Instead, it makes more sense to base our classification system on the observable similarities among organisms.
This is the essence of what Carrolus Linnaeus developed in the 1700s, and it has served biology well since that time.
As far as I know, most states require home-schooled children to pass standardized tests for their education level. Most kids could get by if they only miss a few science questions.
expertise in baraminology will never get those kids into medical school
The SBOE Gets Medieval
(by Brian Thevenot, The Texas Tribune, March 11, 2010)
Though American history has been the prime battleground for ideologues on the State Board of Education, members from both sides of the aisle showed Wednesday that modern-day American political agendas can be transported across the continent and through time with relative ease.
As the board took up the world history standards, well into the evening, conservative member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, sought to inject modern free-market dogma into medieval Europe. Then, in turn, liberal member Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, sought to inject tales of Texas Rangers hanging Mexicans " along with other examples of “American terrorism” " into a section on Middle Eastern wars and terrorism.
Both moves seemed a stretch, at best, and other members said as much. When Cargill offered an amendment on “free-market factors contributing to European technological progress during … the medieval system,” board member Pat Hardy, R-Weatherford, called her on it. Free-market dynamics, in any modern political sense, “didn’t even exist in the medieval system,” Hardy said. “I can’t support that.” The amendment went down 7-6.
Also defeated was Berlanga's amendment to require study, in a section on Arab terrorism, of “other acts of terrorism … not related to Islam including the U.S. Calvary against the American Indians, the Texas Rangers against the Mexican-Americans and for decades by the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist ‘Christian’ groups right here in our own country.” She offered to take out ‘Christian’ when conservatives balked but still lost the amendment in a split vote. “It’s inappropriate in world history. It’s a U.S. history issue,” said David Bradley, R-Beaumont, voting against the bill.
Earlier in the day, almost every speaker wanted to address to the board about American history as well. But the board itself never got around to the topic, choosing instead to use the evening to run through comparatively routine changes to subjects including world history and geography, U.S. government, psychology, sociology, and economics. The board resolved to return today to U.S. history, when it runs back through the entire curriculum to give members one more chance to put their stamp on the document.
Through Wednesday morning and afternoon, the SBOE meeting overflowed with the expected sound and fury: student protesters in school-bus-yellow shirts demanding a depoliticized and “smarter” board; civil rights groups demanding minority representation; a parade of patriots demanding a pro-God-and-country bent, and even a spat between state officials and Fox News, which sent a crew to cover the proceedings.
“Obviously, this has drawn a lot of attention, both locally and nationally. And it’s important that we remember how important this is. Texas is one of the few states that still controls its own curriculum,” said SBOE chair Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas, in an apparent reference to a burgeoning move toward national standards, one fiercely resisted by many state education officials.
When public testimony ended and the board finally got down to work, many amendments sailed through with little opposition, but some sparked debate. One figure removed from the curriculum: Oscar Romero, the Archbishop of San Salvador, who spoke out on behalf of the poor and victims of San Salvador's civil war and opposed both Marxism and capitalism. Romero was nixed in an amendment from Hardy that passed with eight votes on the 15-member panel. Members judged him less significant than others in the same standard, including Nelson Mandela and Ghandi.
The board then voted in Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel and among the first women to serve as a national chief executive, by a vote of 10 to 3. Board member Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio, voted against both changes, saying he couldn’t see the argument for Meir if Romero would be cut. “As far as I’m concerned, we just took out another Hispanic, and it doesn’t smell right,” Agosto said.
Much of the speculation leading up to the meeting had focused whether board member Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, will change his habit of aggressive and conservative-leaning amendments in light of his recent election defeat. McLeroy insists he won’t and plans many amendments.
In two amendments late Wednesday, McLeroy cut a reference to “the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis” and added a seemingly less neutral one on “how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to the ongoing conflict.” Neither amendment caused controversy. In a third amendment, which also passed, McLeroy added the words “monotheism” and “Judaism” to a standard in world history, which already called for the study of Christianity. “I’ve read that the Jewish development of monotheism is one of the most important events in world history.”
That last one passed on a party-line vote, with nine Republicans supporting and four Democrats objecting. Bradley, a Republican, spun around in his chair and rolled back toward the press table after the vote " he wanted to make sure the board’s guests from Fox News caught the moment of division.
“That was a partisan vote,” he told a Fox producer, smiling. “All Rs and no Ds.”
