Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I always sensed that there was feedback in the system somewhere, but I couldn't quite identify it.

Classroom crusade
(by James Gill, Opinion Essay, The Times-Picayune, January 18, 2009)

The Rev. Gene Mills, who lobbies for God as director of the Louisiana Family Forum, had it right when he said that proposed science teaching rules were hostile to religion. That's why the rules, drawn up by a state Education Department committee, were so wise and responsible. They were hostile to religion only because of its intrusion on scientific terrain.

Religion takes everything on faith, and science nothing. A mature civilization will encourage them to flourish in their separate spheres.

But we live in Louisiana, so the department's admirable efforts to that end were doomed.

The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education eviscerated the rules, and now the creationists are at the gates once more.

The rules as drawn up by the committee were designed to keep the Old Testament out of biology class, but our problem is not that science is hostile to religion. It is that religion is hostile to science, and the crusade to turn our children's brains to mush seems never-ending.

That crusade made a significant advance last year when the Legislature passed the Louisiana Christian Indoctrination Act. Well, that's what it should have been called, but its sponsor, Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, craftily opted for Louisiana Science Education Act.

The purported purpose is to prevent "censorship" and allow teachers to introduce materials in addition to prescribed textbooks. The act contains the obligatory disclaimer that nothing in it be "construed to promote any religious doctrine."

But that, of course, is precisely the object. There was no need for legislation authorizing teachers to introduce supplementary scientific material, because they are free to do that already.

The genesis of the act was not the spirit of scientific inquiry but faith in the Holy Spirit.

The impetus for the act came from peddlers of the fallacy that evolution and creationism are of equal scientific validity and that fairness requires students to weigh the competing claims of Darwin and Divine Providence. It was profoundly anti-intellectual, a denial of scientific truth.

The Education Department committee that drew up the rules for implementing the act did its best to head off the danger. The rules forbade biology teachers to "teach creationism or intelligent design or advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created mankind."

They also decreed that "Religious beliefs shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking."

That would have had the effect of thwarting the real intent of the legislation. Any doubt about that intent was removed when the religious faction had a fit over the committee's rules, which Mills denounced not only as "hostility" but "a cheap shot."

When the rules came up for approval by BESE, those paragraphs designed to ensure that science education stuck to provable fact were excised.

The victory of the obscurantists, at least on paper, is not total, for the rules as adopted by BESE still say teachers "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 non-religion."

But that leaves the determined proselytizer plenty of wiggle room. By removing an express prohibition on the teaching of creationism, BESE has clearly invited teachers to assume that it is officially approved.

Dale Bayard, chairman of BESE's Student/School Performance and Support Committee, said, "I feel like we have a pretty good compromise." But there is no such thing as a good compromise when there is no legitimate debate or rational conflict.

Religion in science class makes as much sense as science in church. Faith can move mountains in one, but not the other, and anyone who believes compromise is possible will believe anything.

Religion in science class makes as much sense as science in church.

Religion in science class makes as much sense as science in church.

Testimony scheduled Wednesday in curriculum debate
(The Associated Press, Jan. 20, 2009)

AUSTIN " Advocates and opponents of proposed revisions to Texas's science curriculum are expected to testify before the State Board of Education as it prepares to vote in two months on proposed revisions to the state's science curriculum.

The current curriculum requires students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories, wording that some say has been used to undermine the theory of evolution.

A second draft made the phrase "strengths and limitations," following a public hearing in November that included 200 speakers. The final draft says students should be able to "analyze and evaluate" scientific explanation.

Six appointed curriculum reviewers are among those expected to testify at Wednesday's hearing before the board. Tuesday was the deadline for the public to sign up to testify.

The six appointed reviewers will be split on whether to approve the final draft, according to the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that challenges the teaching of evolution. Two of the reviewers are Discovery Institute members; the third is a chemistry professor at Baylor University. They think students should be able to analyze problems in evolution, John West, an institute member, said in an online story Tuesday for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The reviewers who support evolution, all Texas scientists and biology teachers, don't want any such phrase included in the curriculum, said Kathy Miller, a spokeswoman for the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based nonprofit group that opposes religious influence on public education.

The 21st Century Science Coalition, formed by Texas scientists and educators who say politics and ideology should not influence science education, criticizes what it sees as attempts to water down or censor scientific information. An online petition was signed by almost 1,400 scientists and teachers.

Opposing them is the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which encourages schools to teach the theory of intelligent design "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause," according to the Institute's Web site.

Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design.

The State Board of Education is expected to vote on the proposal in March. A majority of members have said they are in favor of retaining the current mandate to cover both strengths and limitations of major scientific theories.

Standards adopted by the board will remain in place for the next decade.

Actually moola booga

Yeah, but it really pisses me off that school districts will end up paying millions from the law suits which will arise thanks to their buddies at the Discovery Institute.

Her reply: “Sure. Just like you can teach examples of political chicanery.”

Texas education board debates teaching of evolution
(By TERRENCE STUTZ, The Dallas Morning News, January 22, 2009)

AUSTIN " Most State Board of Education members appeared to have their minds made up Wednesday in the latest debate over evolution in science classes as dozens of teachers, parents and others tried to sway the board before it votes on the issue.

The focus of the debate was whether to require that weaknesses as well as strengths in the theory of evolution be taught in high school biology classes under new state curriculum standards for science.

Evolution critics " backed by several board members " want the strengths and weaknesses requirement included in the standards, arguing there are many flaws in Charles Darwin's theory of how humans and other life-forms evolved.

Evolution supporters, on the other hand, said there is no controversy over the theory and contended that critics are really trying to "open a back door" into schools to undermine Darwin's theory and foster teaching of creationism " based on the biblical explanation for the origin of humans.

Board members will have their first vote on the standards today. And while most members' questions Wednesday indicated the way they are leaning, the vote looks to be so close that it could break either way.

A bloc of social conservatives on the board wants the strengths and weaknesses language kept in the curriculum standards as it has been for several years.

"As a creationist, I don't want creationism taught in science classes, but this proposal [to drop the strengths and weaknesses rule] smacks of censorship," said John Huffner, chairman of the math department at Kilgore High School.

"The list of discredited theories in science goes on and on," he said. "What's wrong with being allowed to question theories? What's wrong with telling the truth?"

Curriculum review committees of science teachers and academics recommended last year that the requirement be scrapped because it suggests the scientific community is divided on the theory that humans evolved from lower life-forms.

"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution," said Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

Scott warned the board that if it adopts the requirement, it will lead to textbooks that contain pseudoscience and inaccuracies as publishers try to appease the state and get their books sold in Texas.

"If you require textbook publishers to include bad science, you're going to have problems," she said, asserting that Texas students will suffer as a result.

The curriculum standards adopted by the board will spell out what is taught in science classes in all elementary and secondary schools as well as providing the material for state tests and textbooks. The standards will remain in place for the next decade.

Ryan Valentine of the progressive Texas Freedom Network said board members should listen to teachers and college professors who developed the science standards and not those who want to publicize "phony weaknesses" in the theory of evolution.

"A misguided crusade to include phony weaknesses in the theory of evolution in our science curriculum will send a message to the rest of the nation that science takes a back seat to politics in Texas," he said.

But Jonathan Saenz of the Free Market Foundation, aligned with social conservatives on the board, said not requiring the weaknesses of evolution to be covered in science classes amounts to censorship. He noted the rule has been in place for nearly two decades.

"The board is being asked to choose between free and open scientific inquiry and censorship," Saenz said. "That's an easy choice."