Re: Creationists win the schools in New Mexico

Matt Silberstein (
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:15:31 GMT

In sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)

>In article <5041e4$>,
>HARRY R. ERWIN <> wrote:
>>Bryant ( wrote:
>>: I want to make sure that this thread's readers are made aware that I
>>: (accidentally) exaggerated the gravity of the situation in NM.
>>: Creationism is *not* mandated by the new school board
>>: guidelines--evolution has simply been removed as a requirement for
>>: biology classes. The issue of creationism is "left open" to the
>>: individual teachers.
>>: Bryant
>>It'll bounce once it hits the courts. This has already been hashed out in
>>the Supreme Court.

>When? I didn't know that the Supreme Court had ever ruled on teaching
>creationism in public schools. More to the point, I haven't heard of
>any court decision that would block individual teachers from teaching
>creationism; the only decisions I know of blocked _state-mandated_
>teaching of creationism.

But a teach in a public school is an agent of the state. An individual
teach cannot teach creationism any more than the teach can lead a
prayer or discriminate based on color. Which is to say, they are
forbidden, but some probably do it anyway. I would love to see the
rationalization of a Christian teach who breaks the law to teach
creationism. But then again, some of them shoot down doctors in the

>[followups set to]

>Steve Schaffner
>Opinions expressed may be mine, and || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
>may not be those of SLAC, || of probable lack of insight into the
>Stanford University, or the DOE. || topic. Josiah Royce

Matt Silberstein

Verbing weirds language - W. W.