Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

"No matter who you support for president, we should all be able to agree that Ms. Dunbar's disgusting attack is a shocking example of the extremism that has infected the state board," TFN President Kathy Miller said.

"It's stunning that a board member who helps decide what Texas children learn in their public schools would say something so disgusting and reprehensible. She should be taking refresher courses in civics and good citizenship, not deciding what Texas kids learn."

Democrat Tim Brew, who teaches world history at East Paulding High School, does not support teaching creationism.

"Our Western civilization, since the Renaissance and scientific revolution, is predicated on using and instructing with the scientific method. The science and facts of the day are quite clear that man has evolved. I think it therefore appropriate that we teach evolution and leave any other theory, like creationism and intelligent design, to our religious institutions," Brew said.

Four Texas education board members re-elected
(Associated Press, November 4, 2008)

DALLAS"Four State Board of Education members Tuesday were elected back to the curricula-setting panel that will next year tackle the potentially divisive subject of science in Texas public schools.

The education board will tackle science curriculum standards next year, possibly opening the door for intelligent design supporters.

Voters sent Democrat Mavis Knight back to the education board over Republican Cindy Werner in one of four major challenges to incumbents.

Also clinching victory were three Republicans running without Democratic challengers: Terri Leo of Spring, Barbara Cargill of The Woodlands and Patricia Hardy of Fort Worth.

When the board revisits science curricula, debate over what to teach Texas students about mankind’s origins could bring clashes between social conservatives and moderates.

Knight, a board member since 2002, won after jumping out with more than 77 percent of the vote in early reporting.

Democrat Mary Helen Berlanga, the board’s longest-serving member, led Republican challenger Peter Johnston in the South Texas district she’s represented for 26 years. Berlanga has been a critic of intelligent design, a religious-based theory that purports the universe is too complex for science alone to explain.

Campbell elected to state ed board; Results diminish membership of conservatives
(By Barbara Hollingsworth, The Topeka Capital-Journal, November 05, 2008)

Topekan Carolyn Campbell won her historic run for the Kansas State Board of Education during an election that further shifted control of the board away from conservatives.

Campbell, a Democrat, will become the state's first black school board member when she and other newly elected board members take their seats in January. Campbell, who deliberately filed for office on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, grew up attending the city's segregated elementary schools before the landmark school desegregation decision Brown v. Board of Education. She defeated Topeka Republican Bob Meissner.

Campbell recalled late Tuesday "when I was at McKinley Elementary School and how they drilled in us we could be whatever we wanted to be, we just had to work hard and never take second place if you could take first place."

Campbell was one of three Democrats who won election to the state board Tuesday. Additionally, Republican winner David Dennis, of Wichita, has said he supported how the current state science standards address evolution " a litmus test issue for many voters.

The only conservative to win election was Kathy Martin, a Clay Center Republican who also was the only incumbent running for re-election. She was defeating Democrat Christopher Renner, of Manhattan, with 59 percent of the vote with most precincts reporting early today.

The results expand the moderate/liberal faction's lead to 7-3 " at least until 2010 when the other five state board seats are up for election.

Still, redefining science standards based on the most recent election is idiotic and a waste of time and money.

Creationism survey is not all it seems
(James Randerson, The Guardian, November 7 2008)

I'm not quite sure what to make of this survey from the website and TV station Teachers TV. It apparently shows that 29% of teachers think creationism should be taught as science and 18% of science teachers think evolution and creationism should be given equal status.

To anyone who cares about science, evidence and rational argument these results should be shocking. Any science teacher who is at all ambiguous about the difference between a scientific based explanation for the diversity of life and a faith based one that contradicts a mountain of evidence is not doing their job.

But we should take this survey with a pinch of salt. Firstly, the sample of 1210 is self-selecting - these are people who responded to a survey that was emailed to 10,600 education professionals. So it is possible that people at both extremes of the debate would be more likely to reply.

Also, only a minority of the respondents would actually be teaching evolution anyway - 336 were at primary school, 61 weren't teachers at all and just 248 are actually science teachers. Does it matter what an English or Religious Education teacher thinks about what is taught in science lessons?

One of the most controversial findings was that 31% of the total (and 18% of science teachers) believed that intelligent design and creationism deserved "equal status" in the classroom. But unfortunately, the question did not specify which classroom it was referring to - science or RE?

Nonetheless, I was most struck by the fact that 29% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the government's guidelines on teaching evolution. These state: "Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science national curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science."

Any science teacher who disagrees with that should be seeking alternative employment.

The developmental biologist Prof Lewis Wolpert at University College London said he was concerned about the findings.

"It is worrying, it's certainly worrying. It means they have a very poor understanding of science," he said. "Creationism has got nothing to do with science."

Nonetheless, I was most struck by the fact that 29% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the government's guidelines on teaching evolution. These state: "Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science national curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science."

Any science teacher who disagrees with that should be seeking alternative employment.

School board hopeful cries foul
(By John-John Williams IV, Baltimore Sun, November 9, 2008)

The winners in the race for county school board will not be official for days, but one candidate already says that dirty campaigning could cost her a seat.

Diane Butler, who finished fourth in the contest for three seats, said campaign literature distributed by third-place finisher Allen Dyer was taken out of context and distributed without her permission.

