I was gonna fisk the DI’s reaction to the El Tejon case, but Mike Dunford already did it quite well. The DI, via Casey Luskin, predictably tries to spin this as proof of us evil “Darwinists” and our intolerance for ID. But at the same time, he admits that this course is not merely teaching about ID but is actually advocating creationism:
The course is misnamed–it actually advocates for young earth creationism and teaches out of the Bible.
If it advocates for young earth creationism, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s in a philosophy course or a science course, a public school simply cannot do it. Furthermore, Casey’s accusation of inconsistency is patently absurd. Here is how he justifies it:
Darwinists have stated that ID is religion. Thus they have said that ID was just fine in a philosophy, or non-science course, as long as it stayed out of science courses. This is because even the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that “education is not complete without a study of comparative religion.” (Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980) (citing Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963))
While of course we think that ID is not religion, a bona fide scientific theory which could be taught in science classrooms, we won’t oppose non-science teachers that want to present this material to their students. Virtually any topic could be game for a non-scientific philosophy survey course like this one, where no material is being taught as science. We thought the Darwinists were willing to see non-evolutionary ideas considered in non-science courses. Turns out they were lying.
Or that Casey is lying. Look at his own words. What did we say was okay? The same thing the Supreme Court said was okay, teaching about ID in a comparative religion class. This is not such a course. This course, by Casey’s own admission, advocates for young earth creationism. That is forbidden by the constitution regardless of what department the class is assigned to in school. In short, Luskin is lying about us lying. Anyone shocked?