Bobby Jindal's Creationist Talking Points
Barbara Forrest printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:50:12 PM EST
(In light of the recent decision of the Louisiana House to allow the teaching of creationism in the state's public schools, and Governor Bobby Jindal's recent notoriety, Barbara Forrest's guest front page post last Fall is as timely now as it was then.) We are honored to welcome Barbara Forrest back as a guest front pager. She was a key expert witness in the landmark federal case Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. Her testimony proved that "intelligent design" was nothing more than hastily dressed-up creationism -- the teaching of which had already been found to be unconstitutional. She is a member of the board of the National Center for Science Education -- FC

Bobby Jindal participated in a televised gubernatorial forum in Louisiana on September 27, 2007, at which a journalist asked him whether he supports the teaching of intelligent design. Jindal’s answer clearly indicated that this Rhodes scholar and Brown University biology graduate does indeed support teaching creationism.

His position has not changed since he voiced such support when he ran for governor the first time in 2003. However, the striking aspect of his comments both then and now was his use of talking points that suggest his familiarity with the semantic strategy with which ID is being promoted by its proponents at the Discovery Institute, the headquarters of the ID movement.
On September 27, 2007, after avoiding public events where he might be asked unanticipated questions, Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Bobby Jindal participated in a televised forum that was carried live by Louisiana Public Broadcasting (LPB).
 
In a segment in which each panelist was allowed to direct one question to a specific candidate, Baton Rouge Advocate columnist Carl Redman asked Jindal how his personal faith might influence his policies as governor on the issues of abortion, the teaching of intelligent design, and prayer at public meetings. Jindal addressed abortion and prayer but skipped intelligent design. Requesting time for a follow-up, Redman steered him back to that part of the question. Jindal’s response clearly indicated that he supports teaching intelligent design (ID) creationism in public schools (transcript below). However, the interesting aspect of his answer was that he seems to know the talking points and code language that ID creationists at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) use to promote ID. The Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Seattle think tank, is the headquarters of the ID creationist movement. Jindal also used such talking points during his first race for governor four years ago when asked whether he supported teaching creationism.
 
Responding to a 2003 candidate questionnaire from the Louisiana Family Forum (the Religious Right organization for which LA Sen. David Vitter has earmarked $100,000 in a 2007 federal spending bill, ostensibly to enable the organization “to develop a plan to promote better science education”), Jindal answered “yes” as to whether he supported teaching the “scientific weaknesses of evolution” (code talk for teaching creationism). He reiterated this support in a November 2003 New Orleans Times-Picayune article:
 
   Jindal also would support the teaching of creationism in schools, with the qualifier that students should be presented with all available evidence of the origin of life and be allowed to decide for themselves. “If a teacher wanted to say (creationism) is what some people believe and presented a range of views, there's nothing wrong with that,” Jindal said. [emphasis added; see below]
    Jindal said he has no specific plan to mandate a particular curriculum statewide. Rather, he sees the role of governor as weighing in on any local debate on such issues.
(Brian Thevenot, “Governor hopefuls say faith personal; But some say beliefs have political effect,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, Nov. 2, 2003, p. 1)
 
Although there is no evidence that Jindal has had direct contact with the Discovery Institute, his November 2003 remarks were consistent with DI’s strategy of using code talk to promote ID, a tactic ID proponents adopted several years ago when they began to fear that the term “intelligent design” was becoming a legal liability. [PDF] Like Jindal, DI favors giving children “all the evidence,” as ID creationist and CSC director Stephen C. Meyer asserted in September 2003 during DI’s nationally publicized attempt to influence the selection of Texas science textbooks: “[D]esign theorists . . . are asking that students learn all the evidence they need to assess Darwinian theory, not just the evidence that happens to support it.” ID proponents also support teaching the “strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” Meyer said, because doing so would teach students “to weigh evidence—a key skill in scientific reasoning.” Jindal’s comments were also consistent with CSC associate director John West’s August 2003 code talk: “We wholeheartedly endorse good, accurate science and the complete teaching of evolution in accord with Texas law, which says students should learn all the scientific evidence that both supports and shows the weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”
 
Jindal’s endorsement of teaching the “scientific weaknesses of evolution” was therefore significant in light of the consistency between the Louisiana Family Forum’s use of this semantic tactic and DI’s concurrent strategy. However, Jindal’s giveaway phrase in his November 2003 comments was “range of views.” In 2001, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania had inserted into the No Child Left Behind Act a sense of the Senate resolution that pro-science activists recognized as intended to covertly promote ID. (ID leader Phillip Johnson wrote the resolution. When these activists brought the resolution’s true significance to the NCLB conference committee’s attention, the committee removed it from the bill. However, pro-ID committee members (who included Rep. John Boehner of Ohio) then inserted the language into the bill’s legislative history where it now reads as follows, with the slight alteration that later showed up in Jindal’s comments to the Times-Picayune:
 
The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. [emphasis added] 
 
In 2003, when Jindal used the phrase “range of views,” the Discovery Institute was still using what had become popularly known as the “Santorum amendment” for propaganda purposes, interpreting the “full range of scientific views” to include ID. [PDF] This short phrase has become the most often-quoted part of the Santorum amendment. (See Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, ch. 8, "Wedging into Power Politics," Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, Oxford University Press, 2007.)
 
Jindal’s September 2007 forum comments likewise reflect DI’s talking points, as the transcript below shows. Earlier in the forum, responding to a question about how each candidate would define “integrity,” he had highlighted his integration of his personal religiosity into his political campaign:
 
Jindal [37:30]: “Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking. It’s keeping an eternal perspective, understanding there are things more important than winning or losing in the material world. I think it’s— I draw my definition of integrity from my Christian faith, about having that godly perspective, trying to keep that perspective first and foremost. . . .” 
 
Later, during a segment allotted for candidate-specific questions in which the candidate had one minute to respond, Redman directed his question about abortion, ID, and prayer to Jindal:
 
Redman [44:23]: “Representative Jindal, your campaign complained early on about ads that raised questions about your religious beliefs. But some voters want to know, how will your beliefs affect your actions as governor and influence your approach to public policy? In your response, please comment specifically whether you would lead, oppose, or take a hands-off approach to efforts to restrict a woman’s right to abortion on demand, to mandating that public schools teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, and to allowing prayer at public meetings on school boards.”

Jindal: “Thank you, Carl. I’ll try to get to all those in a minute. Certainly, first, I thought the ads were underhanded and beyond even what you’d expect in Louisiana politics. To attack somebody for being a Christian I thought was a little bit much. I was glad to see the almost universal national and statewide condemnation of those awful ads. I wish my colleagues [gesturing toward the other candidates] would also condemn those ads. In terms of how my personal beliefs, my Christian faith, will affect me being governor and affect my job— look, I’m not one of those people who thinks you can have a private or a public morality. The reality is, in my faith, in the church, we’re taught that you give your entire, 100% of yourself, to God, but we also live, we live in a pluralistic society, a society with rights for minorities, a society with rights for people who agree with us and who disagree with us. On those three issues, Louisiana’s already passed a law under the current governor, the current legislature, that would, would enforce, would provide for a pro-life state in case the [U.S.] Supreme Court allows the state to do that. The reality is this is a decision that’ll be decided in the federal courts. I am pro-life, but I respect the role of the judiciary. Secondly, in terms of prayer in public gathering places, I personally disagreed with the federal judge that ruled you couldn’t have prayer before school board meetings because she was worried that children would be actually exposed to prayer. [Jindal was referring to U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan, who ruled on a school board prayer case in Tangipahoa Parish, LA.