Making Public Schools A Battlefield Is Wrong
(By Charles C. Haynes, Commentary, North Country Gazette, 3-11-10)
At a time when American students rank an abysmal 21st in science literacy when compared with students around the world, state legislatures should be passing laws to strengthen science education " or at least refrain from enacting bills that make matters worse.
Instead, politicians in a growing number of states are muddying the science-education waters by pushing legislation that requires schools to “teach the controversy” about evolution, global warming and other scientific theories.
This situation isn’t entirely new. For some years now, anti-evolutionists have worked to bring critiques of evolution into the curriculum by calling for “academic freedom” to teach alternatives to the prevailing scientific theory.
What is new, as reported March 3 in The New York Times, is the attempt to reframe the debate by making it less about evolution and more about the need to teach students dissenting views on a range of scientific theories, with global warming at the top of the list.
Consider Kentucky, where the Legislature is considering a bill that would encourage “open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories being studied.” That means, according to the bill, critiquing the science supporting “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
The Kentucky proposal mirrors laws passed in Louisiana (2008) and Texas (2009), as well as legislation debated, but not yet adopted, in many other states in recent years.
The language of the Kentucky bill may be confusing (what can it possibly mean for any scientific theory to have “disadvantages”?), but the intent is clear: Teach students to be skeptical of what the vast majority of scientists tell us about evolution, climate change and other science topics studied in school.
At first blush, who can possibly object? After all, intellectual freedom should be the cornerstone of a good education in a democratic society. Of course students should be taught to be critical thinkers. Of course they should be exposed to legitimate scientific questions and debates in science classes.
But are these bills really about academic freedom " or are they driven by politics and religion? The question answers itself when you consider that the science targeted in Kentucky and elsewhere for skeptical treatment just happens to coincide with the science that many religious conservatives question or outright reject.
Surely Kentucky politicians know that passing a bill that would permit teachers to critique scientific theories using “other instructional materials” beyond the approved textbooks and materials opens the door to all kinds of religious claims masquerading as science. With all due respect, most legislators and school board members are not qualified to tell the difference.
Genuine academic freedom means exposing students to how scientists determine what is and isn’t controversial in science " and then helping students understand how the scientific method is used to resolve unanswered questions about any and all scientific theories. Scientists and science educators should decide what our kids need to learn about science, not legislators or religious advocacy groups.
Proponents of legislation to “teach all sides” claim that there are indeed scientific alternatives to the prevailing scientific theories on such topics as evolution and global warming. If that claim is true, then those alternatives must be peer-reviewed in science journals before being presented as science in public schools.
Yes, students should learn about a variety of religious and philosophical worldviews, including those that reject evolution and question global warming. But when public schools teach science, they must ensure that students get an accurate and full account of what science tells us, including those questions that scientists themselves agree remain to be answered.
If we want to advance scientific literacy in America, we should refrain from imposing political and religious agendas on the public school curriculum and focus instead on how to provide the best education possible.
Under the First Amendment, Americans are free to wage ideological warfare against evolution or any other scientific theory. But to make public schools the battlefield is both wrong and dangerous.
The language of the Kentucky bill may be confusing (what can it possibly mean for any scientific theory to have “disadvantages”?), but the intent is clear: Teach students to be skeptical of what the vast majority of scientists tell us about evolution, climate change and other science topics studied in school
At a time when American students rank an abysmal 21st in science literacy when compared with students around the world, state legislatures should be passing laws to strengthen science education " or at least refrain from enacting bills that make matters worse.
The State Board of Education considered about 300 amendments during 22 hours of deliberation over social studies curriculum standards. Here is a roundup of some of the significant changes, additions and deletions to the standards:
• Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, proposed a wholesale rewrite of the handling of the civil rights movement in the high school U.S. history course to reflect "both sides of the story as opposed to a single, politically correct view."
Among his recommended revisions was a reference to the changes and events that resulted from the movement, "including increased participation of minorities in the political process and unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."
The board eliminated the "unrealistic expectations" phrase with McLeroy's assent.
• "The United States is an exceptional nation. Most Americans would not regard that as a controversial statement. And there is good reason for that: it is true," McLeroy wrote to justify adding a section on American Exceptionalism.
The section in the high school U.S. government standards will explore why American values are unique from those of other nations and touch on Alexis de Tocqueville's five values crucial to America's success as a democratic republic.
• In all grades, most references to "capitalism" were eliminated. The term has a negative connotation, said Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio. Instead, the U.S. economic system is defined throughout as a "free enterprise" system.
