[Update: Sally Cauble defeated Connie Morris by 54.15 to 45.85 percent of the vote. This means the anti-science board members will have no more than four members out of ten on the next board, even if the anti-science candidates all win in the general election.]
Here’s a spot of good news to start the day. Yesterday in a Republican primary election, anti-science conservatives lost control of the Kansas State Board of Education. But, so far, just barely. One anti-science incumbent lost to a pro-science challenger, which will deprive the right-wingers of their majority on the board. Another pro-science challenger is winning, but as of this morning that election hasn’t been called yet.
The Kansas Board of Education, which oversees statewide education policy, has ten members, and anti-science conservatives have held a six to four majority for the past two years. The six have blighted education in Kansas with right-wing policies on teaching evolution, sex education, and charter schools. Yesterday’s election results mean that the right-wingers will have no more than half of the seats, assuming they all win in the general election, and if the votes still being counted go to the pro-science challenger, the anti-science members of the board will be a minority.
Kansas has long been a key front in the war over evolution and creationism, and Tuesday’s vote attracted national attention once again: National and international media covered the races, and in the weeks leading up to the election, out-of-state groups on both sides of the fray joined the debate.
This year, 16 candidates filed for five seats on the board; in previous years’ elections the field was less than half that number.
Last year, the board’s six conservatives pushed through science curriculum standards criticizing the theory of evolution. They hired Bob Corkins, an anti-tax lobbyist with no experience in the education field, as education commissioner.
This year, the board’s conservatives voted to encourage local schools to require permission slips for sex-education class and stress the teaching of abstinence.
As bad as the board is, apparently it used to be worse.
All the controversy had moderates hoping for a repeat of 2000, when voters kicked out of office board members who had voted to minimize the teaching of evolution, the age of the Earth and the big-bang theory. The new board members reversed those decisions.
Of the five seats up for re-election, only one was held by a pro-science Republican Democrat, Janet Waugh. Mrs. Waugh won her primary yesterday. [Update: Waugh is unopposed in the general election.] Pro-science moderate challenger Jana Shaver beat anti-science incumbent Brad Patzer. Pro-science challenger Sally Cauble is hanging on to a 54 to 46 percent lead over anti-science incumbent Connie Morris, according to the most recent news stories. The two remaining right-wing incumbents won their primaries.
The five Republican primary winners will face five pro-science Democrats in the general election in November, so it’s possible the anti-science portion of the board will shrink even further if some Democrats win. But Ms. Shaver’s primary win means that, no matter what happens in the general election, the anti-science members will hold no more than half the seats.
Of the election yet to be determined between Sally Cauble and Connie Morris, John Hanna of the Associated Press writes:
Morris’ race in western Kansas was the most closely watched. The former teacher has described evolution as “an age-old fairy tale” and “a nice bedtime story” unsupported by science.
Go, Sally Cauble!
The Big Issue appears to be the standards adopted by the current board for teaching evolution:
The standards say that the evolutionary theory that all life had a common origin has been challenged by fossils and molecular biology. And they say there is controversy over whether changes over time in one species can lead to a new species.
In other words, the “standards” mandate teaching children lies.
The school board contest was part of a larger effort by the intelligent design movement to introduce its ideas in public schools.
A suburban Atlanta school district is locked in a legal dispute over its putting stickers in 35,000 biology textbooks declaring evolution “a theory, not a fact.”
Last year, in Dover, Pa., voters ousted school board members who had required the biology curriculum to include mention of intelligent design. A federal judge struck down the policy, declaring intelligent design is religion in disguise.
A poll by six news organizations last year suggested about half of Kansans thought evolution should be taught alongside intelligent design. …
… Control of the school board has slipped into, out of and back into conservative Republicans’ hands since 1998, resulting in anti-evolution standards in 1999, evolution-friendly ones in 2001 and anti-evolution ones again last year.
Late-night comedians have been making cracks about Kansas, portraying it as backward and ignorant. Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” broadcast a four-part series titled, “Evolution Schmevolution.”
I’ll update with the result of the Cauble-Morris election as soon as I know it. [Update at top of post — Cauble wins!]
Update: Another story on the election, from the New York Times. See also commentary from The Talking Dog (a highly evolved critter, I must say).
