To: PatrickHenry
If Kansas redefines science, and uses that to 'teach the controversy', will they be required to teach all the 'controversies'? Or can they legally just pick one 'controversy'?
Imagine if this change brings some other fringe groups out of the woodwork to file suits in Kansas to get 'their side' of some alleged science 'controversy' taught alongside whatever in science classes.
I can't think of an example, but there must be some groups out there with some wacko theories and the means to bring a law suit.
12 posted on
11/08/2005 4:49:58 AM PST by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
To: ml1954
I can't think of an example, but there must be some groups out there with some wacko theories and the means to bring a law suit.Afrocentrists already have a lot of clout within the educational community, and would take the opportunity of a creationist win to push their ideas further. Native American and other PC cultures' mythology would wind up pushed as being another means of viewing the world. Someone once wrote a letter to the St.Paul Pioneer Press noting that it was pretty disingenous of the Twin Cities' Science Museum to show an IMAX movie depicting Native American myths and beliefs as fact when they wouldn't dare show one depicting Judeo-Christian beliefs as such. In response, some irate reader sent off a second letter, which avoided completely the issue of superstition vs. science, and instead babbled on about the oppression of Native peoples, and how this somehow justified showing the movie.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson