Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Well, did you succeed?

Agree with spendi= one of great intelligence and perspicacity

You were caught red-handed picking your judges on flavour. There is nothing for you to be curious about. It's written on the record. Judge Jones is a Lutheran so not an atheist.

State lawmakers attack climate change, evolution
(By John Timmer, arstechnica.com, February 16, 2010)

The teaching of evolution has been under attack for decades, but few are aware of the extent of the campaign. Each year, at least a half-dozen states seem to introduce legislation intended to undermine science education standards by allowing or requiring nonscientific ideas to be taught alongside a standard biology curriculum. In recent years, these have taken the form of the so-called "academic freedom" bills, which allow teachers to bring in outside materials that undercut standard science textbooks. Many of these bills are now placing climate change beside evolution as a target for special criticism, and there are signs that climatology may become an independent target for state legislators.

We're only partway through February, and the National Center for Science Education has already been tracking two bills related to education in the biological sciences. The first, from Mississippi, would "require that the lesson have equal instruction from educational materials that present arguments from both protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution." It died in committee earlier this month.

But it was quickly joined by a bill in Kentucky that would allow teachers to bring in materials that were not approved by the state in order to critique the science that has previously been discussed; in this sense, it's structured much like the legislation that passed in Louisiana. The law targets scientific theories "including but not limited to the study of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning," which is a direct copy of the Louisiana law.

There are two ways of interpreting this recent tendency to lump biology and geoscience education into a single piece of legislation. The first is that hyperskepticism of evolution and climate change have generally been associated with the conservative end of the political spectrum in recent years, meaning that the people behind the bills object to both topics. The alternative is that the people behind the bills know that there are many people who mistrust either one or the other, and the bill can attract wider support by including both.

But there are now signs that, at the state level, climate change may be ready to branch out on its own. Last week, the Utah House approved legislation that urges the Environmental Protection Agency to put any plans for regulating carbon dioxide emissions on hold, "until climate data and global warming science are substantiated."

Although the determination that the EPA would act on greenhouse gas emissions was based on scientific findings, the actual policy that results would be a political decision, and one that it's perfectly reasonable for the Utah legislature to weigh in on. Instead, the Utah legislation attacks the science, in inflammatory and confused terms.

The initial text of the legislation accused scientists of being on a "gravy train" of federal funding and engaging in a conspiracy to promote flawed findings. Those statements have been toned down in the version that passed, but it still contains many misunderstandings and distortions, including a positively bizarre aside that appears to blame chlorofluorocarbons"like freon"for the recent trajectory of temperatures.

Bills such as these highlight what appears to be a disturbing trend, one that is also apparent in a Maine legislator's recent attempts to place health warnings on cell phones. The US public has had difficulty distinguishing between credible scientific information and the various forms of misinformation available on the Internet. It's no surprise that state lawmakers, drawn from and representing that same population, have similar difficulties.

Being elected should, however, place a larger burden of responsibility on legislators, one that would seem to require at least a minimal attempt to work with the best available information. In fact, many scientific organizations, such as the National Academies of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have staff devoted to providing policymakers with answers to scientific questions. There's little excuse for legislators to be badly misinformed on these issues.

Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that a public that's equally confused on scientific matters will hold these elected officials responsible for not taking their job seriously. Which means that various pieces of climate-focused legislation may be appearing with the same regularity that evolution-focused bills now do.

We're only partway through February,

Controversial Schultheis public schools religion bill ends in a whimper
(By Joseph Boven, The Colorado Independent, 02/16/10)

DENVER" A controversial bill that sought to expand space for religion in Colorado’s public schools failed to make it out of committee Monday. Even before the hearing began, the bill’s sponsor, Christian conservative state Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, seemed to have accepted the fact that his “Public School Religious Bill of Rights” would very likely fail to pass and so offered amendments that significantly weakened its provisions. In the end, so little was left of the bill that the majority Democratic committee members said it simply offered no new provisions on the matter. In the end, the four Democrats voted against the bill and the three Republicans voted for it.

