"Accommodationists" won't accommodate evolution disclaimer statements

The term "accommodationism" was apparently "coyned" by Jerry Coyne to refer to tolerance of theistic evolutionists, sometimes even including tolerance of a belief in the supernatural [1] [2]. The so-called "accommodationists" are hypocritical because they oppose "accommodation" of evolution disclaimer statements in the public schools. One of the purposes of evolution disclaimer statements is to reduce offense to people who oppose the teaching of evolution theory, particularly the dogmatic teaching of evolution theory. Evolution disclaimer statements were struck down by the courts in three fairly recent cases -- Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), Selman v. Cobb County (2005-06), and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish (2000). Both Selman and Freiler came close to being reversed on appeal and Ktizmiller was not appealed.

Why should accommodationists want to accommodate people who are opposed to the teaching of evolution? The answer is that people who are opposed to the teaching of evolution can have a big effect on how evolution is taught and even on whether evolution is taught at all, so it makes sense to make evolution disclaimer statements to try to reduce these people's opposition to the teaching of evolution. Indeed, in both the Kitzmiller and Selman cases, one of the main purposes of the evolution disclaimer statements (accompanied in Kitzmiller by school-library books that were not required reading) was to reduce opposition to adoption of a heavily pro-Darwinist biology textbook, "Biology" by Ken Miller and Joe Levine.