Zack Kopplin went on the Michael Medved radio show along with Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute to talk about creationism in schools, particularly in Louisiana. This was in the context of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal saying recently that the Louisiana Science Education Act allows the teaching of creationism in public schools and he’s fine with that. And here’s how Luskin dealt with that:
Among other things, Luskin suggested that Governor Bobby Jindal was “confused” about the purpose of a bill that he personally signed into law. Recently, in an interview with NBC News, Governor Jindal claimed that the LSEA provides local school districts with the ability to teach creationism and intelligent design, which is, in fact, exactly what it does. However, Luskin, an attorney who has spent the last few years of his career navigating around the rhetorical contours of well-established law on creationism, likely realized that Jindal’s comments exposed the charade. If the Governor admits the law is about providing for the teaching of creationism as science, then the Governor is also admitting that the law is unconstitutional. Notably, after first suggesting that Governor Jindal was “confused,” Luskin then mistakenly claimed that Jindal had never actually mentioned the LSEA in the context of creationism and that this was all a fabricated talking point. In fact, as the video and the transcript of the interview prove, Governor Jindal specifically referenced the LSEA, by name. As hard as the Discovery Institute may try, they simply cannot rewrite history or alter the evidence.
Bobby Jindal is the Governor of Louisiana. Bobby Jindal signed the LSEA into law. Bobby Jindal is responsible for enacting and enforcing the law. Bobby Jindal says the law is about providing local school districts with the ability to teach creationism and intelligent design as science. And as Casey Luskin knows, teaching creationism and intelligent design as legitimate science in the public school classroom is unconstitutional and violative of the Establishment Clause. End of story.
And in fact, Jindal had explicitly mentioned the LSEA when giving his answer:
“We have what’s called the Science Education Act, that says if a teacher wants to supplement those materials, if the school board’s OK with that, if the State school board’s OK with that, they can supplement those materials.
“Bottom line, at the end of the day, we want our kids to be exposed to the best facts. Let’s teach them about the Big Bang theory. Let’s teach them about evolution. Let’s teach them….
“I’ve got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that some people have these beliefs as well.
“Let’s teach them about intelligent design.”
No, Jindal is not “confused.” He just doesn’t have the ID talking points down. And this is the problem that the creationists always run into. They know that in order to have any chance of passing constitutional muster, the legislators who advocate and vote for the law, whether it’s state legislators or local school boards, just be very careful not to let the cat out of the bag and say that the bill is intended to provide a backdoor to teach creationism. But they always do anyway. Why? Because for them it’s about scoring political points, which means posing for the public as the people who are standing up for Jesus. And that’s why our side keeps winning these cases, because the politicians can never stick to the DI-approved talking points.