Editor’s note: We are delighted to welcome Bill Harris as a new contributor.

We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the famed evolution debate in Kansas. With the recent passing of attorney John Calvert, a key figure in the debate, I wanted to recall the event which took place from May 5 to 7, 2005, at Memorial Hall in Topeka. Calvert died at age 83 in October 2024.

As the Washington Times reported at the time:

Starting today, the Kansas Board of Education will begin a six-day debate on the state’s science standards, specifically the teaching of Darwinian evolution. On one side there will be about two dozen skeptics of Darwinism and proponents of an alternative theory of evolution known as intelligent design. And on the other side there will be a trial lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, who has volunteered to defend Darwin.

If this seems one-sided, that’s because the Darwinian scientists have chosen to boycott the debate, which is surprising since Darwinian theory is still the accepted standard within the scientific community. Their reason for doing so, at least according to Mr. Irigonegaray, is that “[t]o debate evolution is similar to debating whether the earth is round. It is an absurd proposition.” 

Evolution as “Fact, Fact, Fact” 

The hearing was organized by the Kansas State Board of Education to review the current scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution. It was called for by the chairman of the Board, Steve Abrams, after the Board had received a dissenting report from 8 of 24 educators from across the state who had spent weeks drafting new science standards for Kansas. As opposed to the majority report which advocated the continued presentation of evolution as “fact, fact, fact,” the minority report called for presenting students with the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. As the Board’s majority was sympathetic to this “minority” position, they decided to convene an open debate. 

The Darwin skeptics brought together over two dozen scientists, educators, and even a Turkish columnist (whom we would today call an “influencer”). The pro-Darwin side brought nobody except the aforementioned trial lawyer Mr. Irigonegaray. His only question (essentially) for each anti-Darwin speaker was, “How old do you believe the Earth is?” So much for following the evidence where it leads. 

The Intelligent Design Network

Our team’s leader was John Calvert, co-founder in 1999, along with myself and medical illustrator Jody Sjogren, of the Intelligent Design Network. His co-counsel was Edward Sisson, a lawyer from Washington, DC, to handle cross-examinations. Unfortunately, the opposition chose to bring no witnesses, claiming that there was no controversy to discuss. Hence Mr. Sisson had no one to cross-examine. 

Our team included 22 witnesses: 18 PhD scientists and four witnesses with MS degrees (one of whom was a high school science teacher and another a PhD candidate). The ID scientists and scholars included Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Angus Menuge, Russell Carlson, Nancy Bryson, Robert DiSilvestro, Dan Ely, John Millam, Warren Nord, Edward Peltzer, Ralph Seelke, Giuseppe Sermonti, Bruce Simat, and Charles Thaxton. 

Their testimony ranged from chemistry (for example, Dr. Peltzer and Dr. Thaxton’s critiques of origin-of-life theories), to biology (Dr. Behe on irreducible complexity, Dr. Wells on the “icons of evolution” taught in biology textbooks), to paleontology (Dr. Meyer’s challenge to Darwinian gradualism from the evidence of the Cambrian explosion), to education (Roger DeHart and Jill Bravo with stories from the trenches of high school biology classrooms), to philosophy (Angus Menuge on the theological and political dimensions of the issue), to the law (John Calvert’s argument that teaching only one side of the origin’s controversy, with its implicit advocacy of atheism, violated the U.S. Constitution).

A Mole in the Audience

Meanwhile, Mr. Irigonegaray was being prompted via notes from a Darwin proponent in the audience. This was Jack Krebs from Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS). Mr. Irigonegaray’s challenges were handily dispatched. The general approach — don’t allow Darwin advocates to testify but instead have them take pot shots from the sidelines — underscored the “Darwin only” lobby’s fear of exposing themselves to questions they would have to try to answer on the record. The KCFS folks also had a booth in the lobby where they could provide sound bites to the press without, again, having to face any scientific challenges. 

Following the same strategy, the Darwin lobby produced a letter signed by 38 Nobel laureates, sent to the Kansas Board of Education following the hearings. It stated: 

We, Nobel Laureates, are writing in defense of science. We reject efforts by the proponents of so-called “intelligent design” to politicize scientific inquiry and urge the Kansas State Board of Education to maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum and science standard in the State of Kansas….

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as a scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.

Board President Steve Abrams responded, “I don’t think anything should be taught as dogma.” John Calvert agreed and said, “Until they are willing to address specifics of the changes, this [letter] is unhelpful.”

In November 2005, the Board accepted the recommendation of the minority report — to teach the evidence for and against evolution. As it turns out, the protestations of the 38 Nobel laureates were a red herring: ultimately the standards did not call for teaching intelligent design (as attorney and scientist Casey Luskin explains here). But in 2006, when School Board members were up for re-election, several conservative members of the Board were replaced by liberal members (thanks in part to smear campaigns against those who supported the minority perspective). These new members rejected teaching all the evidence pertaining to Darwinian claims. The majority report was re-instated as policy, assuring that children in Kansas would continue to be misinformed that there was no evidence challenging Darwinism. 

The Legacy of John Calvert

Our short-term goal of bringing objectivity to science education had failed. But in the long run, the arguments made by the scientists and educators at the hearings continue to resonate. 

Those wishing to learn more about the 2005 Kansas debate can order a DVD entitled, “Teaching Origins Objectively.” Or if you prefer, a typically biased presentation of this history can, of course, be found on Wikipedia.

John Calvert will be missed. He was a bulldog in pressing the case that teaching evolution as fact violated the “separation of church and state.” His tenacious commitment to seeing origins science taught objectively in public schools serves as a courageous example. His legacy will, I hope, be one that the next generation will follow.