Your OFFICIAL program to the Scopes II Kansas Monkey Trial

But we don't expect those kinds of fireworks this week. In fact, the Kansas hearings may be a crashing bore.

Intelligent-design advocates have dressed up their arguments in scientific-sounding speech, but their objections to evolution have been around since Charles Darwin first published his theory in 1859. Intelligent-design proponents will claim that evolution is a failed theory that's being abandoned by scientists. (It isn't.) They'll say the news media suppress the huge controversy that is actually raging over evolution in scientific circles. (We aren't, because there isn't one.) They'll claim that evolution requires scientists to give up their religious beliefs and adopt an immoral, materialistic belief system. (It doesn't.) And if we're really lucky, they'll try to explain to nonscientist school-board members how the proteins in the flagella of tiny bacteria inspire their theories.

We figure that Martin's, Morris' and even Abrams' eyes will begin to glaze over during the first hour of 24 hours of testimony scheduled this week.

They will, however, provide the ID folks with exactly the stage and publicity they so crave.

If there were ever any question what a farce the "trial" is, Kathy Martin removed all doubt a couple of weeks ago, when she gave an interview to the Clay Center Dispatch.

"We are not going to give up until the standards say what we want them to say," Martin told the paper. "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."

Just to show off her stellar science credentials, Martin explained, "Man has changed and evolved, but we are not going to change back into monkeys." Her other statements regarding evolution, which included making outdated distinctions between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," came right out of the creationist playbook.

But Martin went way off-message when the Dispatch reporter asked whether ID was just Christian creationism in disguise. Her answer could only have given ID proponents fits: "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard."

Moreover, the former schoolteacher argued, "Why shouldn't theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them. All children believe in God. Even little children whose parents don't take them to church believe in God."

Her comments have kicked up quite a little firestorm, Martin admitted when the Pitch called her last week. Claiming she was quoted out of context by the Dispatch, Martin says she's tempted to stop giving interviews altogether.

She says she didn't mean that intelligent design was a Christian agenda; the rise of religion in American politics was the Christian campaign she was referring to. "We were talking about the whole issue of people getting out of the pews and taking part in politics," she says. "Perhaps that's why I was elected."

But she did repeat her claim that evolution has been disproved. When the Pitch asked if she thought that most biologists would agree with that statement, she answered, "Yes, I think they do. They just don't want to admit that it's happening."

Scientists tend to be pretty intelligent folks, so the world's biologists have seen right through Abrams' ploy. Kansas Citizens for Science, an organization of scientists, public-school biology teachers and others opposed to the Abrams maneuvers, called a boycott of the hearings and asked that scientists turn down invitations to participate.

Despite getting personalized invitations, then, scientists have told the Kansas board to go stuff itself.

"As I am sure you are aware, the state of Kansas has made itself the laughingstock of the scientific world over this issue," wrote Oxford University professor and well-known author Richard Dawkins to the state board after he got his invitation. "The very idea of 'representatives from both views' presupposes that there are two views to represent.... For real scientists to share a platform with the biological equivalent of flat-earthers would be to give them the credibility, respectability, and above all publicity that they crave. I am sorry, but count me out."

No other scientists have taken the bait, either. But that doesn't mean the anti-evolutionists won't face opposition.

Pedro Irigonegaray, a civil rights lawyer with a high profile in Topeka, says his involvement in the new monkey trial began when he received a call from the Board of Education.

After scientists turned down requests to take part, the board wondered if Irigonegaray would step in to represent evolution's side in the debate.

"I love the study of science," Irigonegaray tells the Pitch. "And it seemed strange to me that it would even be an issue, but, having been asked, I couldn't imagine saying no."

Irigonegaray says his first step was to find out what the Kansas scientific community thought -- was there really a controversy about evolution? He got an emphatic no from the scientists he contacted.

"My interest focused then on why are we going through this?" he says. "What's the purpose here, and who's paying for this?"