For more on Zack Kopplin, in case you don’t recognize the name, see here. What follows is an open letter to Zack’s father and mother, though it is applicable to others as well, young and old.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kopplin,

I hope this finds you both well.

On occasion, my wife and I have received notes directed home from a teacher about issues with our children’s behavior in school. I’ve always been grateful to hear what was going on, from another adult’s perspective, since moms and dads are often not the first to know. With that in mind, I’m writing to you about your son Zack.

Zack, at age 21, is from what I’m able to tell spending a great deal of time as an “activist” trying to overturn the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). In this capacity he does some freelance writing for Slate and other publications, which I assume does not pay the bills. My concern is that Zack, a bright young person, is being used by what I’ll call the Darwin Lobby in a way that is not to his long-term benefit.

Obviously, I’m not Zack’s teacher. His Wikipedia page says he is currently studying history at Rice University, having graduated from high school in 2011. But for several years my colleagues and I have tried to help Zack and other activists in understanding both about the science behind the evolution debate and, more specifically, about the provisions of the LSEA, which he has persistently misrepresented to the public.

So when it comes to science and science education, we may be the closest thing to a teacher in your son’s life at the moment — not that we’ve been very successful in educating him. That is one reason I am getting in contact with you now. In addition, his current article at Slate (“A Creationist Campaign“) mentions something that would get my attention as a dad. Regarding the Louisiana Science Education Act, he writes: “It has been such a significant factor in my life that last spring I made it permanent and tattooed it on my ribcage: the bill number as a strand of DNA.”

Whoa! Tattoos may be a matter of taste, but at Zack’s age he is going to have to live with his for many years to come.

Why am I writing to you in this forum? Because Zack’s activities are not merely private, and insofar as he has a readership, they mislead the public. The article this week at Slate, which mentions your family’s friendship with Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and your response to the passage of LSEA, is typical.

It mentions “creationism” 23 times. LSEA is the “creationism bill,” “the creationism law,” “I can’t forgive Jindal for signing the creationism law,” Discovery Institute is the “creationist think tank,” and so on and on.

“I remember,” Zack says, “the day that this act became law. I was sitting in the car, pulling off my shin guards after soccer tryouts, when a family friend, the editorial writer for our local paper, the Advocate, walked by. I heard him ask my dad, ‘Did you hear that Jindal signed the creationism bill?'”

But whether a reasonable person supports or opposes LSEA, the law is not about advancing “creationism,” any more than Discovery Institute is a “creationist think tank.” The article repeats its untruth over and over.

LSEA, as I trust that you know, protects teachers who inform students regarding the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. It emphatically and explicitly does not extend protection to science instructors who teach religion — notably creationism, a doctrine that seeks to give the impression that science supports a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Like it or not, LSEA is about teaching science. A public school science instructor teaching creationism would be outside the clear limits of the law, much as a driver who exceeds the speed limit or drives while intoxicated is outside the boundaries of laws that govern driving. Such a teacher would also be in violation of the Constitution.

It suits the purposes of the Darwin Lobby to confuse these matters. That explains why they have fastened onto Zack. The National Center for Science Education, for one, makes a specialty of sowing misinformation, which may be why they honored your son with a Friend of Darwin award. Clearly, someone at Slate also finds it congenial to keep readers misinformed.

I am giving Zack the benefit of the doubt in assuming that, being young and naïve, he still sincerely does not understand the difference between creationism, on one hand, and on the other hand, legitimate, mainstream criticisms of Darwinian biology. It’s the latter only that LSEA gives teachers the freedom to share with students, along with evidence that supports conventional evolutionary theory.

Zack has failed five years in a row to get the LSEA repealed. To be so “out there” in such a public manner is, for a young person, impressive in its way. Zack has gumption and an admirable touch of chutzpah.

What he does not seem to have done is studied the science — the mainstream scientific, not religious, challenges to Darwinian theory — that are what the law he opposes is actually about. At Slate, he writes about how for the past “seven years, the Louisiana Science Education Act, the creationism law, [has been] my crucible.” That is a long time to spend on a project with so little, by way of elementary comprehension, to show for it.

My suggestion? Have a talk with your son about his education, and about an unfortunate reality of the world, that zealots with a political agenda will try to use an enthusiastic person like himself to their own ends, which may not include a high regard for truth telling. If I were his father, I would want to see my boy buckle down, get his degree, prepare for a career, do something useful with his life, and something honorable.

Sincerely yours,

David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute

Image: Kzenon / Dollar Photo Club.