The Kansas Kangaroo Kourt
by Lenny Flank
The Discovery Institute's latest fiasco happened in May 2005, when what was planned as a huge propaganda blitz to finally make ID respectible, instead came out as a huge egg in their face and turned ID into a laughingstock across the nation.
In August 1999, a group of creationists on the Kansas State Education Board, led by veterinarian Steve Abrams, tried to cut evolution from the state standards. The action failed, but caused so much outrage that most of the board members were kicked out of office in the next election.
In 2004, however, riding on Bush's coattails, the fundamentalists again captured a majority on the Education Board, and once again made plans to advance a creationist agenda. A routine periodic evaluation of the state's science curriculum led to a majority report, written by 17 scientists, listing evolution as the core concept of modern biology, and a minority report, written by the 8 creationists/IDers, who rejected evolution. The Education Board, with its new fundie majority, incredibly rejected the majority report and instead announced that it would hold a "trial" between evolution supporters and deniers, since there seemed to be "significant disagreement . . . about issues that seem to be of legal and scientific substance, particularly with respect to the issue of the definition of science and the issue of origins and evolution." (Kansas State Board Of Education Resolution, February 9, 2005). The Board drew up a list of 23 "witnesses", most of them IDers, and invited state science groups to name its own to testify. Instead, science groups throughout the state denounced the hearings as a fraud with the sole intent of propping up the minority report so the Board could vote to accept it, and announced a complete boycott of the hearings. As the President of Kansas Citizens for Science Harry McDonald put it, "Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated. We have learned too much to continue participating in this charade." (Associated Press, April 8, 2005) Not a single evolution defender testified at the hearing. Instead, civil rights lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray would be allowed to question all of the 23 ID witnesses and then make a statement defending science from ID. "We're not calling scientists to debate evolution," Irigonegaray said. "That's not going to happen. To debate whether evolution is true is to debate whether the Earth is round or flat. There's no argument. It is a minority view of a religious group asserting that all other Christians are wrong." (Pitch.com, May 5, 2005)
The idiocy of the hearings became appearant even before the first witness was called. In an interview in April, Board member Kathy Martin remarked, "We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say. Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts." When asked if ID had a religious agenda, Martin declared, "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard. (Pitch.Com, May 5, 2005) To add to the air of surrealism, week before the hearings, Irigonegaray was ordered to produce a list of any witnesses he planned on calling. Board member Connie Morris explained that she would be "praying over" the witness list. (Kansas Star, April 20,2005)
Although creationists and IDers were full of bravado about how they would beat the evolutionists, the first day of testimony was already a PR disaster for them. The creationist religious agenda of the Board of Education and the "Big Tent" agenda of the ID witnesses was made crushingly apparent. Chemist William Harris, who had helped write the minority curriculum report supporting ID, said in an opening statement, "The Minority Report does not introduce religion into this discussion. This is not to introduce creationism. Creationism, of course, is a view of the fact the way it is traditionally held, a literal understanding of the first nine chapters of Genesis. That is not what we're interested in. I'm not interested in having a religious perspective applied to science education. I just want the data to speak as it speaks. To my view the data are not clearly in support of the naturalistic world view. The Minority Report does not mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not a code word for creationism. Teaching the arguments against evolution is not a code word for creationism." (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearing transcripts) The IDers then presented a parade of witnesses who demolished every one of Harris's statements.
Every witness made it clear that his or her objections to evolution were religiously motivated. Harris stated, "We want to make the point that this controversy has profound implications for religion and philosophy. If this didn't have implications to religion this room would be far emptier today. Because it impacts religion and the reason that this issue does impact religion is because we're dealing with what we call origin science. Origins, the beginnings, where did things come from, where did we come from, where did life come from. These are issues which ever major religion in the world has a story to tell. They all have a perspective that's part of that faith. When the State, via public education, asserts an answer to that question from a scientific, or whatever, point of view they have entered a religious arena. They are offering an answer that may be in harmony, that may be conflict with religious issues, religious perspectives. And because of that we now have a religious issue being in the public education system. . . . " (Harris Testimony, Kansas Hearing Transcripts).
Other witnesses also complained about science's "materialism" and "naturalism" and its exclusion of "theism":
Q. It is true, is it not, that nowhere in the standards applicable to Kansas children does it say that matter and energy is all there is?
A. It's based that you will look only for natural causes.
Q. And do you disagree with the proposition that science should be involved with natural explanations for the world around us?
A. Yes, I do. And I think if you point back to many people who held the religious view they were some of the first like William Harvey to discover that circulation was a result of design, but I don't think it's-- can find everything, all answers. . . .
Q. Is it your job that evolution as it is taught in mainstream America today is atheistic?
A. Well --
Q. Yes or no?
A. Yes, by definition it is. . . . I have a responsibility to present correct science and not have, once again, a made-up alternative of where the evidence should lead.
Q. The correct science you're referring to is a theistic view. Correct?
A. We let science make-- there's room for difference.
Q. Just listen to my question, sir.
A. I'm listening, yes.
Q. You've already told me that in your opinion evolution as it is taught in the United States today is atheistic philosophy, therefore, you believe you should have the right to bring in your theistic views. Correct? Yes or no?
A. Once again, it's a leading question.
Q. Of course it's a leading question. Just answer the question.
A. You are-- you are conflicting two things. You are conflicting my personal opinion between what I do in the classroom and whether I can separate those two things.
Q. Sir-- sir, you've told me that in your opinion evolutionary science as is taught across the United States is atheistic. Correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And it is therefore your opinion that because science is atheistic you have a right to bring in your theistic opinions. Correct?
A. Once again, I never said science was atheistic.
Q. Evolution, evolutionary science, you have indicated as it's taught in the United States today is atheistic. Correct?
A. The way evolution is taught, yes.
Q. And therefore it is your opinion that because that constitutes an issue of philosophy and an issue of faith, you should be permitted the opportunity to bring your own opinions about faith to the classroom. Correct?
