Skip to comments.Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]
Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.
Whats going on in Kansas, said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes.
Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.
Absolutely, absolutely, said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLUs Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.
An official with the Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they dont promote intelligent design.
Its definitely a different issue in Kansas than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
Its a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on todays meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.
Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.
The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations arent necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.
Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind? Miller asked.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote Darwins Black Box a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.
I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea, Behe said. I think in one respect, itll mean its permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.
In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution, he said. This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.
But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The handful who dont, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.
Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology? Gunn said. This is not a scientific controversy, its a political controversy.
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
Link, from the article above, to the Kansas School Board, and predictions of how they're expected to vote on re-defining science to include creationism (and probably also voodoo): Kansas School Board.
I can hardly wait to hear all there alternatives to physics, astronomy, flight, gravity and all the other scientific theories out there. Airplanes fly because angels lift them? The sun does, in fact, revolve around the earth as related in Joshua? Items fall to the ground because the earth sucks? The possibilities are endless and should go a long way towards injecting a level of humor back into science classes.
I can understand the ACLU (Anti-American Communist Libertine Union) backing evolutionism. What I CAN'T understand is anybody who'd call himself a republican or a conservative believing in such a thing.
I wonder if Kansas may be a lost cause?
Mostly pretty rural and hard to get the word out about what's really going on.
That is because you obviously do not know the meaning of being a republican or a conservative. I also doubt that you know much about evolution, since you refer to it as a belief.
2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life.
For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life."
So which is it?
3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?
Some morning thoughts. Unfortunately I cannot sit at my keyboard all day and jabber back and forth. I have to check in as able. So bear with me.
Here's some science for you, friend. I happened to be listening to talk radio on the way to work yesterday. There was a molecular biologist talking about so-called 'random evolution,' with regard to a single-celled organism.
He said that the odds of that organism evolving randomly were calculated to be 10 to the fifty thousandth power, which is basically an unfathomable number, which validates what I suspected since the first time I heard it...Darwin was the first person to push junk science.
If you can argue that any other scientific theory is in dispute to that extent, other theories should be included. I thought that was the PURPOSE of science.
Actually, most science isn't conducted on talk radio.
Because we value objective knowledge and have not abandoned our minds to either right or left wing anti-science post-modernism. I have a hard time understanding how a Conservative could believe in creationism/ID. We're supposed to be the rational ones.
This is a recurring theme. A while back we had an astounding scientific revelation about honeybees with ESP that was sourced to the Today Show.
If they keep electing school board members who insist on spending their education dollars in the courtroom instead of the classroom the entire education system in Kansas is a lost cause. Science class is not the only part of the curriculum that is at stake. Everybody loses (except for the lawyers) if the creationist/ID/alien/whatever agenda forces the school system to hemorrhage cash in seemingly endless legal battles.
Your source is an idiot.
LOL. Don't hold back CarolinaGuitarman. Tell us what you really think. LOL.
And don't forget the miscroscopic tracking devices being injected into people by bees that are being released into the population via black helicopters. Sadly, I heard that one at a republican state convention (Washington state).
One of the common underlying themes of the founders was that truth will prevail in the end.
I wouldn't fear freedom not even in the classroom.
Kansas will be hearing from major universities regarding the value of their high school diplomas.
How about an Evolution weekend with all your classic favorites from The Turtles, The Beatles, The Monkees, The Troggs, The Zombies, The Animals, Blue Oyster Cult and more.
But didn't you get the memo? Conservatives are supposed to be Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible before anything else.
Let's see; flight, gravity, physics. Come on down to the nearest grain elevator and bring your hang glider. When you step off the top edge to prove the theory of gravity and flight you'd better be strapped in because without it physics will come to an abrupt halt in your case.
Go read Joshua. It DOES NOT SAY THAT THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH! Joshua says that: So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. Joshua 10:13. It merely describes how it looks to an observer (and if you try to tell me that you have never said "the sun set"...).
I can see it now
bio 101 for science majors
bio 101a for non-science majors
bio 101b for nonsense majors from Kansas
The arrogance is breathtaking ...Creation doesn't fit under "science" ...re-define science!
In addition to the basic group of legal stuff you alluded to, I can also see lawsuits by parents whose kids don't get into Prestige U.
