Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Voters to help shape education with board vote
(By GARY SCHARRER, Houston Chronicle, Feb. 25, 2010)

AUSTIN " Texas voters are about to get a say over how to teach evolution in public schools or what historical figures to put into new textbooks.

Call it a proxy vote. By choosing representatives on the State Board of Education this year " beginning with the March 2 primary " voters will help shape the debate over public education for the next four years.

The 15-member board has been narrowly divided. Seven so-called “social conservatives” routinely vote as a bloc when it comes to questioning evolution, adding snippets of history to textbooks " or deleting them " and emphasizing a “back to basics” reading curriculum.

With one more reliable ally, the social conservatives would gain control of the board, which develops curriculum standards and chooses textbooks for the state's 4.7 million public schoolchildren and oversees the $22 billion Permanent School Fund.

But they also could lose up to three seats, depending on how challengers fare against Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, and Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, and the outcome of jousting for the open seat of retiring Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, whose district stretches from Austin to the Houston suburbs in Fort Bend and Brazoria counties.

SBOE districts are twice as big as congressional or state Senate districts. Candidates generally are unable to raise huge amounts of money to lift name identification or amplify their message. Endorsements matter, as do the testimonials of their supporters and the objections of their critics.

“We've been winning the debate, and that's why there's been so much attention,” said McLeroy, a Bryan dentist who was chairman of the board until Senate Democrats blocked his confirmation last year on the grounds that his religious beliefs interfered with curriculum development.

What some see as a “cultural war,” McLeroy views as a focus on the basics, including a strong grammar section in reading, informing students about Christian religious influences on the Founding Fathers, and equipping children with the ability to think for themselves.

McLeroy faces a Republican primary challenge from Thomas Ratliff, son of former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff.

“Don McLeroy is the most well-intentioned guy up there, but his beliefs are a little bit frightening,” said Thomas Ratliff, a lobbyist who lives in Mount Pleasant.

McLeroy describes himself as a “young Earth” creationist who believes dinosaurs co-existed with people on an Earth less than 10,000 years old.

The social conservatives have drawn fire for rejecting a popular third-grade math textbook on grounds that it is “too fuzzy” and for disregarding teacher and educator advice on new curriculum standards for English, science and social studies.

“What the real battle is over is people who think that they know education better than the education community saying, ‘We want people who will listen to us,'” Thomas Ratliff said. “I don't have all the answers. The people that have the answers are the ones in the classroom or in the superintendent's office or on the school board.”

There is no Democrat running for McLeroy's District 9 seat, which covers College Station and goes north to the Oklahoma border.

“The elections this year could mark a watershed moment for public education in Texas. We might finally get a board that really respects and listens to classroom teachers and scholars instead of treating them as some sort of enemy,” said Dan Quinn, spokesman for the liberal-leaning Texas Freedom Network.

Dunbar, whose 2008 book, One Nation Under God, advocated for more religion in the public square, encouraged Austin lawyer Brian Russell to run for her seat.

Russell calls himself a pro-life, pro-family conservative Republican who supports a rigorous, knowledge-based education that teaches a patriotic view of American history, emphasizing God-given individual rights and limited government.

He said schools should teach phonics, grammar and writing; rigorous science in which students learn to analyze, evaluate and critique all scientific theories; and computational mathematics, not “fuzzy” math.

Other candidates in the GOP primary for District 10, which covers 16 counties, are Rebecca Osborne, a high school teacher in Round Rock, and Marsha Farney, a former educator and stay-at-home parent in Georgetown.

Osborne said she's running because of the disconnect she sees between the board and the classroom.

“We need a voice of an educator there on the board, and that's a voice that I have to bring,” Osborne said. “It's not about taking sides. It's about starting to focus on what we need to do for kids.”

Farney calls herself a common sense conservative who says students must graduate with the skills to enter college, technical training or the workplace.

“I will also work to strengthen and preserve our state and national heritage as well as our traditional family values in our curriculum,” she said.

I do recognize that Im ignorant of many things, but Im always glad Im still alive so that maybe I can remedy that ignorance.

Questions of science don't lend themselves to "balance"
(By Paul Kinzer, MPR News Commentary, February 26, 2010)

I am, among other things, a science educator. I travel to schools with a portable planetarium to teach kids about astronomy. In the past couple of years, the number of questions I get showing a distrust of science has grown.

