Richard Dawkins has famously called it a form of child abuse to teach your child about your religion. I was not aware till now that his buddy and fellow atheist Lawrence Krauss takes that notion to an enhanced level of specificity by arguing that teaching “creationism” to your children is a kind of child abuse.

Actually Dr. Krauss, theoretical physicist and author of popular science books, has made the charge several times in public forums. Previously, he admitted that creationist parents only engage in “mild” child abuse. Now in a discussion on Australian TV (which includes a distracting laugh track) he repeats the point, without, this time, the concession that the abuse is merely “mild.”

If that sounds like a ratcheting up of the accusation, it’s perhaps balanced by Krauss’s tone, which sounds jokey at first. And he does note that there are “different levels of child abuse.” Speaking to interviewer Charlie Pickering (click on the image above), he also acknowledges that his formulation was “brutal,” but defends the brutality on the grounds that if he’d taken a softer tone, “you wouldn’t have read the line.” This gets a big laugh from the laugh track.

The “line” about creationism was more specific in his earlier comments — where he was apparently referring to Young Earth Creationism — while here it’s not evident how broadly he is casting his criticism. Many Darwin defenders, of course, use “creationist” to refer to intelligent design advocates and proponents of academic freedom legislation as well.

The problem, according to Krauss, is with people who “withhold information” from kids, which he compares to denying them needed medication or vaccines.

One could make a few observations here. First, on his Wikipedia page, Krauss is identified as “one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a ‘public intellectual.'” That’s a lofty description of him, suggestive of a person of both moral and intellectual seriousness. However valid the underlying point might be that he wants to make, what kind of “public intellectual” uses child abuse as a gag line or attention getter?

Second, note the irony. In the controversy over academic freedom — that is, whether laws should permit public school teachers to share relevant mainstream science with students even if it’s critical of Darwinism — it is precisely the folks wrongly dismissed as “creationists” who would maximize the flow of scientific information, while Darwin defenders like Krauss withhold knowledge from young people.

Third and most seriously, don’t just pass over Krauss’s “line” as nothing more than a mean-spirited cheap shot. He keeps hammering away at it — not backing down one bit — and whether you like him or not, he is an influential fellow. His Wiki page notes other honors he has received, besides the designation as a “public intellectual,” including:

[H]e is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board‘s Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the United States.

Important and seemingly serious people listen to this guy. That’s why what Lawrence Krauss says isn’t silly — it’s scary.

Yesterday, Wesley Smith wrote about a genuine form of child abuse, the withholding of needed nutrition on the ideological grounds that “meat is murder,” that can result in dire legal consequences for parents. Is it too much to imagine a scenario where you get a knock on your door some day and find a social worker with Child Protective Services, and maybe a police officer or two, asking whether reports from your neighbors are accurate that you are teaching “creationism” to your kids?

I wouldn’t expect it tomorrow, but in the not unimaginably distant future? I do not think the idea is entirely paranoid.

As we’ve been reminded in recent weeks, American law is evolving rapidly. You might think it’s doing so in a good way, or not. But certainly the situation is highly fluid. Something that nobody would have expected or even thought of just 15 years ago can be the law of the land tomorrow. This is not a threat to wave away as idle or insignificant.