A Rhetorical Analysis of the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings

In order to set the stage for my analysis I will first provide a brief background of the issue, as well as some explanation for how the hearings came to be held. The controversy between creationism and evolution has been raging in America for nearly 100 years. In the early 1920s a law called the Butler Act was proposed in many states which outright banned the teaching of evolution in schools. Some of these laws passed, other did not. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union offered to defend anyone who wished to challenge one of these laws. A teacher from Tennessee named John Scopes accepted the offer and admitted to teaching evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. He was initially found guilty, but later got off on a technicality. For the time being, anti-evolution laws were found legal in the United States.

As time went on, the controversy slowly shifted in evolution’s favor. In 1968, a biology teacher successfully convinced the Supreme Court to overturn a forty year old statute banning the teaching of evolution in schools. From the mid 1970s to early 1980s several cases found the teaching of creationism to violate the establishment clause of the US constitution. The establishment clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The last of these cases, Edwards vs. Aguillard, ended similarly to the rest. “Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause” (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/

Kitzmiller_v._Dover _Area_School_District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page_132_of_139).

After this series of court cases, creationism proponents backed off for about a decade to rethink their strategy. When they returned in the late 1990s, they had switched tactics entirely. Creationism was stripped of all direct Christian references and repacked as Intelligent Design. This new strategy came to a head in 2005 with the Kansas Evolution Hearings and then the Dover Trial, which was called in response to the hearings.

The hearings are a direct result of actions taken by the Discovery Institute, a non-profit conservative Christian think-tank based in Seattle, Washington. This was one of many public relations missions that comprised their intelligent design campaigns—a series of moves designed to change public opinion about evolution education. The Discovery Institute had a heavy hand in the election of the board members of the Kansas State Board of Education who called the meetings, as well as lobbied heavily for the holding of the hearings.

Before I move on to my analysis it would be beneficial to explain under what contexts and with what methods I will be evaluating the situation. The three main tools at my disposal are stasis theory, Aristotle’s three rhetorical proofs, and Aristotle’s three genres of rhetoric. Stasis theory states that all points made about a controversy fall under one of four stases: conjecture, definition, quality, and policy. Conjectural issues are those which seek to identify the truth about past events. Definitional issues are those which seek to specifically define something either in a context or in relation to other notions. Qualitative issues seek to establish whether something is good, bad, or somewhere in between. Finally, issues of policy are those that seek to establish what the best course of action is in response to a controversy. Points of one stasis should be responded to by an answer of the same stasis. Arguments of a complete nature will involve all four stases, many times expressed in the order I have given.

Although separate theories, when combined, Aristotle’s rhetorical proofs and genres of rhetoric can be used as a powerful tool in rhetorically evaluation a situation. Aristotle’s three proofs are pathos, ethos, and logos. Also known as the three modes of persuasion, these are the most important tools in an orator’s arsenal. Pathos is the evocation of feeling from the audience by the orator. Ethos is the feeling of trust and ethical responsibility portrayed by a speaker. Logos is the purely logical means by which an orator convinces his audience. Aristotle also determined three genres of rhetoric according to the purpose of said rhetoric. Forensic rhetoric, also called judicial rhetoric, deals with determining the truth or falsity of past events. Deliberative rhetoric deals with whether or not certain proposed actions should be taken in the future. This is also called political rhetoric. Finally, epideictic rhetoric is concerned with the praise or blame of a subject. Although individual proofs are usually more closely linked with one genre of rhetoric than another, most successful arguments include pathos, ethos, and logos. Each genre of rhetoric is most reliant on one specific proof. Forensic is linked with logos, deliberative is linked with ethos, and epideictic is linked with pathos. Finally, although I am not expressing it in terms of rhetorical theory, in a modern setting, when you know many people will hear what you have to say, choosing to appeal to the correct audience is of utmost importance.

Unfortunately, due to the circumstances under which the hearings were held, the extent to which the trial can be rhetorically analyzed is limited. The document containing the explanation for why this is true is also the best place to start my analysis. Pedro Luis Irigonegaray, the lawyer who was chosen to defend the majority (evolutionary) side in this debate, made a pre-hearing statement revealing a decision that shaped the rhetoric of the trial.