A. No. I'm not bringing my opinions. And what we're looking at here is are we discriminating the students who are presently in their class who have a belief that there is a designer, that there is theology in the universe. Those are the students I'm concerned about. . . . Q. Are you familiar with the following few words? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Are you familiar with the establishment clause of the United States Constitution?
A. I certainly am.
Q. And are you aware that the Constitution of the United States forbids, forbids someone like you, no matter how legitimate your religious views may be to you, and how well we may desire to protect them, from teaching those views to children in schools?
A. I object. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. You would agree with, would you not, that the science standards provide a foundation for the development of a curriculum and they do not limit the scope of knowledge?
A. Well, I think they do limit the scope of knowledge.
Q. In what manner, sir?
A. They adopt the natural cause only perspective and I think that limits them.
Q. And you're suggesting that supernatural causes should be inserted?
A. That's an example of precisely the kind of thinking that I said the majority report put in that I thought was the problem.
Q. Well, if it's limited to the natural and you suggest that that is inappropriate to limit it to natural, wouldn't logically that would require us to teach the supernatural?
A. If you're talking about metaphysics, yes, but we're not talking about metaphysics.
Q. We're talking about science?
A. Natural does not mean naturalism unless you exclude the possibility that-- not exclude, if you say only natural causes are permitted that, in effect, is saying-- it's what's tacit naturalism. Even though you haven't used it, you're saying natural cause only.
Q. Sir, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not used the word naturalism. Naturalism is something completely different.
A. That's true.(Thaxton testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
But my own view and the view of people I work with is not that science is the culprit here. Materialistic philosophy in the guise of science is the culprit. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. So one side of that story supports one kind of a religious belief and the other side supports the different kind, is that-- is that a fair statement?
A. The only concept-- in the words of Steven Wineberg, the only concept of a designer that makes sense is a designer who creates. And so if you're saying that nature is capable of creating that precludes the idea that there is a designer and so that is what-- a construct of ethological naturalism or philosophical naturalism. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Are you saying there that the evolutionary explanation is a naturalistic one and if that's the only explanation that's permitted then you're effectively skewing belief in that direction?
A. Yes.
Q. What-- would you say that the naturalistic explanation supports non theistic beliefs while the non naturalistic or the disagreement with that naturalistic belief supports theistic beliefs?
A. That seems to be the concern that has been expressed to me by many parents.
Q. And the parents' concern is that you aren't promoting a curriculum that supports only one kind of religious belief?
A. Right. . . . (Gonzalez-Bravo testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you believe that the issue of evolution and origins impact religion?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is the effect in your mind-- in your view of methodological naturalism as applied to the issue of origin, the origin of life?
A. Well, if we insist on methodological naturalism, then that is inconsistent and excludes any theistic ideas.
Q. So it excludes evidence that would support theistic views?
A. Yes. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
So, again, methodological naturalism as I'm presenting here is not a strictly scientific belief, but is undergirded on-- on agnostic or deistic belief system . . . .
Q. In your opinion is evolution as it is being taught in mainstream science courses across this country today an atheistic philosophy?
A. Evolution is a very broad term, you know --
Q. Just answer my question yes or no. Is science, in your opinion, as far as the teaching of evolution in mainstream America today being taught in an atheistic fashion?
A. I think some people do teach it in that fashion. Not all of them.
Q. So you don't believe it is?
A. Again, there's different aspects to evolution. For example, I don't have trouble with the earth being old. You know, I don't have trouble with A appearing at a certain time and B and C, but I do have trouble when people assume that everything happens purely by-- strictly by natural processes even though they cannot verify the claim. . . .
Q. Sir, you initially started talking about methodological naturalism and the second draft does not mention methodological naturalism. It does talk-- when it talks I'm going to read part of it right here, it says in the nature of science as it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century science is restricted to explaining only the natural world using only natural cause.
A. Right.
Q. That's one sentence out of that paragraph.
A. Correct.
Q. Is that-- how does that-- is there any application, is there-- please comment?
A. You know, again, the-- that first sentence which restricts science to natural explanations and the section pointed out by John Calvert limit the expression of science and I believe that that limitation is equivalent to methodological naturalism. That's my comment. (Millam testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. In your opinion, would teaching according to the majority opinion, which is Draft 2, equate to teaching materialism and atheism?
A. Can you repeat the question?
Q. I'd be happy to. Is it your opinion that to teach children in Kansas pursuant to the position of Draft 2 equates to materialistic and an atheistic perspective?
A. Pursuant to the position of Draft 2? You mean everything contained in the summary of--
Q. As it relates, yes.
A. That's hard to say. That's speculating about how it's going to be interpreted by the children. I think that it's fair to say that that is the framework within which the doctrine is being taught to the children. And therefore I would like to see it made possible for teachers who question that metaphysical framework to be allowed to present challenges to the mainstream view. But what the children get out of it, I can't speculate.
Q. Would you agree that the document marked as Draft 2, irrespective of what the authors may think about their religious beliefs, in your opinion, then, supports materialism and atheism? Is that what I understand you to say?
A. Implicitly I think it's-- it's not explicit, though, I'll grant you that. (Barham testimony, Kansas Hearings, transcript)
*************************************************
Methodological naturalism is a role of scientific matter that says that scientists should proceed as if philosophical naturalism is true. Now, if that's assumed, what that means is that students will only be provided with the evidence that supports the idea that there are no causal designs in nature. So in its effect on students, methodological naturalism is not significantly different than philosophical naturalism because they will only be presented with that evidence that supports a naturalistic position. . . . You can certainly be religious without believing in God. Atheism is just as religious a position as theism, and certainly secular humanism is being recognized as being religious for First Amendment purposes. The Smith case in 1987 is particularly important there. So in that environment, what does it mean for science to be taught in a secular way as defined by the National Assessment Governing Board? It seems to be a pluralistic context. You can no longer be neutral by saying, "Here's a neutral position." Neutrality, rather, is obtained by not taking sides with respect to those various religious perspectives. You can't side with any one one of them. That isn't neutral. Well, I would argue that methodological naturalism, in fact, does side with non-theistic religions. There isn't any direct logical implication between scientific evidence and religious view; however, if science is taught in such a way that you can only be presented with that evidence which is consistent with naturalism, it's natural for students to conclude that all the evidence points there and that no evidence points or could even gently suggest that the theistic religious claims about the world could be true. . . .
