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.
“What’s 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 ACLU’s 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 Institute’s 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 don’t promote intelligent design.
“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
‘More radical’
It’s 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 today’s 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 aren’t 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 “Darwin’s 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, it’ll mean it’s 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.”
More evolution?
Luskin agreed.
“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 don’t, 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, it’s a political controversy.”
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
Yawn.
Yes, I know, it's so boring when your blatant logical fallacies and falsehoods are exposed so easily. But it's not my fault -- you're the one using the poor reasoning. If you don't want such snide responses, stop using lies to support your claims.
Can you explain to the lawyerly illiterate (me) what kind of suit is applicable?
The only suit I can see is one claiming harm to Kansas children because 6 members of the board were abducted by space aliens and had their minds (if any) removed and homogenized. This sounds like a ballot box issue instead.
If they didn't say what has to be said in place of Evolution, what effect will it have? I realize that it opens up the door for some Crevo/ID teacher to talk about CR/ID, but as soon as he/she does that will be establishment and only the teacher and possibly the school district will suffer.
RWP - (chemistry, I believe?). How will the ACS look at this, relating to Kansas High Schools and Universities, since Chemistry curricula are quite standardized nationwide?
If you look back at PH's links to Behe's testimony, he said under cross examination that he thought the Designer was God.
Can you explain to the lawyerly illiterate (me) what kind of suit is applicable?
I'm not a lawyer, but redefining science to permit the teaching of supernatural causes for natural phenomena reeks of religion.
Association For Biblical Astronomy
Oh my. Well, at least while poking around there I finally found a detailed explanation of the religion of evolution.
It did not appear, from his words, that he hesitated in saying so.
Of course it does, but redefining science to include supernatural forces isn't (as far as I can see) unconstitutional unless it mentions what that force is (and I bet it doesn't).
There aren't too many choices for the designer: God or space aliens (then who designed them?, etc., etc.). As Behe said, when cornered, most IDers will eventually admit that the designer is God. Saying "I don't know" is a cop out.
But if the standards are silent????? anyone?
The problem is that the satandards cannot be implemented in the classroom in any sort of realistic way without crossing the line.
One has a repetitious, redundant word in its name.
That's his personal opinion and he is welcome to it. There aren't very many other possibilities.
The Dover case went back to the history of the school board's statements in meetings and elsewhere to establish religious purpose. I'm pretty sure the statements of Kathy and Connie, those super-hot babes, would be found equally instructive.
"satandards "
I wonder if that's Freudian?
Of course it does, but redefining science to include supernatural forces isn't (as far as I can see) unconstitutional unless it mentions what that force is (and I bet it doesn't).
I think the motives and supernatural preference of the board will matter. IMO, they're in a bind. They can't show a preference for one supernatural explanation and they can't open the door to all supernatural explanations.
Welcome to the party, DD. Be forwarned, it gets a little bumpy at times. ;-)
Same general idea as in the Dover suit. Changing science standards to include the supernatural is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It can't possibly have a secular purpose, and it therefore promotes religion in the public schools.
It doesn't matter. I find many of our laws quite silly. That doesn't mean that they don't apply to me.
Your opinion of Lemon has no bearing on the case. As the law currently stands, the intent of the school board is crucial - if they adopted ID specifically to introduce one religion into a class, that violates the Establishment Clause and is un-Constitutional.
The school board knew all that, and so they tried to be sneaky. They were inept liars, though, and got caught. Then, when exposed as liars, they lied again. And again. And again. You'd think after a while, they'd have gotten better at it.
They tried an end run around the Constitution, shamelessly exploiting their office to stealthily push their personal beliefs as fact. PC run amok. Does that sound conservative to you?
In Dover they mentioned ID, obvious injection of religion. In Kansas there's this nebulous nothing.
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.