From The NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/edit-2-thu.html?ex=1155268800&en=48b97218d5cd4652&ei=5070&emc=eta1

The seesaw battle over state science standards in Kansas seems to have tipped back a bit in the direction of sanity. In Tuesday's primary elections, moderates who subscribe to the theory of evolution won just enough races to guarantee them a slight majority on the school board after November's general election. That should make it possible for them to overturn the benighted science standards pushed through by conservatives on the board last year in an effort to undercut the theory of evolution.

We'd be inclined to rejoice in this evidence that Kansas may be rejoining the modern world were it not for the state's disturbing habit of backtracking from teaching evolution whenever the anti-science ideological faction gains the upper hand.

At least the standards that Kansans are arguing over have gotten less appalling over the years. Back in 1999, a board dominated by conservatives expunged from the standards any mention of evolution as an explanation for the development of humanity. It tossed out the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe as well. That lunacy was ended when voters rejected three of the board members responsible, but the conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and pushed through the current standards by a 6-to-4 vote last year.

Those standards leave evolution in the curriculum and shy away from explicit promotion of either intelligent design or creationism as alternatives. But the standards do their best to cast doubt on evolution by stressing supposed weaknesses in the theory. In some cases, the standards incorporate arguments and terminology associated with the intelligent design movement. Even worse, the standards incorporate a new definition of science that seems to open the way for supernatural explanations. Fortunately, the standards have yet to take effect, so they are likely to be trashed before they do any harm.

With the education of young Kansans hinging on whether the board is controlled by moderates who accept the theory of evolution or conservatives who are skeptical of it, the cause of science would be well served if the pro-evolution side could gain a greater majority. Voters will have another chance in November to oust two Republican conservatives who collaborated in the board's attacks on the bedrock theory of modern biology.