Casey Luskin Quotations

Unfortunately, the proponents of censorship won out by inflaming false fears that this critical analysis lesson plan is the equivalent of teaching intelligent design.

The policy we do prefer is that teachers teach both the strengths and the weaknesses of evolution, without getting into replacement theories like intelligent design.

We believe evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

This was an unfortunate decision based on false fears. These people want to censor information from students.

Currently there are propaganda efforts underway by Darwinists to try and persuade people into thinking promoting critical thinking about evolution is somehow bad for students and science education.

The ruling in Dover banning intelligent design clearly has no relevance for Ohio. Ohio is not teaching intelligent design, making this a completely different issue. That was merely a ploy for Darwinists to keep students from learning about the evidence challenging Darwin's theory.

This poll shows widespread support for the idea that when biology teachers teach Darwin's theory of evolution they should present the scientific evidence that supports it as well as the evidence against it.

Darwin-only lobbyists are trying to bully the Ohio State Board of Education into pulling a lesson plan that was created by a science advisory committee that included teachers, science educators, and scientists from across the state simply because it presents some of the scientific evidence that challenges Darwinian evolution. Students should learn more about evolution, not less, including the theory's strength and weaknesses.

Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed.

It's very significant for the students of Kansas. Instead of just the evidence that supports evolution, they're going to see all sides.

In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance. As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.

In my opinion, this decision is unconstitutional. The government has no business telling people how they should perceive evolution and religion.

The impact of this ruling is that even students who ask critical questions about Darwinism, or about intelligent design theory will scare administrators' about whether that puts the school in constitutional jeopardy. There's already been a negative chilling effect on open inquiry in places such as Ohio and South Carolina. Judge Jones' message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.