<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>  <H1>RANDY SCHOLFIELD: ID THEORY WASN'T READY FOR PRIME TIME  Wichita Eagle May 6, 2005</H1> <DIV><A href="http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/columnists/randy_scholfield/11577508.htm">http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/columnists/randy_scholfield/11577508.htm</A></DIV> TOPEKA - Based on its first day, I think it is safe to say that the Kansas State Board of Education's evolution trial will not go down as a seminal event in modern science. Or a shining moment for the state's image. But Thursday's hearing lived up to advance billing as a media event. Outside the hall, a couple of blocks away, a ragged-looking group of Fred Phelps disciples carried signs saying "God Hates Fags" and even "God Hates You." The small child holding the latter sign didn't seem to mean it too personally, though. I hoped. The pickets might have been the day's most convincing argument against evolution. The small auditorium in Memorial Hall was crowded; everywhere I turned I found myself in a kill zone of pointed video cameras and zoom lenses. About half the seats were taken by national media from around the country (National Public Radio, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, ABC's "Nightline") and from as far away as England and France. ID's big moment John Calvert, a director of the Intelligent Design Network and architect of this event, was thoroughly enjoying the attention. He grinned and guffawed and seemed to sense that this was ID's Big Moment. But if Thursday is any indication, ID's "expert witnesses" could end up proving criticisms that they are advancing a religious agenda in our schools. First up was William Harris, a Kansas City ID supporter who expounded on the evolution of his religious faith. He began auspiciously by telling the audience that during his Ph.D. work in college he read the Bible and "my whole world changed." Um, excuse me, but is this the science standards hearings or "The 700 Club"? His credentials include being a leading researcher on fish oil supplements. He also, at Calvert's prodding, revealed that he was "part of a small rock and roll band." Roll over, Darwin. Calvert hovered over him, beaming like a proud headmaster as his star pupil rattled off answers about the atheistic evils of the Humanist Manifesto III, "philosophical naturalism" and other straw men. He presented the DNA code as evidence of design. Who was this designer? Harris coyly refused to speak for science on this point, although he allowed that, "I believe it to be the God of the Bible." Surprise. Scratch an ID expert, find a creationist. "You did a great job!" enthused board member and creationist Connie Morris. Misplaced objections Pedro Irigonegaray, the lawyer who volunteered to represent the majority opinion (no mainstream scientist in the world agreed to appear), did not partake in the prevailing chumminess. He relentlessly pressed each witness to explain what their objections to Darwin had to do with the Kansas science standards. As it turned out, nothing. Does anything in the standards talk about secular humanism? he asked. Well, no, Harris admitted. Where in the standards was there anything about atheism? "I see it between the lines," Harris offered. Between the lines? Next came Charles Thaxton, who had published a book on life's origins back in the 1980s, but admitted that it received mostly negative reviews at the time. He talked mostly about the flaws in the idea (not really Darwin's) of primordial soup. Morris gushed that she was "in awe" of the intelligence displayed before her. But when pressed by Irigonegaray, he, too, had to admit that nothing in the standards prevented any teacher or student from discussing criticisms of evolution, or even intelligent design. Most scientists disagree Jonathan Wells, the afternoon's star ID witness, is (scratch, scratch) a Moonie who once wrote that it was partly the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's religious dogma that prompted him to pursue a science Ph.D. and set out to "devote my life to destroying Darwinism." But he echoed the other witnesses in admitting that intelligent design was a "young theory" that wasn't ready for classrooms. "Most scientists disagree with me," he said flatly of his evolution criticisms. So why is Kansas listening to him for advice on the state science standards? Under questioning, ID looked less and less like a theory that was ready for prime time. ____________ Stuart Elliott <A href="http://newappeal.blogspot.com/">http://newappeal.blogspot.com/</A> </DIV></BODY></HTML>