a different -- sweep the evidence under the rug -- approach to sex education. Is it too much to ask that they be consistent in the policies they impose?

A Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll of 1,200 Illinois registered voters, conducted May 5-10, found that 58 percent favor teaching Darwin's theory. At the same time, 57 percent are open to teaching views opposed to it, reports Lisa Anderson.

• 57 percent said they believe that both evolution and creationism should be included in school curricula.
• 58 percent of Illinois voters polled said they believe teaching creationism does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

The Mail & Guardian Online out of South Africa has this about the latest tourist attraction in Eureka Springs, Arkansas.

"Nestling deep in the Ozark mountains of Arkansas, in the heart of the United States's Bible Belt, this is the first dinosaur museum to take a creationist perspective. Already thousands of people have flocked to its top-quality exhibits, which mix high science with fundamentalist theology that few serious scientists accept...

"That well-spring of popular belief, and the political clout that comes with it, is the inspiration behind the museum. It is not interested in debating with mainstream science. It simply wants to represent the view of a significant slice of the US...

"The museum forms part of a Bible-based theme park in Eureka Springs; the car park is full of cars and coaches from all over the country. To enter the museum is to explore a surrealistic parallel world. Biblical quotes appear on displays. The first has dinosaurs, alongside Adam and Eve, living in harmony. The ferociously fanged T rex is likely to be a vegetarian... "

Over at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, they're up in arms about a May 19 letter written to Nature by University of Houston evolutionary biologist Dan Graur titled,"Who has designs on your students' minds?"

"'Intelligent designers' are not the only minority bullied into submission by the scientific establishment," wrote Graur. "The vast majority of flat-Earthers … cannot publish their studies in respectable journals" either.

At Discovery, them's fightin' words.

Addressing this canard was seen as so important, the Jonathan Wells, was pulled in from the field where he was examining fossils from the Cambrian Explosion to pen this answer:

Like many of his colleagues, Graur delights in comparing critics of Darwinism to believers in a flat Earth. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for biblical reasons that the Earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the Earth is actually a sphere, that belief became a legitimate target for ridicule. Now, since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwin's theory (so the story goes), critics of Darwinism are just as silly as flat- Earthers.

But the story is totally false. It was pure fiction until it was turned into a phony historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it to slander Christians.

The spherical shape of the Earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some pretty good estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the Earth was a sphere.

True enough. The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks and to Christian theologians.

But, we're not being asked to go back to the Greeks, are we? We're being asked to go back to the Bible, and there is ample evidence that the Biblical world view was that the world was flat. Hardly a day goes by in Kansas that we don't hear about the "science" of the Bible.

Now, Wells will argue that he doesn't want to teach the Bible in science classes. He will even argue that he doesn't want to teach intelligent design, either. All he wants to do is teach the "controversy over evolution" -- of course he wouldn't use the word evolution, he'd say "Darwinism" or "Neo-Darwinism."

There are two fundamental problems with that argument.

First, we know that the "teach the controversy" ploy is merely the tip of the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Once they get the tip in... well you know what happens next.

Here's how Philip Johnson, the father of intelligent design put it in an interview published in 2000: "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing", the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters."

The second problem with the "teach the controversy" argument is that most of its proponents want to teach the Bible in biology classes. At four public hearings held around the state of Kansas in February, virtually no one spoke for intelligent design. Nearly everyone who opposed the pro-science draft written by the majority of the standards committee said quite directly -- and at least they were refreshingly honest about their beliefs -- that they were Christians, and they wanted their children to be taught the biblical story of Genesis.

They don't want to know about Zeus and his thunderbolts, Dr. Wells. They don't care about the science of ancient Greece. They want that old time religion. They want the "science" of the Bible. All of it: The young earth. The flood. Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs through the Garden of Eden.

It's not just the flat earth. It's not just the sun revolving around the earth. It's the whole package. The wisdom of the ancient Greeks goes way back in human history, but those who demand that we teach a literal interpretation of the Bible want to go back in time much further than that.

Some of them are honest about what they believe. Some conceal their beliefs in public and hammer on a wedge.

Let's say for a moment that the biblical literalists, aided of course by their intelligent design general staff, succeed in breaking down the wall between science and religion, and the separation between church and state.

What will our public schools look like afterward?

We don't need a crystal ball to find the answer to that question. We don't even have to guess. All we have to do is look at what happens to teachers who don't toe a strict biblical literalist line at religious colleges and universities. At those institutions, there's no such thing as academic freedom.

The Huntington College Board of Trustees, for example, recently fired John Sanders, a popular religion and philosophy professor for teaching "Open Theism." Huntington College, which is affiliated with the United Brethren in Christ, rejects "Open Theism" -- the notion that human beings have freewill and that God knows what has happened in the past, but does not know what will happen in the future.

Likewise Richard Colling, the chairman of the biology department at Olivet Nazarene University, is under attack for writing The Random Designer, a book in which he says evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny.

Anthony J. Diekema, the former president of Calvin College, has no problem with that. If you hire someone to promote Coca Cola, says Diekema, and they plug Pepsi, they won't be drawing a paycheck from Coke for very long.

In their own schools, fundamentalists dispense with all the "teach the controversy" nonsense they preach to the rest of us, and they will do the same thing in public schools if we are foolish enough to allow them to.

A Charleston Gazette editorial says don't muddle science.

Here's an obvious fact: If America’s school biology courses were designed by top scientists, all classes would teach that complex life forms — including humans — evolved from simpler forms. The scientific world agrees that Darwin’s theory of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence.

However, some Americans try to prevent clear science from being taught. Theology intrudes upon biology classes.

An editorial in the Columbus Dispatch (registration required) from yesterday makes a common sense proposal for testing whether intelligent design is science or not. They propose to use the guidelines adopted 1993 by the U.S. Supreme Court to measure the reliability of expert scientific testimony -- the Daubert Test of Reliability.

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states, in part:

A. Witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:

1. the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
2. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
3.the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

The factors the court considers when applying this test are whether the theory or technique has been tested or can be tested; whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and; whether the theory or methodology has been generally accepted within the scientific community.

Clearly, intelligent design can't meet any part of this test, and so can't be considered science.

Check out the National Geographic interactive "Atlas of the Human Journey." By mapping the appearance and frequency of genetic markers in modern peoples, National Geographic has created a picture of where and when ancient humans moved around the world.

Beautiful visuals and all the dazzling photography you'd expect from National Geographic. Oh yeah, the genetic evidence demonstrates that our journey out of Africa started more than 6,000 years ago -- try ten times that.

A lovely site to spend some time with.

The Florida ACLU has named an advisory board of religious leaders to advise it on civil liberties issues. RSR believes it is crucial to mobilize mainstream religious believers, pastors, priests, rabbis, churches, and synagogues to defend religious freedom in this country -- freedoms that are now endangered by those on the Christian right who want to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. Here is the ACLU statement announcing the formation of the Religious Freedom Project.

In response to recent and bold assaults on First Amendment freedoms, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida today launched the Florida Religious Freedom Project. The project will focus on principal Florida issues involving religious freedom and separation of church and state. The project -- formally known as the Martin and Nancy Engels Florida Religious Freedom Project -- was made possible by a generous gift from Martin and Nancy Engels of Miami Beach. The Engels are longtime members of the ACLU.

"People are forgetting that one of the most important pillars on which this country rests is the separation of church and state," said Martin Engels, an attorney practicing law in Miami. "The ACLU has always been wonderfully vigilant in protecting this concept. Nancy and I are proud to facilitate this endeavor." ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon noted that the new project is being created because of the likelihood that there will be a dramatic increase in the next few years in controversies such as those confronted by the Terri Schiavo case and the L.G. lawsuit involving a teen's right to make private reproductive healthcare decisions.
"In both cases, state officials used their own religious and moral views to override the privacy rights of people in Florida and dictate public policies," said Simon.

He also added that Florida will likely be in the forefront of new public debates over efforts to provide direct or indirect government funding for religious institutions in the coming years.
"The threat of even more religious-based public policies in Florida has motivated us to make church-state work an even greater priority within the ACLU," said the Director of the West Central ACLU Florida Office, Rebecca Harrison Steele, who will lead the project from the ACLU's Tampa-based office. Before joining the staff of the ACLU in 2004, Steele was an attorney in private practice with the Trenam, Kemker and Holland & Knight law firms.
Project staff will work to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the Florida Legislature and administrative agencies out of the religion business, and by monitoring policies adopted by county school boards and municipalities to ensure they do not violate church-state principles.

The project will concentrate on several issues including efforts to weaken or repeal Florida’s explicit prohibition on the direct or indirect use of state funds to aid sectarian institutions and the spread of vouchers to support church-run schools, while also closely monitoring state "faith-based" legislation and executive branch policies that involve government-funded religion and government-funded discrimination.

Defending religious freedom in the public schools will also be a particular focus of the new ACLU project. ACLU of Florida is part of the legal team challenging the voucher program (referred to in the statute as "Opportunity Scholarships") -- the only statewide voucher program in the nation.

"The Florida Supreme Court hearing in the challenge to the constitutionality of the Governor’s voucher program may be the most important case affecting church-state relations in the history of our state," said Simon.

The case, Holmes v. Bush, is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 7th.

During this past session of the Florida Legislature, the ACLU urged lawmakers to enact regulations to ensure that public funds for the Universal Pre-K program were not used to fund religious instruction or to fund programs that discriminate based upon the religion of a child's parents or a child's disability.

The work of the Religious Freedom Project staff will also address the rights of members of minority religions by challenging school-sponsored religious programs. Non-school related, church-state issues also will be on the staff’s agenda, such as the exemption from state licensing requirements for religious-based social service agencies and the impact on children of the state statute, unique in the nation, that authorizes a court to order prayers for minors with health problems and whose parents reject medical care.

The ACLU's Religious Freedom Project will be aided by a diverse Advisory Committee of religious leaders that is in formation, but at present consists of Dr. Mary Carter Waren of St. Thomas University, the Rev. Marta Burke of the Fulford United Methodist Church in North Miami, Rev. Priscilla Whitehead of the Church of the Sea in Bal Harbour, Dr. Lesley Northup, Associate Dean of Florida International University, Rabbi Mitchell Chefitz of Temple Israel in Miami, Pastor James R. Summers of Northwest Baptist Church in Miami, Attorney Sidney Goetz of St. Petersburg, and Martin and Nancy Engels.

The Advisory Committee will help the ACLU increase its understanding of the important role that religion plays in American society as it fulfills its mission of defending religious freedom and addressing the constitutionally-required relationship between religious institutions and government.

Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has had an unflagging commitment to the fight for religious freedom. This project is a timely response to protect one of America's most basic freedoms, the First Amendment's guarantee of separation of church and state.
The ACLU is currently involved in litigation in Georgia and Pennsylvania challenging the actions of school boards to order the placement of stickers in textbooks warning students that evolution is merely a theory and to require the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public school science classes.

The Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers is dismayed at organized actions to weaken and even to eliminate significant portions of evolution and cosmology from the educational objectives of states and school districts.

Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these: Biological evolution has occurred and new species have arisen over time, life on Earth originated more than a billion years ago, and most stars are at least several billion years old. Overwhelming evidence comes from diverse sources - the structure and function of DNA, geological analysis of rocks, paleontological studies of fossils, telescopic observations of distant stars and galaxies - and no serious scientist questions these claims. We do our children a grave disservice if we remove from their education an exposure to firm scientific evidence supporting principles that significantly shape our understanding of the world in which we live.

No scientific theory, no matter how strongly supported by available evidence, is final and unchallengeable; any good theory is always exposed to the possibility of being modified or even overthrown by new evidence. That is at the very heart of the process of science. However, biological and cosmological evolution are theories as strongly supported and interwoven into the fabric of science as any other essential underpinnings of modern science and technology. To deny children exposure to the evidence in support of biological and cosmological evolution is akin to allowing them to believe that atoms do not exist or that the Sun goes around the Earth.

We believe in teaching that science is a process that examines all of the evidence relevant to an issue and tests alternative hypotheses. For this reason, we do not endorse teaching the “evidence against evolution,” because currently no such scientific evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design,” or other non-scientific viewpoints as valid scientific theories. These beliefs ignore the important connections among empirical data and fail to provide testable hypotheses. They should not be a part of the science curriculum.

School boards, teachers, parents, and lawmakers have a responsibility to ensure that all children receive a good education in science. The American Association of Physics Teachers opposes all efforts to require or promote teaching creationism or any other non-scientific viewpoints in a science course. AAPT supports the National Science Education Standards, which incorporate the process of science and well-established scientific theories including cosmological and biological evolution.

This statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers on April 24, 2005.

A report in Yahoo News follows the developing situtation over banning gay-themed books for the library system:

The Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library System Board met to consider whether the book "King and King," which features a story about a prince marrying another prince, should be placed in the children's section or in another part of Oklahoma City's downtown library. Board members allowed hundreds of community members -- including public officials and activists -- to speak at the meeting but limited them to 30 seconds each because of the number of people in attendance.

Click to enlarge. A group of 14-year-old hackers -- each sporting numerous tattoos and body piercings -- at a Red State Rabble safe house extracted this document from a secret online archive at the Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog. 

From "Monkey Trial or Kangaroo Court?" by Stan Cox on AlterNet:

Warren Nord enthusiastically recommended that schools should wrap every subject, including biology, in its religious and philosophical context. An incredulous Irigonegaray asked him, "Is it important to have religion taught in economics class?"

Nord: "Yes."

Irigonegaray: "What about math class?"

Nord: "I can make a case for that."

Andrew Gumbel, writing in the Los Angeles City Beat says "We're Not in Kansas Anymore":

It’s easy, from the comparative safety of the West Coast, to make light of the recent evolution hearings before the Kansas State Board of Education. Easy to laugh off their attempts to introduce God into the high school biology curriculum as the latest eccentric ravings of a bunch of anti-modern heartland
hicks. But here are a few reasons to take their initiative in deadly earnest

.

The Dover CARES pro-science school board slate won ballot slots in the Democratic primary last Tuesday. In Novemeber, they will face incumbent school board members -- all Republicans -- who support injecting intelligent design creationism into science classes. The district is roughly 60 percent Republican.

Associated Press reporter Martha Raffaele reports:

The Rev. Warren Eshbach, a spokesman for Dover CARES, said he was pleasantly surprised by the results, but acknowledged that the candidates must work hard to bolster their support between now and the general election.

"We have to build our base and try to work at building coalitions between Democrats, independent voters and probably some moderate Republicans," Eshbach said.

Last night, the Johnson County Library Board reversed itself and restored the American Library Association's Bill of Rights. The board was widely criticized after it voted 4-3 last month to revoke the collections policy. Many in Johnson County saw the vote as a move by right-wingers to censor library material.

Following the appointment of two new members -- Pamela Crandall and Charley Vogt -- the board voted 4-2 to reinstate the policy. Board member, James Berger left the meeting early after indicating he would have voted with the minority.

"The greatest arguments against the theory of intelligent design have little to do with science. They have more to do with the disingenuous approach of the theory's supporters," writes Conrad Easterday in the Pratt Tribune.

The Dover CARES slate -- Bernadette "Bernie" Reinking, Terry Emig, Bryan Rehm, Herbert "Rob" McIlvaine, Judy McIlvaine, Larry Gurreri, Patricia Dapp -- has issued the following statement:

"Dover CARES is thankful for and overwhelmed by the voter turnout and support we have received from our community. It has gone beyond our expectations. All of our candidates have made it on the ballot for the November election. The numbers are still being officially counted, but please check back for detailed statistics and comment. We wish to extend a heartfelt thanks to all our volunteers and supporters...we could not have done this without you and are sincerely grateful. We are looking forward to the November election."

The Dover CARES slate needs your help. Dover CARES is a registered political action committee. All donations go directly to the campaign fund which supports pro-science candidates. Monetary contributions in the form of checks or money orders can be mailed to:

Dover C.A.R.E.S.
2045 Andover Drive
Dover, PA 17315

The Rev. Warren Eshbach, a spokesman for Dover Citizens Actively Reviewing Educational Strategies -- Dover CARES -- calls the results of Tuesday's primary election a "good start."

Democrats chose the Dover CARES slate of seven candidates that oppose mentioning intelligent design in science classes to face seven incumbent Republican school board members who voted last October to require ninth-grade students to be lectured about intelligent design in biology classes.

"Our candidates believe intelligent design can be taught, but not in science," Eshbach said. "The school board's decision is against the law as it now stands."

Leo Sandon, the distinguished teaching professor of religion and American studies at Florida State University, writes in a Knight Ridder commentary:

Biological evolution per se has never been a great issue for Catholics because they are not into such scriptural literalism. And most U.S. Jewish leaders gradually accepted evolution theory after initial reservations. There is no inevitable warfare between Darwinian theory and religion unless the religion is uncritically literalist in its interpretation of Scripture.

In a famous 1896 editorial in the Emporia (Kan.) Gazette, William Allen White asked the question now being echoed by educators and journalists around the country:
"What's the matter with Kansas?" The answer in 2005 is that Kansas is suffering
from a persistent viral infection that has afflicted many other states since the
1870s: biblical literalism.

"(O)ur legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said following the Schiavo case. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

"The gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," says Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and head of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable," says Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

"Fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or on the fringe, to exact revenge," Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow, a federal judge whose husband and mother were slain by a disgruntled litigant, told lawmakers yesterday. One way congress could protect judges, Judge Lefkow said, would be to condemn judge-bashing remarks by commentators and colleagues.

The pro-science Dover Cares slate won all the four-year school board seats in the Democratic primary election there. The winners are Bernadette Reinking, Rob McIlvaine, Bryan Rehm and Terry Emig. The slate also carried the two-year seats, with Patricia Dapp, Judy McIlvaine and Larry Gurreri all moving on to the general election in November.

They will face seven incumbent Republicans who support intelligent design in the November election.

With 6 out of 6 precincts reporting, these are the unofficial results of the Dover School Board race. Dover Cares candidates are in bold. Note: some candidates ran in both Democratic and Republican primaries.

B Rehm Dem 810
H Mc Ilvaine, Jr. Dem 825
S Leber Dem 433
B Reinking Dem 828
T Emig Dem 800
M Arnold Dem 172
A Bonsell Dem 412
J Cashman Dem 412
E Rowand Dem 361
S Leber Rep 1242
H Mc Ilvaine, Jr. Rep 953
A Kline Rep 454
B Reinking Rep 1010
J Cashman Rep 1366
M Arnold Rep 300
E Rowand Rep 1181
A Bonsell Rep 1375
B Rehm Rep 911
T Emig Rep 965
2-Year Term
P Dapp Dem 740
S Harkins Dem 368
R Short Dem 369
L Gurreri Dem 648
E Riddle Dem 338
A Yingling Dem 194
J Brown Dem 196
J Mc Ilvaine Dem 719
A Yingling Rep 241
S Harkins Rep 1230
L Gurreri Rep 998
E Riddle Rep 1249
R Short Rep 1245
J Brown Rep 247
J Mc Ilvaine Rep 896
P Dapp Rep 925

Charley Morasch, who was defeated in his bid for a seat on the Blue Valley School District in Johnson County Kansas (suburban Kansas City) has now filed a complaint against Margaret Atwood's short story "Rape Fantasies."

Morasch campaigned as a supporter of intelligent design and for censorship of 14 award-winning books included on the Blue Valley high schools reading list.

Atwood's story is included in an anthology -- among dozens of other short stories -- used in senior Advanced Placement classes, which demand college-level course work from students.

Morasch, apparently, has persuaded Roger Kemp, the father of Ali Kemp who was murdered in an attempted rape at a community swimming pool where she worked as a lifeguard to sign a formal challenge demanding that Blue Valley North High School remove the short story from its reading list.

Red State Rabble feels a good deal of sympathy with Roger Kemp and his family. Our youngest daughter --then just nine years old -- was at the Leawood pool with a friend on the afternoon Ali Kemp was murdered. Kemp's body lay hidden in the pool house while my daughter and her friend swam and played for several hours that day. They still remember her cell phone, left on a pool chair, ringing over and over again as her family tried to make contact. The murder was a senseless tragedy.

Benjamin Appleby has been charged with strangling 19-year-old Ali Kemp. He was arrested in Connecticut last year, where he was living under an assumed name.

As a father, our hearts go out to Roger Kemp and his family. We can't help but think how lucky we are that the killer was gone when our daughter and her friend arrived at the pool. We can't help thinking what might have happened if the timing were just a little different.

Having said that, we still oppose pulling Atwood's short story from the reading list. Censoring the story will not prevent a single rape. It will deprive seniors in Advanced Placement classes from reading a first-rate piece of literature.

There may be something more sinister to this story, as well.

The Kansas City Star is reporting that Kemp now says "he did not realize that by signing he was participating in a formal challenge."

Red State Rabble has not been in contact with Roger Kemp. We have no knowledge of what Charley Morasch may have told him, but we sincerly hope that this grieving father was not manipulated by cynical right-wing operatives in order to add the spice of sensationalism to their censorship campaign.