• The standards were once littered with references to the U.S. as a democracy. No more. In an early draft, the U.S became a "democratic republic" but now will be termed a "constitutional republic," as suggested by Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond.
• American "imperialism" in an early draft of the high school U.S. history standards became "expansionism" because the original term projected an inaccurately negative view of American policy, McLeroy said. He offered a similar explanation for striking the word "propaganda" in reference to America's entry into World War I.
• High school world history students will be expected to "explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict" and no longer will be asked to "explain the origins and impact of the Israeli-Palestininan conflict on global politics," per amendments from McLeroy.
Students' perceptions about the Earth's age influence their acceptance of human evolution
(University of Minnesota Press Release, March 10, 2010)
High school and college students who understand the geological age of the Earth (4.5 billion years) are much more likely to understand and accept human evolution, according to a University of Minnesota study published in the March issue of the journal Evolution.
The finding could give educators a new strategy for teaching evolution, since the Earth’s age is typically covered in physical rather than biological science classes.
Researchers Sehoya Cotner and Randy Moore, professors in College of Biological Sciences, and D. Christopher Brooks, of the university’s Office of Information Technology, surveyed 400 students enrolled in several sections of a University of Minnesota introductory biology course for non-majors.
The survey included questions about knowledge of evolution and whether students were taught evolution or creationism in high school as well as questions about religious and political views. Participation was voluntary and had no effect on grades for the course.
The researchers extracted six variables from the survey to explore factors that contributed to students’ views about the age of the Earth and origins of life and the relation of those beliefs to students’ knowledge of evolution and their vote in the 2008 presidential election.
Using that information, they created a model that shows, for example, when a student’s religious and political views are liberal, they are more likely to believe that the Earth is billions, rather than thousands, of years old and to know more about evolution. Conversely, students with conservative religious and political views are more inclined to think the Earth is much younger (20,000 years or less) and to know less about evolution.
“The role of the Earth’s age is a key variable that we can use to improve education about evolution, which is important because it is the unifying principle of biology,” said lead author Sehoya Cotner, associate professor in the Biology Program, which provides general biology classes for University of Minnesota undergraduates.
Through this and previous surveys, Cotner and her colleagues have learned that 2 percent of students are taught creationism only, 22 percent are taught evolution and creationism, 14 are taught neither and 62 percent evolution only.
“In other words, about one in four high school biology teachers in the upper Midwest are giving students the impression that creationism is a viable explanation for the origins of life on Earth,” Cotner says. “That’s just not acceptable. The Constitution prohibits teaching creationism in schools.”
The researchers noted that understanding the Earth’s age is a difficult concept; even Darwin found it challenging. Teaching and understanding creationist views of about the Earth’s age and life’s origins are much easier.
The paper cites a 2009 Gallup poll that coincided with the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth reporting that only four out of 10 people in the U.S. believe in evolution. The poll also reported that 16 percent of biology teachers believe God created humans in their present form at some time during the last 10,000 years.
Covering the Science Beat for an Increasingly Anti-Science Audience
(By Ben L. Kaufman, Cincinnati City Beat, March 15, 2010)
In today’s cultural, intellectual and financial world, I can't imagine a media job with less potential than science reporter. When your sources become objects of public scorn and ridicule, what’s to write?
Scientists spend as much time lamenting their inability to communicate with the public as they do explaining the origins of life, evolution, global warming, responses to prostate cancer, childhood immunizations don’t cause autism and the like.
It’s a problem as old as the Enlightenment’s challenges to what seemed for millennia as divine certainties. In a nation accustomed to seeking simple answers to complex questions and a culture increasingly driven by belief rather than evidence, scientists today often are trying to communicate with the willfully deaf.
So often burned by their own missteps and opaque jargon, many scientists (and medical researchers) find comfort in shunning the news media who brought them public scorn and colleagues’ ridicule.
I’m grateful to The Enquirer for this recent example of why some scientists fail to make their case with the public and probably, on reconsideration, will blame the news media for their troubles. Consider how easy this makes it for flat-earthers to brush aside science and scientists. An Associated Press story headlined, “Top home-school textbooks dismiss Darwin, evolution,” quotes this critic of Creationism: “'I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids,' said Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago.”
You can’t make this stuff up. “Fairly strongly”? About “promulgating lies to kids?" What does he feel really, I mean, like totally awesomely strongly about? Tenure?
Part of the problem is that science/medicine is a process. This can be tough to report. News requires events. Is it new hope or no hope? Is coffee/chocolate/red win good or bad for me? Glacial melt imperils everyone. Another study announced tomorrow, contradicting today’s. It’s an event. (Actually, it’s the process, promoted by marketing as an event...)
I asked two former Enquirer colleagues about the perils of medical/science reporting and whether it's our job to explain science to our readers, viewers and listeners. Sue MacDonald, a longtime medical writer, responded: “Yes, I think it is the media's duty to report and educate the audience about basic science. How does cancer work? How does pain develop? What is nuclear medicine? Why is aspirin so well-accepted and so little studied?
“If Rush Limbaugh knew that one of the hallmarks of global warming is increasing erratic weather patterns and more and more intense storms, he'd get it that Washington D.C. getting three feet of snow is an abnormality, not a sign of 'coldness.'
“For me the connection (between drug studies and manufacturers) started to get clearer when I was covering all the new anti-cholesterol drugs that were coming out in the ‘80s, each one promoted by a certain pharmaceutical company, which also usually funded the studies and paid guys like Ken Griffey Sr. and a bunch of doctors to fly around the country saying good things about it. Or when I was writing about hepatitis vaccines and found that the Hepatitis Information Center or the Healthy Liver Foundation was funded solely by the pharmaceutical company that made the vaccine.
“The problem is that even if you start covering all the various facets of medicine and science, no one will believe you, because those very professions themselves are built on credentials, publish/perish and letters behind your name.”
Sue added that this extends to consideration of alternative treatments, especially those developed by individuals outside the world of medical credentials. It’s a closed shop until patients assert themselves at the risk of alienating physicians on whom they depend, she said.
“And the fact that as reporters we're bound/taught to get both sides or (ideally 3-4-5 sides) of the story, anyone's idea can be shot down by anyone else, with or without an agenda. So doctors can pooh-pooh all they want every time someone comes up with a better idea, but we're not allowed to do the same to them and their toxic drugs/radiation machines/heat wraps/bone drugs/calcifying supplements, whatever, because we're only lay people who don't know any better and don't understand their world.
“The best thing I figured out to do was simple: lay out the facts, find out as much information as possible and let readers decide for themselves. Tell them the 'accepted scientific/medical' fact. Then give opposing facts or, better yet, alternative approaches to the same thing. Talk about the economics of such decisions: who stands to gain, who stands to lose. And then let people make up their own minds. Who's funding it, how much they're funding it, etc.
“It's hard, and in these days of belt-tightening and white-guys-on-TV-yelling-a-lot, all of that reporting is being replaced by pomp and show and hot air.”
Tim Bonfield wrote about medicine, science and misdeeds of local researchers. Here is some of what he says: “I fall back upon my old 'perfect is the enemy of good’ mantra. If a reporter spends all his or her time poking holes in the quality, integrity or hidden agendas of a source, pretty soon there will be no sources left worth trusting at all and no stories that could be written without an overwhelming sense of passing along a deception.
“Self-imposed paralysis is useless. Besides, I think the public already understands that nearly all news sources come with biases, be they open or hidden. Readers understand that the oil companies will defend the oil companies and that the corporation bashers will twist facts to save the little people, etc.
“All of this exists in medical/science reporting. Navigating the minefield requires knowing when there's a serious debate about a hot topic versus when the consensus is strong or the field is new and the simple point of the news story is to present a fresh finding.
“If a topic comes with heavy ongoing debate -- such as climate change, or abortion, or nutrition -- then it becomes incumbent upon the media org to acknowledge that massive debate exists. That virtually everything about the topic is under disagreement, that every fact is in dispute. Then you can provide at least some value by saying ‘Here's the latest wrinkle...'
“Yes, agendas should be revealed when they are known -- such as drug-company sponsorship of a study. But it is vital to understand that even though there's an agenda involved, the information coming from such a source can be extremely accurate. Far, far too many reporters simply stop talking to organizations they feel are too biased. That can be a real disservice to readers.
"For example, folks from the NRA may fight tooth and nail to limit gun control laws, but they can be very useful at making sure that weapon descriptions are accurate. How many reporters have you chided over the years about bad descriptions of weapons in cop stories and so forth, Ben? So in medicine, some sources really are the authorities on the topic -- even if they have biases.
“Ultimately, readers prefer news stories that advance their understanding of a topic. So tit-for-tat/expert vs. expert/battle-to-a-standstill stories (done in the name of balance and fairness) provide little value to readers. Worse, they waste a lot of precious reporting time. The best thing in those situations may well be not to publish anything.