“We have concluded that these "science hearings" are meant to further a political and theological agenda. These hearings are not a scientific enterprise and are an improper format for the discussion and evaluation of science. I will not be debating evolution science in these hearings. The KSBE subcommittee has made it clear that they do not support Draft 2 of the standards and that they support the non-scientific opinions of the Intelligent Design (ID) Minority… I have joined thousands of scientists worldwide who recognize these hearings to be no more than a showcase for Intelligent Design, and to be rigged against mainstream science. I support their refusal to participate… Through cross-examination, statements to the KSBE subcommittee, and the submission of exhibits, I will present details about the educational, theological, cultural, economic, and legal issues connected to the Minority position.” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/irigonegaray.html)

Because of this, responses to claims about the inadequacy of evolutionary theory and proposals to change specifics in the science standards are largely unanswered by evolutionary proponents within the trial. In light of this, I shall be restricting my analysis for the effectiveness of arguments to three main sets of claims: the claims raised by Pedro in his pre-hearing statement, the claims made by intelligent design proponents about the pervasive philosophical naturalism found in the current science standards, and the claim that teaching all sides of the evolutionary controversy is the best solution, both constitutionally and scientifically. I believe these three examples best show the relative effectiveness of each side in relation to stasis theory.

Although not officially part of the hearings, Pedro’s pre-hearing statement constitutes the first rhetorical action of the hearings. In my opinion, this statement is also the most well expressed and complete argument seen at or near the hearings. Pedro’s statement is an excellent example of a fully formed epideictic argument. He addresses all four stases in his statement, giving each one near equal time and consideration. His treatment of conjecture mostly revolves around the bad intentions of the Discovery Institute: “The Intelligent Design movement is theologically based and meant to advance a narrow sectarian view of God over other religious beliefs, including those of most mainstream Christians.” His treatment of definition also deals with the malignant nature of ID proponents: “Taken as a whole, the KSBE's actions are an unprecedented political attack on the educational establishment, are damaging to the science education of every Kansas child, and are potentially damaging to the future economic welfare of our state.” Most of his statement is over the stasis of quality. Because of this, the pathos of his argument is especially strong. This is also why I chose to classify it as an epideictic argument: “It is my opinion that these hearings represent an abuse of discretionary power by the Kansas State Board of Education. Our children's future is directly related to the quality of their education. Teaching children non-scientific ideas as if they were science is intellectually dishonest and will confuse children at a core level about the difference between, and the limits of, science and other important types of human knowledge.” Finally, his treatment of policy is succinct and follows directly from the other three stases: “These hearings should not take place. I support the science coalition's call for these hearings to be cancelled.” Although he doesn’t say a massive amount in this statement that directly evokes ethos, his sincere tone and organization of thought give Pedro quite a bit of ethos as the trial begins.

The major claims contained in Pedro Irigonegaray’s statement are as such.

It is our opinion that the intended purpose of these hearings is:

* to provide the controlling Majority of the KSBE a rationale, in essence a façade of credibility, when they eventually change the standards; and

* to give the Intelligent Design movement a national forum to present their theological and anti-science ideas disguised as "science."

The KSBE:

* is wasting the time of salaried Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) staff and KSDE resources in the planning and conducting of these hearings.

The only direct response to Pedro within the trial was given by Doctor William Harris, the first witness. “The fact that this hearing is not going to be six days again is remarkable to me because the—our opponents have three days in which to spend to educate the citizenry of Kansas, to educate the Board on what the overwhelming evidence is for their position. They've chosen not to take that opportunity because in my view, this is just my opinion, they are concerned that when held to the light of public scrutiny it will be clear that the emperor is not very well dressed.” This response is brief and does not directly respond to anything that Pedro said. Instead, Doctor Harris does little more than call Pedro a frightened liar.

As Doctor Harris continues, the ID proponents do little to mend the gap in ethos between Mr. Irigonegaray and themselves. In fact, the most complete argument given by Harris had very little to do with the hearings at all. He instead chose to respond to a statement made by someone on the Kansas Citizens for Science website.

“Are we ignoramuses? Well, you'll have to decide. Are we rule breakers? Well, yes, we are. In a sense we are rule breakers. We are willing to break the unwritten rule of science that says only natural explanations are allowed. The natural explanations are proven by scientific experiment to be inadequate and we are happy to break the rule and to follow the evidence where it goes. Are we unprincipled bullies? The dictionary definition of a bully is a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller and weaker people. Now, you may see some bullying these next few days, you'll have to decide who is doing the bullying.”

In addition, Doctor Harris’s credentials as a scientist also do very little to recommend him for debating evolutionary theory: “We have discovered I think in our research and others that higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and fish in the blood are a profound risk factor for reduced risk for sudden cardiac death.” Thus, as the trials gets underway, ethos, the element most necessary in deliberative rhetoric, is notably missing from the Discovery Institute’s side.

