Wie geisteskrank Religioten ihren Dreck Kindern antun wollen, sieht man an einem neuen Trick: Da wird Evolution als Religion bezeichnet - und dann wird gefordert, daß DIESE (angebliche) Religion nicht in der Schule unterrichtet werden darf, weil die Schule religionsfrei sein soll.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kansas-group-tries-remove-evolution-schools-claiming-science-religion[*QUOTE*]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas Group Tries To Remove Evolution From Schools By Claiming Science Is A Religion
Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 9/27/2013 12:50 pm
A Kansas-based group that “promotes the religious rights of parents, children, and taxpayers” is challenging the state’s science standards because they include the
teaching of evolution, which the group claims is a religion and therefore should be excluded from science class. As the AP reports, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) claims that public schools “promote a ‘non-theistic religious worldview’ by allowing only ‘materialistic’ or ‘atheistic’ explanations to scientific questions.” The group argues that by teaching evolution “the state would be ‘indoctrinating’ impressionable students in violation of the First Amendment.”
COPE’s challenge [PDF] states that the teaching of evolution “amounts to an excessive government entanglement with religion” and violates the rights of Christian parents.
Indeed, COPE’s stated mission is to create “religious[ly] neutral” schools that do not promote “pantheistic and materialistic religions, including Atheism and Religious (‘Secular’) Humanism” - a category under which it includes “Darwinian evolution.”
The National Center for Science Education calls COPE’s lawsuit “silly” and “frivolous,” and the Baptist Joint Committee says COPE’s argument “makes no sense” and that the group is effectively saying schools should be “teaching no science at all.” Just like the bogus “teach the controversy” or “teach both sides” refrains, COPE’s lawsuit is part of a long line of Creationist challenges to the teaching of evolution.
Religious Right heavyweight John Eidsmoe, a mentor to conservative politicians like Michele Bachmann, wrote in his 1984 book God & Caesar that conservative Christian activists should base their attacks on evolution on the premise that evolution is actually just as much a religious idea as Creationism, and therefore the two should be treated the same way.
Eidsmoe writes that the government “promote[s ] humanism” through its “support for evolution.” He decries “secular humanism” as “the religion of the American public schools,” a result of successful push by humanists “to use the public schools to promote a religion of secular humanism.”
As Eidsmoe understands it, science classes that “contain evolutionary thought” are no different from schools that exclusively “promote Christianity or creationism.” “Why should government ally itself with the faith of humanism?” Eidsmoe writes. “[ J]ust as the government cannot actively promote Christianity, so also the government should not actively promote secular humanism.” He claims that the “religion” of humanism “violates the fundamental beliefs of orthodox Christians,” and urges Christians to “demand that public schools which teach evolution teach creation also” or “ask that the humanistic materials be removed.”
COPE is clearly following the blueprint laid out by Eidsmoe, with its claim [PDF] that it is defending Christians’ “rights to not be indoctrinated by Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the [Framework and Standards] seek to establish.”
Filed Under
Organizations:Citizens for Objective Public Education
People:John Eidsmoe
Topics:Evolution, Education, Creationism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
Im folgenden das PDF der Klage. Kommentar nicht druckreif.
http://www.copeinc.org/docs/legal-complaint.pdf[*QUOTE*]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Filed: 9/26/13
COPE (a/k/a CITIZENS FOR OBJECTIVE
PUBLIC EDUCATION, INC.), et al.,
Civil Action No.
NO.13-4119
________________________
Plaintiffs.
KHV
JPO
v.
KANSAS STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et. al.,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
(Bold face captions are intended as descriptive of the substantive content
of the related paragraph and need not be addressed by any answer)
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Plaintiffs, consisting of students, parents and Kansas resident taxpayers, and a
representative organization, complain that the adoption by the Defendant State Board of
Education on June 11, 2013 of Next Generation Science Standards, dated April 2013 (the
Standards;
http://www.nextgenscience.org/) and the related Framework for K-12 Science
Education:
Practices,
Crosscutting
Concepts
and
Core
Ideas,
(2012;
(
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165#), incorporated therein by reference (the
"Framework" with the Framework and Standards referred to herein as the "F&S") will have the
effect of causing Kansas public schools to establish and endorse a non-theistic religious
worldview (the "Worldview") in violation of the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Speech
Clauses of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Article III regarding the Parties begins at paragraph 26
Article IV regarding Venue and Jurisdiction begins at paragraph 48
II.
BACKGROUND2.
The F&S take impressionable children, beginning in Kindergarten, into the
religious sphere by leading them to ask ultimate religious questions like what is the cause and
nature of life and the universe - "where do we come from?"
3.
These questions are ultimate religious questions because answers to them
profoundly relate the life of man to the world in which he lives. [“By its nature, religion - in the
comprehensive sense in which the Constitution uses that word - is an aspect of human thought
and action which profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives." (McGowan v.
Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 461 (1961) (Frankfurter, J. concurring, with Harlan, J.)]
4.
These questions are exceedingly important as ancillary religious questions
regarding the purpose of life and how it should be lived ethically and morally depend on whether
one relates his life to the world through a creator or considers it to be a mere physical occurrence
that ends on death per the laws of entropy.
5.
However, instead of seeking to objectively inform children of the actual state of
our scientific knowledge about these questions in an age appropriate and religiously neutral
manner, the Standards use, without adequately disclosing, an Orthodoxy (defined in paragraphs 8
and 9) and a variety of other deceptive methods to lead impressionable children, beginning in
Kindergarten, to answer the questions with only materialistic/atheistic answers.
6.
Instead of explaining to students that science has not answered these religious
questions, the F&S seek to cause them to accept that controversial materialistic/atheistic answers
are valid.
7.
The purpose of the indoctrination is to establish the religious Worldview, not to
deliver to an age appropriate audience an objective and religiously neutral origins science
education that seeks to inform.
8.
The orthodoxy, called methodological naturalism or scientific materialism, holds
that explanations of the cause and nature of natural phenomena may only use natural, material or
2mechanistic causes, and must assume that, supernatural and teleological or design conceptions of
nature are invalid (the "Orthodoxy").