The following letter was sent to parents, students, and residents of the Marple Newton School District (Pennsylvania) by Superintendent of Schools Robert A. Mesaros. The district is being sued by parent Donna Bush, who was denied permission to read Bible passages to her son's elementary school class.

You may be aware that the Marple Newtown School District has been sued for protecting the rights of the students in a Culbertson elementary class. Each day, we, as a school district are entrusted with a tremendous responsibility to help prepare our students to be productive citizens. We take that responsibility very seriously. Our children’s education and the protection of their rights and the rights of their families are paramount to the District. We respect the practice of religion and the important place it holds in our community. However, the law says that place is not in the classroom of a taxpayer-funded public school.

We recently requested that a parent not read a passage from a religious text to a kindergarten class during a classroom activity. Our request upheld the law and did not discriminate against anyone or any religion. The law applies uniformly to everyone in our school environment. Because a public school teacher cannot read aloud from a religious text in a classroom setting, a parent can’t do it in that setting either.

We have an obligation to protect the rights of all our students and their families. We take that responsibility very seriously and will continue to do all that we can to protect the rights of our students and their families.

This suit is baseless and is nothing more than an attempt to make headlines. In an ongoing effort to protect the rights of our students and their families, we will vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Sadly, the defense of this suit will ultimately take away valuable financial resources that would normally be used to buy computers, musical equipment and books.

A news release following the Kansas science hearings from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute complains that.

"Darwinists are trying to dumb down the teaching of evolution in Kansas by only allowing schools to present students with part of the scientific evidence relating to evolution," said Seth Cooper, a Senior Policy Analyst with the Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "Students will be the ones who suffer if Darwinian fundamentalists are allowed to censor the scientific information students hear in the classroom."

Next, Cooper and DI will be crying about Newtonian Fundamentalists who prevent school children from learning about the scientific controversy over the theory of gravity.

By the way, they've got great titles over at Discovery Institute, don't they? Senior Policy Analyst, not bad, eh, for a 27-year-old attorney? Seth Cooper is a member of the Federalist Society, and one who was angered by the treatment Robert Bork got at the hands of Arlen Specter in his 1987 confirmation hearings. He operates a blog called "Sharks with Lasers" (!?) which he modestly describes as "A CUTTING EDGE BLOG FOR THE WORLD OF THE 21st CENTURY." And, yeah, he's one of those ALL CAPS kind of guys.

Just in case the whole Bork thing is getting fuzzy, back in 1971, our Judge Bork wrote, "Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic." (emphasis added; "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems," Indiana Law Journal, vol. 47, 1971, p 20.)

Maybe that's why Cooper likes him -- he feels there should be no constitutional protection for Darwinian, Newtonian, or Einsteinian fundamentalists.

Cutting edge for the 13th Century is more like it.

Before Noah's flood, the Earth’s atmosphere was so different that animals, plants and humans were able to grow much larger and live much longer than today, says William Sanderson, a former middle school science teacher who plans to open what he calls the Akron (Ohio) Fossils & Science Center May 26.

Sanderson believes that dinosaurs and man inhabited earth at the same time. They were killed off in the ice age that followed the flood.

“There’s a lot of science that supports that," says Sanderson, "and that’s what we’re trying to make the case for."

When U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, he said the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The Kansas Constitutional Ammendment is similar to the Nebraska law -- it takes away rights now enjoyed by unwed couples, including inheritance, insurance benefits, child custody and the power to make medical decisions for each other -- and, for that reason, it may be vulnerable to a court challenge, as well.

Nicholas Kristoff has a commentary in the New York Times about a biblical point of view that's as rare as Republicans in heaven.

John Shelby Spong, the former bishop, tosses a hand grenade into the cultural wars with "The Sins of Scripture," which examines why the Bible - for all its message of love and charity - has often been used through history to oppose democracy and women's rights, to justify slavery and even mass murder.

Recently, Red State Rabble stood under the dome of the Capitol in Topeka and listened to a minister tell a group of born-again Christians about the secret history of the United States. She said the the founding fathers, despite all evidence to the contrary, intended this country to be a Christian nation. Our most pious state board member, Kathy Martin, is a big booster of the Christian nation notion, as well. RSR, idealistic fool that we are, always thought is was a nation of laws.

Here's a citation the good minister neglected to quote in her sermon from founding father Benjamin Franklin -- writing as Silence Dogood to the New England Courant (No. 9).

" the most dangerous Hypocrite in a Common-Wealth, is one who leaves the Gospel for the sake of the Law: A Man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat a whole Country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law: And
here the Clergy are in great Danger of being deceiv'd, and the People of being deceiv'd by the Clergy, until the Monster arrives to such Power and Wealth, that he is out of the reach of both, and can oppress the People without their own blind Assistance. "

Franklin saw the future, and it was Kansas.

We are most familiar with irrational attacks on science from right-wing Christians, but we should not forget they sometimes come from other quarters, as well. Robbie McKie writes in the Guardian (UK) about the perverse reaction to Parkinson's sufferer Mike Robins.

At a recent public meeting to discuss a proposed animal research centre in Oxford, 63-year-old Robins was jeered and ridiculed when he tried to show how surgery, perfected through animal experiments, had transformed his life.

'I was bayed at,' said Robins, a retired naval engineer from Southampton. 'Several hundred people were shouting. Some called out "Nazi!", "bastard!" and "Why don't you roll over and die!" I tried to speak, but was shouted down. It was utterly terrifying.'

The attack has shocked even hardened observers of vivisection debates. 'I have seen many unpleasant things at these debates, but to scream at a middle-aged man with Parkinson's disease and then tell him he deserved to die is the worst I have observed,' said Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society, which defends the scientific use of animals for experimentation...

'I wanted people to see how a person can benefit from animal experiments,' said the Oxford surgeon Tipu Aziz who operated on Robins and spoke at the debate. 'That is why I asked Mike to appear at the debate. I am now very sorry I put him through that horrible ordeal. To these people, Mike's existence is a refutation of their core beliefs. They say animal experiments do no good. Then Mike stands up, switches his tremors on and off, and their arguments are blown away. That's why they shouted him down.'

A number of readers have asked for more links to information cited in our post "Connecting the Dots" (see below) about the many fronts the right has opened in the Culture Wars here in Kansas.

The reading list censorship group has a website here. The Blue Valley students who opposed the book banners have their own site here.

The latest on the Johnson County Library Board, including the courageous stand by County Commissioner David Lindstrom, who appointed Pamela Crandall in the face of stiff opposition from the right-wing book banners can be found in this commentary by Mike Hendricks in the Kansas City Star. By the way, Hendricks has shown a good deal of courage -- and insight -- of his own in a number of pieces he wrote in opposition to inroads intelligent design is making in the state science standards.

Finally, from the Johnson County Sun newspaper here is a recent article on the attempt to ban books the Christian right doesn't like from the Blue Valley reading list.

Check back later this morning for a new development concerning a challenge to Margaret Atwood's short story "Rape Fantasies" in the Blue Valley reading list controversy.

Red State Rabble has focused, for the most part, on the developing battle in Kansas over the teaching of evolution in public schools. We suspect that for many of our readers this is a central concern, as well.

However, for the right-wing zealots who are pushing intelligent design in the schools, it is but one front in the culture war.

This was brought home to us, the other night, by Mrs. Red State Rabble, who is a PTA president at a middle school in the Blue Valley School District here in Johnson County.

Recently, she attended a school board meeting where a group demanded that a number of books -- award winning books by authors such as Barbara Kingsolver, Rudolfo Anaya, J.D. Salinger, Richard Wright, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Kurt Vonnegut, and Tobias Wolff-- be removed from the district's reading list because some have bad words in them.

This group, organized by Janet Harmon, has been rebuffed by parents, teachers, students, and the board itself many times, but like the energizer bunny, they just keep going, and going, and...

The district has an opt out choice for students or parents who are troubled by one book or another, but that is not good enough for these right-wing censors. They demand that these books be removed so that no child can read them. They claim that their children are stigmatized by requesting an optional reading choice -- that their proposals to force prayer into the schools might stigmatize some children is not, for them, a problem.

One of the books they want banned is the "Hot Zone" by Richard Preston. Red State Rabble finds their reasoning telling.

They have several objections to Preston's book. First, the don't like his his environmentalist philosophy. On their web site, they say Preston believes, "(t)he emergence of AIDS, Ebola, and any number of other rainforest agents appears to be a natural consequence of the ruin of the tropical biosphere." says "the earth is mounting an immune response against the human species" and, "the earth is attempting to rid itself of an infection by the human parasite."

Second, they are queasy about his clinical description of the symptoms of the Ebola infection, especially as it affects the human sexual organs, and yes, there are a handful of bad, bad words.

But, parents who have followed this controversy for some time report that the group also objects strongly to the "Hot Zone" because it presents a mainstream view of the age of the earth, evolution, and refers to Africa as the cradle of modern humans.

One of the activists who has spoken on behalf of this mothers for morality censorship group is Nancy Hanahan, president of the Sunflower Republican Women's Club of Johnson County and a major financial backer of the creationists on the Kansas State Board of Education and their right-wing state and federal PACs -- the Free Academic Inquiry and Research committee.

Here's another front in the war:

On April 20, the Johnson County Library board voted 4-3 to remove from its collections development policy the American Library Association's "Bill of Rights."

"Parents see libraries as a safe haven where their children can go and have a good experience," said James Berger, an estate planning attorney from Leawood, who voted for the proposal. Berger believes the library association guidelines strip the library board of the ability to safeguard children from objectionable material, such as pornography.

Now Red State Rabble is a library patron -- we think we may have some overdue books right now in fact -- but we have never seen porn on the shelves. Maybe, they're worried about enviornmentalist porn, such as the "Hot Zone," with its prurient description of Ebola symptoms.

Last week, two vacancies on the board were filled, opening the way for the board to revisit the collections development policy -- and bring it back in line with American Library Association policies and the First Amendment to the Constitution.

One of the appointments was Pamela Crandall, a volunteer in the Blue Valley School District. Crandall's appointment was opposed by right-wingers -- who pay very close attention to these appointments -- because she opposed the proposal to remove 14 books (the list is up to 29 now) from the Blue Valley schools reading list.

The right is organized, well-financed, and it is fighting in a disciplined way on many fronts. Those of us who see the value of church state separation must awaken to the very real, and growing danger posed by these right-wing zealots -- and we must fight them on every front they've opened in the war.

The Discovery Institute and the ID Network's John Calvert and William Harris say they don't want to teach intelligent design in the classroom, the merely want to "teach the controversy" over evolution. This new tack by the creationist movement has fooled the gullible, including Slate's William Saletan.