As the trial continued, one line of reasoning continually came out in the arguments of the witnesses. This is the one area in which Pedro’s choice not to call witnesses hurt him. The claim is that the current science standards reflect an unwritten philosophical naturalism. As an example of this phenomena, the minority states that the differences between micro evolution and macro evolution have been downplayed for philosophical reasons.

“It became clear when it came to this area of Darwinian evolution, particularly chemical evolution, macroevolution, those two big pieces of evolutionary theory, that there was a tremendous lack of data and the stories were driven by a philosophy that said everything had to have a natural explanation, you can't let anything non-natural get in.”

This statement’s importance is contained within the Santorum Amendment, an amendment to the 2001 educational funding bill, also called the No Child Left Behind Act. Although the Santorum Amendment does not carry the weight of law, it does survive through the bill’s conference report. The amendment stated “that a quality science education should prepare the students and distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science.” Thus, if philosophical claims are to be kept separate from science, and if science is currently being invaded by philosophical naturalism, changes must be made.

Because of his lack of witnesses, Pedro does not really adequately respond to these statements. The best evidence he had amounted to this statement from the science standards: “There are many issues which involve morals, ethics, values, or spiritual beliefs that go beyond what science can explain but for which solid scientific literacy is useful.” Pedro’s other responses are simply to say that there is nothing in the current science standards that speaks of this philosophy, or that prevents students from asking their teachers questions about intelligent design. These are arguments more about changing the standards than it is about the Institute’s accusation of philosophical claims masquerading as science.

The most effective response given to this by the majority is contained in the letter of response that the Kansas State Board send to the Intelligent Design Network after their initial letter in 2001.

“Naturalism, as defined by the ID network, is a philosophy not a science. In contrast to naturalistic philosophy, the proposed draft six standards are about science. Written by Kansas' scientists, educators, and citizens, these standards do not foster teaching naturalistic philosophy. In the nature of science section, draft six describes the limits of science: ‘Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Science does so through the use of observation, experimentation, and logical argument while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism.’ This means that by its methods, science limits its investigations to the natural world. It does not propose or even suggest that ALL phenomena result from only natural causes. Draft six does not state, ‘Nature is all that is or was, or ever will be.’”

(http://www.arn.org/docs/kansas/KSBEresponsetoIDNetJan302001.htm)

However, this statement was not something that most of the public would have seen, and had little to no effect upon the immediate outcome of the hearing.

I personally would have responded to these arguments differently. A naturalistic philosophy does and indeed should pervade science standards. Science should be kept from straying into considering ideas that cannot be proven. I also believe that philosophy is a science, because although it is not capable of obtaining indubitable knowledge, it does abide by the scientific method, wherein things that are known are studied to postulate about what is not known. Any theory in any way influenced by religion is a theory influenced by an unscientific field, one in which the evidence is compiled specifically to accredit an assumed conclusion. There is a philosophical bias against religion, but this does not in any way hinder science, as science and religion should never touch.

The third and final claim whose coverage speaks about the outcome is the minority’s constitutionality argument. In this, they argue that the best way to be neutral towards all religious opinion is to provide everyone’s opinion. “I kind of mean constitutional neutrality. But the neutrality as I'm talking about, as I understand the constitution, when the state endeavors or touches upon an area of religion it's required to be neutral and not to advocate or support or denigrate any view, simply neutral.” They also later reveal that in a 1947 court case, it was determined that education should be neutral between religion and non-religion. However, it said nothing of science.

Pedro has little to nothing to say in response to this argument. He simply repeats the Establishment clause over and over for effect. The best counter argument to this claim is expressed by Bobby Henderson, an Oregon State physics graduate who wrote a letter to the Kansas school board.

“I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him… I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.” (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)

This argument, although strangely put, raises a serious question about the policies of ID proponents. If we taught opinions in a science class, we’d never run out of material.

From this general analysis of the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolutionary theory, focused on the Kansas Evolution Hearings, we can see that the outcome of the trial was predictable by the rhetoric surrounding it. The conservative Christian members of the Kansas State Board of Education, who controlled the outcome of the trial, were convinced before the trial that changes needed to be made. Pedro Irigonegaray’s decision to not call any witnesses for his side ensured that no one’s mind was changed by persuasive logos during the trial. This led to the decision to instate the changes proposed by the ID proponents. However, due to the powerful pathos and ethos created by Mr. Iragonegaray, and the satirical arguments made by Bobby Henderson, the public as a whole decided to cancel the changes. Two years after the hearings, most of the conservative Christian members were voted off the board and the changes were undone. Although this may well have happened anyway, the rhetoric of the controversy soundly decided the outcome.