“To me, most coverage of the weather vs. climate change debate fits this tit-for-tat category. Adding to the problem: nobody will be alive to see who was right, because climate change occurs over thousands of years. So what's the point?
“Bottom line: when it becomes obvious that politics has overwhelmed a seemingly scientific debate, the message to reporters should be ‘Tread with care.’ You should know you are stepping into a minefield, and act accordingly. All the reporter's bullshit detecting radar should be turned up to maximum capacity; every editor involved should be donning X-ray vision glasses to hunt for red flag words.
“Then, having done your best to be fair and accurate, proceed without apology or regret. And if both sides call you up after the story runs, complaining that the other side got too much ink, you will know that you did your job well.”
Pondering Separation
(Dominick Cross, Commentary, Delta Democrat-Times, March 16, 2010)
The Seventh Day Adventist magazine, Liberty, comes to our office. At first skeptical about the magazine's intentions, I was pleased to find that if there's a common theme throughout each issue it is the importance of the separation of church and state.
You know, like in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Anyway, driving back to Lafayette for a friend's funeral last week, it got me thinking back to a couple of years ago when Louisiana's House Education Committee unanimously approved Senate Bill 733, a measure that allows public school teachers to use supplementary materials when teaching about evolution.
Called "The Louisiana Science Education Act" (talk about bait-and-switch) it was wholeheartedly supported by the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute. The act had but one goal: Allow religious concepts into the science classroom.
Not that it's any consolation, but thank a god that our neighbor was not alone pushing for this dubious "academic freedom" bill, as similar thinly veiled bills were introduced in Florida, Alabama, Missouri and other states.
You can call it "creationism" or you can call it "intelligent design." But whatever you do, don't call it part of the public school science curriculum.
In these turbulent and often more confusing-than-it ought-to-be times, it is crucial that we keep church and state separate. It wasn't too long ago, historically speaking, when religious doctrine was government policy.
In America, freedom of religion is still a part of our disemboweled Constitution. That means you can practice the religion of your choice without persecution.
In the U.S., religiosity is everywhere and unhindered at that. On my recent road trip, I saw signs advertising Sunday school, bible study, catechism, etc. The information is usually posted on the tax-free grounds of churches, synagogues, mosques and assorted other buildings of worship.
There's also an abundance of religious programming on television and radio, especially on Sunday during church. There are religious schools and religious bookstores and religious people freely walking around trying to save unbelievers, doubters and just plain regular sinners.
I've even seen religious bumper stickers swear on a stack of bibles.
You can wear your religion on your sleeve or march around with it on big and somewhat obnoxious signs.
However, there's no place for it in the public school system.
Let's say, for some ungodly reason, creationism/intelligent design becomes part of public school science programs.
Which god would get the nod?
I'm thinking there's a Catholic God, a Baptist God, a Protestant God, a Jehovah's Witness God, or just a single Christian god with multiple personalities. There's an Islamic God, a Jewish God, a Buddhist God and a Quaker God. Is there a Scientology God?
Then, when the one proper god is determined, would that settle the issue of which Good Book to use? Depending which god is God, the text book could be either The New Testament, The Old Testament, The Koran, or even Dianetics, just to name a few.
There also could be a backlash: A warning label on places of worship that reads: "The rituals and beliefs practiced beyond these doors are based solely on faith, or myth, or habit, or guilt and are not based on verifiable fact, irrefutable evidence, or, for that matter, reality, as we know it, anyway. Enter at your own risk."
Somebody say, Ahem?
Haddam School Board Member Rejects Evolution
(By DANIELA ALTIMARI, Hartford Courant, March 15, 2010)
Chester Harris, newly elected to the Region 17 school board, is a Republican with a standard conservative outlook: He distrusts government bureaucracy, believes in fiscal restraint and thinks kids today have too many advantages and too few responsibilities.
But it is his answer to fundamental questions about the origins of life that sets him apart.
Harris, 53, rejects evolution. To him, the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor takes "a whole lot more faith than believing there was a creator who set all these things in motion and allows us to operate under free will."
About three weeks ago he met with several high school science teachers and school administrators in the district, which serves the woodsy, Connecticut Valley towns of Haddam and Killingworth.
"I sort of got stuck on one thing with them, which was basically the teaching of evolution in the schools and how it tends to ride roughshod over the fact that various religions " Christian, Hebrew, Muslim " hold a theistic world view," Harris said one morning during a break from his job driving a school van. "Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God."