Q. It is true, is it not, that nowhere in Draft 2 is the term naturalism mentioned?
A. That is absolutely correct. That term doesn't occur, but the concept does.
Q. Where in Draft 2 does it say or imply that a student cannot hold a theistic view about the results and process of science?
A. It doesn't say that, but methodological naturalism will only give them the evidence that supports non-theistic religions. . . . It has religious implications because if it's taken to be a full account of everything that we observe, it implies that nothing is designed or has a purpose, that human beings in particular are just occurrences, we're products of this random process and that we have no preordained value, meaning, or significance. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
By holding out for a naturalistic explanation, as the Majority's Standards suggest that we ought to do or presuppose that we ought to do, design explanations and ideological explanations of nature are ruled out of bounds a priori. Let me put it this way. If there is a God, and God created nature, there must be design somehow or another in the world. That is, given most conceptions of God, God is good, and God would create, God did create, God would create nature to fulfill God's purposes. There must be design inherent in nature. Methodological naturalism does not, as Professor Menuge said, allow us to find any of that evidence for design. It rules design out a priori. It perverts science from being an empirical discipline to a dogmatic discipline, one which is passed on to other scientists and other students really as a matter of faith. . . . That could be done easily, but it isn't because, of course, the scientific establishment won't allow it. The science establishment insists on humanism religion. (Nord testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
The side of the controversy that supports the idea that man is the product of an unguided evolutionary process, that side which is the evolutionary biology, supports but does not require one kind of religious belief and conflicts with theistic religious beliefs. . . . I think that-- I think that what methodological naturalism does is that it prohibits-- it prohibits a particular point of view based on-- even if-- even if there is scientific evidence that supports that view, methodological naturalism essentially rules it out of order. And I think that that is not-- and when you're in-- that impacts religion, origin science. (Calvert statement, Kansas Hearings transcript)
When Discovery Institute member Stephen Meyer testified, he recognized the legal and consitutional effect that all the testimony about religious arguments against evolution would have, and pleaded with the Board to forget all about them: "People have had religious-- their religious views coaxed out of them to realize that that is possibly irrelevant. And whether it's irrelevant is that everyone who is thinking about this issue has to think about the issue in a larger philosophical and world view context. And people on both sides of the question have ideas about how their scientific theory might fit in with the larger religious world view or philosophical perspective. From our standpoint, my standpoint as a scholar that's worked on the-- not only the philosophical end, but also the questions of what is an appropriate public policy, I would strongly recommend that you base your policy on your--the scientific evidence and the things that you have found in your hearings this week that establish there is a scientific basis for criticism of the theory and therefore something that students should know about that they are probably not being told about in existing textbooks and that you properly disregard testimony about the various religious views or non religious views of your witnesses and participants." (Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
In addition to pointing out the religious motivations of all the ID witnesses, Irigonegaray further demonstrated the close links between ID and creation 'science' by asking each of the witnesses how old they thought the earth was. Some frankly admitted to a young-earth creationist position:
Q. And I'm going to ask you first how old, in your opinion, is the world?
A. I'm going to answer like Dr. Sanford earlier, I would say between probably a lot younger than most people think.
Q. That doesn't say anything to me. What is your opinion in years the age of the earth?
A. I'm fine with 5,000 to 100,000.
Q. You're fine with 5,000 to 100,000?
A. Correct. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
Some of the witnesses, on the other hand, recognized the danger in the tactic that Irigonegaray was pursuing, and tried to evade the question, with some still leaving a crack open for a young earth. Indeed, the Board members also saw the danger in it, and promptly "reminded" one of the witnesses that they didn't have to answer any questions:
Q. In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is the age of the earth?
A. Do you want my personal-- why are you asking me about my personal--
Q. You're here to answer my questions. First of all, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I understood I was being called as an expert witness.
Q. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I'm unclear. I understand--
Q. The question is simple. What is, in your opinion, the age of the earth?
A. Well, I'm just wanting to clarify the ground rules here. I thought I was being called as an expert witness, so why are you asking me about my personal--
Q. That's not the issue. Now, please answer my question. What is your personal--
A. I would like to understand the ground rules first. Why am I being asked about--
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Chairman, if he's not going to answer my questions, I'd ask that his testimony be stricken from the record.
A. I'm happy to answer your question. I'd like to know why you're asking about--
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) The "why" is not for you to determine. . . .
A. You would like me to cooperate with that?
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: You can either answer "yes," "no," or "I don't know," or whatever you want to do, but that-- yes, I'd like you to cooperate.
A. It's a transparently obvious strategy to impeach the credibility of your witnesses, but I will cooperate. So my answer to your question, Pedro, is that I-- my personal opinions and my professional opinions are the same. I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I think the universe is--
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) No, just the earth. I didn't ask you about the universe.
A. My opinion of--
Q. Mr. Meyer, please just answer my question. I'm not asking you other opinions.
MR. SISSON: I'd simply request to make a point here, ask the Chairman if I may make a point. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct the witness that there is no subpoena power here and that he is under no compulsion to answer and he would suffer no penalty if he chose to decline to answer.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: He can answer the questions to his extent. However, we would like you to answer them.
