Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Eagle Forum outs creationist school board candidates.

A nice letter in the Daily News today and I guess I should add my thanks to Ginny Maziarka for alerting the voters.

Sound judgement over emotion

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Ginny Maziarka and the local chapter of Eagle Forum.

Recently they circulated a questionnaire to the candidates for the West Bend School Board. One of the questions asked of the candidates was whether they would support the teaching of alternative theories such as Intelligent Design or Creationism in the science curriculum of the West Bend school system. By pointing out that Randy Marquardt, Bart Williams and Dave Weigand would support this philosophy we can plainly see that they would lead our School District into a prolonged, expensive and ultimately futile legal battle. Creationism and Intelligent Design have both previously been shown to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution (See Edwards V. Aguillard [1987]& Kitzmiller V. Dover [2005]) and therefore CAN NOT be taught as science in our school system.

Eagle Forum’s questionnaire also shows us another very important thing. Democracy is a form of government that requires the participation of informed citizens. To rely on a few questions asked by an organization that one happens to agree with is a reckless recipe for disaster. It is the duty of every citizen to research the candidates that seek to fill the leadership roles in our government and choose people who are truly qualified for the job.

To that end we must elect School Board members who will base their decisions on sound judgment, reason and adherence to legal precedence instead of emotion.

Tony Palma
West Bend

It's bad enough we were turned into the book burning capital of North America last year in the national (and international) press. Now we'll be the next Dover, PA too. At least the pro-censorship lobbyists didn't cost us hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal fees -- to defend a 14th century view of the world -- but creationists on the school board may well do so.

Why are people so opposed to The Enlightenment? Admittedly, it is responsible for nuclear weapons, but it also gave us science and, oh yeah, America. One of the tough parts about a free democracy is that it must endure the activity of citizens who want to eradicate the very freedom that allows them to protest -- who want that freedom folded up into "one nation under [my] God."


Kevin Scheunemann said...


So does this mean the other candidates not "outed" by the Eagle forum practice the religion of evolution?

Mpeterson said...

So you didn't read the piece. :^)

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Ohh, I read the piece.

Its the "faith" in the gaps in the theory of evolution that I wanted to point out.

Its the idea that evolution is NOT religion, with its own cosmology, its own faith, and its own "suspension of reality", is what I have an issue with.

Mpeterson said...

That surprises me.

Anonymous said...

So, does the Kewaskum populace know Kevin Scheunemann supports creationism taught as a "counter" theory in a Science-based course. Kevin, I challenge you to push this curriculum challenge through with your name all over it. Perhaps hang some signs at Dairy Queen to get started: A big one for all Hwy 45 travelers to ogle.

I can't fathom the libertarian/religious philosophical marriage that is coupled in your psyche. The contradictions must be stressful.

Creationism cannot be separated from its religious and mythical connections, but its OK: Constitutional Separation of church and state is now not valid because the other myth being spread is that the U.S.A.'s forefathers were all church supporting Bible thumpers.

Akk, let's get these people on board, place this creationism agenda ahead of the budget issues, implement it, and then spend more money on litigation fighting the state and national Supreme Court (AKA Gig Guverment).

My cynical side says these creationists actually know a lawsuit would be forth-coming with creationist-curriculum; they want the litigation to further disrupt the WB public school systems, because at the heart of the matter, they are philosophically against public education and seek its end.

Non-Censor said...

Thank you for calling attention to to the latest twist in West Bend "politics." Thinking the library censorship issue dead, I was about to cancel my subscription to gmtoday online. But I can't miss this one, especially given Mr. Scheunemann's banal attempt to drag science down into the same muck with religion.

You are quite right about the court cases you mentioned, and any serious attempt to insert Creationism or Intelligent Design into the public school curriculum will result in expensive lawsuits.

Mpeterson said...

Anonymous, you have to remember that Kevin also doesn't believe the courts should make judgments he disagrees with.

Yeah Kevin, why haven't you pushed to have creationism co-taught with evolution, like Mr. Weigand and the Maziarkas?

Kevin Scheunemann said...


I advocate a school voucher system instead.

Like you said, a creationist teaching evolution is funny...I find an athiest teaching creationism just as funny.

We should give parents the choice through school vouchers, not force parents to evolution or creation as a world view.

Let parents choose the schools, via vouchers, with the values they want to instill in their children.

What's funny is that liberals waive the flag for "choice" in everything, except for schools....

Mpeterson said...

So you actually do believe that publicly funded schools should teach religious dogma?

Do your constituents know this? Let's tell them.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Christians (et. al.) do fund public schools too.

I don't mind if you tell my constituents---I am up for re-election this April. (5 people running for 3 seats) Have at it.

A village board member has little control over the school system.

Christian schools can educate children for less than half the cost of public make the argument for cost savings on health care...why not cost effective, Christ centered education, if the parent so chooses?

Are you afraid parents will not choose the godless public school system if given a choice?

This would solve the evolution vs. creation issue, school choice!

Are you against choice?

J.F. McCullough said...

How dare you filthy heathens treat the reigning International Dairy Queen Drive-Thru Champion with such disrespect.

Mpeterson said...

So scientific studies should be verified by popularity contests? Like elections?

That would leave our science as stable as our economy. Bad idea Kev.

