Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another Louisiana school seems to be lining up to be the next one to get its butt kicked in court for trying to teach creationism.
The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring the possibility of incorporating the teaching of "creationism" in the public school system's science classes.During the board's meeting Thursday, several board members expressed an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school classrooms.
And I'm sure the attorneys for the ACLU and Americans United have already made note of some of the arguments being made:
Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes.Board Member David Tate quickly responded: "We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can't we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?"
Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, "I agree ... you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom."
Board President Keith Martin, while reminding the members that a decision had been made in the past not to teach creationism, suggested that now might be the time to re-examine the issue.
Martin said that one problem with the teaching of creationism versus evolution is that, "You don't want two different teachers teaching two different things."
Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: "Maybe it's time that we look at this."
Uh, okay. Good luck with that. I especially like this part:
"We shouldn't just jump into this thing, but we do need to look at it," Martin said. "The American Civil Liberties Union and even some of our principals would not be pleased with us, but we shouldn't worry about the ACLU. It's more important that we do the correct thing for the children we educate."
Good luck doing that after you have to pay a few hundred thousand dollars in court costs because your school board is made up of idiots.
Politics
Comments
Isn't it usually "whupped?"
Posted by: NancyNew | July 29, 2010 9:17 AM
"This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 9:17 AM
That also rules out teaching "both sides of the controversy."
Somehow I doubt this was quite what he meant, though.
I agree completely, actually. They should do the correct thing for the children they educate, independently of what the ACLU advocates. Of course in this case that still means teaching proper science and thus doing what the ACLU wants.
Posted by: Mithandir | July 29, 2010 9:20 AM
"critical thinking and creationism" is a contradiction.
Posted by: Wesley | July 29, 2010 9:22 AM
Yeah, that's gonna help lots. Teach kids that there's some guy who created the Universe, and he doesn't like it when you call Mr. Martin a 'boring old fart' or 'befuddled fossil' to his face.
It also amusing how, if you go by the laments of conservatives, discipline of young people has been constantly becoming more of a challenge for the last 6,000 years running. Extrapolating backwards, I come to the conclusion that kids in 4,000 BC voluntarily whipped themselves to the bone before even thinking about challenging authority.
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 29, 2010 9:23 AM
I have a real problem with journalists when they write this garbage. They lend credence to the idea that somehow creationism is a competing theory, when it isn't even in the same universe. This then gives these morons and the other ignorant sheeple more encouragement to do what they do, and ultimately hurt their already pitiful educational systems where it hurts most, in the pocket book.
Posted by: Doug Little | July 29, 2010 9:25 AM
Martin said that one problem with the teaching of creationism versus evolution is that, "You don't want two different teachers teaching two different things."
Why am I thinking this wouldn't be much of a problem once they purged the actual science teachers and replaced them with Ken Ham disciples?
Posted by: Odie | July 29, 2010 9:26 AM
article: ...creationism, an alternative to the study of the theory of evolution....
This is another example of poor journalism. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution; it is religious indoctrination that, in some cases, tries to masquerade as science.
Or, maybe, creationism is an alternative to the study of evolution for people who want to indoctrinate their kids in their religious superstitions rather than have them learn sound science.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 29, 2010 9:28 AM
"In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made School Boards." - Mark Twain
Posted by: abb3w | July 29, 2010 9:36 AM
Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: "Maybe it's time that we look at this."
Um, what? That seems like such a non-sequitur. Unless - is this that whole 'how can you expect people to act like humans when they're being taught they're monkeys' thing?
Man, you'd think I wouldn't be surprised when they use arguments from a century past.
Posted by: Sivi | July 29, 2010 9:37 AM
Well, if there is one state that I associate with a cutting-edge, quality education, it's Louisiana.
I really want to see teachers bring in the "extra" material to class. I recently, bought a creationist textbook meant for homeschool published by BJU. And if more people actually knew what was in these books, I think there would be a bigger push by moderates to make sure the books stay as far away from the classroom as possible.
Facts from the 4th /5th Grade science book.
Scientists don't know for sure, but electricity comes from either the sun or underground.
Fungi are plants.
Armalcolite, Pyroxene, and Ilmenite are elements.
There are four insect orders Lepidoptera, Homoptera, Hymenoptera and Orthoptera.
There should be moon dust a hundred feet deep.
The grand canyon is evidence of the flood.
They list the differences between butterflies and moths. None of the characteristics actually separate butterflies from moths, and they missed the only two characteristics that do separate butterflies from the rest of Lepidoptera.
But by far the best fact that teachers are supposed to make sure that the students know is.....
Evolutionists believe that the moon broke off from the earth creating the Pacific Ocean.
