> As it was the Board actually *increased* the amount of teaching on
>evolution that schools in Kansas were required to do. So all the fuss that
>Kansas students would suddenly be disadvantaged by the Board's decision
>is irrational. On that basis they had been even *more* disadvantaged
>before, yet there was no national, indeed world-wide outcry previously!
All that talk about Kansas students being disadvantaged is, as far as we
know, nothing more than rhetoric. Why not put that talk to the test? If it
is true
that Kansas students are now disadvantaged, we should be able to detect
this rather than merely assert it. So, conduct a study. Compare Kansas
students to the students of a very similar state. If there is substance to
the rhetoric, Kansas students should have a harder time getting into
college, do more poorly in college, and produce significantly less scientists.
Of course, there is a risk to such a study. If it turns out the Kansas
decision
was inconsequential, all that talk about the crucial importance of
macroevolution
in a state-wide standardized test is going to be exposed as empty
rhetoric. It will be interesting to see if any scientists ever get around to
scientifically establishing the importance of macroevolution on standardized
tests. Of course, why take the risk when the rhetoric "sounds" so good?
Mike