Kansans Eject Anti-Evolution School Board Leaders Kansans Eject Anti-Evolution School Board Leaders
August 2, 2000 12:53 am EST

By Carey Gillam

OVERLAND PARK, Kan., (Reuters) - Charles Darwin and his theory got revenge in Kansas on Tuesday as voters turned out two of three state education leaders who last year led an effort to downplay the theory of evolution in school science classes across the state.

By a wide margin, Kansas voters used Tuesday's Republican primary race to reject re-election efforts by state school board chairwoman Linda Holloway and board member Mary Douglass Brown, and embrace instead their opponents who pledged support for evolution instruction. Steve Abrams, another board member who voted against evolution teaching, handily won his district.

But the dismissal of the two members virtually ensures the controversial evolution decision will be revisited when the board reconvenes early next year, and should weight the board with enough support to return evolution theory to the schools, observers said.

"It is clear the complexion of the state school board has been changed," said University of Kansas political science professor Burdett Loomis.

The three board members were key votes in the 6-4 decision in August 1999 to de-emphasize the theory of evolution in classrooms across the state and make room for other theories, including views linked to Biblical beliefs.

The action by the Kansas Board of Education shocked scientists and educators, but was notched as a victory for religious conservatives who increasingly have been challenging evolution instruction in science education in U.S. schools.

As the state school board chairwoman, Holloway has staunchly defended the board's action and said that it was not driven by religious motivations, but rather by concerns that many certain aspects of evolution theory were not true.

The board's 1999 decision allowed for local school districts to determine what, if anything, to teach science students about evolution, but stripped ideas like the estimated age of the earth and common ancestors between apes and man from state testing standards.

As a result, the state school board race, normally a snoozer that elicits little voter enthusiasm, this year was the source of nationwide attention.

"Voters felt that Kansas had been a bit made a fool of... that the board was out of step," said Loomis. "It is the genius of democracy that you can hold an office holder accountable for their actions."

The money and support flowing into candidates' coffers on both sides of the issue far outweighed a typical state school board race. And both sides pushed campaigning outside the typical boundaries of yard signs and fliers.

Last month, several organizations supporting evolution teaching held events across the state to raise awareness of the issue. And in Lawrence, Kan., actors re-enacted the famed 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" in which teacher John Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching 19th-century British scientist Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to high school students.

"People have made this a referendum on the evolution issue," said moderate school board member and Washburn University professor Bill Wagnon, who hopes to reverse the board de-emphasis of evolution.

"The sides see the stakes as very high and there has been a lot of very shrewd politicking on the part of folks on both sides of the issue," Wagnon said.

-- Genghis Khan (GreatOne@GenghisKhan.org), August 02, 2000

Answers

Praise the Lord!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), August 02, 2000.

Praise who?

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 02, 2000.

Monkey power!

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 02, 2000.

[As the state school board chairwoman, Holloway has staunchly defended the board's action and said that it was not driven by religious motivations, but rather by concerns that many certain aspects of evolution theory were not true.]

This is a howler. So Holloway's "staunch defense" is based on what if not religion? In general, concerns can be justified that ANY aspect of ANYTHING we teach might not be true. Does this mean we shouldn't ever teach anything at all? Even if Holloway were a noted scientist, she'd be in a tiny minority, consisting *entirely* of religious fundamentalists.

Hey, she's a *politician*! Perhaps her defense of ignorance isn't based on her religious convictions, but rather her reading of the religious convictions of the voters? The "untruthfulness" of evolution theory is a religious doctrine, a matter of *definition* and not observation.

This is like saying "just because my religion teaches that white is really black has nothing to do with eliminating the teaching that white is white, and trying to substitute the "competing theory" that it might be black instead. Oh no, religion has nothing to do with it! Instead, it's based on my concern that teaching that white is NOT black might not be objectively true. See?"

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 02, 2000.

Flint, you say--

This is like saying "just because my religion teaches that white is really black has nothing to do with eliminating the teaching that white is white, and trying to substitute the "competing theory" that it might be black instead. Oh no, religion has nothing to do with it! Instead, it's based on my concern that teaching that white is NOT black might not be objectively true. See?"

For shame---RACISM, RACISM, RACISM!!

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 02, 2000.

Nemesis

For shame! Flint's not writing about race.

He's writing about PAINT.

... or gold (i.e., platinum alloy vs. oil) ...

... or Russians ...

... or ...

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

Hooray for Good Sense!!! I had an email from Americans United for Separation of Church and State announcing the news, and I was very proud to be a member of this group, whose chairman is a minister, yet works constantly to keep the Bible and creastionism out of public school.

Uhh, Nemesis, where does racism come in here? Are we on the same planet???

Flint, I hear the religious right is now promoting evolution as a religion so they can keep it from being taught in school. I guess if they can't teach their Bible-as-Truth in public schools, then they want to make sure that science doesn't stand a chance either. What a transparent, cheap tactic for the no-brains crowd.

I'm telling you, the Republicans are going to get shot down totally, if they don't divorce themselves from this Bible thumping bunch, that would set the world back one hundred years if they could.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 03, 2000.

nemesis appears to be from the planet, Irony.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), August 03, 2000.

Flint:

The answer is very clear. You are raging against the teaching of mythology. Yet mytology is much of who we are. Should it be science? Of course not. I am not a school teacher, but would love to be one in a system that required the creation syndrome. First assignment. Give me experimental proof for the existance of God. All who try and fail will fail the course.

I suspect I would be fired. But hey, I am not a school teacher.

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), August 03, 2000.

DB:

On the contrary, myth is valuable and should be taught in courses on myths and their uses. Arbitrary belief systems are common enough, and belong as a subject of their own. Science should be taught in science courses.

The best goal of education is to teach us how to think, while the worst is to teach us NOT to think.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 03, 2000.

Flint:

I thought that is what I said. Sometimes my presentation is too convoluted.

DB

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), August 03, 2000.