Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Hope in Pennsylvania--in Kansas, we wait until 2006

From the NY Times this morning:

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: November 9, 2005



All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.

"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."


In Kansas, however, the school board in a 6-4 vote, decided to change the science standards once again to dumb down science.

Four of the board members are up for reelection, however next year and we should try to vote them out. They are among those who are voting to strike the current science standards down.

Intelligent Design is a theory, yes, but it's not science. My opinion is that it belongs in a religion curriculum and not in a science curriculum. And now it belongs in teachings about what's wrong with Kansas.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

From Ken Willard's back yard (his office is just around the corner from mine), these thoughts.

It's very possible moderates could win the two seats they need to re-take control of the state board. Connie Morris is vulnerable in the western part of the state, and the right kind of candidate could easily knock out Iris Van Meter in southeast Kansas. If moderates want Willard's seat (which includes areas of central Kansas west and north of Wichita and to the south and southwest of Salina), they will have to find a strong candidate living outside Hutchinson, since residency can have an impact on electability. That district also has a long history of electing conservative senators and moderate house members and vice versa.

Eri said...

Thanks for your comment, neighbor of Ken Willard!
Here's to moderate leadership!