9.
The Orthodoxy is an atheistic faith-based doctrine that has been candidly
explained by Richard Lewontin, a prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist, as follows:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an
understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of
science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill
many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door." [Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons 44 N.Y.
REV. OF BOOKS 31 (Jan. 9, 1997) (emphasis added)]
10.
Many of the misleading methods used to promote the Worldview are detailed in
paragraphs 94 through 122; however, three critical devices are omissions to cause students to
analyze and understand (a) that the ultimate questions which students are led to ask identify
mysteries that have not been answered by science, (b) that the explanations to be accepted by
students are driven by the Orthodoxy and not by an objective weighing of all the "available
evidence," and (c) that many naturally occurring patterns and phenomena contradict the
materialistic/atheistic tenet of the Orthodoxy, including (1) the fine-tuning of matter, energy and
the physical forces to permit the existence of life and (2) the fact that physics and chemistry do
not explain the sequences of nucleotide bases that carry the functional information and genetic
programming necessary to the origin of life and much of its diversity.
311.
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.
12.
Instead of candidly disclosing the Orthodoxy as explained by Richard Lewontin,
its nature and use is masked by standards which misrepresent the materialistic and atheistic
explanations provided as being based on all the "available evidence," and on "open-minded,"
"objective," "logical" and "honest" investigation per "common rules of evidence," when in fact
the explanations violate all of those descriptors due to the use of the Orthodoxy and the lack of
consideration given to evidence that is inconsistent with it.
13.
Other methods of Indoctrination. Other tools of indoctrination and evangelism
are detailed in paragraphs 87 through 122 below, but three additional strategies employed by the
F&S reflect a purpose to establish in impressionable minds the materialistic/atheistic Worldview
rather than to provide an objective and religiously neutral origins science education.
14.
Indoctrinating Impressionable Young Minds. First, the F&S begin the
indoctrination of the materialistic/atheistic Worldview at the age of five or six with young
impressionable minds that lack the cognitive or mental development and scientific,
mathematical, philosophical and theological sophistication necessary to enable them to critically
analyze and question any of the information presented and to reach their own informed decision
about what to believe about ultimate questions fundamental to all religions.
15.
Because living systems appear to be "brilliantly" and "superbly" "designed for a
purpose" by a "sentient" designer and because of religious training and belief acquired from
family and the community, young children bring to public schools teleological conceptions of the
natural world which conflict with the tenets of the materialistic/atheistic Orthodoxy.
16.
Taking advantage of their malleable minds the F&S deem these "conceptions" to
be "misconceptions," as they are inconsistent with the Orthodoxy, and then provide strategies for
4correcting them as explained herein, which include strategies to train teachers to identify and
then lead children to correct their so-called "misconceptions" about the natural world.
17.
No secular purpose exists for the state seeking to teach impressionable young
children about a materialistic/atheistic view of origins before the mind of the child has achieved
the necessary cognitive development and has acquired knowledge of the necessary intellectual
predicates of math, chemistry, physics, geology, biology, molecular biology, biochemistry,
statistics, philosophy and theology.
18.
The effect of the F&S in teaching the materialistic/atheistic Worldview to young
children before they attain the age and sophistication necessary to make an informed decision
about it, is likely to cause them to embrace it, because studies show (a) that children between the
age of five and eleven simply assimilate and take, unthinkingly, what authorities have taught to
the child and (b) that they generally form their religious worldview by the time they attain the
age of 13.
19.
The effect of teaching for thirteen years only the materialistic/atheistic side of a
religious controversy to an audience that is not age appropriate is religious, not educationally
objective, and is indicative of an intent to inculcate and establish that non-theistic religious
Worldview in the children.
20.
The effect of seeking to establish the Worldview, particularly in the minds of
impressionable primary school students, amounts to an excessive governmental entanglement
with religion.
21.
Excluding Theists from policies of non-discrimination and "equity." Second,
the F&S implicitly excludes from its policies regarding non-discrimination and equity, children,
parents and taxpayers that embrace theistic worldviews, thereby enabling the discriminatory
establishment of the non-theistic Worldview under the guise of "science."
22.
Causing the Worldview to be incorporated in all other curriculum. Third, the
F&S use a strategy that seeks to cause the core materialistic/atheistic ideas of the Worldview to
5be used in and "cohere" with all other curriculum and to cause students to develop "habits of
mind" that accept those core ideas.
23.
The foregoing strategies have the effect of evangelizing students to accept a
religious idea rather than objectively informing children about the actual state of our scientific
knowledge concerning the cause and nature of life and the universe.
24.
As a consequence, implementation of the foregoing strategies by Kansas will
cause it to endorse a particular religious viewpoint, without a valid secular purpose, with a
primary effect that is not religiously neutral, and in a manner that will treat atheists and
materialists as favored insiders and theists as disfavored outsiders, and otherwise cause the state
of Kansas to be excessively entangled with religion.
25.
Plaintiffs therefore complain that the implementation of the F&S will infringe on
their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
III.
26.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Citizens for Objective Public Education (“COPE”) is a nonprofit
organization whose purpose is to promote the religious rights of parents, students and taxpayers
in public education and whose members include residents of Kansas who are taxpayers and
parents that have children that are enrolled in Kansas public schools and children that are
expected to be enrolled in Kansas Public Schools.
27.
Plaintiffs Carl and Mary Angela Reimer, are residents of Meade, Kansas, are
parents of BR, age 5, HR, age 8, BR, age 9 and NR, age 11, who are enrolled in Kansas public
schools, and are Christian parents who seek to instill in their children a belief that life is a
creation made for a purpose, that does not end on death and is not simply a purposeless
occurrence that is the product of an unguided evolutionary process.
28.
Plaintiffs BR, HR, BR and NR seek to enforce their rights to not be indoctrinated
by Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the
6F&S seek to establish, which rights are being asserted herein on their behalf by their father and
mother and next friend, Carl and Mary Angela Reimer.
