School board that backed intelligent design ousted

[China]

School board that backed intelligent design ousted

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

Challengers unseated eight out of nine Dover Board of Education members yesterday in a tight race that centered on the issue whether the theory of intelligent design has a place in science classes.

The ninth member of the York County school board was not up for re-election.

The eight board members unseated were all are proponents of a policy -- now the subject of a federal court case -- requiring high school freshmen to hear a statement about intelligent design before biology lessons about evolution.

The challengers, who said the policy violated the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state, are not expected to revamp the biology curriculum right away.

"They want to have a discussion with the community and see the results of the court case. They are very interested in community input," said Sharon Wetzel, spokeswoman for Dover CARES, the slate of challengers.

Intelligent design advocates hold that life's development is too complex to be explained by natural evolution unguided by a higher power.

The trial, which brought yesterday's election into the national spotlight, was the talk of the town and overshadowed the candidates' attempts to run on other platforms.

"Everybody is making this the No. 1 issue and we think ... other things are more important," said Phillip Herman, a Democrat who ran with Dover CARES.

That's something both slates agreed on.

"The voters were so mixed up with the intelligent-design case that it's been tough for us to get our message out about anything else," said ousted member David Napierskie.

That was reflected on the campus of York College, where students discussed the trial and the election both in and out of classes, said Melvin Kulbicki, chairman of the political science department.

"This trial had the effect of galvanizing and polarizing a community," Dr. Kulbicki said.

Eight families sued the school system, saying intelligent design was another term for creationism and that inserting it in public schools violates the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state.

Testimony wrapped up Friday and a decision is expected by January. The new board members are to be sworn in Dec. 5.

It was unclear last night whether turnover on the board would render any court decision moot. That would be up to the trial judge, John E. Jones III.

"If he does declare this one moot, you're going to be hearing about other cases in other federal courts throughout the land," said Kevin Alan Lewis, who has been following the case from La Mirada, Calif, where he is assistant professor of law and theology at Biola University. "This case will have ramifications for people in every state."

In York, testimony from incumbent Alan Bonsell, the board's former president, may have ruined any chance his slate had of pulling through yesterday's election.

In sworn depositions, Mr. Bonsell said he didn't know the source of Dover High School's books promoting intelligent design, but William Buckingham, a former board member, testified that he handed $850 to Mr. Bonsell so his father, Donald Bonsell, could buy the books.

Mr. Buckingham was caught in a blunder. as well. During a deposition he had said he didn't know where the $850 came from but in court he testified his church raised the money.

"The incumbents have not done a good job making their case because they can't seem to remember anything," Dr. Kulbicki said.

[Skins24]

I still can't figure out why are people so afraid to have both taught?

Are they afraid kids make come to their own conclussions?

Kansas:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design'

Schools to Teach Doubts About Evolutionary Theory

By Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 9, 2005; Page A01

TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 -- The Kansas Board of Education voted Tuesday that students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian theory, a move that defied the nation's scientific establishment even as it gave voice to religious conservatives and others who question the theory of evolution.

By a 6 to 4 vote that supporters cheered as a victory for free speech and opponents denounced as shabby politics and worse science, the board said high school students should be told that aspects of widely accepted evolutionary theory are controversial. Among other points, the standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code."

The bitterly fought effort pushes Kansas to the forefront of a war over evolution being waged in courts in Pennsylvania and Georgia and statehouses nationwide. President Bush stated his own position last summer, buoying social conservatives when he said "both sides" should be taught.

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve E. Abrams, the Kansas board chairman who shepherded the conservative Republican majority that overruled a 26-member science committee and turned aside the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association.

Opposing board members accused Abrams and his colleagues of hiding behind a fiction of scientific inquiry to inject religion into science classrooms. They said the decision would be bad for education, bad for business and bad for the state's wounded reputation.

"This is a sad day, not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," said Janet Waugh, who voted against the new standards. "We're becoming a laughingstock, not only of the nation, but of the world."

The Board of Education does not mandate what will be taught to public school students, a decision left to local school boards. But by determining what students are expected to know for state assessment tests, the board standards typically influence what students learn.

Analysts said Kansas delivered a deeper and more detailed challenge to the teaching of evolution than other states. While a lawsuit is possible before the standards take effect, one organization created to oppose changes to science teaching said politics may be the swifter route. Four of the six board members voting yes will face reelection next year and three already have drawn opposition.