A. Does that mean I can say something else about the age of the earth?
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray is going to ask the questions that he thinks important and he may repeat the question. And he will ask-- my guess is it will be a yes or a no answer or some side of an answer like that. If you feel comfortable answering that, say "yes," or if you don't know, say you don't know, whatever it is. I mean, be truthful and answer however you feel comfortable answering.
A. Right. But may I say anything more about the age of the earth, then?
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) I'm the one asking questions here, Mr. Meyer, and all you need to do is to answer my question.
A. Okay. I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That's both my personal and my professional opinion. I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist--
Q. I'm not asking you about that. I just asked you for a number, and you have given it to me.
A. Okay. That's all you want is the number?
Q. My questions are pretty clear, Mr. Meyer. (Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. I'd like to ask you for the record, first, can you tell us how old you believe the earth is?
A. I don't know. I think it's probably really old.
Q. How old is really old?
A. I don't really know.
Q. You have no idea how old the earth is?
A. There's theories around that the earth is 10,000ish years old. There are theories around that it is four billion years old. If it was a multiple choice test and I only had two choices and I couldn't check "I don't know," and I wanted to get credit for the question, I'd check old.
Q. I understand, sir. But in all the work you have done, in all the research that you have done, in all your experience to this day you still don't have an opinion as to how old the earth is?
A. I have an opinion, I just don't really know. My opinion is it's probably fourish billion years old.
Q. Four billion years old. All right. (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Doctor Wells, do you have a personal opinion as to how old the earth is?
A. I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. But I'll tell you this, I used to-- I would have said, a few years ago, I'm convinced it's four-and-a-half billion years old. But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. I have a few questions that I want to ask you for the record. First, what is your opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. I really don't have an opinion.
Q. You have no opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students.
Q. I'm asking what is your opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. 'Um, I was asked to come out here to talk about my experiences as a high school biology teacher.
Q. I'm asking you, sir --
A. I was not under the impression that I was asked to come out here --
Q. I'm asking you --
A. -- talking about --
Q. -- sir, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. Four-- four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students, sir.
Q. That's not my question. My question is, whatis your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. Again, I was under the impression to come out here and talk about my professional experience --
Q. Is there a difference?
A. -- more of --
Q. Is there a difference between your personal opinion and what you teach students the age of the world is?
A. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students, sir.
Q. Is-- my question is, is there a difference between your personal opinion and what you teach your students?
A. Again, you're putting a spin on the question is-- you know, now I'll spin any answer, sir, to say that my opinion is irrelevant. Four to four point five billion years is what I teach my students.
Q. The record will reflect your answer. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearing transcript)
*************************************************
Q. What is your opinion as to the age of the earth?
A. In light of time I would say most of the evidence that I see, I read and I understand points to an old age of the earth.
Q. And how old is that age?
A. I don't know. I just know what I read with regards to data. It looks like it's four billion years.
Q. And is that your personal opinion?
A. No. My personal opinion is I really don't know. I'm struggling.
Q. You're struggling with what the age of the earth is?
A. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure. There's a lot of ways to measure the age. Meteorites is one way. There's a lot of elements used. There's a lot of assumptions can be used and those assumptions can be challenged so I don't really know.
Q. What is the range that you are instructing?
A. I think the range we heard today, somewhere between 5,000 and four billion.
Q. You-- you-- you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old. Is that correct?
A. Well, we're learning that there's such a thing as junc --
Q. Sir, answer --
A. -- really has a function.
Q. Just please answer my question, sir.
A. We're learning a lot about micro --
Q. Sir?
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: I think --
Q. (By Mr. Irigonegaray) The question was-- and winking at him is not going to do you any good. Answer my question. Do you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old?
A. It could be. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. The first thing I'd like to ask you is what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the world is?
A. I'm undecided.
Q. What is your best guess?
A. I'm totally undecided.
Q. Give me your best range.
A. Anywhere from 4.5 billion years to ten thousand years.
Q. And, of course, you have reached that conclusion based on the best scientific evidence available?
A. Yes. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I don't know. And that's my final answer.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I'm not giving an opinion.
Q. I didn't hear you.
A. I am not giving an opinion.
Q. You don't have any personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?
A. I have no opinion. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
ID witness John Sanford declared that the age of earth was "maybe 10,000 years" but "not as young as 5,000".
To further illustrate the close connection between ID and creation "science", Irigonegaray asked several of the witnesses if they accepted the idea of common descent, or that humans are evolved from apelike primates:
Q. Do you believe in common descent?
A. You mean, common ancestry?
Q. Common descent, yes.
A. Well, I have difficulty with common ancestry and maybe that's what you mean by common descent.
Q. Do you believe in common descent in humans, such as the fact that there were perhominids before homo sapiens?
A. Are you asking me if I accept evolutionary thought on this?
Q. I'm asking you if you accept prehominids as the ancestral line to homo sapiens?
A. Personally I don't, no.
Q. You what?
A. I personally do not.
Q. You do not?
A. Yes. I mean, I'm not an expert on this. (Thaxton testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. You do accept, do you not, common descent within species?
A. Within a single species, of course. I don't know anyone who doesn't.
Q. What about among species?
A. Among species? Well, I stated in my power point that I find it extremely unlikely based on the evidence that the animal phyla are related through common ancestry. Other biologists have said they're dubious of common ancestry at levels higher than that. The levels in between, I don't know. As a scientist I would have to say each case would have to be settled based on the evidence.
Q. What about between humans, the humans-- homo sapiens and other species, such as prehominids?
A. I think it's extremely unlikely based on the evidence. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Sir, the first question I'd like to ask you is, do you accept the evolutionary theory of common descent of humans from prehominids?
A. From the data that I've been following it's probably not true.(Simat testimony, Kansas Hearings, transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you-- do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to predominant ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you accept the principle-- the general principle of common descent that all of life was biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. Not if you interpret common descent, and realize that I'm taking liberty here, not if you interpret common descent as being that that is natural selection acting on random mutations I do not.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you accept the principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? Yes or no?
