Creationism in Kentucky — The Panda's Thumb (Legacy Archive)

Pop quiz: name the state that still has, officially on the books, an “equal time” provision for creationism, in defiance of the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard and much additional case law? No, not Alabama, although they do still have Evolution Warning Labels mandated in all biology textbooks.

That’s right, it’s Kentucky, future home of the $25 million dollar creationism museum run by Answers in Genesis. We are actually coming up on the 15^th anniversiary of Kentucky Revised Statute 158.177, which has been in place since July 13, 1990. If you don’t believe me, read this article in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

The Enquirer quotes the statute, which I reproduce below:

23 Comments

Nick (Matzke) · 16 February 2005

Speaking of the AiG museum: AiG Creation Museum sub-page Creation Museum being built in Kentucky, USA! (March 2003) Reality drama at the Creation Museum:

15 September 2004 --- We're not talking about so-called 'reality TV.' At the Creation Museum special effects theater, you'll see true stories from the Bible, not embellished with unrealistic subplots. And the unusual twist is accuracy---both biblical and scientific!

Jeremy Mohn · 16 February 2005

Apparently, being from Kansas isn't quite so bad. I'm feeling a little better now. Thanks Nick.

Ginger Yellow · 17 February 2005

What a moronic law. Exactly how are you supposed not to "stress any particular denominational religious belief" when you're teaching the Bible?

jonas · 17 February 2005

Some people in Kentucky seem to be arrogant enough to think they are up to decide what 'the Bible theory of creation' is. They seem to be unaware how far the bible is from being a textbook, both in form and content and how hideously out of shape the texts in there have to be twisted to conform with SciCre.

P.S.(off topic): I would dearly like to see AiG's take on the more 'adult' stories in the OT. Literalism and prudery colliding must be a sight to behold.

Elias · 17 February 2005

The earth is flat. believe in me and the Bible or you will be lost!!!

Steve Reuland · 17 February 2005

(4) This section is not to be construed as being adverse to any decision which has been rendered by any court of competent jurisdiction.

These are always my favorite. Oh, by the way, we're going to assume the powers of the judicial branch and go ahead and rule in our favor. Sorry Supreme Court, the bill states plain and clear that it can't be unconstitutional, so the issue has been laid to rest. I have to wonder sometimes just how much of our democracy these people are willing to sacrifice for their agenda.

SHAUN GALLAGHER · 17 February 2005

It's humilating enough that our state will house The "Creation"
Science museum, this statute is even worse.I was unaware of this
state law. There are plenty of people in our state that accept
evolution as fact

Thanks

Shaun-Louisville

gravitybear · 17 February 2005

Ginger:
Right on target! Whenever I hear of someone advocating teaching Creationism, I immediately think, which one?

Bayesian Bouffant · 17 February 2005

It's humilating enough that our state will house The "Creation" Science museum...
— SHAUN GALLAGHER

You are not alone. There's Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land in Florida, the Institute for Creation Research Museum in California, and the Creation Evidence Museum in Texas - in fact here's shocking long list of Creation museums.

Aagcobb · 17 February 2005

I just wanted to point out in the interest of accuracy that the statute wasn't actually changed in 1990, it was just technically repealed and reenacted as part of a very large education reform act that had nothing to do with creationism.

I noticed, having read the article, that the teacher they profiled who used Genesis in his class isn't a bible thumping creationist, but actually convinced a couple of creationist kids in his class that God could have created life through the process of evolution! Talk about taking a lemon and making lemonade!

Great White Wonder · 17 February 2005

I noticed, having read the article, that the teacher they profiled who used Genesis in his class isn't a bible thumping creationist, but actually convinced a couple of creationist kids in his class that God could have created life through the process of evolution! Talk about taking a lemon and making lemonade!

Let's hope those kids parents are either sympathetic to that view, or don't find out. If they aren't sympathetic, what are the odds that they'll "spare the rod" in their efforts to cleanse their kids' brains and mouths of such heretical materialist nonsense?

Mike Hopkins · 17 February 2005

How come no one is taking this law to court? I would suspect that it would receive summary judgement at district court.

--
Anti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"

Keanus · 17 February 2005

How can a state's electorate tolerate such nonsense?

Clauses 1 and 2 are plainly unconstitutional.

