How embarassing this must be.

Steve Abrams, the president of the Kansas School Board, who had been instrumental in putting together the faux hearings on ID/Creationism science, sent a letter to the Wichita Eagle complaining about how they covered the affair. In his criticism he wrote:

<>The point of the science hearings is to show that, indeed, among scientists with many degrees, having received many research grants, having published many peer-reviewed papers and books and having accomplishments great and small, there is great controversy about biological evolution being taught as dogma. They presented testimony that there is controversy about the “factual” nature of biological evolution. They also presented testimony that there is controversy about the very definition of science as used in the majority draft. These hearings were not about my religious views; they were about what is good science. There was a huge amount of science testimony over three days last week. But to read the editorial and the article “Anti-evolution hearings end” (May 8 Local & State), a person would be hard-pressed to know that science was the main topic of discussion.

Yes they would! In point of fact, the "scientists" to whom Steve refers were in fact not ones who published in peer-reviewed papers, nor held positions at important institutions, nor for that matter were actually scientists. They were for the most part pseudo-scientists and self-described scientists, whose contribution to science is relegated to the footnotes of various studies on the input of divine intervention into the natural world. To prove the point read further.

One had to read the editorial and article closely to find that 23 people testified, but one might get the opinion that indeed there weren’t many scientists that testified. In point of fact, of the 20-plus witnesses, only two were not actively involved in science research or teaching science. Of course, the article quoted both of those who were not active in science research or science teaching.

We invited evolutionary scientists from all across Kansas and the United States to testify. But they have all decided to boycott. Now, a thinking person would ask: Is it because the hearings are rigged? Is it because of arrogance of the majority scientists? Or is it because what the majority proposes is actually full of holes?

Really, they invited real scientists, admitting not only that they did, but that the real ones didn't show up. How can Steve suggest that since the real ones didn't participate, the fake ones thus become real??? This is all too harsh a critique, but hey he wrote this. And to create the straw man argument so that the reader might not catch his own admission of failure, is the crowning jewel.
<>