"This is dirty politics," said Butler, who finished about 1,000 votes behind Dyer. "I was very nice with Allen, and this is how he repaid me."

The literature contained Butler's answer to a question about "Intelligent Design" that was included on a candidates survey. Butler said she completed the questionnaire early in the year for the group Democracy for Howard County.

"I was very new at what I was doing," Butler said. "I sent them quick answers. ... It is my own fault for not being savvy enough."

Butler said she cannot remember exactly what she wrote on the questionnaire. She has attempted to retrieve a copy of the answer she sent the group, but she said her computer has since been "fried."

The question from Democracy for Howard County was: "Do you support or oppose the teaching of creationism or what is called 'Intelligent Design' as part of the curriculum in county schools."

According to the group, Butler responded: "I believe 'Intelligent Design' should be taught as a different theory than 'Evolution.' In science we have many subjects that are taught theoretically, and I believe all sides should be offered to allow students to make up their own minds."

Butler objected because she thought the answer in Dyer's literature did not accurately reflect her views.

"I'm not a creationism-teaching, right-wing, voucher-slinging, home-schooling mom," she said.

When asked Thursday to describe her views, Butler said: "I think it is a religious doctrine. I think it is taught in Christian religion. It is not a curriculum that you need to teach in the classroom. But you can't teach history without teaching religion; it is a doctrine out there that people discuss."

County election officials said about 13,000 absentee ballots had yet to be counted and that results would not be official until Friday. Dyer said his campaign distributed about 2,000 pamphlets in the days before the election. Butler, who also finished fourth behind Dyer in the February primary, said his "negative campaign tactics" had a direct impact on Tuesday's vote.

"I had people calling my friends," she said. "I lost a lot of votes over it. I [might have] lost the election over it. I had more votes in the primary.

"I am not being sour grapes," said Butler, a community activist from Ellicott City. "I am upset that I have been maliciously maligned. He had no business using it."

Dyer disagreed.

"It is something that is very much fair game," the Ellicott City attorney said. "It was not edited. It was not taken out of context."

Dyer said he worked harder than Butler in the general election.

"I didn't see any [of her] campaign signs," Dyer said. "I didn't see anyone at the polls handing out Diane's literature. I worked. I worked hard. I worked pretty smart."

Dyer said he was approached by Democracy for Howard County a couple of months ago about passing out literature containing information about other board candidates' stances on issues. The group, which is affiliated with Democracy for America, the grass-roots organization that formed from Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004, endorsed Dyer and agreed to help with his campaign.

"I jumped at the chance," he said.

It is common for the group to offer support to candidates it endorses, said Dawn Popp, the organization's chairwoman. "We have no finances we can offer. What we can offer is boots-on-the-ground volunteers.

"It's crazy to think that this was a smear tactic," Popp said.

Dyer is no stranger to controversy. In 2000, he sued the school board in Circuit Court for what he said were violations of the state's Open Meetings Act. As a result, state legislation was passed to strengthen enforcement of the law.

Dyer also represented four residents who questioned potential water contamination and other environmental concerns associated with a 400-seat addition at Glenelg High School. An administrative judge ruled against Dyer's clients in that case.

Butler, vice president of the St. John's Lane Community Association after serving four years as president, has said that she wants to increase academic rigor in the classroom. Butler has said that she home-schools her daughter out of concern over the quality of county schools.

"She was more conservative than our group, certainly," Popp said when asking why her group did not endorse Butler.

Dyer acknowledged the guidance of several people who helped with his campaign, including Ken Stevens, a member of the Democracy for Howard County steering committee. Popp said she now considers Dyer a full member of the organization.

Butler said that if she is not elected to the board this time, she is unsure whether she will seek a position in the future. In the meantime, she has returned to her post with the St. John's Lane Community Association.

"I don't want it damaging my reputation," she said.

U.S. Supreme Court
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
Argued October 16, 1968.
Decided November 12, 1968.


Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. That statute makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university to teach or to use a textbook that teaches "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." The State Chancery Court held the statute an abridgment of free speech violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The State Supreme Court, expressing no opinion as to whether the statute prohibits "explanation" of the theory or only teaching that the theory is true, reversed the Chancery Court. In a two-sentence opinion it sustained the statute as within the State's power to specify the public school curriculum.

Held: The statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces the First Amendment's prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion. Pp. 102-109.


(a) The Court does not decide whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, since, whether it is construed to prohibit explaining the Darwinian theory or teaching that it is true, the law conflicts with the Establishment Clause. Pp. 102-103.

(b) The sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis. Pp. 103, 107-109.

(c) The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. Pp. 103-107.

(d) A State's right to prescribe the public school curriculum does not include the right to prohibit teaching a scientific theory or doctrine for reasons that run counter to the principles of the First Amendment. P. 107.

(e) The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality. P. 109.

Yesterday was the forty year anniversary of the supreme court decision on Epperson v. Arkansas.

I know this must seem cynical, but I can't help but think that the most vociferous supporters of teaching evolution are merely trying to pin enlightenment medals on their own chests.

I know this must seem cynical, but I can't help but think that the most vociferous supporters of teaching evolution are merely trying to pin enlightenment medals on their own chests.