Kansas Board of Education Sued for Teaching Evolution

[ClydeR]

The Constitution says that the government cannot establish an official religion. Apparently the Kansas board of education never read that part of the Constitution. They've approved a new curriculum that teaches evolution. And they're getting sued for it.

Teaching evolution violates the Constitution because it promotes a worldview that replaces religion with science. Atheism becomes the officially established government religion. That's not what the founders intended. The only way to stay within the Constitution is to teach creationism.


The group, Citizens for Objective Public Education, had criticized the standards developed by Kansas, 25 other states and the National Research Council for treating both evolution and climate change as key scientific concepts to be taught from kindergarten through 12th grade. The Kansas State Board of Education adopted them in June to replace evolution-friendly standards that had been in place since 2007.

More... (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/26/4510659/lawsuit-filed-in-kan-to-block.html)


The case is the latest chapter in a long-running debate in Kansas over what to teach students about 19th century naturalist Charles Darwin's theories on evolution and scientific developments since. Kansas has had six different sets of science standards in the past 15 years, as conservative Republicans skeptical of evolution gained and lost board majorities.

The lawsuit argues that the new standards will cause Kansas public schools to promote a "non-theistic religious worldview" by allowing only "materialistic" or "atheistic" explanations to scientific questions, particularly about the origins of life and the universe. The suit further argues that state would be "indoctrinating" impressionable students in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's protections for religious freedom.

[Gelston]

This could be interesting if it gets to the Federal Court system.

Nevermind, it is a federal lawsuit. The Board of Education will win.

[Tgo01]

I went to school in California so this type of thing surprises me. For as long as I can remember I was taught that dinosaurs roamed the world millions of years ago and we were taught all about evolution.

It's hard to believe that in the year 2013 there are still some people in some states that are fighting against teaching evolution. It's almost like parts of the country are hundreds of years behind the rest.

[Nilandia]

I went to school in California so this type of thing surprises me. For as long as I can remember I was taught that dinosaurs roamed the world millions of years ago and we were taught all about evolution.

It's hard to believe that in the year 2013 there are still some people in some states that are fighting against teaching evolution. It's almost like parts of the country are hundreds of years behind the rest.
As of last year, 46% of people believe in new-earth Creationism, according to a Gallup poll. It's rather disheartening.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Gretchen

[Tisket]

As of last year, 46% of people believe in new-earth Creationism, according to a Gallup poll. It's rather disheartening.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Gretchen

Why is it disheartening that people believe in God?

[Tisket]

lol @ pyramid rep noncomment.

It would have been funnier in the thread, pussy.

[poloneus]

Why is it disheartening that people believe in God?

Because now they have to kill some other poor guy that worships that same god, just a little differently.

[Taernath]

"The state's job is simply to say to students, 'How life arises continues to be a scientific mystery and there are competing ideas about it,'" said John Calvert, a Lake Quivira attorney involved in the lawsuit.

Once again, creationists are confused about what evolution explains.

[diethx]

Why is it disheartening that people believe in God?

That isn't what she said.

You can believe in god and also be logical and accept what science has taught us.

[Tisket]

Because now they have to kill some other poor guy that worships that same god, just a little differently.

I've observed that atheists are far more intolerant of divergent beliefs than the devout.

[Tisket]

That isn't what she said.

You can believe in god and also be logical and accept what science has taught us.

Yes. I'd hate the idea that my kids were not taught evolution. I don't feel it threatens my beliefs at all.

edit: if that isn't what she said, she said it poorly.

[Tenlaar]

Why is it disheartening that people believe in God?

It's disheartening that 46% of people, according to that poll, are perfectly willing to (and capable of) completely disregarding any and all scientific evidence on the issue. And could do the same with any other issue.

[Tisket]

It's disheartening that 46% of people, according to that poll, are perfectly willing to (and capable of) completely disregarding any and all scientific evidence on the issue. And could do the same with any other issue.

If that were true, I'd agree.

I find it disheartening that so many are willing to believe that is common among those that believe in God.

[Warriorbird]

If that were true, I'd agree.

I find it disheartening that so many are willing to believe that is common among those that believe in God.

Unfortunately it just is.

[rolfard]

Me: Teaching a class. Ask the question, "Can someone give an example of a myth?"
Class: Santa!
Class: The Tooth Fairy!
Class: Heaven and Hell!
Class: GOD!

ME: Let's move on now...

[Taernath]

Me: Teaching a class. Ask the question, "Can someone give an example of a myth?"
Class: Santa!
Class: The Tooth Fairy!
Class: Heaven and Hell!
Class: GOD!

