Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

BESE expected to take up controversial science instruction act today
(by Bill Barrow, The Times-Picayune, January 13, 2009)

Wrangling continues today at the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education over the rules and regulations that will govern how public schools implement a 2008 measure intended to allow teachers to use materials to supplement textbooks on subjects such as evolutionary biology.

Some of the original opponents of the Louisiana Science Education Act are reprising their arguments that the rules may fail to prevent science teachers from including the Judeo-Christian creation story or discussion of "intelligent design," the idea that life and other features of the universe are best explained as having an intelligent cause.

Supporters of the law are not happy either, saying that the latest draft rules gut the act and ignore the Legislature's intent. A leading policy fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle group that publishes educational materials and has advocated for the Louisiana law, called the proposed science instruction guidelines unconstitutional.

The two sides, which met last year in passionate legislative hearings, are expected to present their cases this morning at a meeting of BESE's Student/School Performance and Support Committee. That panel deferred action on the matter in December. Its agenda for today includes a revised draft. The end product could be forwarded to the full board for its consideration Thursday in Baton Rouge.

The law allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials -- without BESE's prior approval -- that foster "critical thinking" in the teaching of science. But the state board retains the power to ban specific materials, either by pre-emptive declaration or after a citizen challenges locally approved material. The law includes a clause stating that the intent is neither to promote nor discriminate against any religious doctrine.

The proposed BESE rules essentially repeat that language, including the statement that "materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes."

That goes further than the Legislature intended, according to John West of the Discovery Institute, which publishes materials that discuss "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwinian theory. "The bill was silent on intelligent design," West said.

West also disputes a passage in separate teaching guidelines that reads, in part: "Faith refers to the beliefs that are accepted without empirical evidence," whereas science challenges ideas in ways "quite different from most religious beliefs."

West, who repeated his 2008 statements that the law is not about injecting religion into public science curriculum, said the passage violates constitutional protections of religious freedom and expression.

Barbara Forrest of the Louisiana Science Coalition, meanwhile, is displeased that the latest draft does not include a line it featured in an earlier version: "Religious beliefs shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking."

That line is taken almost verbatim from an Aug. 27, 2008, memo from state Superintendent Paul Pastorek to local school boards and local system superintendents. The memo is Pastorek's most extensive public comment on the matter.

Forrest also argued that the board should not approve new additions that require BESE to conduct a public hearing for a local school board and "interested parties" to defend material that is challenged.

West, however, says such an addition would give local boards the chance to back up their decisions.

A Discovery Institute representative is trying to travel to Baton Rouge for today's hearing, West said. He also confirmed that his group has continued advising the Louisiana Family Forum on the law. The Baton Rouge-based organization often pushes for more religious expressions in the public sphere. The Forum's executive director, the Rev. Gene Mills, did not return a request for comment.

This would be the finest thread to adjudicate , should it go to court in the next few years.

on subjects such as evolutionary biology

BESE OKs rules on teaching ‘controversial’ science
(By Mike Hasten, Shreveport Times, January 13, 2009)

BATON ROUGE " The state’s top school board today approved rules implementing a law intended to give teachers more freedom in discussing controversial issues in science classes.

After failing on a 5-5 vote to delay adoption of the rules, BESE members unanimously approved them, minus a section that specifically excludes materials promoting “creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” Such language in the rules was determined to be outside the realm of the legislation and could evoke a lawsuit.

Proponents and opponents of the language expressed their views during a morning committee hearing.

The board was most swayed, however, by state Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek’s argument that the language was unnecessary. “I’m satisfied that you cannot teach creationism or intelligent design” with other language in the rules, he said.

A provision stating “The materials shall not promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion” is directly from the law and covers the issue, Pastorek said.

The legislation, authored by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, with the support of the Louisiana Family Forum, began as a way to teach scientific design. But Act 473 was amended during the 2008 legislative process to encourage “critical thinking” in science classes and although teaching the textbook, allow supplemental materials that discuss alternatives.

Educators, including Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, and Sallye Peebles, a retired Baton Rouge teacher who is on the board of the National Society of Biology Teachers, say the legislation was unnecessary because teachers already discuss controversial issues and encourage critical thinking in science classes.

“I don’t know any teachers who expect students to accept something just because they said it was so,” Peebles said. “Science is based on critical thinking.”

Gene Mills, executive director of the Family Forum, said his group does not plan to present any materials for teachers to utilize but will continue to review textbooks to see if they include materials he considers unfit.

The law and new BESE rules “give instructors some sense that they can present alternative ideas when it comes to controversial issues,” Mills said.

Monaghan describes the discussion as “a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist” because science teachers are allowed to use alternative materials and discuss controversial issues. “If those things (intelligent design, cloning, global warming) come up, they discuss them in terms of science.”

“It’s politicization of science,” Monaghan said.

A provision stating “The materials shall not promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion” is directly from the law and covers the issue, Pastorek said.

The anti-ID witnesses were all pro-bono.Says something about motive doesnt it?

If brown envelopes were involved and/or luxury accomodation and various other forms of "benefit in kind" it might be said that it says something about honesty and transparency.

House Bill 1246: Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Indiana, That it has been found that a circular area is equal to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference.

I came across a funny, but true story in the history of state politicians attempting to legislate an issue of science or mathematics. In 1897, a state congressman in Indiana proposed a bill to fix the value of pi at 4.

Breaks your heart when youve been told that all the IDjit witnesses were just "WHORES " doesnt it?
There werent any "brown envelopes because the costs of the case were disclosed by the Dover School District which had IRS filings for who got paid and what amounts(it was part of the settlement in this case since it was a public record).The IDjits got anywhere from 120$ and hour up to 250$ and hour for Dr Behe (apparently the addage that "less is More" pertained to Dr Behe)

Back to the point however, ignorance hasnt stopped you from posting anything about Dover so far.You are , at least, consistent in that.

Breaks your heart when youve been told that all the IDjit witnesses were just "WHORES " doesnt it?