Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

State Board of Education Race
(Kathy Dzewaltowski, The Manhattan Mercury, October 5, 2008)

The November 4 ballot is full of races and issues for voters to decide on: presidential race, U.S. representative, U.S. senate, state representative, state senate, county races, and on down to local issues such as the smoking ordinance and the USD 383 bond proposal. One race that voters may have overlooked is the District 6 State Board of Education race, which includes the Manhattan area, and I want to encourage voters to go to the polls knowledgeable about the candidates and their positions on the issues. (Visit the Kansas State Department of Education's web site to determine your district.)

I'm sure everyone is aware of the national attention the Kansas State Board of Education (SBOE) has received over the past few years due to the controversy surrounding the science standards. Beginning in 1999, the SBOE has rewritten the science standards every few years as majorities on the SBOE have changed with each election. The SBOE has gone back and forth between including supernatural explanations of phenomena and removing references to evolution, to returning to science standards supportive of evolution theory .

Prior to 1999, I would guess that many voters weren't terribly knowledgeable about the SBOE or even knew who their representative on the board was. I'm concerned that voters may not be as knowledgeable about the SBOE again this election year due to all of the other high profile races on the ballot. The SBOE race seems to be slipping through the cracks in terms of how much attention its getting from the media, leaving voters to educate themselves about the candidates.

The District 6 candidates are Kathy Martin, incumbent (R-Clay Center), and her challenger Christopher Renner (D-Manhattan). I was able to attend a candidates' forum earlier this summer and learned more about both candidates. The two candidates differ on many issues, but their positions on two hot button topics--the science standards and sex education curriculum--helped to clarify for me in more specific terms exactly how Renner and Martin are different.

In terms of the science standards, Renner said he supports the current science standards and doesn't think that Intelligent Design is scientifically credible. On Renner's web site, he says, "I support the current science standards, especially in regard to the teaching of mainstream evolutionary science"a scientific theory that is well-accepted in the scientific community and which impacts our daily lives in numerous ways."

At the forum, Martin said that scientific data shouldn't be censored, and the controversy surrounding evolution should be taught. On Martin's web site, information about her says, "The truth is that Darwin's theory is far from proven and that continuing to teach it as fact without offering competing theories for Kansas students to consider is doing them a disservice. Scientific discoveries made over the last decades, such as the DNA code in every living cell, have proven Darwin's theory of macroevolution not to be a plausible theory."

Enough experimenting with the science curriculum
(Austin American-Statesman EDITORIAL BOARD, October 06, 2008)

When scientists and science educators speak about what students need to learn to be prepared for college and careers in the medical or technology professions, state leaders should listen.

That only makes sense. We would not want scientists flying commercial airplanes or teaching students how to fly planes. That job is for pilots and flight instructors " the experts on flying.

So who better than scientists and science educators to develop curriculum standards in science for public schools?

That is why the State Board of Education should defer to scientists and its own advisory committee when it comes to determining what should be taught in biology classes. The six-member advisory committee, which includes science teachers and curriculum experts, recommended eliminating ideas "based upon purported forces outside of nature" from high school biology courses. In other words, get rid of creationism and intelligent design, which teach that the universe was created by God or some other higher power.

That recommendation won a big endorsement from scientists last week but a cool reception from State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, a Republican from Bryan. McLeroy wants to keep the requirement directing science educators to point out the weaknesses of evolution or other scientific theories. That requirement has been used to justify the teaching of creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution. That rub to science grabbed the attention of scientists.

The 21st Century Science Coalition, which represents more than 800 Texas scientists, brought scientific journals to the Texas Education Agency last week to underscore the message that the weaknesses McLeroy references "don't exist."

"Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science curriculum," said David Hillis, a University of Texas integrative biology professor.

We've said before that religious-based ideas or those that aren't substantiated by scientific research don't belong in science classes.

Inserting supernatural ideas in the science curriculum damages its integrity. McLeroy and other board members should be strengthening science standards to accommodate a big push to attract world-class biomedical researchers, companies and grants to Texas. Those are growth industries that have not looked favorably on communities that water down science studies with vague and unproven ideas.

