When he's not busy having trysts with prostitutes, David Vitter apparently spends his time making sure creationist groups get Federal tax dollars. The New Orleans Times Picayune reports that he recently placed an earmark in a spending bill that gave $100,000 to a creationist group in Louisiana to push creationism in public schools:
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."
And unsurprisingly, they're trying to cover up their obvious creationist leanings once the media calls:
The nonprofit Louisiana Family Forum, launched in Baton Rouge in 1999 by former state Rep. Tony Perkins, has in recent years taken the lead in promoting "origins science," which includes the possibility of divine intervention in the creation of the universe.The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a "battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous" concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry.
The article also points out that the Louisiana Family Forum has very close ties with Vitter:
The group's tax-exempt status prohibits the Louisiana Family Forum from political activity, but Vitter has close ties to the group. Dan Richey, the group's grass-roots coordinator, was paid $17,250 as a consultant in Vitter's 2004 Senate race. Records also show that Vitter's campaign employed Beryl Amedee, the education resource council chairwoman for the Louisiana Family Forum.
Vitter's office is, of course, defending the earmark:
"This program helps supplement and support educators and school systems that would like to offer all of the explanations in the study of controversial science topics such as global warming and the life sciences," Vitter said in a written statement.The money in the earmark will pay for a report suggesting "improvements" in science education in Louisiana, the development and distribution of educational materials and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Ouachita Parish School Board's 2006 policy that opened the door to biblically inspired teachings in science classes.
"I believe it is an important program," Vitter said.
The Louisiana Family Forum has every right to advocate creationism and rail against the evils of evolution, but there's certainly no reason why they should get our tax dollars to do it. Especially if they're going to be promoting crap like this:
Mills said his group is not attempting to push the teaching of evolution out of the schools, but wants to supplement it. Yet, some of the material posted on the Louisiana Family Forum's Web site suggests a more radical view.Among other things, a "Louisiana Family Forum Fact Sheet" at one point included "A Battle Plan -- Practical Steps to Combat Evolution" by Kent Hovind, a controversial evangelist who is serving a 10-year prison sentence for tax offenses and obstruction of justice.
Hovind's paper stated, "Evolution is not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief" that underpinned the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
The bill has yet to be voted on. How about contacting your senator and telling them to get this nonsense out of the bill? You can find the earmark in this PDF file on page 238.

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 



Comments
Say what? If Mr. Mills and his organization believe this, then why are they not trying and push evolution out of schools? It can't be that they are trying to hide their motivations and dishonestly protraying it merely as a desire to teach 'good science', can it?
Posted by: Dave S. | September 24, 2007 10:00 AM
Posted by: Wes | September 24, 2007 10:01 AM
Oops, I screwed up the blockquote tag above. My comments begin at "Look at how..."
Posted by: Wes | September 24, 2007 10:02 AM
I have the Ouachita Parish policy mentioned online here. It's a complete "teach the controversy" label on the same old antievolution. They apparently hope that "antievolution and miscellaneous second denials" will fool the courts.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | September 24, 2007 10:32 AM
Uh-oh,
More "debunking" from OverwhelmingEvidence:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/353
"Anti ID blogs smear Louisiana Family Forum"
Posted by: Salim Fadhley | September 24, 2007 11:04 AM
Since this earmark involves federal funds, does the recent Hain ruling mean that citizens would not be able to sue the government over this, or would this be actionable, since it is actual legislative (as opposed to executive) action?
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | September 24, 2007 11:19 AM
Bah..that should read Hein, not Hain.
One of these days, I'll learn to proofread a bt better. =P
Posted by: Fastlane | September 24, 2007 11:20 AM
If I recall correctly, Hein would only apply to discretionary spending by the executive branch. Anything specifically authorized by the legislative would still allow taxpayer standing, though there are elements that would love the chance to change that.
Posted by: Rasputin | September 24, 2007 11:28 AM
Rasputin is right, because it is a direct appropriation by Congress, there should be taxpayer standing to challenge it in court.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 24, 2007 11:39 AM
Thanks for the link, Salim. That's hilarious. He actually calls the Louisiana Family Forum an "ID research institute." That'll be fun to fisk.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 24, 2007 11:42 AM
I should warn you that OE.com is widely-regarded to be heavily infiltrated these days. With the exception of Samuel Chen and Denyse Oleary, I think everybody (including Mr Bob Mortimer who wrote that article) is having a joke at Dembski's expense.
Incidentally, Bob Mortimer is the name of a very famous British TV comedian, well known for his surreal sense of humor.
So rather than Fisk OE, it would be better to estimate exactly how much of OE.com is a joke and how much of it is real.
Sal
Posted by: Salim Fadhley | September 24, 2007 11:55 AM
Ed, you'll want to know that the author of that little article on Overwhelming Evidence is pretty certainly a parody, along with most of the folks who regularly contribute to the site.
Posted by: argystokes | September 24, 2007 1:41 PM
Heh - doesn't matter how much of it is "real", the whole site is a joke. In fact, any site that has regular contributions from O'Leary is a joke. Up next to her, Bill Dembski is almost a voice of sanity. He obviously doesn't choose his allies very carefully.
Posted by: tacitus | September 24, 2007 2:23 PM
Actually, one could check the hypothesis, "Dembski chooses his allies carefully", and come up with a positive. Since Dembski's allies tend to all fall in a lump at one extreme of the "accepts/denies reality" distribution, the idea that he is choosing not carefully, but at random, must be rejected.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry | September 24, 2007 4:33 PM
Get me out of this state!!! I did not know a looney-bin organization posing as a "moral-rite" agency was down the street from me...
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | September 25, 2007 4:10 AM