You knew this was coming. Yesterday we posted Louisiana Creationism: Zack Strikes Again!, about an article by Zack Kopplin, who is well-known to readers of this humble blog as a tireless campaigner against the infamous and insidiously-named Louisiana Science Education Act (the LSEA).
We said it was certain to arouse the Discoveroids to even greater frenzy than Zack’s earlier article, which brought forth a gruesome response from Klinghoffer — see Discovery Institute Attacks Zack Kopplin. And lo, what we predicted has come to pass.
This just appeared at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: From Slate, More Agitprop on Louisiana’s Academic Freedom Law. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. The graphic above this post is in his honor. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Here is Zack Kopplin’s new contribution at Slate, The Bible v. the Constitution, which he twice promised would cause me to collapse in a catastrophic health reversal at its revelations about Louisiana public schools teaching “creationism.”
Then he gives us a Tweet or something, allegedly to him from Zack:
Just wait, like I said, you’re going to have an aneuryism. I wouldn’t be saying the things I am unless I had evidence.
Like all creationists, Klinghoffer has no sense of humor. He says:
Since I’m writing this, the bizarre and ghoulish predictions were evidently mistaken.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:
The article is Zack’s latest indictment of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which he’s been campaigning against fruitlessly for years. The law permits teachers in the Pelican State to tell students about evolutionary theory’s scientific strengths and weaknesses, while making clear that it extends no protection to advocating religion.
Yeah, the law makes it clear. As we’ve done before, we offer this disclaimer, which is adapted from the wording of the LSEA:
Now we’ve cleared up two points: (1) the LSEA doesn’t promote religion; and (2) your Curmudgeon respects the Discoveroids. Okay, Klinghoffer continues:
In the parlance of Darwin activists, which they harp on endlessly, that makes it a “creationist law.” Zack’s last article at Slate mentioned “creationism” only 23 times. The current one bumps that up to 27.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If the LSEA didn’t authorize the teaching of creationism, why would the Discoveroids so zealously promote it? Here’s more:
It’s hard to know what to make of some of the private emails from teachers and others that Zack reproduces, which he searched for usages of his favorite scare word. Zack and other Darwin advocates like Josh Rosenau at the National Center for Science Education employ the term “creationism” to mean anything from reciting the text of Genesis in biology class to sharing mainstream science critical of Darwinism, so it wouldn’t be surprising if teachers and officeholders who use the word are confused about its definition With the help of friendly media, the language manipulators at the NCSE are responsible for sowing a lot of that confusion.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The drooling teachers in Louisiana aren’t really promoting creationism. They only use that word because the “Darwin advocates” have confused them. Moving along:
Whether guilty of teaching genuine creationism or not, the teachers at least are without guile.
They don’t need to resort to guile. They think the LSEA will protect them when they teach creationism, so that’s what they do. Another excerpt:
In any event, like other examples of academic freedom legislation, LSEA was written to do one thing — authorize teaching genuine science that might otherwise get a teacher in trouble. If it does that, it does its job.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Everyone knows the purpose of the LSEA — see the Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws. The politicians know it, the teachers know it, and every drooling creationist in Louisiana knows it. But on one point we agree with Klinghoffer — the law is doing its job. Klinghoffer finishes with this:
Obviously, if people abuse LSEA’s authorization, and “break the law,” that’s a problem with the teacher not a problem with the law. People also abuse the U.S. Constitution. That doesn’t mean you toss it out.
So there you are. There’s no problem with the LSEA. It’s a good law, as solid as the US Constitution. If only Zack would stop confusing everyone, there wouldn’t be any problems.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.