Posted by: Holytape | July 29, 2010 9:49 AM
I don't understand how unruly teens has anything to do with the teaching of evolution, nor how it would be diminished or managed with the teaching of creationism.
Am I missing something here?
Posted by: Umlud | July 29, 2010 9:49 AM
Is there any way to punish a school board for doing something as boneheaded as this? Can't we consider the money lost part of a theft or something?
Posted by: Heretic | July 29, 2010 9:59 AM
@Umlud #12
Yes, you missed your Sunday School lessons....
Ignorant children are not only happy children, they are well-behaved children.
Kenbo
Posted by: Kenbo | July 29, 2010 9:59 AM
@Umlud #12
Maybe if the kids are taught that they were deliberately designed to be like monkeys, they would decide to follow the intentions of their designers and act like monkeys?
(Yes, I'm joking.)
Posted by: TomS | July 29, 2010 10:00 AM
Saying creationism is an "alternative" to evolution is like saying drilling holes a person's head to let the evil spirtis out is an alternative to medicine.
Posted by: greatbear | July 29, 2010 10:00 AM
My reading of the comments about discipline is that they're arguing for teaching just creationism instead of the "teach the controversy" approach because if students get lessons in two things they'll become more unrully. No it doesn't make sense but no creationist arguments do.
Posted by: Matty | July 29, 2010 10:00 AM
Holytape: Evolutionists believe that the moon broke off from the earth creating the Pacific Ocean.
I don't see a problem with this at all. After all, we know that there isn't enough water to actually cover the entire surface of the Earth, which makes Noah's Flood problematic. However, if Ya-Whey let all the rain fall, then took a big chunk out of the planet to make the moon, all the water would have drained in to the crater.
It's so simple!
Also, it's terrifying that I was able to just make that up on the spot and it sounds completely sensible...from the "creationism is science" perspective...
Umlud: Am I missing something here?
Yes. The bit where every not-so-thinly veiled attempt to put religion in to the political sphere has to be covered by non sequitur arguments that make it look like there's absolutely nothing religious involved. Of course some are better at covering their tracks than others...
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2010 10:01 AM
Umlud,
It's kind of a twin prong attack on evolution. First, the argument is, that by "taking religion out of school" we've caused all of the problems of modern society. They then present flawed evidence to support their non-causal relationship and pretend that prior to 1962 there was no teen pregnancy, no violence, no crime, etc.
Second, they could be channeling the old argument that "telling kids they're descended from monkeys makes them act like monkeys." Which is, again, a variation on the flawed argument that the bible and religion provide morality and by not teaching Genesis in school we are destroying society because, obviously, religious people never do anything wrong, but, as is obviously true, the jails are full of atheists because they have no morals. (/snark)
In effect what has happened is someone slipped and let the religious "slip" show from underneath their science "dress."
Posted by: dogmeat | July 29, 2010 10:09 AM
Heretic, #13: Is there any way to punish a school board for doing something as boneheaded as this? Can't we consider the money lost part of a theft or something?
Maybe we can slap a fine on the plaintiffs for doing something so obviously lawsuit-worthy that they are guilty of provoking what is essentially a frivolous law suit.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs in this case would be the school district, not the knuckleheads on it, so that doesn't really address your point.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 29, 2010 10:11 AM
Umlud, remember that to social conservatives, religion is the soporific of the masses.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 29, 2010 10:13 AM
My first thought is that it's going to be so awesome when the school board decides to teach Intelligent Design and pretends these conversations never happened. "Cre-a-shun-ism? I don't know what you're talking about. These two things are connected at all." The judge's decision is sure to be highly entertaining.
Why can't idiots like these be sued personally again for making such a boneheaded move? And what about the school's lawyer? Surely he can't be that stupid too.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | July 29, 2010 10:18 AM
All right, name some. I'm listening.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 29, 2010 10:26 AM
During the board's meeting Thursday, several board members expressed their total lack of interest in science, reality, or the education or welfare of the children in their care...
There, fixed it for ya. Yer welcome.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 10:34 AM
Wow, one bull session and they're ready to change the books and fire the teachers and take on the whole dern system. Gotta love the thinking out of the box! Boldy go! Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2010 10:35 AM
Holytape @ # 11: Well, if there is one state that I associate with a cutting-edge, quality education, it's Louisiana.
LSU is generally considered in the upper tier of US state universities - and its main campus is less than an hour's leisurely drive from Livingston Parish.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 29, 2010 10:56 AM
wesley @4
Not at all. "Critical thinking" and "creationism" are exclusive of each other, like boys and girls. Girls are not boys and boys are not girls. Thus "critical thinking" is not a part of "creationism" while "creationism" does not include "critical thinking".
