[meteorite-list] Kansas Legal Debate: Creation, Evolution andIntelligent Design

From: Darren Garrison <cynapse_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri May 13 21:51:52 2005
Message-ID: <rhma811jh4s407ofd4h3g55kiugh1i3aeq_at_4ax.com>

On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:18:41 -0500, "Sterling K. Webb" <kelly_at_bhil.com> wrote:

> Early on in this long thread, several people seemed to believe that Kansas
>was where the famous 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" had taken place. Not so. That
>honor goes to Dayton, Tennessee ("The Buckle on the Bible Belt," as it's called
>in the movie).

Actually, I was refering to Scopes II starting in Kansas. But on double-checking, I forgot a couple
of letters-- Scopes II started in _AR_kansas.

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/foi/FEXAM/creationCON.htm#scopes2

'Scopes II'
.....Perhaps the best known legal battle involving the Creationists' attempt to infiltrate the
classroom in recent history began in Arkansas at the end of 1981. Penned as 'Scopes II,' this court
case was a result of the state of Arkansas' passing of a bill requiring state schools to give
"balanced treatment" to both evolution and "scientific creationism." The law was to take effect in
the 1982-83 school year, and covered all educational materials and programs that dealt in any way
with the subject of the origin of man, life, energy, the earth, or the universe. Governor Frank
White, who -- by his own admission -- did not even read the bill, signed it. Thus was Act 590 born.
The Act drew immediate opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union on the grounds that it
violated the first amendment. Interestingly, most of the twenty-three plaintiffs were actually
clergymen who viewed Act 590 as a threat to religious freedom.

The case came to court in Little Rock, Arkansas with federal Judge William R. Overton presiding. The
ACLU fought its case on the grounds that Creationism is religious, not scientific, and that its
teaching would therefore violate Constitutional separation of church and state as well as the
academic freedom of both teachers and students. Local science teachers testified that they had no
idea how a sensible course combining Creationism with evolution could be designed, and if forced to
teach both, would be at a loss as to how to proceed [13, pp. 71-74].

On January 5, 1982 Judge Overton ruled that Arkansas Law 590 violated the principle of separation of
church and state enshrined in the Constitution. He declared that it represented nothing more than a
transparent attempt to introduce the Biblical version of Creation into the public schools. He also
ruled that Creationism is not science, and that evolution is not religion (as the defense had
insisted). Furthermore, even if evolution was a religion, then the proper course of action would be
to cease teaching evolution in public schools, not to begin teaching another religion in opposition
to it [14, p. 59].

Even if the Creationists never win any major battles in court, they could significantly affect the
quality of science education at the local level. The pressure takes the form of subtle intimidation
of teachers with the result that many tread very lightly around evolution to avoid controversy. This
is a part of the rationale for the Creationist 'road shows': to foster a bottom-up, grassroots
movement.
  


Plus, I found a good site to keep track of what may be come to be known as Scopes III:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/
Received on Fri 13 May 2005 10:00:25 PM PDT