And from the Advocate’s coverage of another Board meeting, July 24th:
Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed â??critical thinking and creationismâ? in science classes.
Board Member David Tate quickly responded: â??We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why canâ??t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?â?
Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, â??I agree â?¦ you donâ??t have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.â?

I can’t believe they’re speaking this carelessly–why hasn’t the Discovery Institute PR machine muzzled them yet? In Kitzmiller v Dover, statements just like these were made at school board meetings. Judge Jones applied the Endorsement and Lemon tests, and used those statements to demonstrate that the Board’s purpose was clearly to advance religion, and was therefore unconstitutional.
This effort will absolutely go down in flames–but not until after taxpayers’ money has been wasted.

I find it hilarious that creationists contain the seeds of their own undoing, because they just can’t seem to shut up about Jesus. It doesn’t matter how polished the Discovery Institute’s talking points are; it’s the people at the center of these things, these people just don’t get it. They have no idea what they’re doing wrong.

Unfortunately we see many places (like the whole state of Texas) wasting money this way – it means less money in the education budget for carrying out the mandated tasks like teaching, but the creationists repeatedly prove that they don’t give a shit about education, they only care about preaching their jesus lies.

The board’s attorney confirmed that it would be unconstitutional for the schools to teach creationism.

This is the part I don’t get about these cases. They flatly ignore the person paid to protect them from liability. They don’t want litigation, but they’re willing to risk it. 100% probability isn’t really a risk, especially when all the plaintiffs would have to do is introduce Tate’s quote on the first day and ask for a summary judgment, right? It’s just stupidity.

Would this attorney end up having to defend the district if they ignore his advice?

“We don’t want litigation, but why not take a stand for Jesus and risk litigation.”

does anyone really think this issue will go away for long? What are the chances the board’s attorney has to have a good stiff drink after every meeting with these loons?