The anti-evolution wing of the State Board of Education is not motivated by religion. We know this because we’ve been assured by them that it is just not so – most recently by board member Ken Mercer, in a Feb. 10 op-ed in the San Antonio Express-News.
Mercer represents District 5 on the board, which includes Travis County south of the river as well as northern Bexar County and much of the Hill Country.
Responding to a Jan. 29 Express-News editorial, Mercer wrote, “You state that the battle ‘is about putting religion in public schools.’ That is a false, political red herring.”
Well okay, Ken – but then why are you so obsessed with atheists? He mentions nonbelievers – pejoratively – no less than three times in the remainder of piece.
In the very next paragraph, he quotes Texans for Better Science Education – neglecting to mention that organization’s anti-evolution stance – as saying that pro-evolution Republicans on the board were swayed by “Darwinists, atheists, ACLU members, and at least one bona fide signer of the infamous Humanist Manifesto III, in an attempt to promote indoctrination over critical thinking skills.”
“I pray for my three friends, Pat Hardy of Ft. Worth, Bob Craig of Lubbock, and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller of Dallas,” Mercer then adds. “They voted against the Republican Party platform and allowed themselves to be constantly lobbied by prominent atheists and secular humanists. These three Republicans will now have to stand accountable before their constituents.”
Finally, toward the end, Mercer brings up infamous hoaxes in the history of evolutionary science, including “the embryo drawings of the atheist Dr. Haeckel.”
The original Express-News editorial, commenting on testimony given at the January SBOE meeting, noted: “On one side were scientists and science teachers – who are in near unanimity about evolution – and the scientific method, which constantly challenges accepted beliefs to improve understanding and advance knowledge. On the other side was a collection of opponents to science-based learning who claimed to be fighting for academic freedom. Occasionally, however, the advocates for the so-called strengths and weaknesses approach to teaching evolution made the mistake of disclosing their real objective.”
Indeed.
More on the Mercer editorial in next week’s print edition.
(Oh, by the way: Tomorrow is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.)
This article appears in February 6 • 2009.