Bleeding Kansas Redux
Darwinists know that the Kansas Board of Education did not do anything that could be considered unconstitutional -- otherwise, the Darwinists would have sued the Kansas BOE a long time ago. Opinion polls show that the majority of the public wants both the weaknesses and the strengths of evolution theory to be taught, so there is a good chance that some other state(s) will pass a "teach the contoversy" science education standard. So why the fuss?
The Darwinists have been moaning that states that have adopted a "teach the controversy" standard -- e.g., Kansas and Ohio -- have added disclaimers repudiating any intention to add intelligent design to the curriculum. Also, the Darwinists have been insisting that all criticisms of Darwinism are parts of ID. One of the big reasons for this emphasis on ID is that ID and one of its components, irreducible complexity, were the only criticisms that Judge Jones trashed by name in his Dover opinion. A lot of the criticisms of Darwinism are not ID, but ID is such an important criticism of Darwinism that it seems that any "teach the controversy" program would eventually get into ID.
Darwinism must be pretty badly flawed if the Darwinists go to such great lengths to suppress criticism of it.
Labels: Kansas controversy