Saturday, May 18, 2013

Addendum to Kentucky Junk Science

Here is the complete text of the section of the Kentucky state law (KS 158.177) that is quoted in the story from Leo Weekly:
158.177 Teaching of evolution -- Right to include Bible theory of creation.
(1) In any public school instruction concerning the theories of the creation of man and the earth, and which involves the theory thereon commonly known as evolution, any teacher so desiring may include as a portion of such instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible, and may accordingly read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation, thereby affording students a choice as to which such theory to accept.
(2) For those students receiving such instruction, and who accept the Bible theory of creation, credit shall be permitted on any examination in which adherence to such theory is propounded, provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.
(3) No teacher in a public school may stress any particular denominational religious belief.
(4) This section is not to be construed as being adverse to any decision which has been rendered by any court of competent jurisdiction.
Effective: July 13, 1990
History: Repealed and reenacted 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 476, Pt. V, sec. 403, effective July 13, 1990. -- Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 261, sec. 1.
It is the last part of the statute that really rattles my cage. This means that, if a school child takes a quiz like the one that was given at that South Carolina private school, they get full credit for it as far as the state is concerned. How is that credible on any level.

Interestingly, if you will recall, the University of Southern California refused to accept the credits of a student who was instructed in just this way.  The parents sued the state and lost.  

P.S., The father that pointed out the quiz that his daughter took is yanking her out of that school.

Enact a basic science test
Enact a basic science test
Enact a basic science test 


  1. It seems to me that item 4 would render the law defunct, what with the Dover case and all...

  2. I think that it depends on how narrowly the case in Dover was rendered. My guess is that anyone with the gumption can certainly make a First Amendment case against it.