What exactly do they mean by teaching the controversy? Here's a hint from an article by Jesse Helling in the Fort Dodge Iowa Messenger:

At Community Christian School in Fort Dodge, a biblically inspired curriculum includes the biblical theory of the creation of the world by God in seven literal days, said school director Roger Everett.

‘‘We unashamedly teach creationism,’’ said Everett. Students at Community Christian learn that God created everything, and that life reflects the order of God’s creation, he said.

However, evolutionary theory is discussed in science class during seventh and eighth grades, said Everett. ‘‘As kids get older, they do a unit on creationism versus evolution ... to be aware of what the other side believes,’’ he said. ‘‘We look at it as ‘What are the shortcomings of evolution?’’’ (emphasis added)

If you're a regular reader of Red State Rabble, you already know we think pretty highly of Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray -- the Darrow of Kansas. If you'd like to learn more about him, there's an intriguing biographical sketch by David Klepper in the Sunday Kansas City Star. (Free registration required)

audible.com has his two-hour summation from last Thursday (the one that so infuriated intelligent design "theorist" John Calvert, he refused to shake hands when it was over -- you can download, and listen, for free.

If you enjoy real wit, you'll love this post from Orkut Media:

"Kansas is also challenging evolution in the classroom, and Intelligent Design Theory is making a splashy debut. Intelligent Design Theory, otherwise known as Creationism Lite (Now with half the God!™) points out the fuzzy areas of evolution, and reasons that if we don't know exactly how it happened, then God did it, which is the same rock-solid process by which the Greeks scientifically discovered that Zeus made lightning."

Seattle is home to the Discovery Institute, and now a number of bloggers from the Pacific Northwest have it in their sights. Here's the latest from the Evergreen Politics Blog.

Media Matters for America is following a story on CNN host Lou Dobbs who says, "The fact is that evolution, Darwinism, is not a fully explained or completely rigorous..."

The North Adams (Massachusetts) Transcript said in a recent editorial:

"When fighting scientific fact with unproved speculation, it's a good move to take advantage of a layman's understanding of science in order to paint it as an opt-in belief system, much like religion. Such is the triumph of the anti-evolutionists who went in front of the Kansas School Board to testify that white is actually black and up is actually down.

"It doesn't seem like making a case against reality would be that easy, but, really, it's just a matter of twisting the right words to an audience of people who have reached a conclusion long before they heard the facts."

John Hanna of the Associated Press notes that, "Much of the argument," between defenders of science and intelligent design proponents, "centers on whether evolutionary theory is flawed, but a key issue is how the state's standards will define science itself. Intelligent design advocates are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to only natural explanations for what's observed in the world."

In a guest column for the Seattle Times, Don Stern makes a point that seems to have been forgotten by too many public officials these days.

"Kathy Martin, a member of the state Board of Education (and retired science
teacher), states: "... our nation is based on Christianity, not science."

No. No. No! Our nation is based on law."

Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes:

"We Americans have become quite comfortable with our relatively recent designation as the world's only superpower. That's a mistake, since we won't hold the top spot long. In a generation or so, the Chinese will probably be ranked as a superpower, too. Indeed, if the United States doesn't get a grip on science and math education, the Chinese will be standing alone astride the globe, while we have fallen to a second-tier standing."

Educators in Kansas are beginning to grapple with what changes their school district will have to make to the science curriculum after the state school board votes to approve the minority's intelligent design proposals -- virtually a foregone conclusion.

Since schools in Kansas are under the control of local school boards, many school districts -- particularly in the larger urban centers -- will continue to teach evolution just as they have under the current standards.

The hitch will come if the state board mandates changes to statewide tests that include questions on intelligent design or pseudoscientific challenges to evolution.

If they do, school districts may reluctantly conclude that they have to teach these subjects to in order to prepare their students to do well on the tests.

Daniel Ruth, a columnist at the Tampa Tribune is relieved the science hearings took place in Kansas rather than his home state of Florida.

"... in the year 2005, Kansas education officials still were pondering whether the teaching of evolution might simply be one of those newfangled fads - like plumbing or fire. Over the years, the Kansas education establishment has struggled with how to approach evolution, going so far in 1999 as to delete references to the topic in school science standards, which would be a bit like prohibiting the use of tools in shop class."

"I think it casts some doubt throughout the country and the world whether or not we are up to the task of educating kids in the 21st century," Sebelius said.

The 23 intelligent design “theorists” who came to Kansas last week at taxpayer expense expected to be sipping Champagne this week, instead they’re tasting sour grapes as this piece by Knight Ridder’s John Klepper notes:

“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.”

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman takes note of the up is down logic of the intelligent design proponents who insist against all evidence that all they want to do is “teach the controversy.”

“It's the height of irony to hear the same partisans who intimidate science teachers positioning themselves as the defenders of fair and open debate. Open-minded? Listen to the words of committee member Harris: "Our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is in our schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications." Science that doesn't teach his religious beliefs is biased against his religious beliefs.”

Associated Press reporter John Hanna looks (free subscription required) into his crystal ball and sees this:

“Voters in Kansas should expect to hear plenty about evolution next year. Five State Board of Education members face re-election in 2006, and a debate the board expects to have this summer on science standards is likely to be the biggest issue.”

Pedro Irigonegaray finally got a chance to present the pro-science argument last Thursday. According to this report by Scott Rothschild of the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal World, the board didn’t like what they heard.

“Board member Martin, of Clay Center, her eyes filling with tears, said, ‘This board has been accused of being close-minded. I guess we will leave that up to the public.’"

At least she got that right.

The grandfatherly veneer slipped a little when John Calvert churlishly refused to shake hands with Pedro Irigonegaray at the close of the hearings Thursday. Here’s the take from the Associated Press:

“John Calvert, a retired attorney representing intelligent design advocates, complained yesterday about the personal attacks generated in the debate - and refused to shake hands with Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney representing evolution defenders.


As Martha Raffaele writes, Kansas isn’t the only place divided over the Discovery Institutes designs on our intelligence – there’s a big battle shaping up in the Dover (Pennsylvania) school board election.

“On opposite sides of this rural community, two billboards touting opposing slates of candidates for the school board illustrate a deep divide over a recent change to the high school's science curriculum.”

A federal judge struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage Thursday. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

During closing arguments at the Kansas science hearings yesterday, Pedro Irigonegaray, the attorney who is representing mainstream science, addressed the potential legal issues raised by the hearings.

First, he warned the board that the conduct of the hearings raises three probable lines of attack if the board votes -- as they surely will -- to approve the intelligent design minority draft.

First, he said, approval of the minority draft serves no secular purpose as required by the establishment clause of the Constitution and court rulings. Second, he said the board was vulnerable to challenge because they have changed the rules in the middle of the game in the curriculum approval process. Finally, Irigonegaray said, the board has abused its authority by granting special privileges to John Calvert and William Harris. The board, he said, acted as cheerleaders for the minority witnesses and collaborated with them outside of public hearings.

Then, Irigonegaray, analyzed the weaknesses of the intelligent design legal strategy.

Science, by embracing evolutionary theory, the intelligent design movement argues, is guilty of introducing religion -- atheism -- into science classrooms. The remedy, they say, is to introduce intelligent design's criticisms of evolution into the classroom.

The courts have granted atheists the same protections under the constitution offered to other religions, Irigonegaray noted. However, he said, in the unlikely event the courts were to rule that teaching evolution violates the establishment clause, they would not accept the remedy offered by the intelligent design movement -- "teach the controversy" -- they would instead order that evolution not be taught at all.

Interestingly, Irigonegaray made the point that since there is no "theory" of intelligent design -- it consists wholly of criticisms of evolutionary theory -- teaching the controversy amounts to teaching the theistic belief system that goes under the name of intelligent design.

After concluding his closing arguments in the Topeka science hearings yesterday, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray told the board he would not answer questions.

"Draft 2 of the Science Standards is my client," Irigonegaray said. "I will not stand for questioning."

Board Chairman Steve Abrams objected, saying that there was an agreement on procedure. Never far from the spotlight, John Calvert demanded that he get his allotted hour to rebut Irigonegary, anyway.

Irigonegaray's refusal to be questioned as a witness marked the first time during these odd proceedings that a participant actually played the role assigned to him.

John Calvert, like the primadonna who wants to play every part in the school play, acted not only as counsel for the intelligent design minority, but as witness, and behind the scenes board advisor, as well.

Board members Steve Abrams, Connie Morris, and Kathy Martin acted not as jurists who impartially weighed the testimony of the 23 intelligent design witnesses, but as cheerleaders for them.

As Irigonegaray noted, he's neither an expert on science or an educator. His role was to defend the interests of science at the hearings -- something he did in an exemplary manner.

Pedro Irigonegaray's closing arguments in the Kansas science hearings dealt a serious blow to the intelligent design strawman that teaching evolution is the same as teaching atheism.

Irigonegaray pointed out that intelligent design proponents do not speak for all Protestants, the vast majority of whom feel no conflict between their religious beliefs and science. Likewise, they can't claim to speak for mainstream Catholics, Jews, or members of other faiths, such as Muslims or Buddhists.

Irigonegaray also cited the Wisconsin clergy Project, signed by thousands of Christian ministers which says, "We ask that science remain science and religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary forms of truth."

Phillip Johnson, the father of intelligent design theory, was quoted by Irigonegaray as saying that "liberal Christians are worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism behind a veneer of religion."

As chair of the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards Committee, Steve Case, of the Center for Science Education and the Center for Research on Learning has put up with a lot from the members of the board of education. Apparently, he's finally had enough. Today, Pedro Irirgonegaray read this letter from Case -- responding the board chair Steve Abrams' op-ed in the Wichita Eagle -- into the hearing record.

I feel that I have to respond to Dr. Abram's letter in the WichitaEagle.

Dr Abrams ends his letter with a quote from Thomas Cooper;"only fraud and falsehood dreadexamination. Truth invites it." I would suggest that he be careful what he wishes for.

Throughout the Standards process, the expert panel appointed by the State Board has worked very hard to follow the process by which curriculum standards are developed. It is by this kind of adherence to a well structured process and by following the rules, that documents of this nature establish creditability. Through this process, a two thirds majority of the committee has produced an excellent document. At all times we have maintained a high degree of respect for all of the people involved in standards process and at all times made absolutely certain that all voices were heard.

Honestly, during this process it has been difficult to remain respectful when being denigrated as a scientist and portrayed as a poor teacher. I have been looked in the eye and lied to on several occasions during this process.

A good example comes from the second paragraph of Dr.Abrams letter in which he says, "At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the science curriculum standards."

Dr. Abrams must think that we have forgotten Trial Draft 4A of the science standards that he introduced in 1999. At the time he told us that he was the author of this trial draft of the standards. It was only through a bit of detective work that we found that this was not true. The draft hadbeen written by a young earth creationist group from Cleveland, Missouri.