Posted by: natual cynic | July 29, 2010 11:31 AM
Posted by: Budbear | July 29, 2010 11:34 AM
Posted by: Doug Little | July 29, 2010 11:44 AM
Can they really be this dense? The problem isn't that the ACLU would be displeased with you; the problem is that the courts would be 'displeased' with you and smack you down because what you're doing is against the law. All the ACLU does is help people you've screwed over to get justice from the courts.
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2010 11:49 AM
Another example of people living inside a tight little cultural bubble. It doesn't even occur to them that creationism = religion, and one religion cannot be promoted by a public school. Was the school attorney out taking a leak while they had this discussion? Or is he as ignorant as the board?
Or maybe they hope that, by their bringing religion in the classrooms, hurricanes will now avoid Louisiana.
Posted by: wheatdogg | July 29, 2010 11:49 AM
hahahahahaha!
And lookie here--Edwards v. Aguillard was actually decided against a different Louisiana district! hahahahahaha! Just when I think Nevada couldn't possibly do better than any other state, I have Louisiana to thank for a nice laugh. Thank you, Louisiana.
Yes, it's really bad to be happy about someone else's misfortune, but creationists really bring out my worse impulses.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | July 29, 2010 12:06 PM
Any wagers on how many of those school board members homeschool?
...
Pierce R. Butler "LSU is generally considered in the upper tier of US state universities - and its main campus is less than an hour's leisurely drive from Livingston Parish."
How long if I drive faster?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 29, 2010 12:07 PM
I still don't get that. Is Martin agreeing with himself about something? If so, what is it that he is agreeing with? Martin is a very confusing person.
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2010 12:08 PM
natual cynic @27:
I meant that teaching "critical thinking and creationism" was contradictory, or at least would result in contradictory approaches. "Mutually exclusive" and "contradictory" are not, well, mutually exclusive.
/semantics
Shawn @32
Yes, Louisiana is probably the worst state for this sort of nonsense. At least this sort of extreme nonsense can be laughed at because there's no way in hell it would be upheld in court.
Posted by: Wesley | July 29, 2010 12:15 PM
Is there any way to punish a school board for doing something as boneheaded as this? Can't we consider the money lost part of a theft or something?
Are elected officials indemnified against irresponsible actions?? If an officer of a company deliberately made a mistake that materially damaged the business, wouldn't they be liable for shareholder lawsuits? I think that one could argue that part of the responsibility of a school board is not to be the next Kitzmiller V Dover (with all the attendant costs) malfeasance incompetence blah blah blah. I've always felt that elected officials that act outside the mandate granted by the platform on which they were elected should be liable for the consequences of their choices.
The whole religion in schools topic is ripe for a bit of overton windowing. Let's start pushing to teach a class on judaism, islam, christianity, and mormonism - portraying them accurately as the same thing - right after the classes on hinduism, buddhism, and cthulhu cult. I'm guessing I know which the students would be most impressed by! Ia! Ia! The fundies would be so busy coping with the intercranial pressure brought on by that, that they'd forget all about Charles Darwin. And while we're at it let's teach the kids the philosophies of Epicurus, Voltaire and Nietsche. Then they'd be wishing it was just evolution that the kids were learning...
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2010 12:24 PM
Every time I read a story like this, I immediately think of this classic blog by John Rogers (Kung Fu Monkey)...
Worth reading the rest of. He gets a great rant on here...
Posted by: dcsohl | July 29, 2010 12:26 PM
...and because I don't have kids in that school district, and because I don't pay taxes to that school district, and because I won't the one who has to move away due to death threats/firebombings.
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2010 12:29 PM
@Marcus Ranum #36
If you want to get the attention of the voters, suggest that Calvinball be taught as an alternative to football. Calvinball bearing approximately the same relationship to football as creationism does to science. And the voters care more about football than science.
Posted by: TomS | July 29, 2010 12:58 PM
Maybe someone should send them a copy of Judge Jones' ruling in Dover. And someone to read it to them. And someone to explain what they just had read to them. And, oh, never mind.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 29, 2010 1:22 PM
The rest of the world should thank the Creationists in America for all the great jobs their kids will get in the sciences while American Kids are being prepared for carrears flipping burgers at Macdonalds.
Posted by: Paen | July 29, 2010 2:45 PM
If I were a principal in that school district who was even close to anything but a Chritian, then I would be suing the shit of tem for thta last line.
I want to see a Native American student who is in a public school insist that if Creation be taught, they must teach the creation story from every perspective its been told from. If it's creationism, but it's not strictly religious, then stories of Enkai, the two loons of Siberia, things like the days and nights of Brahma, the Enuma Elish, Ahura Mazda (Now owned by Ford?), Coatlique, The trickster, posing as the Raven. I mean come on there are literally hundreds of creation stories. If it's true to creationism, it would explain the concept of the creation myth and then the kids can make them explain why there are so many of them and how they can't really be true.
