Truespeak

Ah, the undeniable wisdom of David Putty.

That was the thought that came to mind as I read this:

Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, Kansas education officials began four days of trial-like hearings to consider changes to how Kansas students are tested on the origins of life.

Science groups are boycotting the hearings, held by a Board of Education subcommittee, because they view them as being rigged against evolution. The board could revise its science standards in June to include both the theory of evolution and criticism of it.

Many scientists fear that the board will follow recommendations from advocates of "intelligent design" in adopting standards critical of evolution. Conservatives hold a majority on the 10-member board.

(If you're not familiar with the Scopes Monkey Trial, it's a facinating story. It was as much theater as it was debate. For a [somewhat] quick synopsis, check out this site. In my opinion, it makes today's legal shows like Law & Order seem very mundane in terms of courtroom drama.)

I believe that the Kansas State Board of Education may be on the verge of a legal catastrophe. To understand why, we must go back to 1968 and the Supreme Court decision in Susan EPPERSON et al., Appellants, v. ARKANSAS. No. 7.

The case was brought by an Arkansas science teacher against the State because she feared legal repurcussions if she addressed the subject of evolution as put forth in the school districts new textbook. At the time, Arkasas (and Mississippi) had a law on the books making it illegal to teach any scientific theory that was in opposition to the book of Genisis. With the support of a local parent, the case was brought to a hearing in front of the Arkansas Supreme Court which upheld the law. Upon appeal to the US Supreme Court the court found in favor of the teacher and declared the law unconstitutional.

Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all (270) of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.' Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.

Make no mistake about it. Intelligent design is the new guise for creationism as put forth in the Book of Genisis. And according to the Intelligent Design Network's website, their best argument for the inclusion of intelligent design appears to be "Hey, why not." Check out the PDF titled "TEN REASONS WHY "EVOLUTION ONLY" IS LOGICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY AND LEGALLY CONTROVERSIAL." The only real "reason" that I can come up with based upon this document is because they don't believe in evolution. They have no scientific evidence to prove their position. Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironic that they want their "ID" theory taught in science class, yet can't provide any true scientific evidence to support it. But hey, that's conservatives for you. They aren't going to let something as trivial as proof or facts get in the way of ramming their agenda down your throat.

What the KSBE is doing has already been declared unconstitutional. Basically, they are trying to sneak one past the goalie under the cloak of science. If the board votes in favor of intelligent design and this is allowed to go forth, it will open the door to more and more religious influence in the public schools thereby igniting a political firestorm all across the country that would legalize censorship and discrimination. This can not be allowed to happen. Write to your local newspapers. Call your local radio hosts. Make sure that people are aware of this potential hijacking of our Constitution. With enough pressure, the KSBE may actually bow to common sense.

The key passage from the 1968 Supreme Court decision:

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, (104) and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of noreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

As early as 1872, this Court said: 'The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.' Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728, 20 L.Ed. 666. This has been the interpretation of the great First Amendment which this Court has applied in the many and subtle problems which the ferment of our national life has presented for decision within the Amendment's broad command.
    
Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems requiring care and restraint. Our courts, however, have not failed to apply the First Amendment's mandate in our educational system where essential to safeguard the fundamental values of freedom of speech and inquiry and of belief. By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities. Courts do not and cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems and which do not directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values. On the other hand, '(t)he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools,' Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487, 81 S.Ct. 247, 251, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960). As this (105) Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the First Amendment 'does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.' 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S.Ct. 675, 683, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967).

Be sure to cite this in your letters. Refer to it in your conversations. The law is on our side.