The school board in Grantsburg, Wisconsin is just asking for legal trouble:
The city's school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.School board members believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin...
The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.
And that will no doubt be followed by a suit being filed, a suit the school district has no chance of winning. The courts have ruled on this repeatedly and consistently, the last time a 7-2 decision in the Supreme Court. They will lose and they will cost the people of that district an enormous amount of tax money to cover the legal fees.
- Log in to post comments
I have to wonder what it is teachers are supposed to teach for the Creationist part. Do they just un-teach evolution?
"By the way kids, all that stuff we just taught you, we have to also teach that it's wrong."
I'd love to see the lesson plan for that class.
Doesn't sticking to a - The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory ... - merely open the door for every whacko with a theory to force his to be taught too?
You think the cheeseheads are bad, take a look at what they are up to in Texas:
A State Board of Education member stalled a vote to approve middle school health textbooks Thursday by saying the books should condemn homosexuality and make clear that marriage exists only between men and women.
Board member Terri Leo, R-Spring, called for about 30 changes to teachers' and students' editions of proposed health books in grades six through eight.
One passage in a teachers' edition says that "surveys indicate that 3 to 10 percent of the population is gay. No one knows for sure why some people are straight, some are bisexual and others are gay."
Leo wanted to replace those sentences with: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide."
Yeah, the slippery slope really applies in this case. There is no logical reason that this particular pseudoscience is any more deserving of classroom time than is astrology, flat earth creationism or any of the other wack-sciences. There is some creation theory that states the galaxy and everything in it, including our memories, was created only a few days ago (I think 4?).
Just curious, what Supreme Court decision was that, and who voted how (I'm guessing Scalisthomastron, but I can never be certain)?
Pat-
The Supreme Court decision was Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, and the dissenting opinions were, predictably, Scalia and Rehnquist (Thomas was not on the court yet). The far more interesting case, which preceeded Edwards was Mclean v. Arkansas. This was a 1982 case involving the same issues as Edwards, but decided at the US District Court level, which the state decided not to appeal. What made that case so interesting was that it became an enormous seminar on science with some of the brightest minds in the field testifying and educating the judge on why we know evolution is true and why creationism is not a viable alternative to it. Stephen Jay Gould, Francisco Ayala, Brent Dalrymple, George Marsden, Langdon Gilkey - it was a hell of a lineup. Some of my colleagues at the Talk.Origins Foundation, including Wesley Elsberry and Troy Britain who occasionally comment here, have spent the last several years collecting the transcripts of the literally thousands of pages of testimony given in that trial. You can find it all catalogued at Wesley's site.
By the way, there is a similar case going on as we speak in Georgia involving a disclaimer put on evolution textbooks. That case also involves a good deal of expert testimony and I am eagerly anticipating getting the transcripts of that trial. Yesterday the brilliant and unflappable Dr. Ken Miller of Brown University, author of one of the textbooks to which the disclaimer was applied, testified. The reports I got last evening indicate that the testimony went very well, as I would have expected. I would not want to be the attorney who has to cross examine Ken Miller. He is simply one of the most brilliant and compelling speakers you've ever seen, and incredibly fast on his feet. From what I'm told, the attorney for the school board made the enormous mistake of asking him open-ended questions to which he did not know the answer, allowing Miller to essentially give the judge a seminar. Huge mistake. I will address this case more as it goes along, including some work on the brief that the Discovery Institute filed.
Ed,
The scary part is that your confidence in the judiciary may be short-lived. When these idiots (I'm sorry, no other word suffices) get control of the state houses and then Congress and then the Presidency, they can appoint judges who think the way they do. Imagine having judges who buy that creationism crap. Maybe one day it will be the secularists who home school. Ick.
CP
I have long thought the opening paragraph in Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard was very strange. Taken at face value, one logical conclusion of that paragraph would be that no statute passed by a legislature would be unconstitutional, since their passing an unconstitutional statute would have violated their oath to uphold the constitution.
Regarding Ken Miller, I have found articles available through his evolution page quite useful, particularly his Life's Grand Design article. The evolution page it http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html and the article is at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html Regarding the article, I found his discussion of the evolution of the eye very interesting, and, when I am arguing evolution with a creationist, I cite the article and then ask, if God loved humans so much, why did he give an octopus an eye with a better design than he gave to human beings.
Regarding Carpundit's point, whether or not secularists may have to consider home schooling, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the culture wars will lead to the demise of public schools. From what I have read, the Catholic church established their parochial school system precisely because of what it perceived to be the Protestant bias in public education. And private conservative (Protestant) Christian academies associated with various churches have been established because they perceive that the public schools are too secular. If there is enough of a decrease in public support for the public schools, they may well be abolished. Frankly, that is part of the push for school vouchers.
The disclaimer should also say: "The theory of gravity is only a theory (but don't step out of any third story windows.)"
I have long thought the opening paragraph in Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard was very strange. Taken at face value, one logical conclusion of that paragraph would be that no statute passed by a legislature would be unconstitutional, since their passing an unconstitutional statute would have violated their oath to uphold the constitution.
I agree with you, the logic is very strange. He basically says that since the members of the legislature didn't think it was unconstitutional, we have to believe them. Huh? That would pretty much gut judicial review completely, all the legislature would have to do is say, "We considered whether it was unconstutional and decided it wasn't." Just absurd reasoning.
Regarding Ken Miller, I have found articles available through his evolution page quite useful, particularly his Life's Grand Design article. The evolution page it http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html and the article is at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html Regarding the article, I found his discussion of the evolution of the eye very interesting, and, when I am arguing evolution with a creationist, I cite the article and then ask, if God loved humans so much, why did he give an octopus an eye with a better design than he gave to human beings.
Ken is incredible. He is the best spokesman for evolution and against creationism that there is, and I can't really think of a close second. Genie Scott, Wes Elsberry, Rob Pennock - they're all friends, they're all brilliant, and they've all done great work in defending quality science education in this country. But I bet all of them would agree that Ken Miller is the MVP on our team, so to speak.
Ken Miller is unparalleled in public speaking on evolution/creation topics. His public presence was critical in 1997 in Texas during textbook selection (the textbook publisher yielded his time to speak to Miller, who dismantled the claims coming from hostile board members), and I suspect his testimony will be a large factor in the decision in Cobb County. I've been privileged to present at two places where Ken has also presented, and it is amazing to watch him work. At the Haverford conference in 2001, Ken completed his set PowerPoint-based talk, then he and Michael Behe were to exchange questions. Behe brought up an objection; Ken walked over to his computer and with one button press the next "slide" came up... answering that specific objection.