Creationist Wisdom #151: Louisiana Anger

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Teaching Atheism 101 in our public schools, which appears in the Shreveport Times, published in Shreveport, Louisiana. We’ll copy most of today’s letter, but we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. We’ll also add some bold for emphasis, plus our usual Curmudgeonly commentary between paragraphs. Here we go:

Biology is a required course in our public high schools. Modern biology textbooks put forth Darwinism or evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

Darwinism is an atheistic theory that attributes all that we see to chance and natural causes. Man and all living things evolved by chance from a single common ancestor that was somehow birthed by chance from inorganic matter somewhere in a universe that was produced by a chance explosion of unknown matter. It’s called “science” or “scientific naturalism.”

The letter-writer doesn’t like things happening by chance in Louisiana. (Our last gem from that totally-creationist state was Creationist Wisdom #148: From Louisiana.) Let’s read on:

Scientific naturalism has one rule. It excludes the supernatural or God as a possible explanation for anything. This exclusion makes “science,” “scientific naturalism” and Darwinism atheistic. Teaching Darwinism in biology class is tantamount to teaching Atheism 101.

Egad, he’s right! But what he says is also true of chemistry and physics. The whole of science has got to go! We continue:

In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed, almost unanimously, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). Pursuant to that act, local school boards can choose to supplement standard biology textbooks that present only this atheistic explanation for man’s existence with textbooks and teaching aids that critique and examine the unsupported and unsupportable fallacies and extrapolations of Darwinism.

The legislators and lobbyists all lied about that law while they were getting it passed, but everyone knew what was going on. Today’s letter-writer clearly understands the purpose of his state’s “academic freedom” law. Here’s more:

With no discussion, the Caddo School Board adopted a policy June 15 that contains some of the language of the LSEA. In a prior session, board member Charlotte Crawley asked if there was a dollar figure for implementing the policy. Reginald Abrams, legal counsel for the board, answered by saying “This is just a statement.”

Your Curmudgeon always keeps you oriented. Caddo Parish, Louisiana is where Shreveport is located. Moving along:

When asked by state Rep. Thomas Carmody how Bossier Parish had responded to the passage of the LSEA, Bossier schools Superintendent D.C. Machen provided a copy of the exact statement and indicated that the statement “is the action the BPSB has taken related to this issue.”

There apparently is some collaboration between the school districts on how to “play like” they’re doing something when they’re really not. A policy that is “just a statement” does nothing to bring about change.

Collaboration on the exact same statement? How is that possible? Perhaps it’s because in some places Shreveport extends from Caddo into adjacent Bossier Parish, Louisiana, so they have common interests. Another excerpt:

I have made inquiry of administrators and board members from Caddo and Bossier. I have spoken with those who know what has or has not been done and attempted to contact others who did not return my calls. I sent a letter by e-mail to each of the 12 Caddo School board members asking what action they had taken in response to passage of the LSEA that would affect change in the classroom.

This guy is serious! On with his letter:

The Caddo School Board has clammed up. I am left with the obvious presumption [sic] that nothing has been done to affect or produce the change in the classroom that was the intended consequence of the legislation.

The letter-writer may not know any science, but he knows that doesn’t like it. Also, he understood what that Louisiana legislation was all about and he wants action. Now we come to the letter’s end:

Knowing the board has done nothing to stem the one-sided presentation of atheism in our public schools, we might all ask, “Why did they choose to continue to teach children what some, if not all, believe to be a lie, the most egregious of all lies?”

Having made that decision, they’re obviously not proud of their reasoning. None will acknowledge that he/she did nothing, much less explain why.

[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]

Did you like his phrase: “the most egregious of all lies”? This fellow is angry and we can’t blame him. The pitchfork-wielding citizens are demanding what the legislature clearly promised — creationism in the public schools. They want it, and they want it now! The pandering charlatans in the Louisiana legislature will have to live with the monster they’ve created.

Copyright © 2010. 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

3 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #151: Louisiana Anger

  1. I just fired off the following comments to the Shreveport Times in response to the letter to the editor. I x-outed the individual’s name.
    In response to Mr. X’s comments in his Sept. 7, 2010 opinion piece: SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISTIC! Science does not have the tools or philosophy to deal with the metaphysical. Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of the supreme being of your choice. Mr. X’s anti-science comments are generally based on the anti-science propaganda spouted by the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute (Seattle, WA) who are responsible for the so called Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). This act was really a stealth creationism bill designed to get creationism/intelligent design into the science classroom as well as criticize well established principles in biology.
    Three Supreme Court cases and one lower Federal Court case have ruled that creationism/intelligent design are religion and cannot be taught in the public science classrooms (although you are free to teach them at home and at church). Mr. X seems to take issue with biology, but physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy would give him the same problem. Get it? You would have to throw out the basic principles of all of the various scientific disciplines in order to satisfy the narrow Biblical interpretation of these science haters.
    The schools board members Mr. X criticizes would do well to heed the Federal Court decisions, because we don’t need to waste money on a sure to fail defense of the LSEA. In reality this is not really an issue of science vs. religion, but an issue of Biblical interpretation. The whole world should not have to suffer because these individuals have a narrow interpretation of the Bible and cannot really understand the true nature and function of science.

  2. That’s very good, Biokid.

  3. Tomato Addict

    That’s stonking great, Biokid.