ME: Let's move on now...

But they were right - all are examples of traditional beliefs and stories.

Myth as used in academia doesn't imply a right or wrong.

[Tisket]

Unfortunately it just is.

Propaganda! Lies I say!

You want to know what I think? Of course you do. I think that all religious organizations should have their tax exempt status revoked. At the very least, the reporting standard should be the same for them as other tax exempt organizations.

This divergent belief in no way threatens my belief in God.

[Warriorbird]

Propaganda! Lies I say!

You want to know what I think? Of course you do. I think that all religious organizations should have their tax exempt status revoked. At the very least, the reporting standard should be the same for them as other tax exempt organizations.

This divergent belief in no way threatens my belief in God.

I agree for spiteful personal reasons rather than political ones.

[Jarvan]

Myth - You can use alchemy to turn base metals into gold.

Fact - You can use science to turn base metals into gold ( currently on an extremely small scale but can be done)

So.. for centuries people laughed at and in some cases persecuted others for believing in something that no one could prove or do, and now they can prove it or do it.

Granted, the only proof you are likely to get that there is a god is when you die and meet him/her.

I personally think this whole fight over evolution in the class room is just stupid. I understand why both sides do it, but it doesn't mean it makes sense. I also find it extremely funny that "enlightened people", as a number of atheists I know call themselves, know for a fact that there isn't a God. It's always fun to look at them and go, "prove there isn't."

[Nilandia]

Why is it disheartening that people believe in God?
Finding so many people to believe in new-earth Creationism (that the earth is less than 10,000 years old) disheartening does not in any way equate to an objection to people believing in God.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I also believe that evolution is a very real force that is still happening in the world.

What I object to is that so many people are willing to shut their eyes to scientific evidence in the name of defending their religion. Many such people also display a deep ignorance of science and have no interest in learning what it teaches. If you want to defend your faith against science, at least know what you're going up against.

Gretchen

[Tisket]

Finding so many people to believe in new-earth Creationism (that the earth is less than 10,000 years old) disheartening does not in any way equate to an objection to people believing in God.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I also believe that evolution is a very real force that is still happening in the world.

What I object to is that so many people are willing to shut their eyes to scientific evidence in the name of defending their religion. Many such people also display a deep ignorance of science and have no interest in learning what it teaches. If you want to defend your faith against science, at least know what you're going up against.

Gretchen

Much more clearly stated this time. And I agree.

[Suppressed Poet]

I don't understand why people are unable to grasp the concept that the theory of evolution and belief in God do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The two stories of creation in Genesis were first originated from the oral traditions of ancient people, long before they were written. The bible was never meant to be written as an exact history book or a combatant to science, but rather to gain insight in the form of religious truth.

Perhaps then, evolution was the instrument that God chose to make us his most special creation for this world? Just something to ponder.

People have been debating both sides as to the proof of God since the beginning of our time. Saint Thomas Aquinas logically argued in the 13th century with his Quinque Viae, and that debate still goes on today. Personally I don't think either side has the means to prove or disprove God. It comes down to a decision of faith. I think it is incredibly ignorant and insensitive for an atheist to discard someone's belief in God as a myth, just as it would be for a Christian to try to forcefully convert an atheist by threat of damnation. Have some reverence and respect, no matter which side you are on.

[Tisket]

Please...stop. I beg you.

[Latrinsorm]

It's disheartening that 46% of people, according to that poll, are perfectly willing to (and capable of) completely disregarding any and all scientific evidence on the issue. And could do the same with any other issue.The number is much higher than 46%, because not all people who believe in evolution do so because they've weighed the evidence. The overwhelming majority of people don't even know how to scientifically weigh evidence, not through any lack of intelligence but simple lack of training. People don't just know how to be mechanics, or doctors, or pianists, why would we expect them to just know how to be scientists?

I also think that looking at the raw number is missing the point. If 90% of people believed in creationism in 1920 and only 46% do now, surely you would find that heartening, no? But if it was 10% to 46%, that would be disheartening. Certainly we know that 0% of people believed in Darwinian evolution before Darwin, so absent any direct empirical data I think the first scenario is more plausible.

[Jarvan]

Please...stop. I beg you.

Actually Tisket, that post was probably one of his few rational ones.

Tho the bible wasn't really written, it was put together by committee. There were more religious writings left out, then put in. It's really the best work of Propaganda to date.

[Tisket]

There is a tendency for other posters to argue with SP just because it's SP. Much as there are those that argue with you, just because it's you.