Just a quick nit to pick: Janet Waugh is the incumbent DEMOCRAT on the school board who had a stealth challenger in the primary – a guy who supported the anti-evolution standards. I believe Waugh has no Republican opposition in November. Of course, party labels in Kansas have become meaningless when the Republicans are so split on this issue. That’s why it’s much more accurate to say that Kansas’ two political parties are the moderates and the religious right. You know you’re living in crazy times when incumbent Democratic governor Kathleen Sebelius has as her reelection running mate a former Republican, and when a longtime Republican district attorney switches parties to run against the extremely right-wing incumbent Attorney General Phill Kline.
Pat B. — thanks for the correction.
Crazy times indeed; this article says “Several moderate Republican candidates have vowed, if they lose Tuesday, to support the Democratic primary winners in November.” The election is lining up as normal people vs. whackjobs instead of Dem v. Republican.
Update: The writing in the news reports on this story is very sloppy across the board. I’ve had to dissect several articles to try to figure out who was running against whom and what party the candidates belong to, and it’s still murky. Some people need to go back to journalism school. I’ve been trying to confirm that Janet Waugh is running unopposed in November, or if not who is challenging her, and so far no luck.
The religio-fascists have made it their mission to take over gov’t positions from the school boards up to advance their regressive ways. Thank goodness for those who will stand up to this nonsense.
maha — thanks for writing about this — it’s happy news.
And Waugh is going to run unopposed in November
from the Lawrence Journal-World
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/01/1st_district_board_education/
“Two-term Democratic incumbent Janet Waugh faces political newcomer Jesse Hall for the 1st District seat, which includes eastern Douglas County. The winner faces no opposition in the November general election.”
You might find better writing & journalism in the Journal-World compared to other KS papers (in my opinion).
My sister-in-law is a public school teacher in KS. (OK, kindergarten, but as the Monty Pythons used to say, “They stamp them when they’re young.”) She’s a churchgoing Democrat who is very glad for each little victory of reason over fundamentalism. But this post brings even better news for my nephew and niece, who this month will be starting grades 12 and 6 in KS. Now if they can just get rid of that idiot Brownback.
Yay, science! I hope it sticks.
High school science education has gotten so bad across the board in the US that college-level textbooks are having to be re-written to teach students really basic stuff. So much for progress; students know less about science than they did previously, and evolution is just part of the problem. The “teach to the test” metality forced on educators by NCLB and the rise of standardized testing means that students don’t even learn the basics of the scientific method anymore, meaning they have no logical framework through which to evaluate scientific evidence, and they don’t know the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory.” (Evolution is “just” a theory, but it’s one that has a tremendous amount of evidence and a nearly unanimous scientific consensus to back it up. The idea that fossils and molecular biology don’t support the theory of evolution is laughable. What else do fossils prove if not that life evolves? Y’all heard about that fish with feet, right?)
How can it be good policy to make our students stupider?
I love it! Pro-science and Anti-science. That is a new one. Since when did wanting to put a note saying evolution is a theory so look at it with an open mind become anti-science? You do realize that very few real scientist still believe that life originated through random chance and countless mutations absent of any sort of designer. You may not agree with who that “intelligent designer” is, but life is far too complex and the evidence is far too compelling to believe that life happened through a miraculous cosmic accident and continues to advance without any outside assistance.
Brett: You prove my point.
Since when did wanting to put a note saying evolution is a theory so look at it with an open mind become anti-science?
ALL SCIENCE IS THEORY. That’s what science is — a process for developing theory. All scientific knowledge is part of theory. You are using the word “science” to mean “speculation,” but scientists use it to mean “explanation.” The theory of evolution is not speculation whether evolution happens; THAT, son, is beyond dispute. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how evolution works, just as the theory of gravity is an explanation of how gravity works, or the theory of relativity is an explanation of how time works. I think. When you say evolution is a theory, unlike the rest of science, you are proving you don’t know science from corn flakes.
You do realize that very few real scientist still believe that life originated through random chance and countless mutations absent of any sort of designer.
You are wrong. The entire science of biology is based on evolution theory. No evolution, no biology. FYI: evolution is not about the origination of life; it is about the development of species. How life got to this planet is a separate issue from evolution. If you’re going to disagree with something it would be wise to understand what it is you disagree with.
You may not agree with who that “intelligent designer†is, but life is far too complex and the evidence is far too compelling to believe that life happened through a miraculous cosmic accident and continues to advance without any outside assistance.