29.
Plaintiff Sandra Nelson, is a resident of Rush Center, Kansas, and is the mother of
JN, age 13, who is enrolled in a Kansas public school, and is a Christian parent who seeks to
instill in her child a belief that life is a creation made for a purpose that does not end on death
and is not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product of an unguided evolutionary
process.
30.
Plaintiff JN seeks to enforce his rights to not be indoctrinated by Kansas public
schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S seek to establish,
which right is being asserted herein on his behalf by his mother and next friend, Sandra Nelson.
31.
Plaintiffs Lee and Toni Morss, are residents of Burdett, Kansas, are parents of
LM, age ten, RM, age 13 and AM, age 14, who are enrolled in Kansas public schools, and are
Christian parents who seek to instill in their children a belief that life is a creation made for a
purpose that does not end on death and is not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product
of an unguided evolutionary process.
32.
Plaintiffs LM, RM and AM seek to enforce their rights to not be indoctrinated by
Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S
seek to establish, which rights are being asserted herein on their behalf by their father and mother
and next friend, Lee and Toni Morss.
33.
Plaintiffs Mark and Angela Redden, are residents of Gypsum, Kansas, are parents
of MR, age nine who is enrolled in a Kansas public school, and are Christian parents who seek to
instill in their child a belief that life is a creation made for a purpose that does not end on death
and is not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product of an unguided evolutionary
process.
34.
Plaintiff MR seeks to enforce his rights to not be indoctrinated by Kansas public
schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S seek to establish,
7which rights are being asserted herein on his behalf by his father and mother and next friend,
Mark and Angela Redden.
35.
Plaintiffs Burke and Kelcee Pelton, are residents of Burdett, Kansas, are parents
of BP, age 1 and LP, age 3, who are expected to be enrolled in Kansas public schools, and KP,
age 5, who is enrolled in a Kansas public school, and are Christian parents who seek to instill in
their children a belief that life is a creation made for a purpose, that does not end on death and is
not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product of an unguided evolutionary process.
36.
Plaintiffs BP, LP and KP seek to enforce their rights to not be indoctrinated by
Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S
seek to establish, which rights are being asserted herein on their behalf by their father and mother
and next friend, Burke and Kelcee Pelton.
37.
Plaintiffs Michael and Bre Ann Leiby, are residents of Burdett, Kansas, are
parents of EL, age 1 who is expected to be enrolled in Kansas public schools, and PL, age 9, and
ZL, age 10, who are enrolled in a Kansas public schools, and are Christian parents who seek to
instill in their children a belief that life is a creation made for a purpose, that does not end on
death and is not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product of an unguided evolutionary
process.
38.
Plaintiffs EL, PL and ZL seek to enforce their rights to not be indoctrinated by
Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S
seek to establish, which rights are being asserted herein on their behalf by their father and mother
and next friend, Michael and Bre Ann Leiby.
39.
Plaintiffs Jason and Robin Pelton, are residents of Burdett, Kansas, are parents of
CP, age 7, SP, age 9, CP, age 10 and SP, age 12, who are enrolled in Kansas public schools, and
are Christian parents who seek to instill in their children a belief that life is a creation made for a
purpose, that does not end on death and is not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product
of an unguided evolutionary process.
840.
Plaintiffs CP, SP, CP and SP seek to enforce their rights to not be indoctrinated by
Kansas public schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S
seek to establish, which rights are being asserted herein on their behalf by their father and mother
and next friend, Jason and Robin Pelton.
41.
Plaintiffs Carl and Marisel Walston, are residents of Lenexa, Kansas, are parents
of HW, age 9, who is enrolled in a Kansas public school, and are Christian parents who seek to
instill in their son a belief that life is a creation made for a purpose, that does not end on death
and is not simply a purposeless occurrence that is the product of an unguided evolutionary
process.
42.
Plaintiff HW seeks to enforce his rights to not be indoctrinated by Kansas public
schools to accept the materialistic/atheistic religious Worldview which the F&S seek to establish,
which right is being asserted herein on his behalf by his father and mother and next friend, Carl
and Marisel Walston.
43.
Plaintiffs David and Victoria Prather, are residents of Lake Quivira, Kansas, who
pay state and local income and property taxes which are used in part to fund public schools in
Kansas, and who object to the use of such funds by the State of Kansas for the establishment and
promotion of a non-theistic religious worldview through its implementation of the F&S.
44.
Defendant Kansas State Board of Education (the “Board”) is a ten member
governmental body, established under Section 2 of Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution to have
general supervision of K-12 public schools, educational institutions and educational interests of
the state, and has its principal offices at 120 SE 10th Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66212.
45.
The ten elected defendant members of the Board are individual Kansas residents,
are joined only in their official capacities and may be served at 120 SE 10th Avenue, Topeka,
Kansas 66212.
46.
The Defendant Kansas State Department of Education is a governmental entity
established by Section 72-7701 of the Kansas Statutes which is under the administrative
9supervision of a commissioner of education as directed by law and by the state board. The
Department has offices at and may be served at 120 SE 10th Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66212.
47.
Diane DeBacker is the Kansas Commissioner of Education appointed by the
Board, is joined in her official capacity only and may be served at 120 SE 10th Avenue, Topeka,
Kansas 66212.
IV.
48.
JURSIDICTION AND VENUE
This is a civil action whereby Plaintiffs seek: a Declaratory Judgment that the
F&S adopted by the defendant Kansas State Board of Education (the “Board”) on June 11, 2013,
seeks to establish a program for indoctrinating students in a non-theistic religious Worldview in
public schools (the "Policy") and thereby violates the rights of Plaintiffs under the Establishment,
Free Exercise and Speech Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution; and permanent injunction against
implementation of all or certain portions of the Policy by the Board and defendant Kansas State
Department of Education (the “Department”); nominal damages incurred by all Plaintiffs; the
costs incurred in this litigation, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court deems
equitable, just and proper.
49.