A. I will say no, because --
Q. I didn't ask you for an explanation. Yes or no?
A. Okay. No.
Q. Okay. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no?
A. No. (Millam testimony, Kansas Hearing transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all of life was biologically related to the beginning of life, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?
A. No. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life, yes or no?
A. I won't answer that question as a yes or no. I accept the idea of limited common descent. I am skeptical about universal common descent. I do not take it as a principle; it is a theory. And I think the evidence supporting the theory of universal common descent is weak.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors, yes or no?
A. I'm not sure. I'm skeptical of it because I think the evidence for the proposition is weak, but it would not affect my conviction that life is designed if it turns out that there was a genealogical continuity. (Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors?
A. I doubt it. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
A few witnesses were also asked what scientific theory they wanted to offer in place of evolution. The answers were revealing:
Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no such thing as an ID theory?
A. I wouldn't say that. . . .
Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no theory?
A. I just said, no, I don't believe that.
Q. You believe that there is a definable theory of Intelligent Design?
A. Yes, I do. It's certainly in progress. I would not advocate putting it in the curriculum for reasons other people have given here. It's a young theory. It hasn't proved itself, it doesn't deserve a place in the curriculum as a requirement. It's an exciting theory and I think a robust one. . . .
Q. And would you agree that Intelligent Design must, in the end, conclude that a designer was involved?
A. A mind, yes. A designing mind. If something is actually designed, then a designing mind had to do it.
Q. But you're not suggesting it was the design of man?
A. Designed by man?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, certainly before humans appear on the scene, no it couldn't be.
Q. So the answer, which ID attempts to provide, is a supernatural one, is it not?
A. I won't go there. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
5 Q. What is your alternative explanation as to how human species came into existence?
A. During my power point presentation I discussed nothing about offering an alternative, I just simply stated that here's the supporting and here is the information challenging --
Q. My question is, sir, if you do not accept, if you don't-- do not accept that there is a common descent to human existence, what is your alternative? I'm not asking you about your power point. I'm asking you what is your hypothesis for how we came to be?
A. Again, as I stated, that professionally-- that's something that-- that is a different question I guess in terms of my professional, in terms of my personal opinion, that's different. Again, I was asked to come out here and give my professional assessment, sir.
Q. Do you teach your students your personal opinion or do you attempt to teach your students what is the best of science?
A. As I said, I teach my students the four point-- four --
Q. That's not my question. Listen carefully.
A. All right.
Q. Do you teach your students your personal opinion or do you teach them what you believe is the best science?
A. I teach them actually what I believe is the best science, hence the scientific interpretation both supporting and scientific interpretation both challenging macroevolution. And that information has been generated by scientists, some of these scientists are here today. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. What's your alternative explanation how the human species came into existence if it is not through common descent?
A. Design.
Q. And design would imply a designer?
A. Implies a designer, but we don't go there. . . .
Q. Isn't design a philosophical assumption?
A. No.
Q. How do we falsify the designer?
A. We don't go there. We're not going to talk about the designer. . . .
Q. So philosophically discuss it, but it's not a good idea to interpose the supernatural in what should be a scientific process. Correct?
A. We're not doing that.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No further questions. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?
A. Design.
Q. When did that design occur?
A. I don't know.
Q. Who was the designer?
A. Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching my class I do not answer that. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. What is the alternative explanation that you propose then for human species?
A. Again, I'm a chemist, not a biologist.
Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you what is your explanation if you do not believe in common descent from prehominid ancestors?
A. I do not think the scientific evidence is sufficient to give an answer to that question.
Q. You have no personal view about that?
A. I have a personal view, but the question is what does science say.
Q. What is your personal view about that?
A. I-- again, I do not believe that the scientific evidence is sufficient to rule out --
Q. I didn't ask you scientifically. I'm asking you what is your personal opinion about that issue?
A. Again, I-- at this point I do not believe in a natural explanation for the origin of humanity. (Millam testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. What is your alternative explanation for how the human species came into being if not from a common descent from prehominids?
A. From science, I have no alternative explanation.
Q. In your personal opinion?
A. In my personal opinion, I believe there was an intelligent designer.
Q. And when did that intelligent designer create the human species?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Now, that opinion that you have about intelligent design, that's not based on science, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That's based upon your theistic views?
A. Correct. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearing transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an alternative explanation for the human species if not common descent from prehominid ancestors?
A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at the other end of the history of life, namely the origin of the first life in the Cambrian phylum.
Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the question I have just proposed to you, which is if you do not believe that human beings have a common descent with prehominid ancestors, what is your personal alternative explanation for how human beings came into existence?
A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal common descent and I'm skeptical about some of the evidence that has been marshaled for the idea that humans and prehominids are connected. But as I said, it wouldn't bother me (unintelligible) stronger than I presently think.
Q. What is your personal opinion at this time?
A. That I'm skeptical about the Darwinian accounts of such things, but that it wouldn't bother me if it turned out to be different. I think my-- I also would tell you that humans and the rest of the non human living world, that humans have qualitatively different features that I think are very mysterious and hard to explain on any materialistic account of the origin of human life. . . .
Q. You think it's wise for science without a supernatural model to attempt to answer those questions that we still don't understand?
A. You know, I don't really work in that area, so I'm not going to venture any more opinions about the topic.(Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
A. Intelligent design provides empirical scientific criteria for detecting design in nature. Detecting design but not detecting the designer. It's quite true that science doesn't have to be in the business of saying who the designer is. . . .
Q. What is the alternative explanation?
A. Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.
Q. And your opinion as to when that design occurred?
A. I don't know. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
A. What does descent from mean? If that means that neo-- if Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are adequate, fully adequate for the explanation, I don't believe that. But if design or theological explanations are allowed to account for explaining at least part of what happens in evolution, then I accept that. (Nord testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
IRIGONGARY: "The intelligent designer is God?"