This fanciful notion has been proven wrong through a computer simulation, which I wrote about here. There is more information here and here. Essentially you ID proponents do not grasp the vast amount of time involved, but there has been plenty of time for the complexities of life to have developed as they did.
How can it be good policy to make our students stupider?
So they can be led around by people who “have talent on loan from God”. Having masses of dumb people is beneficial to those who would use them.
Oh, Brett. And these “real” scientists are…? I work with a whole lot of scientists at my day job, not a single one of them doubts evolution. Putting stickers on a science book explaining that evolution is a theory is a) redundant, and b) makes an implication (that other theories, mainly creationism, exist) that has no place in a science classroom because intelligent design is not science. “Intelligent design” is an opinion, basically, that says, “Well, we can’t explain X, Y, and Z, so therefore some higher power must have created them!” That’s BS and not science as science is always looking for those explanations. It’s like saying, “There are bright spots in the night sky. I don’t know how they got there, so God must have put them there.” You can believe that if you like, but don’t call that statement science.
Also ditto what maha said, and extrapolating from my earlier point: a “theory” is the outcome of scientific testing via the scientific method in which one concocts a hypothesis and then tests it through experimentation; if the hypothesis holds up after repeated tests (or after more evidence is discovered) it is then considered a theory, so a “theory” is not just this floating idea that some dude on a little boat came up with one day.
Ah, now I’m all revved up. Here’s some more, from the biology textbook I have handy, because I, unlike Brett, know what science is:
“The scientific method is central to how science works: experiements are designed to test predictions made form a hypothesis, and if the results fail to suppor the hypothesis, it is modified or discarded. In contrast, creationism [and by corollary, ID] is based on supernatural, not natural, explanations, and creationists do not accept data that fail to support their ideas.”
The reason this is important is that if we’re talking about science education, it’s important that, in the classroom, kids learn, you know, science. Proponents of putting creationism and ID in the science classroom are therefore “anti-science” because neither are science.
See also the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Well, I was going to jump up and down on Mr. Brett, but Maha and fshk beat me to it, and did it with an eloquence I cannot match. I’ll settle instead for thanking them both for their defence of rational thought.
Maha and fshk beat me to it
fshk is my baby girl who was a debate team whiz in her student days. I pity the fool who tries to argue with both of us.
I also love when you “pro-science” people try to ignore the form of evolution being taught in our classrooms by saying that evolution is not used to explain the origin of life but the development of a species. We all know that the evolution being taught in our classrooms is the form of evolution that says we came from a bubbling pool of amino acids that over time mutated into all of the living organisms we have today and that humans and apes came from a common ancestor. You try so hard to distance yourself from this reality because you know that the theory of evolution used to explain the origin of life holds no weight. We have zero evidence of any sort of transitional organisms to explain how all life comes from those original amino acids. It is very cute and clever of you to call people names and claim that evolution is just an explination of the development of any given species. You know very well what the real argument is but want to hide behind your textbook definitions of what you like to call evolution but lets get serious. Lets be honest, the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time. That is why proponents of “intelligent design” are fighting so hard to get their side represented in the classroom.
Proponents of putting creationism and ID in the science classroom are therefore “anti-science†because neither are science.
AMEN!
Brett Bodine? …Any relationship to Jethro Bodine?
This is probably ad hominem since I’m not engaging the evolution debate, but I think Brett might be living in the alternate reality Greenwald describes in a recent post on Unclaimed Territory (“Competing Realities†Aug 1). Here’s some evidence of the worldview through which Mr. Bodine interprets political realities & scientific realities, taken from his blog:
Brett Bodine on the Middle East:
“I am amazed as I watch the news and see the events taking place in the Middle East. I truly believe that we are living the the last days here on Earth and the events of Revelation and Daniel will take place shortly.
. . .
We could be seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy against Damascus right before our eyes! If this happens I think the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy will take place very soon.â€
Brett Bodine on the new Superman movie:
“We have a new Superman who flies using only his left wing now.â€
Brett Bodine describes a fight at the school where he teaches:
“This time we had a good ole’ fashion Cat Fight! An Oriental student from some other school, I was told by another student that Asian was offensive and the correct term is now Oriental, and an Hispanic student were on the ground kicking, biting, punching, and hair pulling and it was up to me to pull them apart. I had my mail in my hand and didn’t want to drop it so I started out with “HEY, knock it off!” along with a weak one handed attempt to break them up. That wasn’t working so I had to make a crucial a split second decision. Do I hold on to my mail and run to get security or do I throw down and get dirty. I got dirty.â€
We all know that the evolution being taught in our classrooms is the form of evolution that says we came from a bubbling pool of amino acids that over time mutated into all of the living organisms we have today and that humans and apes came from a common ancestor.