In the past, a majority of the board has bullied publishers into editing textbooks to reflect its socially conservative ideals. And McLeroy again is trying to force those views on all Texas schoolchildren as the education board rewrites academic standards for biology courses.

We applaud scientists for speaking up as the education board develops new science standards for Texas public schools.

We urge the board to listen to the experts.

a big push to attract world-class biomedical researchers, companies and grants to Texas

Scientist Coalition Accused of 'Suppressing' Evidence Against Darwinism
(Eric Young, Christian Post, October 08, 2008)

While the 21st Century Science Coalition may sound like it’s on the cutting edge of scientific innovation, at least one of its critics argues otherwise.

“The 21st Century Science Coalition has the wrong name,” says Dr. John G. West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

“It should be dubbed the ‘19th Century Science Coalition,’ because it wants to turn the clock back to the 19th century by suppressing recent scientific evidence challenging Darwinism from fields like biochemistry, bioinformatics, microbiology, and paleontology,” he told The Christian Post in response to the coalition’s recruitment of more than 800 supporters from the scientific community in Texas.

Last week, the 21st Century Science Coalition warned the State Board of Education not to inject politics or religion into new science guidelines for public schools, worried that social conservatives on the 15-member board will insist that public schools teach the "weaknesses of evolution." The board plans to adopt new science curriculum standards next year.

Under the current standards for the state's science curriculum, students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

The 21st Century Science Coalition alleges, however, that the references to “strengths and weaknesses” have been used by politicians “to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.”

Such explanations include concepts like Intelligent Design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they could not have come about randomly but point to an intelligent designer.

To date, over 800 scientists in Texas have signed the coalition’s statement to “encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to ‘strengths and weaknesses.’”

“A strong science curriculum is an essential part of a 21st-century education and should be based on established peer-reviewed empirical research,” states the introduction to the statement titled “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools.”

In addition to asserting that scientifically sound curriculum standards must “make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt,” supporters of the statement say standards must “recognize that all students are best served when matters of faith are left to families and houses of worship.”

West, however, insists that no one is proposing to teach religion in biology classes in Texas.

“The claim about religion is simply a smoke screen to cover up the effort by Darwinists to impose an ideological litmus test on science education in Texas,” he said.

“What [backers of the current curriculum] want is for students to hear about the scientific (not religious) evidence for and against Darwinism.”

Furthermore, West says Darwinists are the ones who are truly trying to undermine good science education by turning it into a form of indoctrination.

“Examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific explanations and theories is a critical part of good science education,” he insisted. “Science educators disserve students if they fail to introduce them to all of the relevant scientific evidence and help them critically analyze that evidence.”

According to reports, the State Board of Education will begin discussing the proposed new standards this fall and have tentatively set a deadline of March 2009 for final adoption. In 2011, the state is scheduled to adopt new science textbooks, which are created by publishers using the state’s curriculum standards.

In addition to the 21st Century Science Coalition, other critics of the current curriculum include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past. The network is currently spearheading the “Stand Up for Science” campaign, which accuses creationists on the State Board of Education of "working to undermine instruction on evolution in science classes."

“The 21st Century Science Coalition has the wrong name,” says Dr. John G. West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

The 21st Century Science Coalition alleges, however, that the references to “strengths and weaknesses” have been used by politicians “to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.”

New Conflicts Erupt Over Creationism in Public Schools
(Brian Kaylor, EthicsDaily.com, 10-09-08)

A school board in Ohio is holding a hearing examining claims that an eighth-grade science teacher kept a Bible on his desk, taught creationism and burned crosses on students’ arms. A third-grader teacher in California is being investigated for criticizing evolution, informing her students that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do not exist, and advocating a belief in God. A school board in North Carolina has sparked controversy for considering the teaching of creationism.

These three conflicts represent the latest flashpoints in the ongoing debate over the teaching of evolution, creationism and intelligent design in public schools. Each case demonstrates the volatility of bringing religion into public classrooms.

Eighth-grade science teacher John Freshwater was suspended without pay in June by the school board of Mount Vernon, Ohio, after several months of controversy. Last December, a student claimed suffering pain after Freshwater used a high-frequency generator to burn a cross on the student’s left arm. Red dots allegedly remained on the student’s arm for three or four weeks.

