On April 12th, 2010, Michael De Dora, the director of the Center for Inquiry's Office of Policy wrote a blog essay about a Tenessee man's opposition to a biology textbook which referred to Biblical creationism as a "myth". De Dora quoted PZ Myers who had previously blogged about the story, using PZ as an indicator of how the secular community tends to respond to such cases (PZ defended the textbook, and called the litigant a "twit"). De Dora's article argued that it is not appropriate to have such language in a biology textbook, writing:
Why is it that our biology classes -- or even public schools generally -- must reject religious beliefs to really educate children? I think we will find that, even if decided that our children would be better off hearing critique of their parents' religious beliefs, this question is irrelevant, as according to our laws we cannot do such a thing, nor do I think it is appropriate as evidenced here. In turn, the answer seems to be that we should ensure our high school science teachers are instructing students on how to think like a scientist, and imparting to students the body of knowledge scientists have accrued (and that all of our teachers generally are doing similar in their respective fields). From there, the children take that knowledge as they will. At the same time, Richard Dawkins and other writers who have done a fabolous job popularizing scientific knowledge should continue to do what they do so that hopefully we can collectively accomplish the social and political change we need.

PZ Myers responded with a scathing editorial attacking De Dora with the following remarks:

  • witless wanker peddling pablum
  • wishy-washy, sloppy-thinking
  • accommodates any nonsense from religious BS artists
  • cowardly intellectual dishonesty

PZ further denigrates the Center for Inquiry for employing De Dora, asking, "Does CFI stand for the Church of Fatuous Incompetence now?"

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.