Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Balanced Treatment Act, part 2
Message-ID: <167@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Apr-84 12:54:44 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.167
Posted: Wed Apr 18 12:54:44 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 04:27:27 EST
References: <45500002@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 57

Ray Miller has treated us to a long article in which he blames the
defeat of the Arkansas Creationism bill on "bungling" by Attorney
General Clark.  I think the situation is rather different.  Attorney
General Clark was, unfortunately, caught between a rock and a hard
place, with an impossible case and creationists hounding him at
every step.  The fact is, despite pious attempts of creationists to 
depict the law as a "balanced treatment act" (the official title of 
the bill), there can be no doubt that it was in fact a blatant attempt
to promote certain teachings of a particular narrow Fundamentalist form
of Christianity in the public schools as "Science".   It is one thing to 
pull the wool over the eyes of legislators; it is quite another thing to 
fool the federal courts.  I believe that the attempt in Louisiana
will be no more successful, and I hope that creationists *do* pursue
the issue to the Supreme Court because I think that a nationally
binding precedent would be extremely valuable.

Ray remarks:

>     However, even though I support balanced treatment of both viewpoints, my
>next statement my surprise you.  I am not sure I support legislation to achieve
>that goal.  First, litigation is very expensive and is probably not the most
>cost effective way of getting scientific creationism accepted.  Second, the
>courts are not the place to decide what is or isn't good science.  Third, if
>the courts decide incorrectly, the entire strategy backfires and creationists
>face a bad situation legally that currently doesn't exist.  So, I support the
>CSLDF's defense of the Louisiana law (because of the legal precedent it will
>set if it is defeated) but I have to agree with Dr. Gish who said he would
>"not recommend" other states to adopt balanced treatment laws.  

I am not in the least surprised.  A colleague of mine has informed me 
that after the Arkansas fiasco, creationists have looked again at the 
strategy of passing state laws and have concluded that it is a losing 
proposition.  The courts are just not going to go along with it (hence 
Gish's statement, mentioned by Ray above).  Instead, creationists have 
adopted a much more dangerous tactic (which is likely to be considerably
more successful).  It is to go after local school boards, which are 
even more malleable than state legislatures.  If hundreds of school
require creationism to be taught, it will be very difficult to overturn
these decisions, since it will require an equal number of lawsuits.  

Consider, for example, a story that I read about how the sponsor of a
"balanced treatment act" in Oklahoma was persuaded to withdraw his bill
on the grounds that, out in the country, creationism was *already* being
taught, and the passage of the bill would require them to teach evolution
*as well*!  So much for the claims of creationists that all they want is
equal treatment.

EVOLUTIONISTS, BE WARNED!!  THE BATTLE HASN'T BEEN WON!  IT IS GOING TO 
RETURN EVEN STRONGER, AND YOU HAD BETTER BE PREPARED TO FIGHT IT.  THIS 
MEANS THOROUGHLY UNDERSTANDING THE METHODS OF THE CREATIONISTS AND BEING
PREPARED TO COUNTER THEM PUBLICLY.
-- 

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill   (uucp)
	utastro!bill@ut-ngp			   (ARPANET)