I know, I know, they lie so often that it’s hardly worth pointing it out. But take a look at how brazen this is – they claim that Americans United is contradicting themselves in taking two positions, then they put the actual positions right next to each other that show the obvious distinction between the two. This is from Rob Crowther, who is doing a bang up job as a paid shill in distorting and spinning. He is here claiming that Americans United is “singing a different tune now than they did last year during the Dover trial” when it comes to whether you can teach about creationism in a non-science class. Here’s his “proof”:
Then they wanted to outlaw mentioning intelligent design in science classes. Now they want to ban it from all classes.
Then, they said intelligent design was an okay topic for philosophy classes. Now, they claim intelligent design is not suited for any classes.
Then, the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was saying specifically about intelligent design that: “when it comes to matters of religion and philosophy, they can be discussed objectively in public schools, but not in biology class.”
Now, Ayesah Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State is saying: “This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class.”
Back then,Rev. Lynn was saying: “And Dan, just one other point, you can, in fact, talk about creation stories from a multitude of religions. It ought to be to be in a social studies class, not in a biology class.”
But the language used in these allegedly contradictory quotes is entirely different and reveals the obvious distinction that Crowther is either intentionally ignoring (making him dishonest) or not understanding (making him clueless) – take your pick. Barry Lynn’s first statement says that creationism may be “discussed objectively“, while his second statement says that they can “talk about creation stories from a multitude of religions”, both in a non-science class where it would be appropriate to the curriculum. Meanwhile, Ayesha Khan’s statement, the one he falsely claims contradicts those two statements, says that school cannot “promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution” regardless of what department it is done under.
There is no inconsistency here whatsoever. Yes, it is possible to teach about creation stories, discussing them objectively as part of a class in comparative religion or religious history. No, schools may not promote or endorse creationism regardless of the type of class in which they do it. And by the DI’s own admission, the class they objected to in El Tejon “promotes young earth or Biblical creationism”, meaning it is not merely being taught about or being discussed objectively. The only contradiction here has come from the DI, who accused those who wanted the class removed of being “dogmatic Darwinists” and then wanted it cancelled themselves once they learned what was actually being taught.