That was a good chunk of how I came to realize it was all BS. Having to learn a lot about the native tribes of California exposed me to creation myths, as myths ata young age. So studying actual mythology helped make the case against religion, which was important for me, so make them explain creation, through every possible scope.
Posted by: Casey | July 29, 2010 3:07 PM
Livingston Parish School System, motto: "Well, the world needs ditch diggers too."
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 3:47 PM
Livingston Parish: Holding up the bottom end of the bell curve since 1832!
Posted by: Cynical | July 29, 2010 4:54 PM
IANAL, but if the school board's lawyer tells them that it is unconstitutional to teach creationism, and they do it anyway, wouldn't they then be personally liable for knowingly violating the law?
Posted by: Scott | July 29, 2010 4:56 PM
Was that intentional?
Carrears: Careers consisting strictly of menial, dead-end jobs which cause the worker to fall farther and farther behind on their bills.
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2010 5:00 PM
Well, the way I see it is that, if the school is willing to forget about the Constitution and start teaching creationism, then they should also forget about the Constitutional protections that prevent teachers teaching it from a properly scientific perspective, especially as they want it taught in a science class. This means it should be made clear that it is based on extremely weak, if not nonexistant evidence, and so the proper scientific approach is to treat it as being a wild conjecture that is highly unlikely to be correct, and thus should be rejected in favour of evolution, due to the overwhelming volume of evidence that evolution has backing it up.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 29, 2010 6:12 PM
DaveL: I award you one Internets™ for your excellent lexicography.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 29, 2010 6:28 PM
*sigh*
stuff like this depresses me. 1) creationism is NOT an alternative to evolution. it's religious mumbo jumbo dressed up as pseudo-science and it's demonstrably wrong. 2) check out quotes like this: "We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can't we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?" and "I agree ... you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom." Those quotes tell you that the people making this decision have already made up their minds that creationism is right and evolution is a "fallacy". That pretty much tells you right there that they have zero interest in "critical thinking" or equal time or letting students decide and that their only objective is to brainwash children with their religious beliefs. It's such transparent bullshit and I'd be going ape if I was a parent in this school district.
Posted by: Ryan | July 29, 2010 8:46 PM
Having grown up in Livingston Parish, I am a little depressed by this, but not overly surprised. My brother's family is still there, hopefully this gets remedied before it affects my nieces and nephew.
Posted by: Pohranicni Straze | July 29, 2010 11:45 PM
No, you don't understand what a cunning plan this is.
The school board is going save the district a bucket-load of money by losing a lawsuit. Because the district will have no money they'll fire all the teachers, except one* (remedial Shop), teach only that course for the five or so years of "skool learnin'" that passes for an excellent education in Louisiana. Voilà! Instant savings. - Dingo
-----
* "You don't want two different teachers teaching two different things."
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 4:17 AM
#11 holytape pointing out some YEC fallacies e.g. "There should be moon dust a hundred feet deep."
To me this fallacy shows clearly (an apt example of) the corruptness and deleteriousness of faith and fundamentalism. To sum up:
(1) uncritically accepting and embracing things (about anything) that seem to support doctrine/dogma,
(2) ignoring willfully (or explaining away fallaciously) glaring corrections and/or additions to the body knowledge that contradict or weaken your doctrine/dogma supporting "evidence",
(3) unashamedly promulgating that fallacious supporting "evidence" as truth and fact to innocents and cohorts even in the face of general honest acknowledgment of its fallaciousness so that these people accept your dogma/doctrine
To me anybody that has any integrity and honor would and should be horrified that such BS is foisted on our children in any way. But then they would say sinful "pride" blinds our eyes. Of course.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 30, 2010 6:16 AM
ConcernedJoe "To me anybody that has any integrity and honor would and should be horrified that such BS is foisted on our children in any way. But then they would say sinful 'pride' blinds our eyes. Of course."
You're just seeing the facts of the world through the "eyes" of reality. You need to put the glasses of crass biblical literalism on over those eyes. Then you'll get the right answer. That, of course, being that the facts are consistently wildly and terribly wrong. Oh, and you're Fallen. Which is bad.
I mean, Paul took Genesis literally, and he had conversations with God! Do you have conversations with God? I think not! Who are you going to believe, the facts or some dead First Century Judean?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 30, 2010 6:28 AM
@Modus,
That Paul guy was a used goat salesman. Well, that's what I heard.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 30, 2010 6:36 AM
Modus #53 - “I never let the truth stand in the way of a good story” Delbert Trew
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 30, 2010 7:02 AM