[PatrickHenry]

Can you explain to the lawyerly illiterate (me) what kind of suit is applicable?

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.

[furball4paws]

In Dover they mentioned ID, obvious injection of religion. In Kansas there's this nebulous nothing.

[VadeRetro]

Those of us who have been following the careers of board members Kathy and Connie for some time are aware that their subtlety has barely if at all exceeded that of the Dover Board. So, for one, there's bound to be a historical trace going to intent.

The current statement mandates the teaching of "problems with evolution" that professionals in biology recognize as strawman models originated by non-scientists outside of the usual literature. Most of these "problems" can be directly traced to creationists of the Morris/Gish/Sarfati stripe.

Shouldn't be too hard. It's the same crap as Dover for anyone to see. There's evidence for it.