South Carolina Creationist Maguire Resigns

SOMETIMES a state has a hot streak in the news, and it seems to be South Carolina’s turn. First there was the scandal about creationist Governor Mark Sanford and his Argentine soul-mate. Now that state is in the news again, this time because of a woman Sanford had appointed to be chairman of the state Board of Education.

In the The State of South Carolina we read State education board’s chairwoman resigns, subtitled: “Maguire had been criticized for home-schooling her children.” Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Controversial State Board of Education chairwoman Kristin Maguire has unexpectedly stepped down from her post.

Maguire, who has served on the board since 2000 and has served as chairwoman since January, sent a letter to her 16 board members and Gov. Mark Sanford on Friday, citing her parents’ poor health and the growing needs of her teenage children as the reason for her resignation.

Okay, those are good reasons. Let’s read on:

One of the board’s most conservative members, Maguire co-founded a group that encourages abstinence-only education and the teaching of intelligent design in schools. She also is active in politics, serving on the state Republican Party’s executive committee.


She is the nation’s only home-schooler to head a public-school state board.

Obviously she’s one of those “social conservatives” — the Noah’s Ark, no fooling around variety. We’re always pleased whenever such a person leaves public office.

But is there more to this story?

The blogsophere is wild with rumors that — besides the needs of her parents and her teenage children — there are additional reasons in this woman’s private life that have compelled her to resign.

You can search around and find such stories, but you won’t find them here — not yet. When what we regard as responsible news sources start reporting such matters, we’ll join in. Until then, you can get your rumors elsewhere.

It is our delight to report about creationist sleaze, but only when it’s verifiable sleaze.

Addendum: Text of Kristin Maquire’s letter to board members.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “South Carolina Creationist Maguire Resigns

  1. (semi-sarcasm) If she wants “intelligent design” taught, she can’t possibly be the “Noah’s Ark” brand of creationist. After all, ID is peddled by people like Michael Behe, who agree that life has been around for billions of years, that humans share common ancestors with, but never met, dinosaurs, and that reading the Bible as a science text is “silly.”

    Wonder if she teaches her childern to critically analyze whether the designer is still alive (as Behe did ad Dover)?

  2. She is the nation’s only home-schooler to head a public-school state board.

    And whom does South Carolina have running their Blood Banks? Count Dracula?

  3. Frank J says:

    If she wants “intelligent design” taught, she can’t possibly be the “Noah’s Ark” brand of creationist.

    Yeah, I know you’re being semi-sarcastic. But that’s like saying the ice cream industry isn’t in favor of chocolate because of all the vanilla and strawberry product they sell. But from an industry-wide viewpoint, all those trivially different packages are being produced to swamp the market. If there were a demand for snake-flavored ice cream, they’d make it. Something for everyone, as long as it’s ice cream.

  4. Curmudgeon,

    While the analogy (ID=ice cream, YEC and OEC are vanilla and chocolate ice cream, respectively) is a good one, it overlooks the honesty component. If one truly believes that the evidence supports YEC or OEC, settling for ID’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach would be an unacceptable compromise. That was the case for AIG, at least as of a few years ago.

  5. Frank J says: “… it overlooks the honesty component.”

    OK, then ID is Lo-Cal chocolate ice cream.

  6. Curmudgeon wrote: “OK, then ID is Lo-Cal chocolate ice cream.”

    “Lo-Cal of any flavor” is more like it. It appeals to some who like each “flavor”, but not to those who don’t like the watery lo-cal taste.

  7. comradebillyboy

    I read two of her stories. Pretty well written erotica, especially the threesome action. She sounds like a fun date.

  8. I read two of her stories. Pretty well written erotica, especially the threesome action. She sounds like a fun date.

    More autobiographical than fictional, perhaps?

  9. comradebillyboy says: “… especially the threesome action.”

    What’s a creationist threesome? A human and two dinosaurs?

  10. With that my curiousity was too great and I snooped the web. One yet-unverified claim I read was that she has a “backgound in engineering.” Is it too soon to say “Salem!”?

  11. Indeed. She is naughty and may need to be spanked…


  12. For some reason that makes no sense to me, there are many Creationist Engineers.

    Another reason why I don’t consider Engineers Scientists.

  13. comradebillyboy

    Gadfly wrote:” I don’t consider Engineers Scientists”

    Engineers in academic institutions and national laboratories often do science. These folks usually have advanced degrees. Engineers in industry or non-research government jobs are usually not scientists. At the undergraduate level engineering level engineering education focuses on problem solving techniques. In graduate school the engineering education gets a lot closer to an actual scientific education.

    Yes, I too am a registered professional engineer (MS nuclear engineering, BS astrophysics) and no I am not a scientist although I did real scientific research at a military research laboratory when I was in graduate school.

  14. comradebillyboy:

    As you would expect, it’s those engineeers who either never fully understand their science education (& experience if any), or forget it due to lack of use, who tend to think they have “better ideas” than those mainstream scientists who refuse to “think outside the box.” Unfortunately those “better ideas” are invariably design-based non-explanations or useless “god of the gaps” incredulity arguments.

    The funny thing is that such engineers tend to be more likely than those with a better science background to tout their science background. Some even call themselves “scientists,” and only when you read further, find out that they are engineers.