Schultheis’s bill, SB 089 , in its original version would have allowed teachers to choose not to teach subjects such as evolution and sex education that might conflict with their religious beliefs. It also would have allowed them to distribute religious material and display religious symbols in class, among other things.

With passionate opposition witnesses lined up to testify, however, Schultheis amended the bill to merely require that questions concerning religious rights in the schools be presented to the Colorado Attorney General for consideration. The AG’s answers to the questions would then be distributed to the schools where they would be publicly displayed.

“I am not convinced that what we have in front of us today is necessary or in any way improves upon what we have today,” said Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver. He agreed with others that laws already safeguard the right to take such questions to the authorities.

But Schultheis made it clear that he meant to address a larger struggle with the bill.

“The purpose of this bill is to distribute awareness among the public school system of the religious liberties that are guaranteed to all citizens and, yes, even students, faculty and staff of public schools in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Schultheis said at the opening of the hearing.

He said the battle over religious freedom in the United States was being fought in the schools.

“Public schools have become battle grounds in this fight to preserve religious liberty, fought in large part by threats of law suits by organizations such as the [American Civil Liberties Union]. Many public school officials, rather than offering a challenge to these suits because of the cost to do so, simply acquiesce to the ACLU’s demands.”

Most of the testimony heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee reflected the same kind of opposition that greeted a version of the bill backed by Schultheis in 2007. That earlier version also died in committee.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, said her perspective on the bill was shaped by her Jewish faith and by history.

“I appreciate that [public] schools do not teach Christmas,” she said. She said the month of December breeds feeling of marginalization for non-Christians. “I feel like I am a second-class citizen or like I am not American.”

“It sounds like you believe that our school should be teaching the birth of Christ in December and you need to be aware that many children do not celebrate that holiday,” Hudak said.

Schultheis said that his amended bill would only ask a neutral party to weigh in on controversial questions and that it was a provision that could be exercised by adherents to all religions.

“I could not disagree with Sen. Schultheis more,” said Steve Foster, senior rabbi at Denver’s Temple Emanuel. “I’m glad that the ACLU is on top of this because it guarantees your right to practice your religion as you choose but it doesn’t give you the right to practice your religion to try to get me to change mine in order to make you whole.”

Foster said that the original bill could lend support for what he called the “tyranny of majoritarianism” and weaken the U.S. commitment to secular society.

State Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, responded to Foster’s critique by saying that he didn’t believe America was a secular society.

“You said we were a secular nation and I would disagree with you, sir.”

Renfroe said he didn’t want to see any religion prohibited. “It is true that all religions are under attack in our public schools" except for the religion of global warming.”

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, asked each speaker how they would feel if the bill was stripped down to only the section that required the AG be asked to develop answers on related religious questions that arise in the schools. Detractors said school districts can consult the AG at will.

I am looking for straight neutrality in the decision making, Schultheis said.

In the end the committee the bill as simply redundant.

Based on some recent publication in NATURE (author Chris Venditti of U of REading), the majority of speciation has less to do with natural selection and more to do with adaptive response to geologic events.

Based on some recent publication in NATURE (author Chris Venditti of U of REading), the majority of speciation has less to do with natural selection and more to do with adaptive response to geologic events.

Grading on a Curve, or: How Old Do Those State Board of Education Candidates Think the Earth Is, Anyway? Let's Ask!
(By Patrick Williams, Dallas Observer, Feb. 17 2010)

Well, who knew? The eyes of Texas have been focused on the GOP primary race between Governor Rick Perry and challenger Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as the ultimate throwdown between far right and somewhat-less-than far right Republicans. In the meantime, while we weren't looking, "moderates" may slip in the backdoor in Austin through the Texas State Board of Education.

Blame it on culture war battle fatigue.