Clause 3 directly contradicts what's provided for in clauses 1 and 2, and

Clause 4 is arrant nonsense that would be thrown out of court in the first court in which the law was contested.

I sure hope some group of parents in Kentucky with kids in the schools, to insure they have standing, should sue the state in Federal court.

Great White Wonder · 17 February 2005

How come no one is taking this law to court? I would suspect that it would receive summary judgement at district court.

Maybe because Nathan "atheism is a religion" Newman warned them of a "conservative backlash."

Jason · 17 February 2005

As a graduate of Eastern Kentucky University (1994), this doesn't surprise me in the least. I remember giving a presentation in genetics class about using mitochondrial dna to trace human origins, and after my presentation, about 5 hands went up for questions. The first person said, "Maybe you and the [racial epithet] came from the monkeys, but the rest of us were created by God!" I ignored the question and asked if there were any others. No other hands went up.

Then in our evolutionary biology class, the professor who had been there many, many years and was obviously familiar with the territory, began the first class by saying "If any of you are here thinking you're going to debate me about the Bible or creationism or you're going to waste our time trying to prove me wrong, get out. I'll sign your drop slip right now." About 5 people got up and left.

The farther east and south you go in Kentucky, the more economically depressed and backwards it gets. Anti-evolutionism, racism, and general anti-everything but conservative white Christianity is the norm.

It was an odd mix of cultures in that area. EKU is just down the road from the University of Kentucky and the legacy of Thomas Hunt Morgan and his early work with Drosophila, but is firmly in the heart of creationism-world.

steve · 17 February 2005

Indeed. For a funeral in November (kind of near Lexington), I drove from Raleigh, through much of southeastern Ky. I passed one place called Fundamental Christian Church. Then I spent the weekend with many Kentucky relatives. It only surprises me that the damn thing won't be called Kentucky Kreationizm Muzeim.

Dan Phelps · 17 February 2005

Does anyone know the criteria to be a plantiff if the ACLU were to sue? I don't have children, but teach geology part time at Lexington Community College and am President of the Kentucky Paleontological Society http://www.kyps.org . Moreover, I am a native Kentuckian and have been long active in combating creationism.

Dan

Keanus · 17 February 2005

Dan Phelps asked...

Does anyone know the criteria to be a plantiff if the ACLU were to sue?

Contact the Kentucky office of the ACLU. I don't know their location, but the ACLU must have an office with a resident counsel in either Louisville or Frankfort. They should be listed on the web; I know the Pennsylvania (where I live) offices are. As a resident and taxpayer, you surely qualify as a plaintiff, but I would expect they'd prefer to have adults with children enrolled in the public schools, especially ones who are studing biology now or will be taking it shortly. On the latter point the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover PA case has asked the court to remove the ACLU plaintiffs whose children have already taken biology or won't for a number of years (because they're in the first or second grade). The court hasn't responded to the request, but I suspect it will reject it. But then I'm not a lawyer, so I'm speculating. Maybe someone else who is can respond.

RBH · 17 February 2005

Dan Phelps asked

Does anyone know the criteria to be a plantiff if the ACLU were to sue?

Contact ncseoffice(AT)ncseweb.org. RBH

Keanus · 18 February 2005

Tonight, when I had more time, I googled "ACLU Kentucky" and came up with the following:

ACLU of Kentucky
315 Guthrie Street Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202-3820
ph: 502-581-1181 fax: 502-589-9687
info@aclu-ky.org

The ACLU is also reachable via their website.

Ed Darrell · 21 February 2005

One needs standing to sue. You'd have to have a dog in the fight.

The plaintiff, Epperson, in Epperson v. Arkansas was a high school biology teacher who thought the law requiring equal time for creationism to be illegal. The plaintiff in Lee v. Weisman (a graduation prayer case) was the father of a student.

The difficulty I see in this law is that it's so bizarre. The last clause could be read to nullify the rest of it. The first two sections specifically endorse a peculiar view of a particular faith, but the third section says teachers won't do what the first two sections allow.

Has anyone ever done anything under the color of that law? My guess is it also conflicts with the state standards in science.

What a delicious, dangerous mess!

RBH · 21 February 2005

Ed wrote

What a delicious, dangerous mess!

Heinlein wrote (I think in Glory Road) that "Vox populi, vox Dei" translates as "How the Hell did we get into this mess?" RBH

owen · 11 April 2005

Don't worry one day God will sort this whole thing out.