Is teaching creationism allowed in America? According Joey

The list of things that Joe Cienkowski doesn’t understand grows steadily by the day. Today, it’s the US constitution, no doubt parroting Christine O’Donnell making a twat of herself in a law school debate.


Christine O’Donnell is right about teaching creationism in schools. Creationism is real #science and evolution is religion.

Yeah I was right, and came out with the incredible:


@DevilofMystery Your foolish to think creationism cannot be taught in schools as it clearly can. Study up on the law, my friend

Well being in the UK, and having read the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board transcripts repeatedly, I knew that was shite. Less than a minute on Google brings up the judge’s decision, and here is some choice points:

  • For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
  • The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
  • The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
  • Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In conclusion, Judge John E Jones III said:


Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

In private schools, you can teach what you want, but don’t my word on that point as I just don’t know but since the judge says “public school”, I’m guessing there’s a difference.

Too compound the issue, and yes again showing he hasn’t got a fucking clue what he’s doing, he then speaks of the Louisiana ruling, saying:


USSC decision striking down Louisiana law required if evolution is taught in public schools creationism must also be taught

Which is correct, but this ISN’T:


All that law said was creationists can’t say ‘creationism MUST be taught’.

Some quotes from that, just reinforce it:


The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose


The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of “protecting academic freedom.” (…) Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education.


The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act’s primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety.

So once again, research shows Joe Cienkowski is a liar and whatever he says can NEVER be trusted without double checking, and this is what is so frustrating in proving him wrong.

Leave a Reply