These were the creationist standards that were adopted by the board in1999. Dr.Abrams was, at the very least, a driving force in the insertion of creation science into our state standards at that time.

It is also difficult to remain respectful when I read Dr. Abrams' statement in which he says, "In addition, I have stated that I want to remove the dogmatic fashion with which neo-Darwinian evolution is taught."

Dr. Abramsknows that there is a great deal of difference between science content standards and curriculum/instruction. Standards create a broad vision of what it means to be scientifically literate. They serve only as a foundation for local school districts to create their curriculum and instruction.

It seems as if Dr. Abrams is promoting State control for what has been a local function; the curriculum and instruction occurring in local classrooms. However, I cannot let the assertion that the outstanding science teachers of Kansas are teaching in a dogmatic fashion stand unchallenged.

It is offensive to the teacher of Kansas and absolutely untrue.

I have been in hundreds of classrooms across the State, very active in state wide teacher organizations and very active in science teacher professional development. If such behavior is occurring in a classroom then that teacher would be guilty of unprofessional conduct. I have never observed such behavior in any of the classrooms in Kansas. I have found the teachers of Kansas to be very sensitive and caring about their student welfare.

The Statement of Tolerance found in theScience Standards articulately expresses this caring and the high standard of practice in the state. Dr. Abrams letter is filled with such misleading statements. He continues to insist that dramatically changing the procedures by which the Science Standards are developed is a noble thing and that these hearing and witnesses have credibility.

This is also untrue.

The witnesses do not have any standing in the field and no credibility.The statements have arrogant opinions about subjects in which they have no knowledge. The subcommittee hearings in Topeka are dishonorable and without integrity. Reputable scientists and science educators should be applauded for not participating in such an event.

Science Standards Committee chair Steve Case broke his silence today in a letter read by Pedro Irigonegaray, Case said, "It is difficult to remain respectful (to the board) when members look you in the eye and lie to you." 

Pedro Irigonegaray, left, talks with Jack Krebs as the hearings got underway in Topeka this morning. Irigonegaray, representing mainstream science, made closing arguments in which he presented a copy of draft two of the science standards to the board, saying, "I urge the members of the science subcommittee to take the time to read it." 

Kansas Board of Education Chair Steve Abrams listened as Pedro Irigonegaray read a letter from Science Standards Committee Chair Steve Case that characterized the hearings as "dishonorable and without integrity."

Intelligent design attorneys Edward Sisson, left, of the D.C Law Firm Arnold and Porter, and John Calvert were on the receiving end today as Pedro Irigonegaray summed up the case in defense of the majority science standards draft at the Kansas science hearings. 

Patrick Ross, Chair of the Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas squared off against intelligent design activist John Calvert on KPTS, the PBS affiliate in Wichita. Here's a sample:

John Calvert: The very first proposal (in the minority draft, RSR) is to add the word “informed” to the mission statement of Kansas Education. The present proposal that the majority is suggesting Kansas use as a mission statement is to have students make quote “reasoned” decisions about, you know. Science is designed to help them make “reasoned” decisions. And we believe that a “reasoned” decision can be a horrible decision if it is not “informed.”

Host Dan Goter: Alright, is that language such…so prejudicial that it’s…

Patrick Ross: I think at that point we are arguing about semantics. I think the word that we really want to argue about and discuss in terms of these minority standards is the definition of science. There are a number of other things that we could talk about, but one thing that I think is a glaring change is the removal of the word “natural”. The removal of …that science is the search for “natural” explanations and replacing that with some other term like “logical” explanations or some other type of thing.

And I am a practicing scientist. I do research. And I’m sorry, but trial lawyers, veterinarians, and car insurance salesman do not get to determine the definition of science. Regardless of what the board of education will do in June, I will still practice science the way I have always practiced science, the way science has always been practiced.

What I think we should be informing our students is not how creation and intelligent design folks think science ought to be practiced, but the way it really is by the practitioners of that subject. We talk to mathematicians to get math standards. We talk to historians to get history standards. We shouldn’t be talking to lay people to tell us how should science be done.

"The problem is that some of the media is getting it right, but a large number of the media is just spouting propaganda," says John Calvert, of the Intelligent Design Network.

Jen Stone, a staff writer for the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle reports on a theistic view of the evolution, intelligent design debate that we don't hear much about:

"Both Kansas rabbis and the Jewish community's church-state watchdogs are looking askance as the state Board of Education holds hearings this week in Topeka over whether to add "intelligent design" to school science curricula about human origins, alongside the theory of evolution.

"While there is probably no local rabbi who would deny the supernatural origin of the universe, and of humans, as depicted in the Torah, neither do they wish to see it taught in the public schools...

"'It is clearly objectionable to teach theology as though it is science," says Rabbi Mark Levin of the Reform Congregation Beth Torah 'because ... it misinforms children and introduces religious faith into the public school system under the guise of science.'"

You used to think they were harmless lunatics, didn't you. But, now you see people reading the Left Behind series and you wonder what that's all about. Perhaps they're changing the curriculum at your kid's school, or demanding that certain books be removed from the library. You wonder if Bill Frist will have to go nuclear to line them up for his presidential bid, and you ask yourself: will they really control who the next justice to the Supreme Court will be?

Not long ago, they were just pawns in the Republican party vote getting machine. Now, they seem to be the tail that's wagging the Republican dog.

Maybe, you think, I should learn a little bit more about them. Well, here's a good a good place to start, "America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives?" By Steve Weissman on the truthout.org website.

Okay, you wanted to be there. You wanted to hear the testimony, but it was in Kansas for godsakes. They wouldn't even let you bring your Starbucks into the hearing room -- the reason RSR suspects that the New York Times reporter stayed one day. So here's a little snippet of Science Coalition Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray's cross-examination of Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute, where he learns that it might have been wise for him to have read the majority draft of the standards before coming to Kansas. The transcipt is coutesy of Night Line where it was first aired.

VOICE OVER -- JIM WOOTEN (ABC NEWS)
He (William Harris) and his fellow ID advocates believe evolution is inherently atheistic. And their goal is to persuade the Kansas board of education to include their arguments against it in the state standards for teaching science in public schools.

PEDRO L. IRIGONEGARAY (ATTORNEY)
If this is all about science and not about philosophy or religion ...

VOICE OVER -- JIM WOOTEN (ABC NEWS)
Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka attorney, was the only defender of the state’s current standards.

PEDRO L. IRIGONEGARAY (ATTORNEY)
Where in the standards do you find any reference to atheistic views to be the practice in the state?

BRUCE CHAPMAN (PRESIDENT, DISCOVERY INSTITUTE)
I don’t find them written explicitly in the standards.

A federal appeals court has denied the Cobb County school board's request to delay an order to remove evolution disclaimer stickers from science textbooks.

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

In a letter today to State Board of Education chair Steve Abrams, Kansas Citizens for Science denounced last week's hearings on evolution as a "sham" and a "kangaroo court," and urged the Board to adopt the science standards endorsed by the Board's Science Standards Writing Committee.

The letter, signed by KCFS president Harry McDonald, said it was evident to all that the Hearing Committee made up their minds before the hearings started and had not even bothered to read the science standards they were debating. The boycott of the hearings by scientists was amply justified. "There is no scientific controversy over evolution," said McDonald.

"Evolution is a fact and evolutionary theory is one of the best-documented concepts in modern science."

McDonald also said the hearings amounted to nothing more than "three days of ID [Intelligent Design] infomercials." "The BOE has once again succeeded in embarrassing Kansas in the eyes of the entire world," wrote McDonald.

Other concerns brought forward by KCFS were that:

ID proponents repeatedly misrepresented science as promoting atheism, a false claim that denigrates other religious traditions, including most Christian denominations that find no conflict with evolution science; and ID presented no scientific basis for their alternatives to evolution science.

The letter described the hearings as an affront to Kansans, leaving the Board with "no alternative but to reject the overt political manipulation of the education curriculum." To do otherwise, McDonald said, amounts to the BOE calling for a "dumbing-down" of the state's educational standards.

Kansas Citizens for Science is a not-for-profit educational organization that promotes a better understanding of what science is, and does, by advocating for science education , educating the public about the nature and value of science, and serving as an information resource. For more information about KCFS, visit www.kcfs.org.

The Coalition for Science gives scientists and citizens a much needed voice before the public and national and local media, as the Kansas State Board of Education attempts to replace science standards carefully developed by a committee appointed by the board with a showcase for a theology known as Intelligent Design creationism. For more information about the Coalition for Science, visit http://www.coalitionforscience.org/.

Signs of the times.

Red State Rabble was, at first, highly amused by the conceit offered by William Saletan in a post on Slate titled "What Matters in Kansas." Saletan writes that the battle of science education in our public schools is more evolved now -- something supporters of science education should welcome. As the morning wore on, our amusement turned to a slow burn. We're going to vent now.

Saletan sees the Bible-thumpers who outlawed the teaching of evolution in Dayton, Tennessee in the 1925 as the equivalent of Australopithecus, the earliest hominid. The intelligent design "theorists" who came to Kansas as part of the bible college biology roadshow last week, were more highly evolved -- they are homo sapiens.

All this is hugely entertaining until we come to Saletan's concluding paragraph:

It's too bad liberals and scientists don't welcome this test. It's too bad they go around sneering, as censors of science often have, that the new theory is too radical, offensive, or embarrassing to be taken seriously. It's too bad they think good science consists of believing the right things. In the long view—the evolutionary view—good science consists of using evidence and experiment to find out whether what we thought was right is wrong. If they do that in Kansas, by whatever name, that's all that matters.

So, It's scientists, school teachers, and defenders of science who are the bad guys here? As we have pointed out time and again, but we will point it out for our friend Bill, intelligent design is not a more evolved form of creationism. It is creationism wearing a disguise.

Anyone who doubts this need go no further than the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document." Here's what they say:

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Those of us who live in Kansas, who drive the mean streets of Topeka past right-wing zealots waving "God Hates Fags" signs, who are fighting the book banners at our local school board meetings, working with educators to prevent abstinence only sex education from taking over the schools, trying to defend some access to abortion from a over-zealous Attorney General, mobilizing voters to defend church state separation, and working our butts off to keep science from being defined by born again Christians who believe that nuclear war is a hopeful sign of the second coming of Christ, might have hoped for more from our friend Bill.

Steve Abrams, chair of the Kansas State Board of Education, has an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle today about the science standards hearings. In 1999, Abrams pushed through science standards revisions authored by the Creation Science Association for Mid-America. Today, however, he's had an epiphany: he is a convinced intelligent design "theorist."

