Louisiana: Still More Creationist Madness

There were two events involving creationism that the Louisiana legislature dealt with yesterday. In both matters, the state continued to wallow in stupidity. There was also a third item which is only of historical significance. We’ll mention that at the end.

In The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana we read Legislative Briefs from May 13, 2013. Two items in that article are about creationism. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The state Senate overwhelmingly rejected an attempt Monday to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act.

We know what you’re thinking. That thing already died in committee, as we reported here: Victory for Creationism and Voodoo. So what was the Senate vote all about? Here you go:

Debate on the act, which critics claim promotes the teaching of creationism, ignited during discussion of [a different bill]. State Sen. Karen Peterson, D-New Orleans, tried to tack on an amendment repealing the science education act. “Louisiana made a huge mistake in 2008. Join with me in rejecting the bill passed in 2008,” Peterson said.

Peterson’s bill didn’t pass in committee, so we’re dubious about the tactic of refusing to accept defeat and then trying to add it to some other bill. Anyway, she tried. Let’s read on:

The Senate spurned her proposal, with five legislators voting for the amendment and 32 voting against it.

We assume that Peterson’s was one of those five votes, so besides her, there are only four other sane members of the Louisiana Senate. All the rest are creationists. Here’s the other item of interest in the same article:

Legislation that would give local school districts new discretion in picking textbooks was approved Monday by the state House. The vote was 73-22. The proposal, House Bill 116, next faces action in the Senate.

That’s Hoffmann’s bill, which we recently reported about here: Another Weird Creationism Bill. Having already passed in the House, it’s all but assured of success in the Senate. The story continues:

State Rep. Gene Reynolds, D-Dubberly, said some House members were concerned that the bill could pave the way for controversial books on evolution and other topics to enter the classroom.

“That is not what this is about,” Hoffmann replied. “I guarantee you that is not my purpose in bringing this act.”

Oh — we have Hoffmann’s guarantee. That means a lot.

There was one other creationism issue before the legislature, but you can read about that in this post by the National Center for Science Education: Louisiana to repeal 1981 creationist law? That’s the old “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” law that was held unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard, but it’s still on the books. NCSE has a nice quote from Barbara Forrest.

Over the objections of that old creationist warhorse, Senator Ben Nevers, who thought it was a good idea to keep the old law just in case they might be able to use it again some day, the Senate passed the repeal of the 1981 law, so it now goes to the House. Any guesses as to what will happen there?

Copyright © 2013. 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 “Louisiana: Still More Creationist Madness

  1. We assume that Peterson’s was one of those five votes, so besides her, there are only four other sane members of the Louisiana Senate. All the rest are creationists.

    You can’t just assume that all of them are creationists. Some may be gutless cowards who are afraid of their creationist constituents.

  2. I grew up with lots of examples of bigotry, i.e.
    ‘He’s from Louisiana? Another stupid southern hick!’
    It is not true on an individual level but the state seems to be trying like hell to make the comment true.

  3. Reinard: “You can’t just assume that all of them are creationists. Some may be gutless cowards who are afraid of their creationist constituents.”

    Hey — same difference. If it quacks like a duck…