We all have seen the cars adorned with "Jesus fish." Likewise, we've seen them countered by cars with a similar icon sprouting legs and sporting Darwin's name.
The debate between evolutionists and supporters of intelligent design is nothing new.
But when this debate leaves the bumpers of cars and emerges in public schools, real ramifications can occur. Students ultimately will pay the cost.
Kenneth R. Willard, a member of the Kansas school board, staunchly opposes teaching evolution in schools. Willard is running unopposed for president-elect of the National Association of State Boards of Education. Each state board of education gets one vote in the elections, which will occur this summer.
The NASBE is a nonprofit organization that works to influence policy-making regarding education and to continue the support for public education.
The actual amount of sway this group has is hard to determine. They cannot set curriculum standards for schools, nor can they pass any broad legislation enforceable in all public schools.
What can be said, however, is that a figure at the head of any national group should represent the group as a whole. Surely, all of the nation's educators do not agree on evolution being withdrawn from schools. But when a leader - even if in name only - has this belief, it continues to be more widely propagated.
This means even if Willard becomes merely another figurehead by simply being in the position, he is still exercising influence over many of the state boards.
Several scientists have spoken out against Willard's election. In 2005, he voted to revise Kansas' science standards to include the teaching of intelligent design.
Intelligent design teachings have been widely contested and numerous court cases have resulted. These teachings are purely religious in their nature and have no scientific merit. As such, they should not be presented in the public school system as science comparable to evolution.
There needs to be a strong set of national standards regarding education. A certain amount of variance between states is understandable, as there may be different circumstances to accommodate for, but to teach students such different things in individual states is alarming to say the least.
Although criticisms have been made against Willard, his status as the sole candidate make these protestations moot.
The bottom line is there is a separation of church and state in this country. Although it has been blurred, chopped and crossed time and again, it is supposedly still in effect. With someone in a visible position representing the nation's public schools and pushing for the further erasure of this line, we are surely in a dangerous time.
