SB 733, the “LA Science Education Act,” is now law in Louisiana. Prior to being passed in its current form, this bill was first introduced as SB 561, the “LA Academic Freedom Act.” It was one of six such bills, the introduction of which the Discovery Institute (DI), a creationist think tank in Seattle, coordinated in legislatures around the country. (Louisiana is the only state in which any of these bills has passed thus far.) During the LA Family Forum’s promotion of the bill, which was introduced on their behalf by Sen. Ben Nevers, the LFF’s partnership with the Discovery Institute became increasingly evident. This alliance emerged fully into public view with Casey Luskin’s presence at the May 21, 2008, meeting of the Louisiana House Education Committee. Luskin is DI’s program officer for public policy and legal affairs.
During the advancement of the bill in the legislature, DI, the LFF, and Sen. Nevers strenuously objected to any suggestion that the bill would allow the teaching of intelligent design (ID) creationism. In numerous publications and in federal court, ID has been shown, using Discovery Institute ID proponents’s own words (pdf), to be creationism, thus making it a religious belief. DI, the LFF, and Nevers repeatedly denied that the bill has anything to do with promoting religion; it will, they insisted, enhance the “critical thinking” skills of Louisiana students. No one was ever fooled by such denials, however, and no one is fooled now. Everyone knew then, as everyone knows now, that SB 733 has one and only one purpose: to give Louisiana school boards and teachers cover for teaching ID creationism.
As always, the words of ID promoters themselves have given them away. In their pre-promotional planning, Luskin, the LFF, and Sen. Nevers were apparently not studying the right set of instructions. On March 13, 2008, when Luskin was promoting similar academic freedom legislation in Florida, he admitted that the Florida bill would permit teaching ID as “scientific information.” Marc Caputo reported Luskin’s momentary candor in the Miami Herald:
The religiously tinged evolution-questioning theory of Intelligent Design could more easily be brought up in public-school science classrooms under a proposed “academic freedom” legislation being pushed by conservative lawmakers.
And it’s not just the ACLU saying it anymore.
A leading voice for the Intelligent Design movement acknowledged as much Wednesday by saying that the theory constitutes “scientific information,” which the bill expressly and repeatedly says teachers should present in questioning and criticizing evolution without fear of persecution.
The remarks by Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, were made during a press conference. . . .
So does Intelligent Design constitute scientific information?
“In my personal opinion, I think it does. But the intent of this bill is not to settle that question,” said Luskin. “The intent of this bill is . . . it protects the ‘teaching of scientific information.’ It’s not trying to inject itself into the debate over Intelligent Design.”
(from “Intelligent Design Could Slip into Science Class,” Miami Herald, March 13, 2008)
On March 14, John West, Luskin’s superior at the Discovery Institute, tried to do some fast damage control to deflect attention away from Luskin’s tactical lapse. But given the kinship between the Florida bill and the five others that the Discovery Institute coordinated, including SB 733, it is reasonable to conclude that Luskin’s pre-spin assessment of the Florida bill applies to SB 733 as well. (See “Florida: Luskin Lets Cat Out of Bag,” March 13, 2008, by Dr. Wesley Elsberry.)
Sen. Nevers, the Louisiana bill’s sponsor, similarly goofed. He has repeatedly denied that SB 733 promoted religion, as he did on April 1, 2008:
Nevers said his bill should not be considered a creationism measure because it would pave the way for theories that also challenge opinions on global warming, human cloning and other topics.
“I think the bill perfectly explains that it deals with any scientific subject matter which is taught in our public school system,” he said. The bill says it should not be construed to promote any religious doctrine.
(Will Sentell, “Author Denies Bill Lets Creationism Slip into Schools,” Baton Rouge Advocate, April 1, 2008)
Yet less than a week later, on April 6, 2008, Never admitted that the bill was intended to promote creationism:
The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill, Nevers said.
“They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory. This would allow the discussion of scientific facts,” Nevers said. “I feel the students should know there are weaknesses and strengths in both scientific arguments.”
(Sylvia Schon, “Bill Allows Teaching Creationism as Science,” Hammond Daily Star, April 6, 2008)
In a June 2008 YouTube video [at 1:40], LFF’s executive director, Rev. Gene Mills, likewise insisted that the LA Science Education Act does not promote religion:
“There are organizations like Barry Lynn’s Americans United for Separation of Church & State that are arguing that this [bill] is a formal establishment of religion, or a religious test for the classroom and science classroom. Those are bogus and overstated reports. It’s good science, and that’s the reason it passed both committees and both chambers [of the Louisiana legislature].”
However, in a July 9, 2008, interview with New Scientist, Mills admitted that the bill is an extension of the LFF’s religious agenda.
“We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue,” says Gene Mills, executive director of the LFF. When asked whether the new law fits with the organisation’s religious agenda, Mills told New Scientist: “Certainly it’s an extension of it.”
(Amanda Gefter, “New Legal Threat to Teaching Evolution in the US,” New Scientist, July 9, 2008)
The LFF’s mission, as affirmed on its website, is “To persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence,” those centers being “church, business/industry, government, media, arts, law, medicine and academia.” Retired Baton Rouge City Court judge and LFF co-founder Darrell White, the LFF’s likely point man with DI, has promoted DI’s agenda for a number of years. In a 2005 interview (pdf) with the Baton Rouge chapter of Christian International Business Network, White named the Discovery Institute as an organization through which citizens must become involved in order to promote “Balanced Origins Science” (a well-known creationist term). When asked “as a community, a state and a country where are we now and where do you see us in five years?,” White predicted that “In five years, ‘Saint’ Darwin’s humanistic views will be criticized in science textbooks. . . .”
The discrepancies in the public statements of the proponents of this year’s “academic freedom” legislation highlight once again the dishonesty that is inherent to the promotion of creationism as merely “good science” and “critical thinking.” Clearly, the bill’s promoters themselves need a crash course in critical thinking, not to mention ethics. They could start with Aristotle’s venerable Law of Non-Contradiction: “Opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” (Metaphysics IV 6 1011b13–20). They might then progress to a review of the ethical teachings of Jesus with respect to telling the truth: “Do not give false testimony, do not defraud.” (Mark 10:19)
Tags: academic freedom, Discovery Institute, LA Family Forum