[Jarvan]

There is a tendency for other posters to argue with SP just because it's SP. Much as there are those that argue with you, just because it's you.

Nah, they don't argue with me, they just insult me, say I am an idiot, and tell me to stop posting. Which, much of the time may be true.

[Suppressed Poet]

Tho the bible wasn't really written, it was put together by committee. There were more religious writings left out, then put in. It's really the best work of Propaganda to date.

Yes, they did select which texts made the bible.. For Christianity that was the First Council of Nicea. What do you expect? Before that there were thousands of sects, hundreds of books, and no sense of continuity from one group of Christians to the next. It was necissary to be selective to bring organization. I don't see that as propaganda, but to each their own.

[Suppressed Poet]

Please...stop. I beg you.

You seem find any excuse you need to be down on your knees with your mouth open.

[Tisket]

You seem find any excuse you need to be down on your knees with your mouth open.

Stop fantasizing about me.

[Suppressed Poet]

Stop fantasizing about me.

Old crusty housewives are not my thing sweetheart, but keep on thinking you are someone worth fantasizing about.

[Tisket]

Continue thinking you are someone that anyone would ever fantasize about.

No harm in self delusion.

[TheEschaton]

Yes, they did select which texts made the bible.. For Christianity that was the First Council of Nicea. What do you expect? Before that there were thousands of sects, hundreds of books, and no sense of continuity from one group of Christians to the next. It was necissary to be selective to bring organization. I don't see that as propaganda, but to each their own.

You don't find a bunch of Roman Empiricists picking all the books emphasizing Jesus' divinity and the authority which derived from his proper Apostles as the "official" Bible propaganda? Especially when you look at the books they discarded from more immediate sources?

None of the Evangelists were Apostles, except for John, and I'm convinced to this day John lived too long, got too crazy waiting for the second coming (which they thought was coming almost immediately after Jesus' death). Hell, all the epistles from which the Church derives its authority are Pauline - IE, written by a guy who not only never met Christ, but went from persecuting Christians to being a convert (and don't get me started on being a convert and how that skews how you defend your religion). If you read Peter, and James, and Jude, these letters are much different...and much more neglected. Forget the epistles of Thomas and Mary, those are considered heretical.

[Latrinsorm]

You don't find a bunch of Roman Empiricists picking all the books emphasizing Jesus' divinity and the authority which derived from his proper Apostles as the "official" Bible propaganda? Especially when you look at the books they discarded from more immediate sources?

None of the Evangelists were Apostles, except for John, and I'm convinced to this day John lived too long, got too crazy waiting for the second coming (which they thought was coming almost immediately after Jesus' death). Hell, all the epistles from which the Church derives its authority are Pauline - IE, written by a guy who not only never met Christ, but went from persecuting Christians to being a convert (and don't get me started on being a convert and how that skews how you defend your religion). If you read Peter, and James, and Jude, these letters are much different...and much more neglected. Forget the epistles of Thomas and Mary, those are considered heretical.On the one hand, I'm hoping you mean Emperors... but on the other hand, Roman Empiricists is a pretty awesome proper name.

Also, based on my reading of the Gospel of Judas I think the criticism of orthodoxy is ill-placed: there's nothing wrong with coherence, and certainly nothing nefarious. The Church of the time had no reason to believe it would become a global authority figure, and the people who desire such power are generally not the sort to lay the groundwork for someone else to get that power: it's hard to even conceive of an altruistic megalomaniac. Remember that while we look back at the Roman Empire now as an uninterrupted superpower, the period leading up to the Council of Nicea was anything but, as Constantine had barely a year earlier re-established the Empire after a fifteen year civil war. You may disagree with the canon they came to, but I see no reason to doubt their motives.

[Kembal]

Can we please remember that it would only be certain Christians who have trouble accepting the theory of evolution, and that believers of other religions in America don't attempt to get it taken out of the classroom?

[Tgo01]

Can we please remember that it would only be certain Christians who have trouble accepting the theory of evolution, and that believers of other religions in America don't attempt to get it taken out of the classroom?

You're smoking some good shit if you think only Christians are against teaching evolution. I know you qualified your statement with "in America" but that's only because other religions are such a tiny portion of the US population that they have no real clout. Plus it's only news when Christians do it, I wouldn't be surprised if other religions attempted to outlaw teaching evolution in schools.

[Jarvan]

On the one hand, I'm hoping you mean Emperors... but on the other hand, Roman Empiricists is a pretty awesome proper name.