This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and
Fourteenth Amendments; and under federal law, particularly 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
50.
This Court has original jurisdiction over the federal claims by operation of 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
51.
This Court has authority to issue the requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201.
52.
This Court has authority to issue the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §
1343(a)(3).
1053.
This Court is authorized to award the requested damages under 28 U.S.C. §
1343(a)(3).
54. This Court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
55. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in the District of Kansas because the
offices of the Kansas Department of Education and the Kansas State Board of Education are
located therein, all members of the Board reside therein, and the events or omissions giving rise
to the claims occurred therein.
V.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS -
THE F&S AND THE WORLDVIEW IT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH AND PROMOTE
56.
The Framework was published by the National Academies of Science in final
form in 2012 as a "blueprint" for K-12 science education in the U.S.
57. The Standards were developed pursuant to that Framework and finalized in April
58. Plaintiff COPE issued analyses objecting to the F&S on June 1, 2012, and January
2013.
29, 2013, copies of which are appended as Exhibits A and B (the "COPE Analyses").
59.
On May 14, 2013 and June 11, 2013 representatives of COPE urged the Kansas
Board to reject the F&S for the reasons stated in the COPE Analyses and invited representatives
of the Board to engage in a detailed discussion of concerns that the F&S infringe on the religious
rights of parents, children and taxpayers.
60. COPE's invitations were met with silence.
61. During the meeting of the State Board on June 11, 2013, Mr. Willard, a member
of the State Board, urged the Board to delay action on the F&S until it had investigated the
assertions in the COPE analyses that the F&S were unconstitutional.
62.
The Chairman invited discussion on Mr. Willard's proposal for the Board to
engage in such due diligence before adoption of the F&S, however, other Board members
11expressed the view that there was no need to consider those and other objections expressed by
Mr. Willard.
63.
On June 11, 2013, over the objections of two members of the State Board, the
Defendant State Board adopted the Standards and the Framework, which is incorporated therein
by reference, without engaging in any due diligence with regard to the issues expressed in the
COPE analyses.
64.
The F&S seek to cause students to embrace a non-theistic Worldview. As used
herein, "worldview" means a religious view that is "an aspect of human thought and action which
profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives" (McGowan v. Maryland,
supra).
65.
The F&S seek to establish the Worldview by leading very young children to ask
ultimate questions about the cause and nature of life and the universe - Where do we come from?
- and then using a variety of deceptive devices and methods that will lead them to answer the
questions with only materialistic/atheistic explanations about how their lives are related to the
world in which they live.
66.
The effect of the F&S is to cause the student to ultimately "know" and
"understand" that the student is not a design or creation made for a purpose, but rather is just a
"natural object" that has emerged from the random interactions of matter, energy and the
physical forces via unguided evolutionary processes which are the core tenets of Religious
("secular") Humanism.
67.
The F&S engage the child to ask and answer ultimate questions by causing them
to observe naturally-occurring patterns and then leading them to explain the cause of the patterns
using only mechanistic or materialistic/atheistic causes.
68.
The patterns which children are led to examine and ascertain the cause of include
the pattern that emerged during the origin of the universe in the "Big Bang," and the patterns
consisting of the origin and diversity of life, such that children are led to reconstruct "histories"
12or genesis accounts of the cosmos and of life on earth using materialistic and atheistic
explanations and narratives.
69.
As explained by the late Ernst Mayr, an icon of evolutionary biology, origins
science differs from traditional experimental sciences in that it relies on the construction of
historical narratives rather than laws and experiments to explain the cause of past events: “. . .
Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and
chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that
have already taken place.
Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the
explication of such events and processes.
Instead one constructs a historical narrative,
consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is
trying to explain.” [Ernst Mayr, Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
Jul. 2000, at 80 (emphasis added).]
70.
Historical sciences use a form of abductive reasoning that seeks to develop an
inference to the best of competing alternative explanations based on the weight of all of the
available evidence, which method requires that the weight of the evidence both favor or rule in
one hypothesis while disfavoring or ruling out the other competing possibilities.
71.
Two principal competing evidence-based explanations have existed for thousands
of years with respect to the origin of the universe, of life and of the diversity of life, one
materialistic and the other teleological.
72.
The teleological hypothesis argues that the apparent design that may be observed
in many naturally occurring patterns may be real and therefore due to an intelligent cause. It is
an evidence-based logical inference derived from patterns that are observed to (a) exhibit
function or purpose, (b) consist of sequences or arrangements of elements that are not ordered by
any physical or chemical necessity and, (c) cannot be plausibly explained, because of their
complexity, by stochastic or random events.
1373.
Naturally occurring patterns which support the teleological hypothesis include (a)
the fine-tuning of the universe for life, (b) the genetic programming necessary to get life started,
(c) the genetic code which has been found to exhibit "eerie perfection" which organizes the
"messages" in DNA that must be "error-checked," "edited" and then translated into functional
proteins, (d) a fossil record that shows large increases in biological information over very short
time-spans, such as the Cambrian explosion, (e) the existence of "orphan" genes that lack an
apparent common ancestor, (f) human consciousness and free will, and (g) the fact that all living
systems exhibit similarities and differences consistent with a "unifying" idea that life may be the
result of a common design.
74.
The competing materialistic or naturalistic idea is "a theory that expands
conceptions drawn from the natural sciences into a worldview and that denies that anything in
reality has a supernatural or more than natural significance; specifically: the doctrine that cause-
and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that
teleological conceptions of nature are invalid " ("Naturalism" - Merriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary,
2013).
75.
The two competing ideas about the nature of the natural world generate
competing religious beliefs.
76.
The teleological hypothesis supports (but does not require belief in) traditional
theistic religions that claim that life was created for a purpose and that it has a soul that does not
end on death.
77.
The materialistic/naturalistic hypothesis supports (but does not require belief in)
non-theistic religions like Atheism and Religious ("secular") Humanism which deny the
supernatural, hold that physical matter is the only reality and the reality through which all being
and processes can be explained, that life arises via unguided evolutionary processes driven by
physics and chemistry, and that it ends on death.