"I have repeatedly stated that my objective is to get as much empirical science (defined as observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable) into the science curriculum standards as possible."

Abrams used this line repeatedly at the hearings, so much so that, like devotees of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show," the audience began to speak the line for him from the audience.

Abrams is angry now that the hearings did not achieve their goal of turning the teleology of intelligent design into a hard science.

"It is a sad commentary on the state of public affairs that persons as learned as reporters and editorial board members of The Eagle still have no clue as to what is happening with the Kansas science curriculum standards.

The Eagle editorial "Fringe: Evolution hearings push religious agenda" (May 8 Opinion) claimed that these hearings have "everything to do with sneaking religious views into science classrooms." That is absolutely incorrect."

How does he see the way coverage is shaping public opinion coming out of the three-ring hearings circus:

These hearings were not about my religious views; they were about what is good science. There was a huge amount of science testimony over three days last week. But to read the editorial and the article "Anti-evolution hearings end" (May 8 Local & State), a person would be hard-pressed to know that science was the main topic of discussion.

The victory the intelligent design forces expected to toast coming out of the hearings is turning to ashes in their mouths.

Red State Rabble will have more in a just a bit about where William Saletan goes wrong in his piece in Slate today, "What Matters in Kansas." (see below) Much of it is tongue in cheek, and should be read as an amusing entertainment rather that a serious analysis, but we should all be clear about what's at stake.

First, the definition of science. Should we allow supernatural explanations of the phenomena we observe in the natural world or not? Red State Rabble is of the opinion that redefining science is more dangerous than allowing creationism in.

Second, should we open the door to right-wing zealots to push their anti-science agenda unimpeded at school board meetings, particularly in the rural areas of the state, where they can and do harass and intimidate teachers and administrators?

It is true, that as Saletan's article implies, evolution is winning and will win the long term battle. We've come a long way from Scopes when evolution was banned from the public schools. But, that does not mean that the trend can't be, or won't be reversed at times. The right is raging now. They've become the tail that wags the Republican dog. That makes them a dangerous opponent.

Red State Rabble is convinced that we should concede nothing -- with the right, every time we take a step back in a mistaken attempt to be more accommodating, tolerant, or fair they take a giant step in our direction and then demand we step back again. Tactics change from time to time, creationism may give way in public to intelligent design -- but the ultimate goal remains the same.

If you still doubt the seriousness of what is happening, consider this from a story by Sophia Maines in today's Lawrence Journal World:

"Timmia Hearn Feldman, a Central Junior High School student, said her father had to press school officials to teach evolution in her biology class. When it was covered, Hearn Feldman said much of the unit was passed over. 'I feel like it wasn't covered sufficiently,' she said. 'I think a lot of teachers are afraid to teach evolution.'"

And remember, this is Lawrence, Kansas. It isn't some Podunk -- it's the home of the University of Kansas.

Check out William Saletan's "What Matters in Kansas" in Slate. Here's a sample:

"In the Scopes trial, creationists defended a ban on the teaching of evolution. That was the early, authoritarian stage of creationism—the equivalent of Australopithecus, the earliest hominid. Gradually, evolution gained the upper hand. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't even require equal treatment of evolution and creationism. By 1999, creationists were asking the Kansas board not to rule out their beliefs entirely. This was creationism's more advanced Homo erectus phase: pluralism. Six years later, evolutionists in Kansas are under attack again. They think the old creationism is back. They're mistaken. Homo erectus—the defense, on pluralist grounds, of the literal account of Genesis—is beginning to die out."

Not quite right, but funny -- some good obsevations, but flawed, very flawed conclusions -- stay tuned for more from RSR on this article soon.

Chris Kahn of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel writes:

"Eighty years since William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow's landmark debate over teaching human evolution in schools, the issue remains a political minefield.

"Religious groups and school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania, Georgia and other states have succeeded in putting Charles Darwin's theory in competition with other explanations about how humans came to be.

"In Florida, school officials have tiptoed through the debate, approving education standards that don't mention evolution or big-bang theories while buying books that devote lots of pages to both."

Some of the candidates running for the Greencastle-Antrim School Board (Pennsylvania) spoke at a forum the other night. At the meeting, they were asked about their position on teaching intelligent design in the classroom.

Teresa Rainey told the crowd that teaching intelligent design violated the separation of church and state.

Patricia Fridgen wisely indicated that it was something better handled by parents than the school system.

Michael Shindle, however argued,"Whether you agree or disagree, it still needs to be taught."

"I'm in favor of teaching it," said Charles McClain, who favors the oldies but goodies. "We need to give kids both sides of the equation and let them make up their own mind."

Note: An early version of this post had the school district in Georgia. Thanks to reader Kelvin Kean for setting us straight.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed a resolution that would ban books on gay families from the children's sections of public libraries.

According to a report in the Kansas City Star by Dianne Carrol, it could be August before the Kansas Board of Education makes a final decision on how evolution should be taught.

Board "Chairman Steve Abrams said he expected the board to hear a report in June from the subcommittee holding hearings now on a minority proposal to teach evolution from a more critical point of view. If any vote is taken next month, he said, it might be on a draft of the standards. But a final vote isn't likely until July or August."

Abrams also told the Star that the board is likely to seek a reivew of the minority draft -- the one it favors -- by out-of-state experts before voting.

The final act in the Kansas Science Hearings drama (farce) will take place tomorrow and Red State Rabble will be there. Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray is scheduled to sum up the case for the pro-science side. Stay Tuned.

During a cross-examination by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, one of the intelligent design witnesses said it would be "silly" for him to testify in an area in which he had no expertise -- such as the majority science standards draft, which he hadn't read.

"I don't even want to comment about what's silly about these proceedings," Irigonegaray shot back.

Terry Rombeck, of the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal World reports that the science hearings may affect the state's fledgling bioscience industry putting a $500 million effort in danger.

Rombeck quotes Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas University Natural History Museum:

"It is ironic that at the same time the Legislature is pumping $500 million into the Kansas bioscience initiative to build a bioscience and biotechindustry in Kansas, the (state) board of education is trying to remove andwater down the basic fundamental concept of evolution that underlies all ofbiology."

The Herald Tribune is running a Cox News Service piece by Teepen that neatly puts the intelligent design movement into context.

"Create a stink and you're in. Only five years into the new millennium our fingertip grip on the 21st century already is slipping. We could tumble into the 18th before you can say 'macroevolution.'"

Read it here.

Fox News has posted a partial transcript of the debate between Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, and the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer that took place on "The Big Story With John Gibson," on May 6.

In it, Scott makes the point that the religious right is adopting the same tactics once employed in the former Soviet Union to attack science:

"In not a single scientific conference have I ever experienced lawyers cross-examining scientists about what is science. This is absurd. The Kansas hearings are a show trial, like in the sense of the Soviet Union back in the '50s. The board already has its conclusion. They're just going through these motions, making a big show for the public, to get an idea out."

Hannah and Jake sit on a small limestone outcropping containing fossil shells from the Cretaceous period when Kansas was covered by a shallow inland sea. Hannah would like it to be known that although she attended elementary school near this spot, she will be a high school freshman in the fall.

A fossil shell embedded in sedimentary limestone is evidence of an ancient inland sea that covered Kansas until the late Cretaceous, about 65 million years ago.

A few blocks from our Kansas home, in a field near the elementary school both of Red State Rabble's daughters attended, is a small limestone outcroping. Over the years, we've often walked the dogs there, and sat a moment to rest and wonder at the fossil shells embeded in that sedimentary rock.

Kansas was once covered by a shallow inland sea that stretched from here to the Colorado shore. It was home to giant sharks, a fearsome marine reptile called the mosasaur, and pteranodons, a flying reptile. If, like RSR, you're interested in this sort of thing, there is a fabulous website, "Oceans of Kansas Paleontology: Fossils from the Late Cretaceous Western Interior Sea" maintained by Mike Everhart that is loaded with pictures of the sharp-toothed mosasaur fossils and other fascinating information about the history of that remote time.

Red State Rabble finds it highly ironic that the battle line between science and reason on the one hand, and zealotry and ignorance on the other, have been drawn in a state that is so extraordinarily rich in the fossil evidence of our evolutionary past.

RSR has seen the excitement and curiosity in our daughter's eyes at the sight of marine fossils so far from the sea. The worst thing about intelligent design, and its country cousin, creationism, is that it seeks, quite openly, to deny our children a chance to experience for themselves that sense of wonder and to replace it with some stern, all-knowing, Old Testament God.

We don't hear much about the "Sermon on the Mount" here in Kansas anymore.

As he opened each cross-examination at the science hearings in Topeka last week, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray told each of the intelligent design witnesses in turn, "I have just a few questions to ask you for the record."

That record will be important if (when) the board approves the intelligent design minority draft.

"We're building a record," Irigonegaray says, "so that, depending on what the board does, we will be able to use it if the board crosses the line between church and state and introduces faith-based studies into the Kansas curriculum."

Red State Rabble hunkered down in the Kansas State Board of Education hearing room and listened when the 23 intelligent design "theorists" organized by the Discovery Institute brought their roadshow to town last week. We heard hour after mind-numbing hour of criticisms about evolution, but there is one thing we didn't hear in all those hours of testimony.

We did not hear even a moment of testimony about what intelligent design theory is, what hypotheses it is testing, what research it plans to conduct.

In fact, the witnesses were highly indignant -- and evasive -- when Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray asked them during cross-examination to simply state a hypothesis about the age of the earth or where humans might have come from if they did not evolve from early hominid ancestors.

If there was ever any doubt that intelligent design is not science, it was completely dispelled by the categorical refusal of those "theorists" to state a hypothesis that could be tested by scientific investigation.

With the hearings going on inside the auditorium last week, RSR spent some time talking to Kansas Citizens for Science activists at their booth outside. One prime topic of conversation was the cost of the hearings, then estimated at around $5,000.

KCFS President Harry McDonald wondered how may field trips Kansas school children could have gone on for that amount of money.

Now, the Associated Press reports that the state actually expects to spend about $17,350 on the hearings, including $5,000 to pay lodging and other expenses for Calvert's witnesses and $5,000 to have the hearings transcribed by a court reporter, plus costs for computer and electronic equipment and security, including a walk-through metal detector.

The $17,350 the state expects to spend, according to AP, would have covered state aid for 4.5 children for the current school year, or about 45 percent of the average teacher salary of $38,800.

Pedro Irigonegaray, a high-profile Kansas attorney who represented the pro-science community at the hearings refused to accept even a penny of compensation from Kansas taxpayers.

"That wasn't the news," says Connie Morris, one of three right-wing biblical literalists on the State Board of Education who presided over the hearings last week. Morris thinks the media focused far too much on the intelligent design witnesses' failure to read the science standards committee majority draft and not enough on their criticisms of evolution.

