Casey Luskin is quick off the mark to assert a charge of hypocrisy against Barbara Forrest.
When asked about her own anti-religious ideological views, a news article reported that “Forrest said her religious beliefs shouldn’t be an issue.”22 This is a blatant double-standard given Forrest’s attacks on other people for their religion. But she happens to be correct: She has every right to hold her anti-religious ideology, and her personal beliefs should be considered irrelevant to her public arguments about science and law. However, she refuses to extend the same courtesy to her opponents in the debate over evolution, constantly harping on her opponents’ supposed religious affiliations, while hypocritically claiming that her own anti-religious agenda is irrelevant.
Golly, how dare Forrest hold some people to account over their religiously motivated campaigns to alter public school science curricula to provide theistic science. What might be missing in the case made by Luskin for hypocrisy on Forrest’s part? That would merely be showing that Forrest is engaged in stealth campaigns to have her own particular religious views taught in public school science classes. Luskin, of course, slurs vaguely, having nothing to demonstrate that a comparable state of affairs obtains for Forrest as it does for, say, himself.
As for the rest of Luskin’s article, what Luskin fails to point out is that whenever pressed on what things they hope would be taught by teachers making use of “academic freedom” aka “academic irresponsibility” bills, it comes down to the very same old, tired, bogus, long-rebutted religious antievolution as they have always been peddling. Like “irreducible complexity”, famous in pre-“intelligent design” creationism as expressed in the query, “What good is half a wing?” The Discovery Institute’s own entry in the textbook stakes, “Explore Evolution”, offered as just the thing for “academic freedom”-loving science teachers, delivers a plethora of arguments easily recognized as recycled from earlier creationist materials. Yes, this is creationism in content, with no quibbling about it.