Additional complaints against Freshwater soon followed. He was ordered by school administrators not to keep a Bible on his desk, but refused to comply. He has also been accused of teaching creationism, discussing Christianity in class, and giving extra credit to students for memorizing Bible verses.

A hearing to determine if Freshwater should be fired included two days of testimony last week and will resume at the end of the month. Freshwater denies many of the accusations and claims that the attacks are “nothing short of another blatant attack on free-speech rights.” His supporters started a Web site, BibleOnTheDesk.com, to offer their support.

At first, Freshwater denied branding any students with a device intended to test gases and which the manufacturer warns never to use on human skin. Now, Freshwater admits to using the device on more than 600 students over 16 years, but claims it is harmless, that many of the students volunteered, and that he was making an “x” and not a cross.

Freshwater is accused of having attacked the idea of evolution and pointing students to AnswersinGenesis.com, a Web site run by Ken Ham, a Christian critic of evolution. Freshwater had asked the school board in 2003 for permission to “critically examine” evolution in classes, but his request was denied.

Across the country, in Berkley, Calif., third-grade teacher Gwen Martin has been on personal leave since last September after parents complained that she was teaching creationism and encouraging belief in God.

In addition to listing evolution and the big-bang theory as fiction, Martin allegedly also said Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter were fictitious, which caused some of her students to cry. Martin then declared that God was an example of non-fiction.

Berkeley Board of Education President John Selawsky expressed his surprise that a teacher in the district would promote creationism and deny evolution. Martin is in her first year as a teacher in the district.

“This is the first time in my eight years as a board member that I have heard of allegations of teaching creationism and denying evolution,” said Selawsky. “You certainly don’t hear about this in the Bay Area. … In places like Kansas it’s an ongoing battle and a big political issue. There are strict stipulations in the state Education Code about what public school teachers can or cannot do.”

On the other coast, the school board of Brunswick County in North Carolina is considering a proposal to teach creationism in classes. However, state restrictions might prevent them from enacting their proposal. The school board will consider the idea further at its October meeting.

At its September meeting, all board members present and many in the audience offered their strong support for teaching creationism and criticism of evolution, although they seemed to be unsure as to what was allowed. In North Carolina, creationism cannot be taught in a science or required course, but may be covered in an elective class.

The parent who sparked the initial discussion, Joel Fanti, is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, New Beginnings Community Church in Shallotte. His pastor, Brad Ferguson, expressed his support for Fanti’s proposal.

“There is some scientific evidence supporting creationism,” said Ferguson. “Kids should be presented both sides. … You can’t isolate disciplines. Science and faith"they go together.”

Although the most famous dispute over the teaching of evolution in public schools"the “Scopes Monkey Trial”"occurred more than 80 years ago, conflicts continue to arise. Recent controversies have included a back-and-forth struggle in the Kansas State Board of Education and the Dover, Penn. trial over the teaching of “intelligent design.”

A study earlier this year indicated that evolution was being taught less in public schools across the nation. Last week, leaders of the 21st Century Science Coalition announced they would be monitoring new teaching guidelines being developed by the Texas Education Agency. The group, which claims to represent more than 800 scientists, opposes a proposal that could result in science teachers in the state teaching alternatives to evolution, including creationism.

Richard Duhrkopf, who is part of the Coalition, teaches introductory biology at Baylor University and is one of more than a dozen science professors at the Baptist school to sign the Coalition’s statement. He expressed his opposition to teaching creationism as science, contending that creationist theories “just don’t make the grade as science, and to teach them would be to teach a lie to our students."

In addition to listing evolution and the big-bang theory as fiction, Martin allegedly also said Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter were fictitious, which caused some of her students to cry.

The parent who sparked the initial discussion, Joel Fanti, is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, New Beginnings Community Church in Shallotte. His pastor, Brad Ferguson, expressed his support for Fanti’s proposal.

“There is some scientific evidence supporting creationism,” said Ferguson.

“Kids should be presented both sides… You can’t isolate disciplines. Science and faith"they go together.”

The Cretes and the IDjits believe that if they say something loud and often enough, itll stick to the wall sooner or later.