Out in the Pacific Northwest, a group of bloggers is beginning to take a hard look at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the Seattle-based intelligent design think tank. There's this initial tidbit from Washblog:

"The (Discovery) Institute's religious agenda has won it the backing of wealthy financiers and foundations. For example, California multi-millionaire Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., has singled out the Discovery Institute for big contributions. Ahmanson is aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the Religious Right that seeks to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy."

Jon Devore, who writes the ColumbianWatch, blog has a post up about the Vancouver-based M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust which gave $215,000 in 2002 and $345,000 in 2003 to finance the Discovery Institute.

Jon also sends word of a group of Northwest bloggers who are attempting to generate media interest by blogging about the Discovery Institute. They've set up an aggregator site called Pacific NW Portal that is a convenient one-stop look for what some progressive bloggers are doing.

Give them a look.

Jason Miller's "Barnum on Steroids" in the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel:

"Yes, Phineas Taylor Barnum would be green with envy. The master of the hoodwink would be in awe of the Religious Right were he alive today... this evangelical movement is flexing its muscle, and flashing its propagandistic cunning, as it soaks up the spotlight of national media attention in Topeka"

"Ringling Brothers could not rival the hype of the circus of events
dubbed "Scopes II." Led by its three “ringmasters” (Kathy Martin, Steve Abrams, and Connie Morris), the Kansas State School Board has once again put the theory of Evolution on trial. Despite the lack of testimony from a single member of the established, mainstream scientific community, "the show must go on" as the board “proves” that Evolution is dubious at best. The purpose of this extravaganza is to “validate” the new science standards they desperately want to implement, and they are determined to “bring home the win” this time."

Savor this hors d'oeuvre then read the whole thing here.

Listen free (brief registration required) to the first three days of the Kansas Science Hearings on www.audible.com.

Don't miss the intelligent design witnesses squirming under a series of withering cross-examinations by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.

Also available:

• What's the Matter With Kansas
• Scientific American Special Edition: Evolution
• The Great Tennessee Monkey Trial

Hey, do you suppose Kathy Martin and Connie Morris would have listened to the majority draft of the science standards, even if they wouldn't read it?

Supporters of teaching REAL science in public schools should take MSNBC's live survey on what should be taught -- evolution or intelligent design. Here's the link. Let 'em know what you think. At the time of this post, Evolution is leading 56-44% out of 61,147 response. The survey is not scientific, of course, but it is significant.

The message that intelligent design proponents hoped would come out of last week’s testimony in Topeka is that there is a controversy between scientists over the validity evolutionary theory.

“There is a genuine scientific controversy,” insisted John Calvert, the intelligent design attorney, somewhat plaintively as the hearings came to a close Saturday.

The false notion that scientists are divided is key to the intelligent design movement’s strategy to convince school districts around the country to “teach the controversy” over evolution.

That, of course, is only the first step on the road to their ultimate goal of replacing religiously neutral science with a science consonant with their own narrow Christian and theistic convictions.

That strategy was dealt a body blow by the refusal of science organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Kansas Academy of Science, Kansas Association for Biology Teachers, Kansas Association of the Teachers of Science to participate in the hearings.

The knockout punch came when Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray compelled the intelligent design witnesses to confess, during a series of withering cross-examinations, that they hadn’t bothered to read the science standards draft written by the majority on the curriculum committee before coming to Kansas at taxpayer expense.

The rightwing, Christian fundamentalist school board members who are running the hearings compounded the blow by admitting that they too hadn’t read the draft “word for word” that they so oppose.

"That wasn't the news," board member Connie Morris complained somewhat lamely as the hearings unwound last week.

But, of course it was, and like Humpty Dumpty nothing the witnesses, board members, or the Discovery Institute did could put the controversy fiction back together again.

The fact is, that almost everyone who read about the hearings in the papers or watched them on the television news knew that thousands of dollars were spent bringing witnesses to Kansas from all around the world who hadn’t done their homework.

The barnstorming brotherhood of bible college biologists came, they saw, they did not conquer.

The final act in the hearings will play out this Thursday when Pedro Irigonegaray sums up the case for the pro-science side, and Red State Rabble will be there to cover it.

Credit for this victory goes primarily to Kansas Citizens for Science, in particular Harry McDonald and the indefatigable Jack Krebs. Pedro Irigonegaray also played an enormously important part in exposing the feeble claims of the intelligent design witnesses, and the one-sidedness of the board. Science faculty from the University of Kansas and Kansas State University did not testify, but they monitored the hearings and made themselves available to the media to debunk the pseudoscience presented during testimony.

The KCFS strategy was high risk, but it has paid off handsomely. The defense of science is in good hands in Kansas.

The victory last week will not prevent the board from approving the intelligent design minority draft later this summer, but the public awareness coming out of the hearings will deny the board the political cover they hoped to gain from them.

Next year, half the state school board will be up for election. Then, citizens will be able to decide whether they want to be represented by zealots, or people who will act in the best interests of Kansas schoolchildren.

Red State Rabble has received an enormous amount of e-mail since the hearings began (sorry about the longer than ususal wait for a response) asking about how to help. Here are a few suggestions:

Join KCFS and support their work.

Sign the Science Coalition statement – even if you live outside Kansas. It will let people know that the eyes of the world are on this battle.

Get active in the defense of science, reason, and separation of church and state where you live. The barnstorming brotherhood may be coming soon to a school near you.

A number of intelligent design witnesses testified at the Kansas science hearings last week that, in their view, conditions on the early earth would not have allowed life to have evolved out of inanimate matter. In addition, they said, the window of opportunity for life to emerge was too narrow. Perhaps they should catch this article by David Perlman "Mineral evidence paints life-friendly picture of early Earth" which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, yesterday.

"Only a scant 200 million years after Earth was formed, our planet was already a watery world well suited for life to emerge, two scientists have concluded from fresh evidence they found in ancient microscopic minerals."

The dilemma for intelligent design "theorists" is that while science doesn't have all the answers and never will, scientific investigation of the natural world will continue -- inexorably -- to fill the existing gaps in human knowledge. If the ID crowd continues to pin its hopes on those gaps in knowledge it will, in effect, paint itself into a smaller and smaller corner.

As the Kansas science hearings progressed last week in Topeka, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray had an increasingly difficult time getting intelligent design witnesses to express an opinion about the age of the earth.

The way they hemmed and hawed, you'd have thought he was asking if Prof. Plum had done it in the library with a lead pipe -- or perhaps even worse, for them, if Prof. Plum had done it with Miss Scarlett in the study...

Is there really a scientific controversy about the age of the earth?

During a break in the hearings last week, Red State Rabble spoke with Kirsten Nicolaysen a Kansas State geologist whose area of expertise is the chemistry of volcanic rocks, including the methods for dating those rocks.

Nicolaysen explained that rocks are dated using multiple techniques.

The oldest rocks on earth -- some 3.96 billion years old, according to Nicolaysen -- come from along the Acasta River in Canada's Northwest Territory. In Australia, scientists have found a zircon crystal, a mineral, that is 4.3 billion years old.

How do they do it?

All rocks and minerals contain minute amounts of radioactive material. These radioactive elements are unstable, over time they spontaneously decay into more stable atoms. This decay occurs at a constant rate specific to each isotope -- isotopes are different forms of a single element that have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. The rate of decay is usually described in terms of a half-life

Uranium 238, for example, has a half life of 4.5 billion years. It decays into a stable daughter product, lead 206. Uranium 235, with a half life of 708 million years, decays into lead 207. By looking at the ratio of parent to daughter isotope, geologist can determine the age of the rock. By looking at the ratio between both Uranium 238 and Uranium 235 and their respective daughter isotopes, geologists get a check on the date of the rock they are testing.

For intelligent design "theorists," it's not just evolution -- which they derisively call an historical science -- that challenges those among them who believe in a young earth. It's physics and chemistry.

Will we see a challenge to this part of the science curriculum next?

Intelligent design proponent William Harris, left, speaks to attorney John Calvert of the ID Network. "Part of our goal," says Harris, "is to remove the bias against religion in our schools." 

"Evolution is a great theory," says board member Kathy Martin, "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them. We can't ignore that our country is built on Christianity, not science." 

Is it possible that life evolved from inanimate chemical molecules?

"Utterly impossible," says Nancy Bryson, an instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia.

Bryson lost her position as division science director at Mississippi University for Women after she gave a public lecture two years ago criticizing evolution.

Following the hearings today, Red State Rabble interviewed Bruce Glymour, a member of the Philosophy Department and the Center for the Study of Origins at Kansas State University. Glymour listened to the testimony of intelligent design witnesses at the hearings today, a number of whom are philosophers by training.

Angus Menuge, Stephen Meyer, Warren Nord, and attorney John Calvert, who also testified today, argue, according to Glymour that methodological naturalism -- something of a bogey man at these hearings -- prevents students from getting their hands on all the data.

"This is false," says Glymour, "methodological naturalism doesn't rule out data, it only rules out certain hypotheses -- supernatural hypotheses -- such as intelligent design because they are untestable."

Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based intelligent design think tank, did not appear in person at today's Kansas Science hearings. Instead, he was teleconferenced in.

Meyer stonewalled Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray's cross-examination, refusing repeatedly to answer his questions. Irigonegaray several times asked board chairman Steve Abrams to compel Meyer to answer, but to no avail.

Meyer's stonewalling is curious in a man who is arguing that the Kansas Science standards limit inquiry. After all, how is public policy discussion or scientific investigation possible if the ideas or theories under discussion are kept secret?

What does Meyer have to hide?

On the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views, John West posts this apologia for the reading challenged in the intelligent design camp:

"Knight-Ridder Newspapers is circulating a false news report after apparently being bamboozled by the Darwinist spin-machine in Kansas. The article claims that the expert witnesses in the Kansas evolution hearings have not read the science standards they are seeking to change. But the charge is false, and the fact that a major news organization would promote such a bogus story makes one wonder about how many reporters have actually read the science standards in question...

"What this story fails to disclose is that the minority report of the science standards committee reprints verbatim the relevant science standards relating to evolution from the majority draft. In other words, anyone who has read the minority report has read the majority draft of the science standards relating to evolution!"

Well John, as one who has attended the hearings and watched Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray drag the grudging admission from the lips of witness after witness in a series of grueling cross-examinations, Red State Rabble can personally attest to the truth of the Knight-Ridder story.

By the way, it's not just Knight-Ridder, it's Associated Press, in fact, it's every news organization -- and there were many, as a Google search will quickly reveal -- who had a reporter at the dramatic second day of the hearings.

