Asked about intelligent design last summer, Bush said, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about."
Prominent scientists and scientific organizations dismiss the call from intelligent design proponents to "teach the controversy." The scientific mainstream says there is no significant controversy, that evidence from fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life-form.
Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can be tested," said Francisco J. Ayala, an expert in evolutionary genetics and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He said the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."
The Kansas board argued about which side was more truthful.
Member Kenneth Willard accused the scientific establishment of having "blind faith in evolution." He told his colleagues during a 45-minute debate that the anti-evolution view is more intellectually honest.
"What we're dealing with here," Willard said in an argument that infuriates mainstream scientists, "is a high degree of fear of change."
Two Republicans and two Democrats opposed the move. Sue Gamble said the board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to supernatural explanations. Waugh said she believes in the biblical version of creation, but does not believe it should be taught in science class. And Carol Rupe mentioned the "hundreds and hundreds of scientists from around the world" who wrote to protest the board's impending move.
"I wish you were not changing science to have it fit into your faith," she said. "It's a lousy time for us to be lowering science standards in Kansas."
