American jury trials are probably the fairest way in the world to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. Time-tested rules permit the person or group on trial to be both prosecuted and defended in a way that doesn’t favor either side. The prosecutor and the defender examine the same set of evidence, but present the jury with different possibilities regarding what actually happened. Our system of justice works because the jury is given the opportunity to consider the full set of evidences, as well as the arguments from both sides before making a decision. The right to a fair trial is such a cherished part of America that citizens would be outraged if they heard of a judge who allowed the prosecutor to freely present evidence and arguments to the jury, but declared the defender’s entire case inadmissible based on an unproved and controversial assumption.
A very important legal case, COPE vs. Kansas Board of Education, is now making its way through the courts. Although the lawsuit is a civil case, it has many parallels to the example of the unjust judge. There have been several court cases where Christian parents were accused of trying to insert their religious beliefs into science classes. However, in this case, it is Christian parents who have valid reasons to claim that they are being wronged by a situation in which their religious beliefs are being ruled inadmissible while the ideas of another opposing religious belief are being freely allowed. They find themselves in a situation where a state policy seeks to replace their theistic religious beliefs with a non-theistic religious worldview. The dilemma arose when the Kansas State School Board adopted a new set of science standards known as Next Generation Science Standards or NGSS.
Continue reading Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence in the National Science Standards