Image via Wikipedia
I think it’s been mentioned before on here, but I live in Louisiana. I’ve been in New Orleans for just under a decade, though I’ve spent a good bit of my time very recently in Shreveport where most of my family lives. For this reason it is of particular interest to me when nonsense pops up in the state, right on my own doorstep.
A few days ago it was announced that the school board of Livingston Parish was proclaiming their intent to get creationism into the science classes in public high schools. To quote an article from the local paper, The Livingston Parish News: “The School Board Thursday petitioned Livingston Parish Public Schools administrators to investigate options to study the teaching of creationism theory in high school science classes starting in the 2011-12 school year.”
For those of you unaware, the teaching of creationism is explicitly prohibited in public schools and for good reason. It specifically violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This isn’t something I’m just saying; that’s the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States. Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 is the case in question, and, in relation to the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act," it held that “The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose,” that “The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of ‘protecting academic freedom," and “The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.”
It’s difficult to get more clear than that. And guess which state was responsible for above act that was struck down so decidedly by the highest court in the land…Louisiana. Man, we just can’t learn even the simplest lessons here. I can’t help but marvel at the willingness of the people of this state, elected officials, people of power and supposed learning, to make themselves into full-on fools in the eyes of their neighbors and the country and world at large.
One has to wonder, then, what possible justification the school board could use in petitioning school administrators to figure out how to get creationism into the science class. Let’s look at their own words. Again from the LPN story linked above, “Board member Clint Mitchell said that teaching creationism is not really teaching religion. ’Teachers should not have to be afraid to not teach those things that are not prudent in evolution’, Mitchell said.”
First, the Supreme Court clearly disagrees with Mitchell that “teaching creationism is not really teaching religion.” Further, I can’t imagine how one can even attempt to make such a case when creationism, by definition, proposes that world is the world of a supernatural act of Creation by some Creator. How can we get around that being religion? Also, what does it even mean to say “’Teachers should not have to be afraid to not teach those things that are not prudent in evolution”? What does prudence have to do with what is relevant to the teaching of evolution? I can only guess that board member Mitchell has no idea what “prudence” is. The idea that such a person is given the task of deciding what is appropriate to be taught should terrify everyone reading this, regardless of their position on the issue.
Fortunately (what an absurd situation it is when the following is considered “good fortune”), some of the other board members were much more forthright and honest. Board member David Tate said, “We just sit up here and let them teach evolution and not take a stand about creationism. To me, how come we don’t look into this as people who are strong Christians and see what we can do to teach creationism in schools. We sit back and let the government tell us what to do. We don’t pray to the ACLU and all them people: we pray to God.”
There can be no misunderstanding as to Tate’s reasoning. He is explicit that creationism should be taught because that’s what “strong Christians” should do because they “pray to God.” One can only wonder what Tate’s response would be if it were some other religion’s creation story being put for as appropriate material for the science class. I can’t help but think he would consider that an infringement upon his right to worship his own god as he sees fit.
Board president Keith Martin has perhaps the most interesting reason for bringing in creationism to the science classroom. He said, “Kids are getting harder and harder to discipline. Without this kind of thought, it will get even harder.” That’s right. We need to teach creationism because kids are acting up in class. Whether or not this is science or even true doesn’t matter. What matters is getting kids in line. And it’s got to be clear to everyone how teaching creationism will solve these disciplinary issues. Right? It’s because…well, because…just because, ok?!
Beyond the legal issue is the bigger issue of whether or not creationism is science. It isn’t. There’s no way around that. There is no scientific evidence for anything like a supernatural creator, and that’s just the way things are. Does that mean you can’t accept that as an article of faith? Well, that’s a different issue. What is at issue here is what is appropriate for the science classroom. Since the class is about, you know, science, it would seem obvious that science is the appropriate subject matter. Attempting to shoehorn religion in there is not just illegal, it’s stupid.
Come on, people. Let’s not be so stupid about this.