WARNING: The above link may contain irreverence.
More from Mpeterson, who started this ball to rolling (and as such is the one deserving of the shout-outs, not your humble scrivener).
A perceptive Pharyngula commenter adds:
I couldn't tell from Owen's [Boots and Sabers] column whether he thought that the case law is so clear that even the wingnuts wouldn't waste taxpayer money on attempts to teach creationism or that he didn't care about the Constitution.Even assuming the former, my question had to do with how the case law made Peterson's "entire column a massive moot point."
Fact is, the case law is wholly supportive of Peterson's column.
As one nationally-known science standards defender put it to me a few years ago, "We're educating a parade." In other words, even if David Weigand or the other two creationist aspirants to the West Bend school board have no intention of fiddling with the biology curriculum, Prof. Peterson's admonitions are a public service.
They will be rendered "moot" if and when creationists surrender to reality and give up the ghost. Which will more than likely be never.
Peterson's Saturday column is here.