Perhaps more revealing of West and the Discovery Institute's absolute contempt for truth, is the falsity of the second assertion made in the Evolution News and Views post, namely that "anyone who has read the minority report has read the majority draft of the science standards relating to evolution!"

It's simply not true, no matter how many exclamation points West puts after it.

RSR note: The original version of this post contained an error. See the comments below for the original text. RSR is grateful to reader Kevin Parker for calling our attention to it.

You can also read my story "The dog ate my homework" about the collapse, yesterday, of the intelligent design movement's case following the admission by the witnesses that they have not read the majority draft of the science standards on Panda's Thumb.

During cross-examination, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray has forced each intelligent design witness to go on record about their opinion on the age of the earth, common descent, and whether human beings have evolved from pre-hominids.

So far, not one witness has said they believe the evidence supports a belief that all living things share a common ancestor or that they believe that human have evolved from pre-hominids.

Professional scientists who are monitoring the hearings commented that this position commits the witnesses to a belief in special creation for each plant and animal species now in existence.

On the first day, all the witnesses said they believe the earth is approximately 4.5 billions years old -- the scientifically accepted age. However, yesterday, cracks began to emerge in that consensus as one witness Bryan Leonard, a high school biology teacher from Ohio, categorically refused to answer, and two others, Daniel Ely and John Sanford said the earth might be less than 10 thousand years old.

"Less than 100 thousand years old," said Sanford. "Conceivably less than 10 thousand years old."

Several intelligent design witnesses including Charles Thaxton and Edward Peltzer have focused their testimony on the origin of life on earth. Paradoxically, they present evidence that life could not have arisen through natural causes on earth, but also propose that a section on origins be added to the science curriculum.

Their strategy is to inject a discussion of origins into science classrooms because they believe it reveals flaws in the theory of evolution.

Harry McDonald, president Kansas Citizens For Science, says there's a good reason why origins was not included in the pro-science majority draft.

"It's not in the standards," he says, "because the scientific community has not reached a consensus."

Many observers will be watching the testimony of conservative Muslim activist Mustafa Akoyl with particular interest today. According to a report published earlier this week by Tony Ortega of the Pitch, a Kansas City alternative newsweekly, Akoyl is a member of a Turkish organization called Bilim Arastirma Vakfi. BAV has waged a campaign of intimidation against Turkish scientists that has all but silenced any discussion of evolution in that country.

Among the intelligent design witnesses scheduled to testify today are Nancy Bryson, James Barham, Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Culture and Science at the Discovery Institute, Angus Menuge, Warren Nord, Mustafa Akoyl, Michael Behe, and John Calvert.

After today's session, the hearing will adjourn until next Thursday, when Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray will present a short summing up. Red State Rabble will cover that last session, as well.

As intelligent design witness after witness admitted under questioning that they have not read the majority draft of the science standards, board member Kathy Martin jumped in to save the day.

"I've not read it word for word myself," Martin said as the air went out of the room.

At the hearings, any pretense of neutrality on the part of board members has gone out the window as the Abrams, Martin, and Morris alternately act as cheerleaders and advisors to the intelligent design witnesses.

Daniel Ely, a cardiovascular physiologist and author of the science standards there, was forced to admit under intense pressure from Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigongaray, that he believes the earth is "somewhere between 5,000 and 4.5 billion years old. It may be much younger than most people think," he said. 

One after another, the intelligent design witnesses, brought into Kansas at taxpayer expense, were forced to admit under a withering cross examination by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegary that they did not bother to read the majority draft of the science curriculum.

John Calvert asked them all to evalutate the minority draft and compare it to a document they haven't read.

As Jack Krebs, a member of the majority of the science writing committe points out, the standards the so-called expert witnesses haven't read contain the section in the standards on scientific inquiry -- even though they complain that the majority draft limits inquiry by ruling out design.

Russell Carlson, of the University of Georgia, says scientists don't require a deep understanding of evolutionary theory to do their work. 

Edward Peltzer used an apple to demonstrate why he thinks evolution can't explain the origins of life on earth. 

Board of Education member Connie Morris listens to testimony. 

Kansas State Board of Education member Kathy Martin stunned those attending the science hearings today when she said she hadn't read the science standards drafted by the majority of the curriculum committee. 

Charles Thaxton, author of "Mysteries of Life's Origin" testified yesterday that he does not believe in the common ancestry of living things. 

Scheduled to testify at the Topeka "science hearings" today are: Edward T. Peltzer III, Russell Carlson, John Sanford, Robert Disilvestro, Bryan Leonard, Daniel Ely, Roger DeHart, Jill Gonzalez-Bravo, and John Milliam.

Stay tuned for more coverage when the hearings conclude this evening.

The afternoon was given over to presentations by Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Giuseppe Sermonti, and Ralph Seelke (Red State Rabble was not present for these last two witnesses).

Wells, a disciple of the Rev. Sung Myung Moon, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and author of "Icons of Evolution."

Wells outlined what he sees as the three chief difficulties faced by what he calls "Darwinian" evolutionary theory: the molecular makeup of DNA does not provide confirmation of common descent, problems with the fossil record associated with the Cambrian explosion, and embryology.

Completely absent from Wells presentation was any discussion of how our growing understanding of genetics has provided convincing evidence of common descent since Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species." When it came time to provide supporting evidence of his claims on the fossil evidence, Wells power point presentation instead offered more of his dubious molecular evidence -- perhaps because Wells has come under intense fire for distorting (quote mining) sources on the so-called problems with the Cambrian explosion in his book. Recent, evidence (since 1950) has filled in the fossil record in this area persuading scientists that the organisms that once seemed to appear suddenly during the Cambrian explosion evolved over time. The problem is not one of evolution, but of plate tectonics destroying much of the fossil record.

The funniest exchange of the day came when Pedro Irigonegary got Wells to admit that his was a minority view.

"Most of them disagree with me," said Wells. "I enjoy being in the minority."

"More than being right?" asked Irigonegary to general laughter.

William Harris was followed by Charles Thaxton, a PhD chemist, and author of "Mysteries of Life's Origins." Thaxton's assignment was to demonstrate that life could not have arisen from the primordial pre-biotic soup. Thaxton's passing references to sabotage of the space shuttle and passing comets depositing life on earth momentarily discomfited spectators at the hearing, and in truth, Red State Rabble is not sure what to make of those parts of his testimony.

During cross examination, Thaxton admitted that he does not believe that humans -- homo sapiens -- evolved from hominid ancestors.

Connie Morris was thrilled if "a little confused" as she asked for guidance from Thaxton about the problem of life arising from pre-biotic soup.

Intelligent design took over the halls of the State Board of Education in Topeka today -- well, let's be honest, they've owned those halls since last November. And at noon, the Capitol Rotunda rang with the strains of evangelicals -- arms extended above their heads in rapturous communion with the Lord -- singing "My Jesus, My Savior" and "How Great Thou Art" as the faithful celebrated the "National Day of Prayer" in the secular temple of the people. One speaker, outlining America's secret Christian heritage, explained that the founding fathers intended the country to be a Christian nation.

The hearings were kicked off this morning by testimony from William Harris, the fish oil researcher and ID proponent who leads the minority on the science standards writing committee. Harris' job was to tie mainstream science to "methodological naturalism," secular humanism, and atheism, thus excommunicating the millions of church goers who also accept evolution.

In response to a series of questions during cross examination by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, Harris admitted that there is nothing in the science standards drafted by the majority that prevents discussion of intelligent design in science classes. There is also nothing, Harris was forced to admit, about secular humanism or methodological naturalism.

Where is the scientific evidence for intelligent design, Harris was asked.

"The evidence is there on every page of biochemical journals," responded Harris, "It's just that the authors are blind to it."

Board member Kathy Martin reads the Intelligent Design Network brochure prior to the hearings getting underway.

Kansas State Board of Education Chair Steve Abrams ran the hearings. 

Intelligent design proponents John Calvert, left, and William Harris prepare for the hearings. 

Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray cross examined intelligent design witnesses. 

Yes, the media were out in force today at the "science hearings." 

At a news conference Sponsored by the Science Coalition in Topeka tonight, attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, outlined his strategy for the evolution hearings that begin tomorrow. Irigonegaray, will cross examine the intelligent design witnesses who are being brought to Kansas -- at taxpayer expense -- by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and John Calvert's ID Network. He will also introduce exhibits, and present statistics to support the vote taken by the majority of the science curriculum writing committee, led by Dr. Steve Case, to reject the revisions proposed by the intelligent design proponents appointed to the committee by conservative board members.

Irigonegaray is honoring the boycott by mainstream scientists and educators and therefore will call no witnesses of his own. "I will not take one penny of taxpayer money," he said, adding that his opposition to funding the hearings had already cut the amount budgeted by the board from $20 thousand to $5 thousand dollars.

Asked by a reporter how he would respond to statements by the Discovery Institute that scientists are afraid to debate, Irigonegaray said, "Those who say we're afraid to fight, don't know me well."

Irigonegary also characterized the hearings as a Kangaroo Court into which he would shine a light.

"Science and faith," said Irigonegaray, "are not incompatible, but they are different."

Tony Ortega of the Pitch, Kansas City's alternative newspaper, has a fascinating article on Mustafa Akyol, a spokesman for the murky Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, an organization said to have started as a religious cult that preyed on wealthy members of Turkish society. Incredibly, he is one of the witnesses called to testify in the state board of education's science hearings this week by the Discovery Institute and John Calvert's ID Network.

According to Tony O's report, beginning in 1998, Akyol's organization "BAV spearheaded an effort to attack Turkish academics who taught Darwinian theory. Professors there say they were harassed and threatened, and some of them were slandered in fliers that labeled them "Maoists" for teaching evolution. In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against BAV for defamation and were awarded $4,000 each."

"'There is no fight against the creationists now. They have won the war,' says Istanbul University forensics professor Umit Sayin. 'In 1998, I was able to motivate six members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences to speak out against the creationist movement. Today, it's impossible to motivate anyone. They're afraid they'll be attacked by the radical Islamists and the BAV.'"

Is the intelligent design community appalled by the rough tactics of Akyol and BAV? William Harris an ID leader here in Kansas says he hasn't heard of BAV. Told of the group's harassment of bioligists in Turkey and evolution's defeat there, he told the Pitch, "Great! Congratulations! I mean, that is the point, once people start to see science more objectively."

That's the future of Kansas as our intelligent design "theorists" see it in their more private moments, a science community terrorized into silence.

On the eve of the "Scopes II" science hearings, Kansas Citizens for Science President Harry McDonald said, "there is no conflict between science and religion." 

Jack Krebs, a member of the Kansas science standards writing committee, said the state school board is coming "dangerously close" to crossing the line of church state separation.