The battle last night was won, but the next stage is just beginning.
Contact the three members of the subcommittee and demand that the proceedings not be an attack on science and evolution, and that the same level of proof demanded of evolution also be demanded of creationism in any form.
Unfortunately I could not attend the BoE meeting last night. There are several questions I have about the subcommittee hearings that press accounts have not clarified.
What is the objective of the hearings? Will the questioning be intended to tear down particular theories or to show their positive value as science?
My concern, and many people I know share this concern, is that evolutionary biology will be attacked, and that every unanswered question will be presented as a flaw. Your comments and those of the other two subcommittee members in the Journal World and the Kansas City Star did not address that concern.
While there are unanswered questions in any science, that is not a flaw. Science proceeds by asking questions, and seeking answers for them. Scientists don’t always get the answer right away, and that’s why physics didn’t stop with Newton, nor biology with Darwin.
If the format of the hearings will be negative and critical, will the same level of proof be demanded of intelligent design as of evolution?
Given that the three members of the subcommittee have all declared their opposition to evolution, I think it’s important for the legitimacy of the process that these hearings be fair and open.
Kansans are fairminded, and will not tolerate a smear job wrapped up in a kangaroo court. I’m sure you share my concerns, and I’d like to know what measures you will take to protect the integrity of your Board and your subcommittee, especially given the accusations of KOMA violations by all three members of the subcommittee