As one sign of a potential power shift, two of the hard-line gang of seven religious-right conservatives on the 15-member panel -- Ken Mercer of San Antonio and Don McLeroy of Bryan -- face stiff opposition in the March 2 GOP primary. Tim Tuggey, a lawyer from Austin, is facing Mercer in District 5; Legislative consultant Thomas Ratliff from Mount Pleasant will square off against McLeroy in District 9.

Do these races -- and a handful of others -- spell a GOP shift for moderation on a once-little known board that has become a battleground over über-conservative issues like teaching creationism in Texas classrooms? Yes, says Dan Quinn, communications director for the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based watchdog group that keeps tabs on the board's right wing. (Somebody's gotta do it. Lord knows voters haven't paid the board much attention until recently.)

Of course "moderate," especially when applied to Republican office seekers, is a slippery term -- maybe "not radical" is more accurate.

"If you listen to what they say, they certainly sound a lot more moderate," Quinn says of the challengers. "I think they're conservative Republicans, but they're much more moderate in their approach to public education than the extremists on the board are. They don't see public education as a cultural war battle ground in which every issue becomes a fight between Christians and people who are supposedly left-wing radicals who hate Christians.

"The language we've seen them use throughout their campaigns has it made appear that they're going to be a lot more open to listening to what experts have to say about the best way to teach kids instead of political ideologues who are more interested in pushing an agenda. ... In the Republican Party today that's considerably more moderate."

Ratliff, whose District 9 race covers Kaufman County and part of northern Collin County, says labeling him a moderate or his opponent a right-winger is an oversimplification and beside the point.

"I think the state board isn't focused on education," Ratliff says. "They're too focused on politics regardless of what the politics is. I think they need return the focus on public schools and not who's the best Republican or who's conservative or moderate or liberal. I want to make it nonpartisan as possible rather than making it an ideological war ... an inter-party squabble if you will."

We pointed out that comment made him sound pretty ... well ... moderate. He laughed, but agreed.

"It does make me chuckle a little bit when people view this race as a battle for the soul of the Republican Party," Ratliff says. "These races are so obscure and so few people follow them, it's hard to imagine we're going to be a bellwether for any large chasm in the party. People are going to read into this whatever they will."

Uh-huh. And speaking of bellwethers, Mr. Ratliff, just how old do you think planet Earth is anyway?

Again, he laughs. "Millions and millions if not billions of years," he says. "I'm not an expert on carbon dating." But he does think the planet is significantly older than, say, 10,000 years, unlike his opponent.

But the real distinction Ratliff wants to make between himself and McLeroy -- whom we were unable to reach by phone -- is that Ratliff favors giving more flexibility and control to local school districts, rather dictate policies and curricula from above.

That perhaps explains why he -- and Tuggey, who also did not respond to a phone message -- have been endorsed by the Texas Parent PAC, a bipartisan group that favors more funding and enhanced local control over schools.

"We do think they will have a primary focus on schools and not get distracted by extraneous issues," says Carolyn Boyle, the group's chair.

We tried to wheedle out of her what she meant by "extraneous issues" -- creationism, abstinence only education, conservative social studies books? -- but she wasn't inclined to bite. "We aren't commenting on the incumbents in terms of the personal agendas," Boyle says.

Which is ironic, since personal political agendas have been the force driving controversy at this little corner of state government since the '90, when James Leininger, a San Antonio businessman, began putting serious money behind hard-core religious right candidates for the board. This election cycle, Leininger's money has yet to start rolling into the races, Quinn says.

"He's one of the reasons the board is so divided," Quinn says. "We don't know yet if he's going to come through at the last minute with money."

Leininger's absence seems strange, since it was his money that stirred the pot at the board, which got it media attention as the religious right pushed its agenda. That attention, in turn, has made this year's races among the most high-profile the board has seen and endangers the sway held by the rightists.

Maybe Leininger isn't willing to bet when it looks like his boys are facing a real horse race.

