Lauri Lebo on Tennessee in “Scientific American”

We often write about Lauri Lebo. If you don’t yet know who she is, the next two indented paragraphs will fill you in:

During the forty-day trial that led to the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Lauri was a reporter for the York Daily Record, the local paper for the site of the trial. Lauri’s byline was the brand name for superbly written, in-depth news stories from the courthouse.

Lauri and her work were prominently mentioned in the NOVA documentary, Judgment Day. She is also the author of: The Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-town America.

Lauri has an article in Scientific American titled The Scopes Strategy: Creationists Try New Tactics to Promote Anti-Evolutionary Teaching in Public Schools. It’s a long article and it’s very good. You’ll want to read it all, so we’ll give you only a few excerpts.

Lauri begins with an overview of the recent legislative campaigns to slip creationism into the public schools, mentioning Louisiana and Texas in particular. Then she focuses on the situation in Tennessee.

Lauri points out that “David Fowler, head of the Family Action Council of Tennessee and chief lobbyist behind Tennessee’s proposed anti-evolution bill, wrote recently in an op–ed in the Chattanoogan.” We wrote about Fowler’s support of the bill, which is one of the reasons we predicted that Tennessee’s Creationism Bill Will Become Law. Then Lauri says, with bold font added by us:

Sponsor Rep. Bill Dunn (R–Knoxville) said Fowler submitted the legislation to him in early February. The latter’s organization is associated with James Dobson’s conservative Christian Focus on the Family and advocates for “biblical values” and “godly officials”.

Aha! It’s good to know the provenance of these sneaky bills. Let’s read on:

Dunn could not explain why a Christian organization would be pushing legislation that supposedly has nothing to do with inserting religion into science class. He referred the question to Fowler.

Fowler, who would not say whether he is a young earth creationist (“I think that’s irrelevant,” he noted), said he is trying to correct the “dogmatic” presentation of science in the classroom. “This is about open discourse,” he said, adding, “Good education requires critical thinking.”

Fowler has spoken with members of the Discovery Institute — he would not say specifically whom — and said he drafted the Tennesee bill based on sample legislation the Institute created.

So there it is, dear reader. The theocratic anti-science axis is fully revealed.

Is this merely laughable, or is it tragic? We suppose it depends on the ultimate fate of Dunn’s bill. There’s much more to Lauri’s article. Click over there and read it all. You won’t be disappointed.

Copyright © 2011. 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

6 responses to “Lauri Lebo on Tennessee in “Scientific American”

  1. Oh, good. “Open discourse.” Does that mean the teachers may discuss the theory that a lack of pirates causes global warming? Teach the controversy!

  2. Ellie says: “Oh, good. “Open discourse.” Does that mean …”

    It means God’s in and evolution’s out. Purify the curriculum from Satan’s influence!

  3. “This is about open discourse,” he said, adding, “Good education requires critical thinking.”

    If THAT were truly the case, theitard attempts at getting their religion into science classes would never get off the ground. Can they honestly look themselves in the mirror after uttering such outrageous lies constantly? If anything, these idiots show exactly the level of f**ktardery that BAD education leads to!

  4. Delusional people believe their delusions, that is why we call them delusional. Kind of like a mirage in the desert.

  5. Is this merely laughable, or is it tragic?

    Scary. I say its scary. The idea that, should they manage to wedge themselves into the science class, our technical leadership in this world will be gone. Over. Outta here. Buh-bye. Arrive derci, America!

  6. I’m frightened and amused at the idea of a “dogmatic presentation of science in the classroom.” Really? What a shock that science would be taught in a science class. (Actually, given the state of American education, that is shocking.) Will these people next complain about math being taught in a math class?