The Kansas Board of Education Just Got Sued for Promoting the Teaching of Evolution

[Nanjing to Seoul]

Somehow, the Kansas State Board of Education is being sued for — I can’t believe this — promoting atheism by way of evolution. You can’t even say “Kansas” and “Science” in the same sentence without including a chuckle, but this is really happening.

The group Citizens for Objective Public Education, Inc. (COPE) has filed the lawsuit because they believe the new science standards adopted by the Board of Education, which include the teaching of evolution, are endorsing an atheistic worldview:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/27/the-kansas-board-of-education-seriously-just-got-sued-for-promoting-the-teaching-of-evolution-in-science-classes/


No wonder we've become a low IQ population!

[etherealtruth]

1. I don't even know how to respond something so amazingly stupid ...?

[Logical]

2. I live here, we are full of idiots. But unlike a lot of states, I do not try to defend us. We....

are full of idiots. Like a lot of red states.

[MrsKirkley]

3. I so need to move.

Being from Kansas gets more embarassing every day.

[Volaris]

4. First question for the first witness for the Plantiff:

Does religion require Gods?
---
Your Honor, I would like to request a recess until such time as the witness' head becomes un-exploded, otherwise, the Defense rests.

[HereSince1628]

6. Actually, I'm surprised this hasn't been used more often

I think I first encountered this in Carbondale, Illinois back in 1978 during one of that university town's anti-evolution episodes.

One of the basic features of attacks on evolution in the name of religion is to move the scientific discussion out of science. Outside of science different standards, including standards used in tort law are available. I'll leave that for a philosopher of science to expand upon as I claim no expertise in it.

But, people are well aware that opponents to the concept of biological evolution have a long history of making their case in courtrooms rather than within the system of scientific peer-review. The intelligent design movement, and the myth of irreducible complexity, was constructed almost entirely as an attempt to get away from creation story and create an argument to which legal standards could be applied within what seemed to be a non-religious, science compatible rhetoric.

Not surprisingly that argument quickly found its discussions moved to courtrooms where judges rather than scientists could rule about what can be presented as evolutionary and counter-evolutionary evidence in a classroom within the context of American law.

And, once again we've got legal arguments not about the value of evolution, but about what the legal system says about what is proper for content of public science curricula.

The anti-evolution Kansans seem to be trying to create a strawman, this time, ironically, about teaching evolution as evidence of public endorsement of a particular 'theological' perspective. The constitution bans such things, so hey, if you can throw this at a courtroom wall and it sticks you win a court case, and if you lose you are a martyr and at least a local hero for putting up a fight. American life cannot be lived or understood without the concept of glorious conflict. And we especially love Davids and not giants.

This "if you aren't a creationist, you're an atheist" approach, sits on something of a false dichotomy. It's been around for a long time. It basically says that in any circumstance, if you limit your argumentation to features of nature that don't require invoking supernatural causes you are anti-supernatural, and atheistic. It's false because a person thinking in that way can also be theistic or agnostic, and merely disciplining their efforts to comport with the rules of science.