Also, based on my reading of the Gospel of Judas I think the criticism of orthodoxy is ill-placed: there's nothing wrong with coherence, and certainly nothing nefarious. The Church of the time had no reason to believe it would become a global authority figure, and the people who desire such power are generally not the sort to lay the groundwork for someone else to get that power: it's hard to even conceive of an altruistic megalomaniac. Remember that while we look back at the Roman Empire now as an uninterrupted superpower, the period leading up to the Council of Nicea was anything but, as Constantine had barely a year earlier re-established the Empire after a fifteen year civil war. You may disagree with the canon they came to, but I see no reason to doubt their motives.

I agree with you. At the time it was likely their best option. Doesn't mean that what they came up with is the best option though.

[Jarvan]

You're smoking some good shit if you think only Christians are against teaching evolution. I know you qualified your statement with "in America" but that's only because other religions are such a tiny portion of the US population that they have no real clout. Plus it's only news when Christians do it, I wouldn't be surprised if other religions attempted to outlaw teaching evolution in schools.

Does Islam teach evolution?

I mean, we know most Islamic countries don't even teach women, what's the chance they teach Evolution?

[Back]

Here is some info on religions and evolution that is very interesting.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/

[Warriorbird]

You're smoking some good shit if you think only Christians are against teaching evolution. I know you qualified your statement with "in America" but that's only because other religions are such a tiny portion of the US population that they have no real clout. Plus it's only news when Christians do it, I wouldn't be surprised if other religions attempted to outlaw teaching evolution in schools.

I love it when you defend your moronic co-partisans.

[Tgo01]

I love it when you defend your moronic co-partisans.

You disagreeing with anything I said? Huh tough guy? HUH?!

[Latrinsorm]

Hey, it's a fair question that nobody could possibly answer with 5 seconds of googling. Do Muslim scholars believe in young Earth creationism?

"Muslims scholars do not believe in Young Earth creationism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution)

But what's really interesting to me is how, just like with anti-Semitism, those Muslims who do wish to argue for creationism look to the Christian West for their blueprint, as we see with the divine secrets of the Yahya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar) sisterhood.

[Taernath]

Hey, it's a fair question that nobody could possibly answer with 5 seconds of googling. Do Muslim scholars believe in young Earth creationism?


He was talking about evolution, not YEC.

"Islamic views on evolution are diverse, ranging from theistic evolution to creationism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution)

[Nilandia]

The number is much higher than 46%, because not all people who believe in evolution do so because they've weighed the evidence. The overwhelming majority of people don't even know how to scientifically weigh evidence, not through any lack of intelligence but simple lack of training. People don't just know how to be mechanics, or doctors, or pianists, why would we expect them to just know how to be scientists?

I also think that looking at the raw number is missing the point. If 90% of people believed in creationism in 1920 and only 46% do now, surely you would find that heartening, no? But if it was 10% to 46%, that would be disheartening. Certainly we know that 0% of people believed in Darwinian evolution before Darwin, so absent any direct empirical data I think the first scenario is more plausible.
I can't speak to the percentage of people believing in young-earth Creationism in 1920, but the Gallup poll I linked earlier showed that there was little change in the percentage of people believing in young-earth Creationism, theistic evolution and atheistic evolution in the past 30 years.

Gretchen

[Kembal]

You're smoking some good shit if you think only Christians are against teaching evolution. I know you qualified your statement with "in America" but that's only because other religions are such a tiny portion of the US population that they have no real clout. Plus it's only news when Christians do it, I wouldn't be surprised if other religions attempted to outlaw teaching evolution in schools.

Hindus don't. Probably because a) evolution fits neatly with the ten avatars of Vishnu, b) we believe in the same historical timescale that's required by evolution, and c) we generally respect science to begin with.

[ClydeR]

Hindus don't. Probably because a) evolution fits neatly with the ten avatars of Vishnu, b) we believe in the same historical timescale that's required by evolution, and c) we generally respect science to begin with.

Are you the ones who believe your dead relatives come back as cows? If I believed in evolution -- and I don't -- then I would rather be descended from monkeys than from cows.

[4a6c1]

No ClydeR, they're the ones who get to have sex a lot because it's part of their religion. Huehuehue! -ClydeR2

[Showal]

ClydeRD2

[Geijon Khyree]

That poll is a little misleading. It's even feasible to answer in a way that you believe in both evolution (milennia) and god guided aspects of it. The usual creationism aspect is that the world is 7,000 years old and it doesn't seem that poll and graph explain that portion. It's a evolution over milennia, god created everything, or a mixture. The common problem with atheist, agnostic, and religious types is usually the amount of time it took as the basis of debate and disagreement.