There are two things here that I want to address. First, a full understanding to those outside of Kansas as to what exactly the reality-based individuals are up against. Second, a short perspective on how I personally feel about this whole debacle.
I think it's important to know exactly what Kansas scientists and researchers are up against here. One of the most common arguments against the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is that it is nothing but a modern day form of creationism, or more specifically, a dressed-up form of Christianity being inserted into our science classrooms (non-denominational, I'm sure). Of course the IDers deny this 'till they are blue in the face, but this is, of course, a complete an utter lie....
Most of you familiar with this "debate" have heard of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy". If you haven't seen it before, I encourage you to read yourself:
Part of PhaseI:
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID).Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
and
Part of PhaseII:
Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
Emphasis mine on both above.
(sidenote: does anyone else notice a bit of similarity between this Wedge Strategy and PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses?" I digress.)
Dr. Forrest breaks this "Wedge Strategy" down nicely here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html
Some other quotes to note from the leaders of ID:
and
"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle - Jonathan Wells, author of
Icons of Evolution
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator. -Phillip Johnson, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator", LA Times, 25 Mar. 2001.
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient. (William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.)
"Intelligent design promotes a rational basis for belief in God," said John Calvert, managing director of the Kansas-based advocacy group Intelligent Design Network Inc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948092/
More can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html
And just keep in mind where the quoted White House's stance is on this topic:
So what exactly are us Kansans up against? Here's one of the most outspoken KBOE conservative members against evolution being taught:
What we're saying is that the neo- Darwinism and some of the materialistic explanations of evolution have led young folks away from Christianity and their beliefs. They're a lot of different theories out there, and I don't think teaching creationism in a science class -- no, that's definitely not what we want to do, but just to allow critical analysis and more than just one point of view.
- Kathy Martin, KBOE
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week826/cover.html
and
"We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say," said Kathy Martin, District 6 Board member. "Some naturalistic (evolutionary) opinion is correct, but not all of it is."
"Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."
While Martin was unable to provide examples of scientific facts that back up Intelligent Design Theory, she did explain that ID believes in "microevolution," but not "macroevolution."
...
Martin said, "ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly Christian, but it is theistic."
Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is not well disguised.
"Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation," said Martin. "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," said Martin.
While introducing ID into the evolution cirriculum might blur the lines between theology, philosophy, and science, Martin sees no difficulty in teaching morals or ethics in the science classroom.
"Why shouldn't theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them," said Martin. "All children believe in God. Even little children whose parents don't take them to church believe in God."
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14383121&BRD=1160&PAG=461&dept_id=190958&r
fi=6
Martin got a lot of help from churches in her district, namely Sedwick and Butler County. Here's an interesting quote from Rev. Terry Fox, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Wichita, KS:
This is a juicy quote from the same pastor (Fox):
And who says this isn't a political issue drawn out by the religious wingnutters?
So if anyone here is disillusioned about whether or not this is a Christian agenda, you can put those conflicting thoughts at ease now.
Since I've written and quoted so much I will keep my personal thoughts on this very brief. This whole trial is a complete and absolute joke. Kansas Citizens for Science and the other advocates of the current evolutionary standards were completely correct in boycotting these ridiculous "trials". These were propped up by Martin, Abrams, and the other conservative wingnut KBOE members to make it "appear" like evolution was getting a fair shake, but have rigged this trial from the getgo. See here for more details:
http://www.kcfs.org/standards05/Press.release.3-3-05.html
I haven't even touched on the invalidity of ID as a whole, which perhaps I'll get to in another diary post. I did, however, want to touch upon the motives of these individuals setting up and running these silly trials. It is truly embarrassing for Kansas to have individuals like these running our education agenda. I hope for everyone's sake that the Kansas voters realize and understand the stakes for the next election. Kansas voted these ignorant fools out once. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will eventually do it again.