Remember the Brunswick County (North Carolina) School Board and their stated intention to see about inserting creationism into the science curriculum? Apparently, they’ve gotten the word that what they proposed has a legal history, and is unconstitutional.
Remember how I said it could come to pass that antievolution advocates might contact board members and try to reform their statements to come into line with current labels for religious antievolution? Well, it looks like someone has suddenly had a complete reorientation of their rhetorical approach, but it was the citizen who urged the board to incorporate creationism, Joel Fanti.
Fanti said he learned about the court cases after addressing the board and now thinks the idea of teaching creationism as part of the curriculum will be crushed. But he plans to ask the school board to encourage “evolutionists” in the schools to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of their theory.
“Instead of making it a religious issue, let’s make it a scientific issue,” said Fanti, who identifies himself as a chemical engineer.
What are the odds that Fanti would suddenly come up with and adhere to the current DI talking points all on his own? Coincidence? Or will we see Fanti urging the board at the next meeting to adopt either “Explore Evolution” or “The Design of Life” as supplemental texts for the science curriculum? Stay tuned… we should know something more after the October 21st school board meeting.
Nor can Fanti dispose of the religious freight the arguments that he apparently would prefer as “weaknesses” carry.
The Supreme Court decision in Stone v. Graham will likely play a role in a future case over the latest re-labelings of religious antievolution. Part of the reasoning there was this:
The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature.
The ensemble of arguments advanced as “weaknesses” or as “scientific information” under the misused “academic freedom” label is simply a subset of the old, tired, bogus religious antievolution that we’ve seen for decades if not longer. The preeminent purpose in pushing those as part of a science curriculum will never be secular, as teaching students falsehoods serves no secular purpose. One cannot “make it a scientific issue” when all one has is the same old false information presented under a new label, without scientific credibility or accountability.
Hat tip to John Pieret.