I am not here nor do I even care to disprove YOUR own hypothesis.
As I've said before, all the information you seek since YOU'VE done your homework about the Kansas case (which is what my post are SPECIFICALLY about) is there for you. Happy researching.
In any case, it is expected that the board will approve the changes in standards anyway, which again is the basic logic that evolution is not a hardcore, iirefutable fact. We do this in other disciples of education (and there are people who are just as passionate/methodolgical as some of you about how factual their theory is) so why would calling evolution a theory be any different?
Case in point, economic models/theories (such as the classical or keynesian economic theory).