| Advocates of an alternative explanation of life's origins, Intelligent Design, have lobbied hard since the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which banned "creation science" from public schools, to effect educational policy change through local and state-level school boards. This study examines one such lobbying effort, the 2005 attempt to modify the Kansas Curricular Standards for Science so that biological evolution is actively challenged in the classroom, by analyzing the actions and motivations of several members of the Kansas Board of Education as well as non-Board participants through personal interviews and contemporary media reports. Board minutes from 1999 to 2007 and transcripts from the Board's May, 2005, public hearings on evolution are also analyzed.;This study asks, "what strategies have creationists developed in the wake of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision striking down creation science and how have those strategies been employed?" The question's presumption, that Intelligent Design advocates have employed new strategies to advance a creationist agenda, is validated in the study through coding the language used by the interviewees, the Board minutes, and hearings transcripts, as well as a review of contemporary media coverage. Several themes emerged: the belief of participants on each side of the debate that their opponents were attempting to oppress their views, participants on each side claiming to have the best definition of "good science," the emergence of national-level organizations such as the Discovery Institute in coordinating science-related public advocacy at the state level, evolution's importance as a state-level public policy issue, and the importance of keeping the voting public informed of science-related educational policy. This case study should be useful to state and local-level educational policymakers grappling with debates over the place of evolution in public schools. |