U.S. courts have held that efforts to teach religious-based alternatives to evolution in public schools are unconstitutional. Harris isn't advocating a unit on creationism, but rather respect for those students who hold dissenting views.
Still, Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution in schools, said that Harris' meeting with teachers raises concerns. "In general, when school board members seek to meet with teachers, it tends to be very intimidating," she said.
Charles J. Macunas, principal of Haddam-Killingworth High School, attended the meeting and characterized it as "very pleasant, not the least bit adversarial."
"As a new board member, he was just trying to get a handle on content that's taught in an area he's very passionate about," Macunas said.
The school district follows state and national standards when teaching evolution: It is presented as the dominant theory of human origin, although students are also told that it is "one of many theories and they should keep their minds open," Macunas said. "Students are encouraged to think critically and draw their own conclusions."
The district has no plans to alter its science curriculum. But, Macunas added, Harris is entitled to meet with anyone he chooses, as is any other parent or community member.
Harris is an unexpected avatar of a way of thinking that hasn't exactly dominated public discourse in Connecticut. An official with the state Department of Education said he cannot recall an instance of a school in the state witnessing the type of epic battle over evolution that has riven communities throughout the nation. Nor can he recall a creationist serving on a local school board.
That's not true elsewhere. Eighty-five years after the Scopes Monkey Trial and five years after a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to teach intelligent design in a high school biology class, disputes over evolution continue to rage. In Texas, the state board of education approved a controversial policy last year that encourages teachers to examine "all sides" of the evolution debate.
The Discovery Institute, a think tank in Seattle that funds research into alternative theories of human origin, doesn't advocate that public schools teach intelligent design, which asserts that life is so complex that it had to be the handiwork of an intelligent being. But it does advocate that students be encouraged to view Darwin's teachings critically.
"People should weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions," said Casey Luskin, a policy analyst with the institute. "We're talking about one of the most foundational questions of humanity: Where did we come from? There are credible scientists that challenge Darwinism. It is unconscionable to censor those views from students in the classroom."
It's an approach that Harris also favors. Proponents of evolution "haven't proven anything," he said. "It's all still theory and faith. If that's what they want to hold to, fine, but don't denigrate me because I believe the other way. We're both operating on faith. I just have faith in someone and they have faith in something."
To the majority of scientists, however, there are no credible alternatives to evolution. "People can believe what they want. Science is science," said Fred Myers, director of science for Glastonbury schools and former president of the Connecticut Science Supervisors Association.
Myers said there is a place in the schools for discussing different views on the origin of human life, but that place is a class on philosophy, not biology. "You let them know that there are competing beliefs but those beliefs are not founded on scientific evidence," he said.
And singling out evolution as a topic for critical analysis sends a message that undermines its credibility and suggests it is nothing more than a scientific hunch, Scott added.
"It would be a disservice to students to pretend that scientists are still debating the fact that living things have common ancestors just because some members of the community don't like the idea," she said.
Harris, the stepfather of two grown children, lives in a modest ranch house in Haddam Neck. A self-described Army brat, he was born in Maine and moved 10 times before the age of 12, when his family settled in Middletown. He holds a degree in theology from Toccoa Falls College, a private Christian school in Georgia, and said he was motivated to run for the board because he wanted to make a difference: "I was tired of sitting back and watching things happen."
He almost didn't get the chance. The school board election was extremely close, with Harris prevailing " after a recount " over Democratic incumbent Sabrina Houlton. However, there were allegations of impropriety on the part of Democratic officials after they opened sealed envelopes to review tally sheets without Republicans present.
That prompted town Republicans to file a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission. That complaint is pending.
Democratic officials say neither party affiliation nor Harris' views about evolution played a role; Ken Gronbach, chairman of Haddam's Republican town committee, isn't so sure.
For his part, Harris said, his biggest goal now is to put the controversy of Election Day behind him and focus on the work of the board.
"I'm not going to be fighting for the overthrow of any one way of doing things because we've gone past that," he said. "It's time for balance. ... And I just want to be there so there's a voice that says there's room for all of us."
"It's all still theory and faith. If that's what they want to hold to, fine, but don't denigrate me because I believe the other way. We're both operating on faith. I just have faith in someone and they have faith in something."
"I'm not going to be fighting for the overthrow of any one way of doing things because we've gone past that," he said. "It's time for balance. ... And I just want to be there so there's a voice that says there's room for all of us."