But thanks! Can I quote you as saying that creationism should be taught in the public schools?

Maybe the Eagle Forum needs to send out a questionnaire in Kewaskum too.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


There's that word again, "science".

Evolution is a "theory". Science has not proven it. There are gaps in the science. To say evolution is proven science means you have faith that, one day, we will find and prove the gaps in the theory of evolution.

I can say the exact same thing about creationism.

This is all about advocacy of one faith over another in the school system.

I thought you were past the idea of censorship.

Of course elections are popularity contests, thats how democracy works. (with the slight deviation of the electoral college for president.) There was a hint of a tone in your comment that academia knows better than the masses...

Mpeterson said...

No Kevin, this is about your equivocation on the word "proof."

You've used it in two distinct ways in order to fudge the nonsense you're writing.

I'm sure that trick works on people who don't know that proof comes in different flavors, but it won't work here -- or in public debate -- or, to date, in front of the US Federal Court system.

It won't work in Kewaskum or West Bend either.

Are you simply unfamiliar with the court cases? Or unfamiliar with the difference between inductive and deductive proof?

I need to know if you're just joking before I attribute these views to you in print. Please let me know if you're kidding or serious.

-- I'm assuming you can't possibly be serious, but let me know officially so I can get it right in the paper.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


The distinction between inductive and deductive proof is interesting.

(Almost as interesting as whether I'm serious or not.)

Here's the problem, voters do not care about the inductive vs. deductive "proof" distinction in political debate. (Philosophy professors excepted of course)

You are attempting to introduce an element of logic to 2 opposing political points of view that each have elements of irrationality (aka: logical fallacy) to them.

I'm confident you can make the articulate logic argument, but is the logical argument an effective political argument?

Politics is mostly passion, not logic.

So what choice is left? Oppress the passion? or leave it as an "option"?

Mpeterson said...

Well, if you don't think doing the math properly matters, because most people aren't interested in accounting, fine.

If that's how you vote for your constituents then Kewaskum is in real trouble -- or I should say, even more trouble.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


LOL. Grin. LMAO.

A professed Obama supporter, such as yourself, is now worrying about the "math" and "accounting" of political debate?


I already know, Obama's math gets a pass, but my political debate "math" deserves intense microscopic scrutiny because why? Is it because I'm an (alleged)unhappy white guy?

...who is still LMAO BTW at your previous post.

Its clear you are unhappy with my inductive vs. deductive distinction (or word terminology "shenanigan") by calling evolution a "religion". Maybe rightly so. However, if you gave Obama just 5% of the same logical scrutiny on inductive v. deductive reasoning (terminology "shenanigan" review is my favorite term) on any number of current presidential political would (or should be) calling for Obama's impeachment.

I'm fascinated by the application (or inapplication) of political scrutiny. The "logic" path on that is very illogical, even by a "logic" expert such as yourself.

Its probably why I find this blog so interesting.

DanBack said...

Kevin says: "Christians (et. al.) do fund public schools too."

You mean just like gays fund public libraries too? Thought so.

Mpeterson said...

The real shenanigans, seems to me, is that you want to make the question of whether evolution or creationism count as scientific theories, or whether science even counts as scientific, a "political" discussion.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Mark.

Just want you to know that Ginny altered WEIGAND's creationism thoughts without acknowledging that they had been updated.

We got a loosy-goosy here?

ALTERNATE THEORIES OF ORIGIN Position Relative To Teaching Alternate Theories Of Origins Such As Intelligent Design And Creationism As An Alternative, Or In Addition To, The The Theory Of Evolution To Students In Science classrooms?
(Choose: Favor/ Against)
•WILLIAMS: Withdrawn
•WEIGAND: IN FAVOR ***Changed Answer: ABSTAIN (I Would Be FOR Teaching The TRUTH About Evolution.)
•VAN EERDEN**: ABSTAIN (Adhere To Legal Parameters For Public Schools)
•KNEPEL: Withdrawn

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Looks like only one candidate has courage to take an "evolution only/intelligent design censorship stance".

One candidate cops out, hiding behind the courts on evolution.

What's happened to the "evolution only, 100% of the time", courage?

Again, political elections have nothing to do with (alleged) science, it has to do with passion....or lack thereof, for a "scientific" theory with a lot of holes in it.

Now if you treated "evolution" like the religion it is...maybe you could generate some political passion for it!

lol at the increadible lack of leadership responses from the evolution/non-comittal candidates.

The intelligent design candidates at least have the courage of leadership in the WB school board race!

Mpeterson said...

Kev, why stop here? Why not go after the heliocentrists too?

Saying that evolution has a lot of holes in it is like saying "I'm going to continue criticizing things I don't understand."

I think it's interesting that the qualifications for owning and operating a Dairy Queen franchise are that much less strenuous than teaching high school science.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, Your ignoring of dictionary definitions for words: science, religion, and myth, is...


I'll have to visit your enterprise.

That's not a burger. It's only got one patty.

Oh, wait, that's why you provide pictures of the menu, like a waffle house.

You know why waffle house have pictures of everything in the menu?

"hiding behind the courts on evolution."

You want to live under a Bible-based theocracy, eh?

Here's comes the Obama, socialist global warming, incoherent/illogical rebuttal...