Nebraska's more rural than Kansas, and we've been able to fend this sort of thing off. Partly the problem was the passivity of the scientists in Kansas, who let this thing develop into a monster before really getting mobilized against it. And partly it's the much higher proportion of Southern Baptists, who seem to be the most virulenty creationist of all the denominations.
The start of my homepage has an essay devoted to the powerful linkage between conservatism, science, and rationality. It won't impress the creationists, because they're so unhinged from reality that nothing will impress them.
Conservatism isn't religious fanaticism, which quickly takes you into nightmarish totalitarianism. Probably you're a conservative only in the sense that the Taliban is conservative.
Too flat. Bizarrely flat. Has to do something to stunt the cognitive development.
Or maybe nobody ever taught you that "I don't know" is a valid answer to most questions...
I can understand scientists concern that science be kept "pure" (for lack of a better word) and why they want to keep non-science out of the classroom. The ACLU is obviously anti-Jewish, anti-Christain, and anti-religion and yet has found very willing accomplices in eradicating religion from schools. For the scientists, it's about science. The ACLU had just found the hot button issue to get science's backing. To tell the truth, I really don't think they give a rat's posterior about whether science is being taught correctly or not as long as they can further their agenda using it.
I know I for one don't object to science being taught properly and I'd bet a lot of other Creationists don't either. I don't think that's the issue with them. The issue is resisting the attempts by the ACLU to by legal precedent to attempt to further their agenda. I believe that's what the Creationists/Christians are fighting. Evolution is just the weapon chosen by the ACLU in that fight because they can get the support of the scientific community and that gives it some teeth.
Thanks for the ping!
Check out post 29 by Right Wing Professor.
Although I personally cannot understand voluntarily living in a flat place. Drive me nits.
"Conservatives are supposed to be Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible before anything else."
Maybe "suposed to be" to some people but aren't in real life.
Truly a miracle beyond comprehension. In theory, one can "stop the Sun" by stopping the Earth in its rotation. However, you'd notice that as the earthquake from Hades before you could be bothered to notice astonomical oddities. Someone somewhere did some calculations on the difficulties after Velikovsky's book Worlds In Collision proposed that the Earth had indeed stopped. Suffice it to say that the energy of the Earth's spin, about 1000 mph at the equator, wouldn't normally just disappear. And even that won't stop the moon's apparent motion, much of which is the moon's real orbital motion about the Earth.
So, am I to understand that you are basing your entire understanding of a very large and complex theory comprising numerous interconnected fields of scientific study upon a statement by a guy you heard on talk radio?
If that is really true, you should favor the teaching of evolution and you shouldn't have any problem with ID being excluded.
We agree on this. But the school board didn't start this ball rolling in order to attack the ACLU. The school board's motives were entirely religious. There are ways to attack the ACLU when they're stretching the law to support some leftist cause (science isn't leftist, by the way, any more than math is leftist). I disagree with the ACLU on virtually everything, but in this one case -- whatever their motives -- they're on the right side (pretty much like a broken clock).
The parochial nature of the movement to change all of science is the funniest aspect of it all. ID may have Behe and Dembski as spokesmen and a headquarters in Seattle, but behind the false front it's all Bible Belt YECs. No matter what a few southern US states and some equally undeveloped areas of Australia do, the rest of the world will continue to do real science. The only issue is whether we get left in the dust.
It was really, really a huge mistake to attack science education and thus hand the lefties a no-brainer sure-win issue, if you think about it.
Yep. A high school diploma isn't worth much if the kids have to take remedial science classes to make up for what the public school did not teach them. The really hard part would be un-teaching them the garbage that the school board wants the schools to teach. The colleges would have to have de-programming classes.
you won't get those alternatives in physics, astronomy, flight, gravity, and all the other scientific theories out there because these are based in science not religion, unlike the religion of evolution which is much more faith based than intelligent design. like most religions of the world other than Christianity, any ideas which question it must not be made available in the marketplace or, even better, make them illegal by perverting the establishment clause of the first amendment.
For a couple of generations, we've all understood that the leftists (commies, socialists, etc.) were deliberately dumbing down the schools. Why, suddenly, do "conservatives" want to join in that left-wing effort, to destroy what little remains of the schools? There is nothing conservative about raising a generation of know-nothings.
Enough nits=nuts. (Maybe nits is Pink Panther for nuts, in honor of the French riot threads
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.