[A. Pole]

Equine feces. If schoolteachers really feel the need to fill the heads of children with anti-Darwinian nonsense, they can legally teach Lysenkoism.

What is wrong with talking about Lysenko? Are the courts going to ban all theories which do not fit in the present canon of what students might be exposed to?

BTW, I read Lysenko out of curiosity and his writtings were superior to the popular and faulty beliefs in psudo-Darwinian theory. And Lysenko was certainly for the Separation of Church and state!

[Physicist]

What is wrong with talking about Lysenko?

Nothing, as far as the court is concerned. Of course, his ideas are discredited and would not be suitable for a biology class, and any school board that adds it to the science curriculum should face a furious constituency. (History would be another matter.) But as I said, his theories are perfectly legal to teach.

Are the courts going to ban all theories which do not fit in the present canon of what students might be exposed to?

Uh...did you actually read the judge's ruling? What language or logic did you find in it that would ban the teaching of Lysenkoism?

[RightWhale]

What is wrong with talking about Lysenko?

Nothing so long as the rest of the story is told. Those were some very bad days for some scientists.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"BTW, I read Lysenko out of curiosity and his writtings were superior to the popular and faulty beliefs in psudo-Darwinian theory."

Lysenko and his policies crippled Soviet agriculture. He believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics (neo-lamarkianism) long after this was conclusively shown to be crap by scientists. He was a crackpot who had followers of Darwin murdered. Please think again about who you are championing.