1478.
The F&S employ the Orthodoxy called methodological naturalism or scientific
materialism described in paragraphs 8 and 9 above.
79.
The Orthodoxy has utility as a refutable presumption in a variety of scientific
endeavors.
80.
When applied to subjective historical origins science as an irrefutable absolute
commitment, the Orthodoxy is inconsistent with (a) an objective search for the truth and
intersubjectively accessible knowledge, (b) common rules of evidence, (c) accepted methods of
testing historical hypotheses using abductive reasoning and (d) objective science that eschews
preconceptions that favor a particular theistic or non-theistic religious view.
81.
The Orthodoxy when applied to historical origins sciences violates the common
rules of evidence and the logic of abductive reasoning by excluding the principal evidence-based
competing alternative to materialism - the idea that many naturally occurring patterns may be
due to teleological rather than materialistic causes.
82.
The effect of the use of the Orthodoxy is that it causes the investigation to close
its mind to competing alternatives and evidence that undermine the core materialistic assumption
so that the investigation becomes one that employs "tunnel vision" that necessarily leads to only
atheistic explanations of the cause and nature of life and the universe.
83.
The Orthodoxy is functionally atheistic when used to explain the origin of the
universe and of life as it precludes any supernatural or teleological explanation and holds that life
may only be explained via unguided evolutionary processes.
84.
The F&S employ the Orthodoxy in seeking to educate students about the cause
and nature of natural phenomena and naturally occurring patterns, including the origin and nature
of life and the universe.
85.
Because the F&S use the Orthodoxy, standards that lead children to investigate
the cause and nature of naturally occurring patterns such as life and the universe lead them to
15employ tunnel vision and to explain the patterns as due only to materialistic and functionally
atheistic causes.
86.
Because the F&S use the Orthodoxy, the Worldview it seeks to promote is
materialistic and atheistic and thereby favors, promotes and endorses non-theistic religion over
theistic religion.
A. GENERAL METHODS OF INDOCTRINATION
87.
The F&S seek to inculcate the Worldview through a variety of deceptive methods,
including those listed in paragraphs 1 through 25 above and 88 through 122 below.
88.
As explained in paragraphs 1 through 25 above the F&S seek to inculcate the
Worldview by teaching one side of a complex and sophisticated scientific and religious
controversy to impressionable primary and middle school children who lack the cognitive
development, maturity, intellectual sophistication and knowledge necessary to question or
critically analyze the information presented to reach an informed decision and simply assimilate
and take unthinkingly what their teachers have taught to them.
89.
It uses standards that seek to inculcate the materialistic/atheistic explanations as
"habits of mind."
90.
As set out in paragraph 21 the F&S implicitly exclude from policies of non-
discrimination, equity and diversity children being trained by their parents to accept and embrace
traditional theistic religious views, thereby placing them in a disfavored class.
91.
The F&S create a false dilemma that the "way of knowing" promoted by the
Worldview is intellectually honest, objective, open-minded, logical, open to criticism, skeptical
and subject to change, while the Worldview (a) actually lacks those qualities due to use of the
Orthodoxy and (b) suggests to students that other "ways of knowing" lack these qualities and
should therefore be avoided.
92.
The F&S seek to promote the Worldview by causing it to be used in and to
"cohere" with all curricula provided by the school, not just science curricula.
1693.
The F&S employ a number of other devices that tend to indoctrinate rather than
objectively inform about the actual state of our scientific knowledge about issues affecting the
Worldview, including, without limitation, (a) the misrepresentations and omissions described in
paragraphs 94 through 122 below, (b) the omission of explicit, accurate and complete definitions
of important terms and concepts through the use of a glossary or otherwise, (c) the use of
generalizations about science that are not always applicable, (d) teaching only one side of a
controversy, (e) the misleading use of statistics, (f) combining subjects into a single class and
ignoring important distinctions, (g) appeals to authority, (h) appeals to consensus, (i) appeals to
emotion, (j) generating implications that opposing views are incorrect and not deserving of
consideration, and (k) ignoring assumptions and built-in biases.
B.
94.
F&S USE OF MISREPRESENTATION AND OMISSION
TO ADVANCE THE WORLDVIEW
The F&S use misrepresentation of fact and the omission of facts relevant to
explanations about the cause and nature of life and the universe as outlined in paragraphs 95 and
122 to inculcate and advance the Worldview.
95.
The most critical omission is that the F&S employ the Orthodoxy but do not
provide for standards that will inform students about (a) the nature of the Orthodoxy and how its
use in origins science affects religious beliefs, (b) the fact that the F&S and the explanations
provided have been developed using the Orthodoxy and the tunnel vision it provides, (c) the
effects of the use of the Orthodoxy that suppress relevant evidence that casts doubt on the
plausibility of the materialistic/atheistic explanations provided, and (d) the purpose of using the
Orthodoxy in seeking to provide to impressionable young minds answers to deeply religious
questions.
C.
96.
MISREPRESENTATIONS
The F&S use misrepresentations to advance the Worldview, including those listed
in paragraphs 97 through 108 below.
1797.
Misrepresenting
the
Evidentiary
Basis
for
Materialistic/Atheistic
Explanations. The F&S implicitly represent that unguided evolutionary theory is based on a
consideration of all the "available evidence," when F&S use of the Orthodoxy excludes from
consideration evidence inconsistent with the Orthodoxy and evidence that supports an evidence-
based alternative.
98.
The F&S represent that explanations provided by the standards regarding
unguided evolutionary processes are based on a use of common rules of evidence, when in fact
an Orthodoxy is used that violates common rules of evidence in historical origins science.
99.
Misrepresenting the Nature of "science" promoted by the F&S. The F&S
misrepresent the nature of the kind of "science" promoted by the F&S as "logical, precise,
objective, open-minded, logical, skeptical, replicable, and honest and ethical," when the
concealed use of the Orthodoxy in origins science violates all of these characteristics with
respect to explanations about the cause and nature of life and the universe.