Kids don't just ask "What do scientists know?" or even "How can scientists know ... ?" They now sometimes ask "How can scientists possibly know...?" They ask more and more about things that are, frankly, just silly: the face on Mars, 2012, UFOs.

I've also been a guest several times on Wisconsin Public Radio (I've written a book about getting started in amateur astronomy), and adults ask the same questions. When I try to argue that science can show why these things are not realistic, I am often confronted with the argument that, basically, science is just another opinion.

"Why should I take the word of scientists, when so-and-so [pretty much always some swindler trying to sell a book] says that scientists are lying to me for their own ends?" This shows a lack of understanding about what science (as opposed to an individual scientist) does and how it works.

I love Minnesota Public Radio, but I was disappointed in the story about the connection between the cost of alcohol and the incidence of drunk driving. It seems to be another example of trying to find "balance" by giving two sides to a story when there are not two equal unbiased and reasonable sides to compare -- or, if there are, they weren't the two used here.

To juxtapose scientific research with anecdotal opinions and beliefs is NOT balanced news. It is a false comparison. And in this story, the opposing view was from people who have a vested interest in denying the accuracy of the science.

It is simply wrong to put on equal grounds the scientific research that could result in the saving of human lives against the biased, unsubstantiated opinions of an industry that has as its only arguments political clout and the importance of making money. Discuss the science or the politics and economics; don't pit them against each other as equally reasonable and respectable positions based on dedication to facts.

I was especially bothered that the bar owner in Olson's story was given expert status by virtue of having been in the business for 40 years. He still makes his living by selling alcohol, and he believes he will not make as much money if taxes are raised on what he sells. This belief might, just might, cloud his judgment.

It was apparent that the reporter had made a definite effort to give a "balanced" view. This "expert" opinion was pitted against that of "a scientist" -- as though the scientist were just making another personal judgment, arrived at, possibly, with some bias of his own.

The overall thrust of the story seemed to be -- on one side -- rigorous research using the scientific method and peer-reviewed rigor to find conclusive, unbiased evidence; against -- on the other side, and given equal weight -- nothing more than one person's or group's opinions, based on a biased, self-serving set of beliefs and observations.

An anecdote is not -- in any way -- conclusive evidence. Peer-reviewed scientific evidence is not -- in any way -- simply another matter of opinion from an interest group. To put the two at odds with each other does not make sense, and it makes science (as a method, not as a body of knowledge) seem like just another lobbying group.

Some Americans seem to have a growing distrust of science, and critical thinking in general, and I find this disappointing and worrying -- even scary. If people understand how science is actually done, they know that scientists are not just another corporate or political group out for gain.

I don't mean that science is some lofty pursuit, above reproach by mere mortals. Science is a system that "believes" only in showing the truth of things. If someone makes a scientific claim, she or he will be taken seriously by other scientists only if the claim can be rigorously tested and repeated by others.

To be proved wrong, as a scientist, is not seen as failure if the claim was arrived at honestly and with rigor. But to hold to theories that have been discarded is to lose respect. To be shown as a fraud is career-ending.

Anyone who says that scientists, as a group, ever act as some kind of cabal just doesn't understand science. For example, many people make the claim that scientists "believe in" evolution as a sort of religion. But if a scientist were ever able to prove, with actual evidence, that evolution is not true, that scientist would win much more than the Nobel prize (though that would be one of the rewards). He or she would gain the reputation of a Newton, Einstein or Darwin.

Media coverage of science often perpetuates misunderstanding. I expect more from MPR in an age when the Internet, talk radio and 24/7 news cycles have made life easier for the peddlers of hooey.

Quote:

Questions of science don't lend themselves to "balance"
(By Paul Kinzer, MPR News Commentary, February 26, 2010)

"Why should I take the word of scientists, when so-and-so [pretty much always some swindler trying to sell a book] says that scientists are lying to me for their own ends?" This shows a lack of understanding about what science (as opposed to an individual scientist) does and how it works.

Anyone who says that scientists, as a group, ever act as some kind of cabal just doesn't understand science.

In addition to the phenomena that you mention, the author is also making a point about mainstream news sources. Even reliable news sources try to provide "balance" on everything they report on. "Balance" may not apply to science issues. The early mainstream press reporting on the intelligent design controversy tended to make intelligent design look like it had equal standing with natural selection as a scientific explanation.