Eight school board members in Dover, Pa., who backed "intelligent design" were ousted by voters Tuesday, the Associated Press reported. But a spokesman for the Democratic slate that won said it would be guided by a judge's decision in a court challenge to the curriculum.

"If this issue can be resolved by voting these people out in the next elections, the standards will never get in place enough to make a court case worthwhile. They'll be lame ducks," said Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

That is what happened in 1999, when the board sought to undermine the teaching of Darwinian theory. Moderates took control of the board in 2000, only to see it regain a conservative Republican majority in 2004. Krebs also said he believes opponents could win a court case by showing that the Kansas board is violating the Constitution by imposing religion in another guise.

Members of the Kansas majority insisted that science motivated them, although several have made clear their position that life's development is too complex to be explained by natural evolution unguided by a higher power. That view describes many adherents of intelligent design, a critique of evolutionary theory that has gained particular support from the religious right -- and ridicule from the vast majority of trained scientists.

Asked about intelligent design last summer, Bush said, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."

Prominent scientists and scientific organizations dismiss the call from intelligent design proponents to "teach the controversy." The scientific mainstream says there is no significant controversy, that evidence from fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life-form.

Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can be tested," said Francisco J. Ayala, an expert in evolutionary genetics and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He said the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."

The Kansas board argued about which side was more truthful.

Member Kenneth Willard accused the scientific establishment of having "blind faith in evolution." He told his colleagues during a 45-minute debate that the anti-evolution view is more intellectually honest.

"What we're dealing with here," Willard said in an argument that infuriates mainstream scientists, "is a high degree of fear of change."

Two Republicans and two Democrats opposed the move. Sue Gamble said the board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to supernatural explanations. Waugh said she believes in the biblical version of creation, but does not believe it should be taught in science class. And Carol Rupe mentioned the "hundreds and hundreds of scientists from around the world" who wrote to protest the board's impending move.

"I wish you were not changing science to have it fit into your faith," she said. "It's a lousy time for us to be lowering science standards in Kansas."

[The Evil Genius]

Skins 24 - Some would argue that it's maybe because intelligant design is not science? And that if taught, I.D. should be taught as theology.

[chomerics]

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

Thx for posting China

[chomerics]

I still can't figure out why are people so afraid to have both taught?

Are they afraid kids make come to their own conclussions?

No, it is not science, so it belongs nowhere near a science classroom. It is theology, and if you want to teach it in a private school then fine, but not with pubic money.

[Predicto]

heheheh he said pubic

[SkinsNut73]

No, it is not science, so it belongs nowhere near a science classroom. It is theology, and if you want to teach it in a private school then fine, but not with pubic money.

What is this "pubic" money you speak of? Pervert!

[twa]

He is a Dem, it is ALL public money

[chomerics]

What is this "pubic" money you speak of? Pervert!

:doh: :laugh: heh heh heh heh . . . :doh:

I have to leave it there now

[DjTj]

I still can't figure out why are people so afraid to have both taught?

Are they afraid kids make come to their own conclussions?

If science teachers give up this point to the politicians, then what's next?

Do we also have to teach that some people believe the earth is at the center of the universe? The earth is flat? The astronauts never landed on the moon? Some people believe the earth is only 6,000 years old? And why stop at Christian beliefs? Should we take time out of anatomy class to teach that Buddhists believe in chi energy that is the basis for feng shui and acupuncture?

Of course, this has already happenned in social science and history classes, where every interest group gets their own perspective in. Even in math class, where "new math" and other competing theories have taken hold at various points in time.

I for one hope that science teachers will keep control of their own curriculums, and that school boards and politicians will stay out of it.

[RabidFan]

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve E. Abrams, the Kansas board chairman who shepherded the conservative Republican majority that overruled a 26-member science committee and turned aside the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association.

WOW I mean WOW "more about science" ....

[The Evil Genius]

The very existence of Steve E. Abrams proves that human evolution is a real.

He just hasn't reached the last stage.

[Larry]

C'mon, folks.

One look at Cheney, and just try to claim evolution doesn't exist.

[@DCGoldPants]

Cheney is a robot. We all know this.

As far as people not letting both be taught. That's fine, just don't teach it in science class.

Offer a "World Religion" class, give all the kids a taste of every religion. Then let them decide for themselves. Who knows? Maybe they'd want to switch to a different faith. How about that?

[rdsknbill]

I know Bonsell. He's a piece of work

I actually graduated from Dover High