100.
False Dichotomies. The F&S use a series of false dichotomies that divide all
objects, structures, systems and the world into two classes: natural objects, systems, structures
and the world into one class and designed objects, systems structures and the world into the
other, with the latter class consisting of objects, structures and systems made by humans.
101.
These dichotomies used by the F&S teach that "design" is the attribute that one
class has that the other class lacks, such that children are taught that natural objects, systems and
structures and the natural world lack the attribute of design.
102.
The dichotomies are false because the representation that natural objects, systems,
structures and the world lack the attribute of design is (a) based on a questionable assumption
and not a conclusive evidential showing, and (b) because much empirical evidence exists that
living systems reflect actual design.
103.
False Descriptors. The F&S use a descriptor that implicitly classifies the natural
world as just "material," consistent with the materialistic tenet of the Orthodoxy: "Science
18Addresses Questions About the Natural and Material World....scientists study the natural and
material world. (2-ESS2-1)" (emphasis added) [NGSS, Topic Arrangements of the Next
Generation Science Standards, p.15 (April 2013)].
104.
The descriptor is false as the representation that the world is just material is (a)
based on a questionable assumption and not a conclusive evidential showing and (b) because
living systems are driven by functional information and genetic programming which is not
material and because human consciousness and other entities have not been shown to be
reducible only to the material.
105.
The F&S misrepresent to children that changes in living systems are due to a
"choice," by teaching that the changes are due to "natural selection."
106.
The "natural selection" descriptor is false because the mechanism it describes is
one which sorts, not selects or chooses, as the mechanism lacks an actual mind and the capacity
to "choose" as it consists merely of the effects of random changing environmental constraints
that tend to positively sort or enhance the survival of organisms that happen by chance to be
most fit for those constraints.
107.
The misrepresentation that this mindless mechanism "selects" is materially
misleading because it leads one to believe that a mindless materialistic mechanism has the
capacity of a mind that can therefore explain the apparent design of living systems, when it
actually does not.
108.
The false descriptor conceals from the student the critical question as to whether
random mutations coupled with a mindless random sorting process actually has the capacity to
generate living systems that appear to have been "brilliantly" and "superbly" designed by a
"sentient mind."
D.
OMISSIONS
19109.
The F&S omit to include standards that seek to inform students of facts relevant
to the materialistic/atheistic explanations of the cause and nature of natural phenomena,
including those described above and in paragraphs 110 through 122 below.
110.
Omitting to explain the impact of origins science on religious belief and the
fact that the state may not take a position as to whether a particular view of origins is or is
not valid. The F&S omit to include a standard that will cause students to know and understand
(a) that explanations regarding the cause and nature of life and the universe deal with deeply
religious issues that can dramatically affect the student's religious belief and religious worldview,
(b) that science has not provided definitive answers to the questions, (c) that the state may not
pass on the validity of any answer to the questions or take a position as to which is the best of
competing explanations, and (d) that science education about these questions is required to be
objective so that the effect of instruction is religiously neutral.
111.
Omitting to explain that scientific knowledge does not include knowledge of
the cause of certain origins events. The F&S omit to include a standard that will cause students
to know and understand that scientific knowledge does not now and may never include
knowledge of the cause of the universe, the cause of the genetic code, the cause of life, the cause
of the sequences of bases in DNA necessary to explain life, the cause of large increases in
biocomplexity such as that which suddenly occurred during the Cambrian explosion, the cause
of orphan genes, the cause of consciousness, and many other mysteries regarding the origin of
life and its diversity.
112.
Omitting consideration of the evidence-based alternative. The F&S omit to
include a standard that will cause students to understand that an evidence-based teleological
alternative to unguided evolutionary theory exists and that the explanations they are to learn and
accept per the F&S exclude consideration of the alternative and the evidence that supports it due
to the use of the Orthodoxy.
20113.
Omitting consideration of evidence of the teleological alternative. The F&S
fail to provide standards that will inform students about evidence that supports the evidence-
based teleological alternative to the materialistic origins narrative, including those set forth in
paragraphs 114 through 120 below.
114.
Omitting to explain that the historical explanations used to support the
theory of unguided biological evolution have not been adequately tested. The F&S omit to
include a standard that will cause students to know and understand that historical science seeks
to test historical narratives or explanations through the use of abductive reasoning that seeks an
inference to the best of the competing alternatives by a weighing of all of the available evidence
and that the materialistic/atheistic explanations of unguided evolution students are to learn
pursuant to the F&S have not been tested through the use of that method as an Orthodoxy is
employed that precludes consideration of the evidence-based competing teleological alternative.
115.
Omitting consideration of the fine-tuning of the universe. The F&S fail to
provide standards that will inform students about the fine-tuning of the Universe for life.
116.
Omitting chemical evolution. The F&S fail to provide standards that will inform
students about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding the chemical origin of life and the
lack of natural or material cause explanations for the genetic code, and the biological information
necessary for replicating life to exist.
117.
Omitting to inform students of critical assumptions and the lack of their
evidentiary foundations. The F&S fail to provide standards that will inform students that
biological evolution is an unguided process that depends on the assumption (a) that only material
or mechanistic causes have operated in the natural world when the assumption is essentially
faith-based and not consistent with much contrary evidence and (b) that chemical evolution
occurred via only material or mechanistic causes when there is little or no evidence that such
causes are adequate to explain it.
21118.
Omitting to explain that the materialistic/atheistic explanations are not based
on a weighing of all the available evidence. The F&S fail to provide standards that will inform
students that the historical narratives that purport to explain biological evolution are not based on
a consideration of all the available evidence as use of the Orthodoxy excludes consideration of
evidence inconsistent with the materialistic tenets of the Orthodoxy and evidence of the
evidence-based teleological alternative it presumes to be invalid.
119.
Omitting to explain that most of the evidence for the core idea of unguided
biological evolution is consistent with the disallowed competing alternative. The F&S fail to
provide standards that will inform students that the evidence that supports unguided biological
evolution also supports the competing evidence-based alternative and therefore is insufficient to
support an inference that unguided biological evolution is the best explanation.