CARLSON: "Well, yeah, I'd agree with that."
IRIGONEGARAY: "Science should be neutral with respect to religion?"
CARLSON: "Yeah."
IRIGONEGARAY: "But intelligent design places faith in ... "
CARLSON: "No, the designer is neutral."
IRIGONEGARAY: "You said the designer is God."
CARLSON: "We shouldn't discuss the identity."
IRIGONEGARAY: "We should keep that a secret?"
CARLSON: "When children have questions about the materialist explanation, we now send them to their parents or pastors. Instead, design should be offered as an explanation." (Alternet.org, May 19, 2005)
Perhaps the oddest of the ID witnesses was Warren Nord, who declared that religious people were an oppressed minority, comparable to women or blacks, and that as a matter of cultural fairness, their views should be taught in ALL school classes:
I think there's a justice argument to be made for including the voice of all major groups within our culture, including religious groups. We don't do that. A few years ago we thought that it was all right to leave blacks and women out of the cultural conversation. I think we now all realize that's wrong, but what we still haven't come to realize is it's wrong to leave religious voices out of the discussion. The problem is the same. It's disenfranchising people. It's saying, "We're not going to take your values and your views seriously". . . . Public education must take religion seriously, must include religious voices in the conversation, not just in the context of the distant past, but now as live alternatives, as a matter of liberal education, as a matter of civic justice, as a matter of constitutional neutrality. . . . .Simply the title of my second book, "Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum," suggests that religion should be taken seriously in most all disciplines. I used to say except mathematics and driver's education, but the Amish let me know that driver's education is religiously very important. And, actually, a case can be made for mathematics because the philosophy--well, I'm not going to get into that. . . .
Q. Is it also your opinion, sir, that it is important to have religion taught in economics?
A. Oh, for sure.
Q. Mathematics?
A. That's a harder case, but you can actually make a case for that. I'll be happy to do it if you like. (Nord testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
Many witnesses also testified about what they saw as evolution and science's "atheism", but were unable to point to any specifics linking the two.
Q. Would you specifically tell us, sir, where specifically in the standards is the term "humanism" mentioned?
A. It's not in the standards.
Q. Where in the standards is the term "naturalism" mentioned?
A. Naturalism? I don't know that it is mentioned, I think that's part of the problem.
Q. You don't know if it's mentioned?
A. I can't think of a place. Natural is mentioned a lot. Naturalism I don't think is mentioned.
Q. The fact is it's not mentioned at all, correctly-- correct?
A. I think that's true.
Q. You know that's true, don't you?
A. That's a lot of words there. I couldn't-- I would say it probably is not there.
Q. Would you care to take the time to find whether or not it's there or--
A. If you wouldn't mind if I took 32 minutes to do that, that would be fine.
Q. Or are you comfortable with the opinion that that term is simply not there?
A. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.
Q. Where in the standards does it say that teachers and students cannot discuss criticisms of evolution?
A. It doesn't say that. I think it's implicit in the way-- in the language that presents evolutionary theory, particularly the two aspects, macroevolution presented as a fact as -- not as a theory and that's what I think opens the door to that.
Q. You then would have to agree, would you not, sir, that nowhere in the standards are teachers and students denied the opportunity to discuss criticisms of evolution?
A. Correct. (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearings transcripts)
*************************************************
Q. Where in the standards do you find any reference to atheistic views to be the practice in the state?
A. I don't find them written explicitly in the standards. (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearing Transcripts)
*************************************************
Q. Where in the standards do you find a definition or indication in any way whatsoever to atheism or philosophical materialism?
A. I see it between the lines. I don't see it written anywhere.
Q. You see it between the lines?
A. Yeah. In the presentation of unproven theories to fact.
Q. Unproven theories according to you?
A. According to me, exactly.
Q. Do the standards state anywhere that science or evolution theory is based on atheism or in any way in conflict with belief in God?
A. No, the standards do not address that.
Q. Is it your opinion that to believe in evolution one must adhere to naturalism?
A. If you would define evolution for me.
Q. Evolution as it is in the mainstream of scientific understanding.
A. That's what I need to have defined.
Q. You don't understand what I mean by evolution?
A. I know that that's the slipperiest term in town today and that term can mean change over time, which I agree with completely. That term can mean all that we have in the world today is a accident and I disagree with that. So I need a definition.
Q. Is evolution defined in Draft 2?
A. It's defined in toto, yes. It's described-- actually evolution is-- I don't think it's described quite like that as a definition like a dictionary definition, but it's certainly benchmark three, standard three, the 8th 7 through 12th grade is all evolution.
Q. And is it your opinion that that definition stands for naturalism and some sort of religion?
A. The uncritical acceptance of a perspective that says all of life is here by chance, which is, I think, what the minority-- excuse me the majority report portrays.
Q. Where does it say that?
A. That's what I see it in toto. In words it doesn't say it, that's what I see. (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do the science standards anywhere mention the word "atheism"?
A. The ones I read did not.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere use the word "materialism"?
A. I don't see it.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere use the term "humanism"?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Do the science standards anywhere use the term "unguided" or "undirected" or "accidental"?
A. I don't recall seeing that.(Thaxton testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. I'd like to now specifically address the issues in the standards that you have discussed. Is there anywhere that you have even been able to find in the standards an indication to teachers and their students that they are not allowed to discuss evolution in every aspect, including whatever shortcomings may be involved in evolution today?
A. I believe that the standard is setting up this state to fail at biology.
Q. That wasn't my question.
A. I know it wasn't.
Q. Then please answer the question. Is there anything in the standards that would preclude a teacher and his or her students from discussing fully evolution, including whatever short comings that students may question?
A. I don't believe that the standard, as it's written, does not preclude that.
Q. Is there in the standards, anywhere at all that you have been able to ascertain, the use of the word "unguided"?
A. It is in the definition of evolution and it's in the definition of--
Q. Where in the definition of evolution in the standards do you find that?
A. The standard as it-- excuse me, let me start this way, the standard does not have to mention that.
Q. So please answer my question. My question was specifically to you, where in the standards is the word "unguided" found?
