Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pro-Science Education wins another round ... in Kansas no less
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 7 (743697)
12-03-2014 1:58 PM


Lawsuit over NGSS dismissed | National Center for Science Education
quote:
Lawsuit over NGSS dismissed
A federal court dismissed a creationist lawsuit seeking to prevent Kansas from adopting the Next Generation Science Standards on the grounds that doing so would "establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview." In a December 2, 2014, order (PDF) in COPE et al. v. Kansas State Board of Education et al., Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
The complaint contended (PDF) that the NGSS "seek to cause students to embrace a non-theistic Worldview ... by leading very young children to ask ultimate questions about the cause and nature of life and the universe ... and then using a variety of deceptive devices and methods that will lead them to answer the questions with only materialistic/atheistic explanations." Both the Big Bang and evolution were emphasized as problematic.
...
NCSE's Josh Rosenau, who dismissed the lawsuit as "silly" to the Associated Press (September 26, 2013) when it was filed, expressed satisfaction at the outcome. He predicted that even if the plaintiffs had established standing, they would have lost the case: "They were trying to say that anything not promoting their religion is promoting some other religion, and that argument has been repeatedly rejected by the courts."
The NGSS have been adopted in twelve states California, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington plus the District of Columbia. The treatment of evolution and climate science in the standards occasionally provokes controversy (especially in Wyoming, where the legislature derailed their adoption over climate science), but COPE v. Kansas is the only lawsuit to have resulted.
Looks like I live in one of the enlightened states now ...
Enjoy.
Edited by Admin, : Add links, indicate missing paragraph with ellipsis.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 12-03-2014 4:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 4:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2014 5:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 7 (743708)
12-03-2014 3:54 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 7 (743711)
12-03-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2014 1:58 PM


The NCSE article frames the dismissal very positively, and it *is* welcome news that the suit was dismissed, but it's important to note that because the suit was dismissed that the judge never ruled on the facts of the case. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to establish standing, that therefore the court lacked jurisdiction, and so he granted the defendants motion for dismissal. The judge's order can be found here: Order on Motion to Dismiss (warning, very lengthy)
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2014 1:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4 of 7 (743712)
12-03-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2014 1:58 PM


Yea.
Cope et al., we're not in Kansas anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2014 1:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 5 of 7 (743724)
12-03-2014 6:28 PM


Well, they have some chutzpah. In the very first place where they explain in any detail what they think is wrong with the standards, they put this:
Concealing the Orthodoxy. Although omissions mentioned in the preceding paragraph enhance the promotion of the Atheistic Worldview, a more robust tool for that indoctrination is the omission to provide standards that will adequately explain to students the nature, use and effect of use of the Orthodoxy.
Yeah, those duplicitous atheist materialists are deviously indoctrinating our children into their religious views by the subtle expedient of not teaching those supposed views in any way whatsoever, or even mentioning them. Don't that beat all for cunning?

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 7 (743743)
12-04-2014 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
12-03-2014 6:28 PM


Don't that beat all for cunning?
Not teaching is a powerful tool for teaching? That puts a new spin on the Quantum Field Theory class I never took. I wonder if its too late to get credit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2014 6:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 7 (743808)
12-04-2014 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2014 1:58 PM


It is all a bit strange. For example, their use of the word "entropy". It's like listening to a schizophrenic person ... not only are they describing an imaginary world in their heads, but they're doing it in a very strange way.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2014 1:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024