120.
Omitting consideration of evidence that supports the competing teleological
alternative. The F&S fail to provide standards that will inform students about evidence that
supports the teleological alternative, including (a) the fact that living systems appear brilliantly
and superbly designed, (b) that physics and chemistry do not order the sequences of bases that
provide the information and genetic programming that runs life, and
(c)
that statistical
calculations and experiments suggest that stochastic processes are not adequate to explain the
information necessary for the origin and existence of life and large increases in biological
information, such as that which occurred during the Cambrian Explosion.
121.
Omitting to explain extrapolations used to support the materialistic/atheistic
explanation. The F&S omit to provide standards that distinguish between micro-evolutionary
change (small-scale change within a species) and macro-evolutionary change (the generation of
large-scale biological innovations above the level of species), thereby leading students to believe
that stochastic processes which do account for certain micro-evolutionary changes are adequate
to explain macro-evolutionary changes, although significant scientific controversy exists over the
plausibility of that extrapolation.
22122.
Omitting to explain the discrimination that exists within the scientific
community against those who do not embrace the Orthodoxy. The F&S fail to provide
standards that will inform students that explanations of unguided biological evolution have not
been open to the criticism and critique that other scientific explanations have experienced that do
not invoke or affect religious beliefs, and that scientists who criticize the explanations provided
by the F&S are subject to significant employment and other discrimination within academic and
educational communities.
E. PLAINTIFFS' ACTUAL, THREATENED AND REDRESSABLE INJURY
TRACEABLE TO THE POLICY
123. All Plaintiffs, who are Kansas residents or Kansas taxpayers, are injured by their
State’s endorsement and promotion of an Orthodoxy that establishes and promotes non-theistic
religious beliefs while seeking to suppress competing theistic religious views because it:
a. causes the state to promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic
religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from
government that favors one religious view over another;
b. sends a message that they, being theists, are outsiders within the community and that
non-theists and materialists are insiders within the community;
c. denies them the right to be treated equally with non-theists; and
d. causes them to pay taxes to fund the state's endorsement of the tenets of non- theistic
religions which conflict with their theistic beliefs.
124.
Plaintiffs who are students who attend public schools are injured by State use
of the F&S in a manner calculated to cause them to be indoctrinated into accepting a non-theistic
religious Worldview that effectively:
a. deprives them of the right to choose what to believe about an origins narrative critical
to the formation of their worldviews regarding religion, ethics, morals, and other
matters of opinion;
23b. imbues them with, rather than educates them about, a concept fundamental to
religious belief that also has a major influence on other views they will form
regarding ethics, morals, politics, government, and other matters of opinion;
c. imbues them with a religious belief that is inconsistent with the beliefs their parents
have sought to instill in them;
d. interferes with the free exercise of their religion by imbuing them with a religious
belief that is inconsistent with their existing religious beliefs;
e. discourages questions that imply any criticism of the Orthodoxy;
f. causes them to lose respect for their parents and advisors who hold views inconsistent
with the Orthodoxy; and
g. causes them to lose respect from their peers who have accepted the Orthodoxy.
125.
Plaintiffs who are parents of students who attend public schools are injured by
State endorsement and promotion of the Orthodoxy that is hostile to theistic religious beliefs and
supportive of non-theistic religious beliefs because it:
a. interferes with their right to direct the religious education of their children.
b. interferes with their right to direct the development of their children’s worldviews
regarding ethics, morals, government, politics, and other matters of opinion that
are affected by the materialistic orthodoxy;
c.
interferes with their right to freely exercise their theistic religion by causing their
children to embrace a materialistic/atheistic Worldview that is inconsistent with
that religion; and
d.
causes them to lose the respect of their children for holding views inconsistent
with a materialistic Orthodoxy that their children have been indoctrinated to
accept.
126.
Members of Plaintiff Citizens for Objective Public Education (“COPE”)
consist of parents, students and taxpayers who are residents of the state of Kansas have suffered
24actual and threatened injuries of the kind suffered by other plaintiffs herein alleged that are
traceable to the F&S and that can be redressed by the relief requested herein. The interests at
stake in this complaint are germane to the purposes of COPE, and neither the claim asserted nor
the relief requested requires the participation of individual members of COPE in the lawsuit.
VI.
CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1
(Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States)
127.
The actions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 122 amount to a
violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States and entitle plaintiffs to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendants, acting under
color of law, subjected plaintiffs to a deprivation of their rights under the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT 2
(Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States)
128.
The actions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 122 amount to a
deprivation of their rights to freely exercise their religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause
of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and entitle plaintiffs to relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendants, acting under color of law, subjected plaintiffs to a
deprivation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT 3
(Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States)
129.
The actions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 122 amount to the
establishment of an orthodox answer to ultimate questions that causes Kansas to discriminate
25against Plaintiff theists who reject the Orthodoxy and in favor of those who hold religious and
other beliefs that depend on or are consistent with the Orthodoxy all in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and
entitle plaintiffs to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendants, acting under color of law,
subjected plaintiffs to a deprivation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT 4
(Violation of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States)
130.