The primary challenges to McLeroy and Mercer aren't the only signs of a possible shift in board politics. Religious right-winger Cynthia Dunbar, who called public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion" and claimed an Obama administration would mean the end of America as "as we know her" isn't seeking re-election in District 10. There are three candidates seeking her seat, including Brian Russell, whom Quinn describes as "Cynthia Dunbar in pants," and Rebecca Osborne, endorsed by Texas Parent PAC.

In Dallas, where most friends of Unfair Park will be voting, the District 12 race is between GOP incumbent Geraldine "Tincy" Miller and educator George M. Clayton, who appears to be something of a mystery man according to several GOP folks we spoke with.

We've played phone tag with Clayton, but you can get some idea of where he stands here and by looking at the comments section of this Morning News item. (Sample quote from a comment posted by Clayton: "I have absolutely no objection to Creationism, Intelligent Design, and evolution being covered in public schools so long as they are covered simultaneously -- in a parallel lesson. All must be discussed objectively, without bias or prejudice. Evolution is yet still a 'theory.'" We're thinking that maybe that knocks him out of the moderate camp on science issues.)

Miller, an old-line conservative considered a moderate swing vote on some hot-button issues, didn't return a phone message, but then we didn't expect here to, because of this story.

What does this little game of musical chairs add up to? This could be the election that decides exactly how much power religious ideologues hold over the board that shapes the education for 5 million public school students in Texas. Consider this: In recent months the board conducted two high-profile battles over the standards for social studies and science texts. In the next couple of years, if money allows, the board will actually be deciding which texts to approve.

"Whoever sits on the board will interpret those standards however they like," Quinn says. "The right wing faction will probably interpret those standards in a very political way...This [election] could be a watershed for the board."

You have many contacts
Among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When somebody attacks your imagination

He said that great parts were not requisite for a historian, as in that kind of composition all the greatest powers of the human mind are quiescent. " He has facts ready to his hand. so he has no exercise of invention. Imagination is not required in any high degree; only about as much as is used in the lower parts of poetry. Some penetration, accuracy, and colouring will fit a man for such a task, who can give the application which is necessary."

now maybe Im gonna have to modify a bit since adaptive speciation seems to be the major driver.

In 2002, the previous Village Voice Media entered into a noncompetition agreement with New Times Media, another national publisher of alternative weeklies, whereby the two companies agreed to stop publishing New Times LA (a product of New Times Media) and Cleveland Free Times (a product of Village Voice Media), so that the companies would not publish two, competing newspapers in any single city. This agreement and phasing out of the two newspapers, led to an antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. The investigation resulted in a settlement, requiring the companies to sell off assets and the old newspapers' titles to any potential competitors.

Bob Dylan left off of Vatican newspaper's list of best albums of all time
(By Ward Rubrecht, Minneapolis City Pages, Feb. 17 2010)

The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and U2 made it. But the Vatican's official newspaper, L' Osservatore Romano, flipped the holy bird to Bob Dylan, leaving him off their list of the best rock and pop albums ever made.

Why has the Catholic Church has gotten into the business of rock criticism? Apparently L' Osservatore Romano is trying to let its hair down a little, and feature a wider range of topics of interest to their flock.

The list is a who's who of safe choices, including Paul Simon's "Graceland," Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of The Moon," and Michael Jackson's "Thriller." We're not disagreeing, per se, but a few contemporary choices would've been nice. Maybe Daft Punk's "Discovery," thrown in just to titillate the 70-year-olds?

For the reason behind the Dylan snub:
"...Dylan was excluded from the list despite his "great poetic vein" because he paved the way for generations of unprofessional singer-songwriters who have "harshly tested the ears and patience of listeners" with their tormented stories."

Apparently influencing generations of musicians makes you a bad artist these days. Who knew? We know the rejection must come as a blow to Dylan, who we've heard has just been trying to get to Heaven before they close the door.

Bob Dylan needed to be left off the list because he's a piss poor excuse for a human being. However, i do question what this has to do with the teaching of evolution.