Springboro School Board — They’re Back!

Note: The issue has been delayed again. See the update at the end.

Most of you remember the crazy little school board in Ohio that we recently wrote about here: Springboro School Board Wants Creationism. The story ended on an optimistic note — due to teacher and parental objections, the Board decided not to vote on their plan. But the Chairman said she’d bring it up again later.

That was less than two weeks ago, and by “later” the Chairman apparently meant today. We learned that at the website of WDTN, Channel 2 in Dayton, Ohio, of which Springboro is a suburb. It’s mentioned in this story: 3 Things happening today: June 4. They tell the tale in only one paragraph — one sentence, really:

The Springboro school board is expected to vote tonight on the topic of teaching creationism in schools. The meeting will be at 7 at Springboro High School in the Media Center.

We searched again and found that they have a new story devoted entirely to the subject: Springboro set to vote on creationism. It says, with bold font added by us:

Those in support of the proposal say it’s about critical thinking, and being fair and balanced. If teachers talk about evolution, school officials say creationism should also be taught, so they aren’t indoctrinating students to any one idea.


Board member Jim Rigano told 2 NEWS it’s about helping the students’ overall maturity.

Yeah — the kiddies can’t grow to maturity unless they’re taught about Oogity Boogity. One more excerpt:

2 NEWS will be there and will let you know what they decide.

They’ll be there and your Curmudgeon will be here to update this post with the results. Stay tuned to this blog!

Update: That second news story we linked to has changed its headline to “No vote tonight on creationism.” They now say:

There will not be a vote in Springboro tonight on a proposal to teach creationism in the district. School Board president Kelly Kohls told 2 NEWS tonight’s meeting at 7:00 will be a first reading, and the pubic is welcome to comment. Kohls said a vote on the issue has not been scheduled.

Sorry about the false alarm, folks. We just report ’em as we find ’em.

Update: Springboro School Board Still Wants Creationism.

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

9 responses to “Springboro School Board — They’re Back!

  1. Hollie Reedy

    The idea to insert/inject/you pick an adjective the idea of creationism into the science classroom is not new at all. It is an old row, hoed many times before in federal courts. The place for critical thinking discussions of controversial ideas are in speech/debate, constitutional law, history, newsstaff, or other courses, not in science class.

    Excerpts from the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, with which I assume everyone here is familiar. Kitzmiller is good law, cited in 6 additional cases in different federal court circuits. When “ID” is mentioned, the court is referring to “intelligent design” theory:

    We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument [**32] for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”
    The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

    Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism.
    After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism [**82] that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

  2. Hello, Hollie. Good of you to visit our humble blog again. Yes, we’re very familiar with the Kitzmiller case. We’re also familiar with the whole list of cases that can be found at the website of the National Center for Science Education, here: Creationism and the Law. That’s why we find it so amazing — and amusing — that a school board would even consider what the Springboro School Board is considering. Isn’t anyone advising those people?

  3. Isn’t anyone advising those people?

    Sure, probably the monkeys at the Dishonesty Institute.

  4. If the Springboro School Board actually moves forward on this, it’s gonna provide us with great entertainment. Of course, our fun and chuckles will unfortunately be at the expense of the Springboro kiddies, whose district will squander great chunks of money unsuccessfully defending the inevitable lawsuit.

  5. Matthew . . . thanks for posting that link to Zack Kopplin’s piece in Slate.
    Zack is an intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful guy — just the opposite of the clowns who control the Louisiana Legislature.

  6. As of 1:28 PM, the WDTN.com article headline has changed to “No vote tonight on creationism”: “School Board president Kelly Kohls told 2 NEWS tonight’s meeting at 7:00 will be a first reading, and the pubic is welcome to comment.

    Kohls said a vote on the issue has not been scheduled.”

    – Temporarily relieved Daytonian.

  7. Thanks, Adam K. I updated the post to reflect this.

  8. I know for a FACT that Jesus rode a dinosaur to church because I got a forwarded email from a friend of my cousin so it must be true.