Humans and apes did evolve from a common ancestor. That’s been proved six ways from Sunday. However, the origins of life on earth are not part of evolution theory. Whatever hypotheses they’ve got going on now about how life originated on earth (the one you mention is an old one; I believe there are others) is a whole separate thing from evolution. Whether life generated from ooze or came here from another planet on asteroids doesn’t affect evolution theory either way.
Again, I find it hysterical that so many people are so SURE that evolution is wrong — and they don’t even know what it is.
“We have a new Superman who flies using only his left wing now.â€
Lordy, where do these people come from? They must generate from ooze.
Lets be honest, the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time.
From a science perspective, it’s easy to demonstrate that species do evolve over time. I well remember the example given in my high school biology class regarding the colours of moths in England as the country burned more soot producing coal, which favored dark coloured moths.
As for the origins of life, and the possibility that life evolved from primitive amino acids – this is science trying to extend its powers of explanation back in time to a possible scenario for how life began on earth. What’s wrong with considering or experimenting with that?
Science is a set of tools, a methodology used to explain the universe. There are limits to these tools, limits to the knowledge spaces where they work. Science is not a panacea for every question a human can pose. Science will never be able to answer the question “Why?” for example.
OTOH, Religion likewise has its domains where it operative, and other domains where it doesn’t really apply. In deep meditation, for example, I “know” or understand things I could never learn through the scientific method.
That is why proponents of “intelligent design†are fighting so hard to get their side represented in the classroom.
The point is, what they’re proposing isn’t science. It’s theology. It doesn’t belong in a science classroom.
Just as you accuse science of overreaching its domain, the ID proponents are overreaching their domain by trying to inject theology into the realm of science, and calling it “science”. It isn’t.
I say we pass a law that says all the anti-sciencers, creationists, whatever…cannot use anti-biotics, antidotes, or xrays, etc. since they don’t believe in what helped discover it, they don’t deserve the benefits.
I bet that would shut up most of them.
Hey Brett, guess what. I, personally, believe that the universe was designed by a creative intelligence. That’s not science, nor even a theory; it’s my own, personal, spiritual belief. I don’t want anyone’s personal spiritual belief taught in our public schools, whether want to lie and call it Science, or Social Studies, or Home Ec. In any case you’d still be a liar, as well as a spiritual fascist.
Even with my personal beliefs, I have no fear or resentment of Darwinian theory. It’s a small mind, lacking in imagination, that does. And, ironically, the spiritual fascists’ fear-of-everything tends to make them resemble our perpetually-frightened ancestor, the lemur.
Yes, Maha, thanks for writing about this subject. I was frantically searching for election returns last night and your link to the Lawrence Journal-World was far more up-to-date than anything I could find on the KC Star or the Secretary of State websites.
I thought it was funny that you used the term “whackjob” because that’s my own private term for those far-right Kansas fundies. There are honorable Republicans and I can agree to disagree with them on certain fiscal and social issues, but the theocrats whose religious faith is so literal that it’s threatened by science are certainly stripping the term “Republican” of any real meaning. The self-identified moderates and mainstream voters of Kansas have much more in common with one another, regardless of their official party affiliations, than the moderate Republicans have in common with the whackjobs. (Not too many years ago, the crazy “Reverend” Fred Phelps of “God hates fags” fame actually ran for governor of Kansas as a Democrat, which really pissed me off. NOTHING he stands for is remotely close to anything I believe in as a registered Democrat, so I think I understand a bit how people like Paul Morrison feel.)
Brett, just FYI… The theory that life arose from non-life some time in the past, the study of how it might have happened and when, is called “abiogenesis”. Since you believe that “the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time”, your beef is not actually with evolution, nor is the evolutionist your enemy.
You want to go out and find some abiogeneticists and argue with THEM. In the meantime, please leave evolution to those that understand it.
-me
Life is, life was, and life always will be. Only it’s state changes.
Who knows?..a part of me could have filtered through Julius Ceasar’s urinary tract 2000 years ago. Moses’s stool?,..Nah.