A. It is found implicit in the definition of evolution.
Q. I'm not talking about implicitly. Where is the word "unguided" found?
A. It is not in the standard and it doesn't have to be. (Simat testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. There are many issues which involve morals, ethics, values or spiritual beliefs that go beyond what science can explain, for which solid scientific literacy is used for. Do you agree or disagree with that?
A. Scientific literacy is useful, is that what the last part said?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Does this sentence seem to reflect naturalism. The philosophy that matter and energy are all there is or does it seem to reflect the philosophy that there's more to the world than what science can investigate?
A. Well, it appears like naturalism.
Q. That appears to you to be naturalism?
A. The first part of that, yes.
Q. There are many issues which involve morals,ethics, values or spiritual beliefs that go beyond what science can explain. How is that naturalism?
A. I miss-- I misunderstood the question.
Q. It doesn't imply anything about naturalism, does it?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. And are you aware that those are the Kansas standards?
A. Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but just because of the way they're stated out of context I think there's confusion with that. (Ely testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Are you familiar with the notion that science should remain neutral as far as supernatural answers in their quest for knowledge?
A. Yes. And that also includes the world view of naturalism.
Q. Do you find the world naturalism anywhere in the Kansas standards?
A. I don't think that you'd find the word discriminatory back in the 1950's in some restaurants to claim that they were being discriminated against.
Q. My question is is the word naturalism anywhere in the Kansas standards? Yes or no?
A. No, but it's implicit in the way that you've defined science.
Q. As a search for natural answers, is that the implication you suggest?
A. Only natural answers.
Q. And you suggest that a better alternative would be to include supernatural answers?
A. Intelligent causes.
Q. Intelligent cause is a disguise for a supernatural answer. Correct?
A. Darwinism masquerades as materialist-- materialism.
Q. That's not my question. Listen carefully. I asked you whether or not the suggestion that intelligent design is a masquerade for a supernatural answer. Correct?
A. That's a leading question.
Q. Of course it is. Is it or not?
A. I think if the evidence shows that things have intelligent causes we should be able to go there in science, if it's about searching for truth. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Would you please read that statement marked No. 1 for me?
A. "Biological evolution descendent modification is a scientific explanation throughout history of diversification of organisms from common ancestors."
Q. And do you know whether or not that's the majority opinion?
A. That is the majority opinion, isn't it?
All right. And then take a look to the right,No. 1a. And would you read that for the record?
A. "Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernible direction or goal. It also assumes that life arose from unguided natural process."
Q. Now, I want to ask you something. Do you see on the majority position anywhere the terms unpredictable and unguided?
A. Obviously what's on the right is not on the left.
Q. And would you further agree with me that you would oppose for the teaching of simply unpredictable and unguided natural processes?
A. Well, I don't think that that's being taught. I think what it's saying is that mainstream-- the mainstream interpretation, biological evolution postulates that.
Q. Sir, in all fairness, that's nowhere in the majority opinion.
A. Well, this is an expansion explanation of the too-succinct version on the left.
Q. The fact is that nowhere-- in order to be fair to the majority in Draft 2, nowhere does it state unpredictable and unguided, and that is simply a straw man argument that has been created by the minority to create controversy where there is none, correct?
MR. CALVERT: I think the rules do not permit questions that actually have embedded in them arguments for a particular position or not. I think they are limited to just questions.
A. It's not a straw man argument.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Hang on a second, sir. There's been an objection made by Mr.Calvert on the record. I respectfully disagree. Throughout this entire process the minority has insisted that it is inappropriate to have unguided and unpredictable in the teaching of Kansas children's scientific curriculum. The fact is, those two words appear nowhere in the majority report. The fact is that is nowhere in-- on the majority report the intent of the majority, and that the minority has placed these two words in its report simply as a straw man argument to come in here and argue on supposition that those two issues exist when they do not. And my purpose in questioning the witness is to ascertain whether or not he agrees with that proposition.
A. I disagree. It is not a straw man argument because that is a correct assessment of the majority opinion of the scientific community in this country.
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) So in your opinion, the majority of the scientific community in America follows 1a?
A. Yes.
Q. Although it's nowhere in the Kansas standards, correct?
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Counsel, I would urge you not to do that.
Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) Correct, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where in the standards do you find the term Darwinism in the majority opinion? Oh, you haven't read the majority opinion, have you? Would it surprise you to learn that the term Darwinism is not in the majority opinion?
A. Would it surprise me? No, it wouldn't surprise me. (Barham testimony, Kansas Hearings, transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Do you see anywhere in the standards the word "unguided"?
A. In your original standards, no.
Q. It is a fact, however, that in the suggested modifications, the minority has interjected the word "unguided," correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the word unguided is interjected in the minority report by the minority writers, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that is a word that you disagree with?
A. No. I think that is a correct description of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Q. Do you see neo--
A. Let me tell you why, sir.
Q. No, just answer my question, please.
A. No, I'm going to tell you why.
Q. No, listen, Mr.-- you're not listening to me. You're not here to direct the questioning. I am. Do you see anywhere on the standards written by the majority of the writing committee for the State of Kansas Board of Education on behalf of Kansas children the words "neo-Darwinism" written anywhere?
A. No, but if your standards are accurate, then that is the presumed context for understanding biological evolution.
Q. Presumed by you, right, sir? (Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
Harris had, at least READ the standards. Many of the other 23 witnesses, under questioning by Irigonegaray, admitted that they hadn't -- which prompted Board Member Kathy Martin to reassure them, "Please don't feel bad that you haven't read the whole thing, because I haven't read it myself." Martin later added, "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information." (Salon.Com, May 13, 2005)
Q. Have you read the Majority Opinion, draft two of the standards?
A. The Majority, no, sir.
Q. You have been brought to Kansas to challenge the Majority Opinion and you have not taken the time to read it?
A. I read the part of the Minority Report that --
Q. I didn't ask you about the Minority. Listen carefully to my question. Have you read the Majority Opinion and the answer was no?
