Here’s my response to her original post:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, I know there was a question about creationism at the forum. I’m the one who submitted it.

First, it’s excellent that we have, in writing, a declaration from Marnie that she won’t advocate for the teaching of creationism in schools. Unfortunately, she prefaced that statement with the following irrelevant rationale:

“Statistically, only 3% of residents of King County attend any church, synagogue or mosque regularly. There is no community support for the teaching of creation in schools, and your school board member is to be the voice of the community to the school district.”

So if the percentage of church goers was significantly higher, there WOULD be community support for the teaching of creationism? And therefore — being the voice of the community — Marnie WOULD push for creationism to be taught? Is that what she’s implying? If so, when would she want to add creationism to the curriculum? When 30% of the school district goes to church? 50%? 80%?

Sorry, but it’s unconstitutional to inject religion into public schools even if 100% of the parents want it. It’s concerning that Marnie doesn’t understand that.

Marnie also tells us that she wants students to “question authority.” Anyone familiar with the evolution/creationism battle knows that this is code for “teach students to doubt evolution.” This is the latest scheme from creationists, whose strategy has had to “evolve” over the years. First, they wanted creationism taught. Courts said no. So then they changed the name from creationism to intelligent design. But a federal court wasn’t fooled and not only prohibited intelligent design from being taught but also ruled — based on expert testimony — that intelligent design wasn’t science.

So now the creationists have gone back to the drawing board yet again. Now they want teachers to “teach the controversy” and place doubt in students’ minds about the reality of evolution. Funny, but they never advocate “questioning authority” when it comes to mathematics, or English, or even other science subjects (like gravity or chemistry). No, they want students to be doubters only when it comes to evolution. Odd, huh?

Besides, there is no controversy when it comes to evolution. All reputable scientists know that evolution is a fact. The only debate in the scientific community is HOW evolution occurs, not whether it occurs.

Finally, Marnie implies that it’s not fair to assume that she agrees with the beliefs of her Christian alma mater, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. True, it would certainly be silly to conclude that all graduates of the University of Washington share a particular article of faith. UW students represent hundreds of religions, and many aren’t religious. But Liberty University is different: It’s an explicitly evangelical school for born-again Christians that teaches creationism and is notorious for its mission of fighting evolution.

Given Marnie’s code words above and her questionable rationale for not teaching creationism (at this point in time), any suspicions about her ultimate goals are certainly justified. Of course she’s not Jerry Falwell. But she’s someone who admired the anti-science and anti-public-school Falwell enough to spend four years at his university. That tells us a lot.