Guest column: The anatomy of a earthquake
(Earl Harrison, Abilene Reporter-News, February 27, 2010)

The earthquake that devastated the island of Haiti was the result of natural and explainable earth processes.

As we take a look at the intelligent design of the creation of our solar system, with this earth being included, we must conclude that the total creation was the handy-work of a “Supreme Intelligence” force, which we credit to God.

For the atheist, agnostics and any other nonbeliever, there is no other possible answer. They cannot prove otherwise.

In the creation, God instilled all of the principle physical forces in the creation that would preserve the creation and control its continued existence. There cannot be any other logical conclusion for the creation.

In the study of our earth, science has determined facts about the earth and its functioning. Science has determined that this earth is composed of an outer layer of rigid rocks and designated it as the crust. Below the rigid crust is a layer of molten magnetic earth materials, called the mantle. The innermost portion is a solid body, designated as the core.

This makeup of the earth has been determined by the study of seismic energy waves generated by earthquakes. These waves are transmitted through the earth and are recorded on seismographs located at various points on the earth’s surface.

These energy waves are designated as “P” waves " compression “push and pull” waves. They travel through solids and liquids, the crust, mantle and core. The other energy waves are oscillating waves, and are designated as “S” waves. The “S” waves propagate through solid rock, but not through liquid (magma), thus the mantle.

Earthquakes result from fractures that develop in the solid rock crust. The crust rocks are under tremendous pressure, both vertical and horizontal, generated by the magma in the mantle.

When the pressures exceed the elastic limit of the crust rocks, the rocks rupture and the energy involved in the sudden release in the fracture constitutes and earthquake, and the fracture extends to the surface of the crust. Volcanoes are also a manifestation of the pressure inherent in the mantle.

There are regions in the earth in which earthquakes are more prevalent. Such areas are predestined for fracturing and resulting earthquakes. Mountain ranges, prevalent in the earth’s surface, are the result of these internal forces.

In trying to pinpoint the resultant fractures that hit Haiti, the shock waves of the earthquake were recorded on seismographs, located at points around the earth, which were triangulated to locate the fractures. The damage done to the island of Haiti is horrible proof of the earthquake. Apparently, the fractured plane was centered under Haiti.

A generalized map of the sea floor exhibits a fracture zone designated as the “Cayman Trench,” which separates Cuban and the island of Haiti. In all probability, this trench is a zone of weakness on the sea floor which yielded to pressure and ruptured; hence, the earthquake. The pressure of the resultant fractures was tremendous, as attested by Haiti.

For the atheist, agnostics and any other nonbeliever, there is no other possible answer. They cannot prove otherwise.

State Board of Education: Texas' second most important race tomorrow
(William McKenzie/Editorial Columnist/Dallas Morning News/March 1, 2010)

Most of us in Texas are concentrated on the governor's race, which certainly is the most crucial contest in the primary both parties are holding tomorrow. But not far behind in importance is a race for the State Board of Education seat, Place 9. Incumbent board member Don McLeroy, a Bryan Republican, is being challenged by Thomas Ratliff, a Mount Pleasant Republican.

As readers of this blog know, the board is very crucial. Among other responsibilities, it shapes the standards the state uses to assess students, determines what goes in our textbooks and oversees the state fund that finances public schools. All three areas also have been in the papers lately.

The board's debates over standards for reading, social studies and science have been hotly contested. Its decisions about what goes in textbooks, like the teaching of evolution, have drawn plenty of attention. And its calls about what outside companies land contracts to manage the school fund have sparked controversy. Morning News reporter and Education Front blogger Terry Stutz did a good job describing those controversies in this piece.

The board's actions also have gotten attention nationally. Most recently, the New York Times Magazine wrote about McLeroy and the board. He's been a leader of the eight or so social and cultural conservatives, whose doubts about evolution, approaches to reading comprehension, inclusion of conservatives in textbooks and exclusion of liberals have been part of the brouhaha surrounding the 15-member panel.

For the record, I had no problem with the McLeroy faction wanting more conservatives included in the social studies standards. Nor did I think they were out of bounds in asking that students have a better idea about the religious influences on the country's evolution.

But the board's socially conservative wing has deserved most of the critique and attention it has received. Their questioning of what teachers suggested about reading comprehension, their skepticism of evolution, their exclusion of liberals in social studies standards and their decisions surrounding the hiring of school fund managers has caused even Republican members of the board to say enough.