The use of the Orthodoxy to restrict the kinds of explanations permitted in public
schools about the natural world infringes on the speech rights of Plaintiffs in violation of the
Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and entitle
plaintiffs to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because defendants, acting under color of law, subjected
plaintiffs to a deprivation of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
VII.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, plaintiffs respectfully request the following:
a. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §
1983 declaring that the defendants' adoption and implementation of the F&S violates
the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as made
applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of
and 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and
b. An injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 prohibiting the defendants from
implementing the F&S;
26c. In the alternative to the relief requested under the preceding paragraph b. an
injunction prohibiting the implementation of those provisions of the F&S that seek to
teach about the origin, nature and development of the cosmos and of life on earth
(origins science)
(1) For grades K-8, and
(2) for grades 9 through 12 unless the origins science instruction includes
adequate and reasonably complete information about the following matters
and is taught objectively so as to produce a religiously neutral effect with
respect to theistic and non-theistic religion:
(a) An explanation that origins science addresses ultimate religious
questions, the answers to which will likely influence the religious
beliefs of students;\
(b) An explanation that the body of scientific knowledge that exists does
not include knowledge of the cause of many naturally occurring
origins events, including without limitation, the origin of (i) the
universe, (ii) the particular characteristics of matter, energy and the
physical forces, (iii) life on earth (iv) the genetic codes, (v)
the
functional information and genetic programming needed to cause
replicating cellular life to exist, (vi) the causes of major increases
in
biodiversity such as the numerous body plans that arose during the
Cambrian explosion, (vii) orphan genes, and (viii) nonmaterial
phenomena such as functional information, and human consciousness,
mind, free will, feelings and emotions.
(c) That there exists conflicting scientific views about the cause of the
origins events listed in paragraph (b) ("origins events") that also
impact religious views and that students should keep an open mind
27about these events, subject to religious guidance provided by their
parents;
(d) That teachers may not present one of competing explanations of an
origins event as valid or as the best explanation, but rather should seek
to merely objectively explain the actual state of our scientific
knowledge concerning those events;
(e) that (i) origins science is primarily an historical rather than
experimental science that uses abductive reasoning that seeks an
inference to the best of competing evidence-based alternative
explanations; (ii) that it is appropriate for students to use this method
in seeking to ascertain the cause of origins events; (iii) that it is
appropriate and permissible for them to consider the evidence-based
teleological alternative to the materialistic/atheistic alternative
provided by F&S in seeking to reach an inference to the best
explanation; and (iv) that it is up to the student, not the state, to decide
which is the best of the competing explanations, subject to parental
guidance on the subject.
(f) With respect to the Orthodoxy, (i) that the origins science explanations
provided by most institutions of science and the Standards are based
on a doctrine or orthodoxy that permits only natural, material, or
mechanistic explanations for the cause of origins events, (ii) that the
Orthodoxy is inconsistent with the abductive method of reasoning used
in historical origins science as it excludes from consideration the
evidence based teleological alternative, (iii) that the explanations
permitted by the Orthodoxy are materialistic and functionally atheistic,
and (iv) that students are not expected to understand, know or accept
28those explanations to be true, valid or the best of the competing
evidence-based explanations;
(g) That an evidence-based teleological alternative competes with the
materialistic explanations provided by the Orthodoxy, which is an
inference to an intelligent rather than a material cause for a pattern that
exhibits (i) purpose or function, (ii) a sequence or arrangement of
elements that is not due to physical or chemical necessity,
and
(iii)
where the elements of the pattern necessary to its function are too
numerous or complex to be plausibly explained by chance or
stochastic processes.
(h) That intersubjectively accessible evidence exists which supports the
teleological alternative and which is inconsistent with the Orthodoxy
regarding the origins events, and that such evidence may not have been
taken into account in the development of the materialistic/atheistic
answers allowed by the Orthodoxy (the "excluded evidence");
(i) That students will be reasonably and objectively informed of the
nature and extent of the excluded evidence;
(j) That it is rational and reasonable for students to take into account the
excluded evidence in deciding what to believe about the best
explanation for the cause of origins events;
(k) That explanations for biological evolution provided by the Standards
were developed using the Orthodoxy and therefore are not based on a
weighing of all the available evidence using common rules of evidence
consistent with the principles of abductive reasoning used in historical
sciences;
29(l) That explanations for biological origins provided by the F&S do not
distinguish between micro and macro-evolution, and although
significant evidence exists to support micro-evolutionary explanations
via random mutation and natural sorting, a scientific controversy exists
as to whether random mutation and natural sorting adequately explain
the cause of macro-evolutionary events.
(m) That various lines of evidence used to support the theory of biological
evolution
(fossil
record,
anatomical
similarities,
biochemical
similarities, embryological development, biogeography) are also
consistent with the evidence-based teleological alternative, thereby
necessitating a weighing of the evidence for and against the competing
teleological and materialistic views to logically reach an inference to
the best explanation;
(n) That explanations for biological evolution are also based on an
assumption that the origin of life occurred via a material, mechanistic
or natural cause, although there is no known evidential basis for that
explanation and that science is essentially ignorant as to how life
began if it did begin via a material cause;
(o) That the misleading statements described in paragraphs 96 through
108 be eliminated from all science curricula;
(3)
Any standard that will have the effect of causing origins science
explanations to cohere with other subject matter or curriculum unless the
coherence includes all of the elements of (2).
d.
nominal damages against the defendants for violating the plaintiffs' rights under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
30e.
an order awarding plaintiffs the costs incurred in this litigation, including
attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
f. any such further relief as the Court deems equitable, just, and proper;
g. that this Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights and other legal relations of
the parties to the subject matter here in controversy, in order that such
declarations shall have the force and effect of final judgment; and
h.
that this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter as necessary to enforce the Court’s
orders.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COME NOW, Plaintiffs and hereby demand a trial by jury on all triable issues.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Douglas J. Patterson
Douglas J. Patterson, Esq. (KS # 17296)
Kellie K. Warren, Esq. (KS #16733)
Michelle W. Burns, Esq. (KS #21167)
Property Law Firm, LLC
4630 W. 137th St., Suite 100
Leawood, Kansas 66224
Phone: 913-663-1300
doug@propertylawfirm.com
kellie@propertylawfirm.com
michelle@propertylawfirm.com
/s/ John H. Calvert
John H. Calvert, Esq. (MO #20238)
Calvert Law Offices
2300 Main St., Suite 900
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: 816-797-2869
816-448-3703
816-448-3101 Facsimile
jcalvert@att.net
/s/ Kevin T. Snider
Kevin T. Snider, Esq. (CALIF#170988)
31PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 276600
Sacramento, California 95827-6600
(916) 857-6900 Telephone
(916) 857-6902 Facsimile
ksnider@pji.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