A. Yes.
Q. And the follow-up question is, you have been brought to Kansas to tell us how educate-- how we should educate our Kansas children and you have not bothered to take the time to read the Majority Opinion. Correct?
A. Again, yes-- no, I have not read the Majority Opinion.
MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No further questions. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Have you read in total the Majority Report?
A. No, I have not. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Have you read the majority report?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you read the minority report in toto?
A. No, sir. I've read a summary of the proposed revisions. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. Did you take the opportunity to read the majority report in toto?
A. No, I've only read the summary of proposed revisions. (Barham testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
Another witness was Mustafa Akyol, a member of the Turkish creationist group BAV, which publishes Islamic religious tracts under the name of "Hahrun Yaya" which recycle many of the old ICR arguments (and received funding and advice from ICR for several years). Akyol argued that Islamic militants hate the US because it is "materialistic", and that if the US were to teach supernatural creationism, the Muslims would become more friendly to us: "That philosophy, as we all know, is also called naturalism, the idea that nature is all there is. And when that idea, when that philosophy, which has no scientific justification at all, becomes the dominant force in science education in the United States, what you have is that you will have alienated people. You will-- for example, Muslims. They will feel alienated. They will think that there's a school system which imposes on them, on their kids, a philosophy which they don't believe, and which they find to be poisonous, and which doesn't have any scientific evidence at all. That's the important point." (Akyol testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript) Presumably, Akyol was invited to testify in order to allow IDers to declare that ID isn't simply a front for Christian fundamentalism. Apparently nobody on the Kansas Board stopped to think that having a Muslim fundamentalist testify that ID would make the ayatollah-wanna-be's happy, might not be the best way to go about showing that ID is science and not just religious objections to evolution.
Meanwhile, when philosophy professor Angus Menuge declared that naturalistic science was biased against religion, Irigonegaray asked him why there were so many scientists who accept religion. Menuge pompously declared, "It might be that some of these people are confused." (Wichita Eagle, May 8, 2005) Other witnesses weighed in on the same matter:
Q. Are you aware that there are many people, millions of people throughout the world that believe that God acts through natural process and that science does investigate the natural process and that it is not incompatible for someone to be both a scientist and a religious person?
A. Yeah, I'm aware there are a lot of people like that.
Q. Not a problem with that?
A. Well, I have-- I think they don't understand evolutionary theory very well. (Harris testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
*************************************************
Q. You have made the claim from the floor that methodological naturalism entails that nature is unguided. What would you say to the millions of people, including many scientists, who believe that God works through the natural process?
A. Many of those people believe that it is guided through the natural process. Some of them believe that it is unguided through the natural process.
Q. Sir, you made the broad statement that methodological naturalism entails that nature is unguided, that's what you said.
A. That's its definition. I didn't say that as if I was making it up.
Q. But that definition does not mean, does it, that there are not many, many thousands of scientists who believe that that is precisely how God works?
A. I don't know that. (Simat testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)
Most of the arguments offered by the IDers at Kansas were, nearly word for word, cribbed from earlier arguments unsuccessfully made by creation "scientists" twenty years ago. ID proponent John Calvert declared, "ID proposes nothing more than that life and its diversity were the product of an intelligence with power to manipulate matter and energy." (Slate.Com, May 11, 2005), thus echoing the argument made 20 years earlier by creation "scientists" in Arkansas, "Reference to a creation from nothing is not necessarily a religious concept since the Act only suggests a creator who has power, intelligence and a sense of design and not necessarily the attributes of love, compassion and justice." (Maclean v Arkansas decision, 1982) Meyer also brought up the "Cambrian explosion" in Kansas; "He often points to the Cambrian Period, a time more than 500 million years ago when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. Meyer and other Discovery Institute fellows say those groups show up too fast, geologically speaking, to have come about through natural selection. That's one of what they see as controversies they want taught in school." (Seattle Times, March 30, 2005) The Cambrian explosion, of course, has been an ICR favorite for over three decades.
Despite its efforts to gain credibility and respctibility for ID, the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt was an unmitigated PR disaster for the IDers. Every major newspaper in the US ran editorials denouncing ID. The Washington Post noted, "But there is no serious scientific controversy over whether Darwinian evolution takes place. Intelligent design is not science. Whatever its rhetoric, the public questioning of evolution is fundamentally religious, not scientific, in nature." (Washington Post, May 8, 2005) The New York Times editorialized, "The minority even seeks to change the definition of science in a way that appears to leave room for supernatural explanations of the origin and evolution of life, not just natural explanations, the usual domain of science. All this is wildly inappropriate for a public school curriculum. The Kansas board, which held one-sided hearings this month that were boycotted by mainstream scientists on the grounds that the outcome was preordained, is expected to vote on the standards this summer. One can only hope that the members will come to their senses first." (New York Times, May 18, 2005) The Baltimore Chronicle stated "Intelligent Design is a cleverly packaged form of Creationism which the Religious Right is attempting to sneak into public classrooms through a variety of means, including this farcical 'hearing' in Kansas." (Baltimore Chronicle, May 10, 2005) By the second day of the hearings, most of the reporters at the scene already saw through the Board's ID scam, and attendance over the next two days plummeted.
Despite the fact that ID was beaten into a bloody pulp during the hearings, however, there was every indication that the Kansas School Board would nevertheless stand over the fallen corpse, raise its unconscious wrist in the air and declare it the winner. It is expected that the Board's creationist majority votes to accept the minority report and reject the majority report, and enshrine ID's "criticisms" into the Kansas curriculum.
I am sure that the lawsuits will follow within days.