Ratliff hopes to join the enough-is-enough faction, which includes Republicans TIncy Miller, Pat Hardy and Bob Craig. This race involves North Texas, by the way. Parts of Collin County are in the district that McLeroy holds.

I'd suggest paying attention to the contest tomorrow night because a McLeroy victory would continue business as usual. A Ratliff upset would mean that more pragmatic members gain the upper hand. Whichever way it goes, the outcome sure will affect a lot of Texans.

The SBOE, Revised
(by Abby Rapoport, The Texas Tribune, March 3, 2010)

The most prominent symbol of Christian conservative power on the State Board of Education, former chair Don McLeroy, lost his seat Tuesday by a razor-thin margin, and with the loss, the board likely won't be quite as much of a Christian Conservative flash point any more.

What it will be, however, is anybody’s guess.

In addition to McLeroy’s defeat, longtime member Geraldine “Tincy” Miller was defeated by a political unknown in a race almost no one had been watching.

The board's balance of power is delicate. Though it’s had ten Republicans and five Democrats serving, seven socially conservative Republicans formed a reliable voting bloc that, with the swing vote of Democratic member Rick Agosto, gave them the power to advance a socially conservative agenda.

That’s over now. Agosto did not seek re-election, and his probable replacement, Democrat Michael Soto, originally set out to challenge him and isn't likely to take the same positions Agosto took. (Republican Tony Cunningham will run against Soto in the general election, but Cunningham hasn’t filed an campaign finance report since 2006, while Soto’s last report showed him raising $14,000.)

Without Agosto, the social conservative bloc needed both McLeroy and Ken Mercer to survive the election in order to maintain its power. Both races featured incumbent social conservatives versus more mainstream Republican lawyer-lobbyists. Both were expected to be close. One was, one wasn’t.

McLeroy lost by just over one thousand votes against Thomas Ratliff, a lawyer and lobbyist who also happens to be the son of former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff. McLeroy led the board in rewriting English and Science standards, and he and his allies clashed with teacher’s groups and mainstream education experts. Ratliff campaigned on a platform of de-politicizing the board, and moving away from the contentious social debates.

While Ratliff led in fundraising through most of the race, McLeroy had a narrow lead as of the last pre-election reports. He pulled further ahead with a last-minute $5,000 check from homebuilder Bob Perry, a major donor to Republicans. But Ratliff still squeaked by with 51 percent of the vote " and without a Democratic opponent, he’s all but done.

In contrast, Mercer’s race turned out not to be much of a race at all. The incumbent breezed by with 69 percent of the vote. Challenger Tim Tuggey garnered the support from heavy hitters in San Antonio’s Republican community, including automobile magnate Red McCombs and H-E-B Chairman and CEO Charles Butt. Mercer now faces Democrat Rebecca Bell-Metereau in the general election.

The surprise of the night came in North Texas, where veteran incumbent Miller, who has served on the board since 1984, lost to challenger George Clayton, an educator with an unorthodox platform. Clayton only spent $1,788 on the race compared to Miller’s $54,685.

The SBOE that takes office next year will be very different from the current panel. The social conservatives lost both their public face in McLeroy and their swing vote in Agosto. Conservative bloc member Cynthia Dunbar did not seek re-election, and the Republican primary in her district will go to a run-off between her preferred successor, Bryan Russell, and Marsha Farney, who ended the first round in a virtual tie.

What Clayton’s addition will mean for the board isn’t clear. His platform, according to his website, argues for ending “all punitive measures against teachers resulting from poor student performance on all district and state mandated tests” and for requiring that all curriculum proposals “be approved by a general vote of teachers in a district.”

As for his views on social issues, the traditional flashpoint for the state board, the best clues come from his interview with the Dallas Observer, in which Clayton said: "It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

The SBOE, Revised
(by Abby Rapoport, The Texas Tribune, March 3, 2010)

What Clayton’s addition will mean for the board isn’t clear. His platform, according to his website, argues for ending “all punitive measures against teachers resulting from poor student performance on all district and state mandated tests” and for requiring that all curriculum proposals “be approved by a general vote of teachers in a district.”

As for his views on social issues, the traditional flashpoint for the state board, the best clues come from his interview with the Dallas Observer, in which Clayton said: "It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."