Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I don't suffer fools gladly

Committee kills repeal of Louisiana Science Act
(Mike Hasten, Shreveport Times, April 20, 2012)

BATON ROUGE — State senators have rejected an effort to take off the books a law that allows teachers to introduce alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.

With a 2-1 vote, the Senate Education Committee rejected SB374 by Sen. Karen Peterson, D-New Orleans, which sought to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act adopted in 2008.

Proponents of the repeal say the law "opens the door" for the teaching of creationism in science classrooms, but opponents say federal and state laws forbid that.

Scientists around the world criticize the law, and 78 Nobel laureate scientists in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine wrote letters supporting the repeal efforts of Zach Kopplin, a Baton Rouge native who is now a freshman at Rice University. He called the law "wrong-headed and unconstitutional."

Southern University Law School Professor Michelle Ghetti, who opposed SB374, said no one has ever challenged the act, so until it is declared otherwise, it is constitutional.

Kopplin says the law harms the state's image and allows the teaching of "pseudo-science."

"There is no place for creationism in a public school classroom," he said.

Proponents say that the law allows "critical thinking, but you don't need a law to allow critical thinking. Critical thinking is the basis of science."

The law, criticized nationally by scientists as a way to allow the teaching of creationism in classrooms, "requires the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a local school board, to allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

The Senate Education Committee 2-1 vote against the measure had Sens. Mike Walsworth, R-West Monroe, and Bodi White, R-Central, opposing. Sen. Dan Claitor, R-Baton Rouge, voted for repealing this law, along with a 1981 law that was declared unconstitutional because it directly called for the teaching of creationism. He said he was surprised to find the earlier law still in law books.

Three committee members — Sens. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, and Jack Donahue, R-Mandeville — were absent and Committee Chairman Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie, did not vote.

Kopplin, current students at Baton Rouge High Magnet School Nathan Babb and Martin Brown, retired nationally certified science teacher Darlene Reaves and LSU Department of Science Dean Kevin Carman spoke in favor of the bill.

Carman said two top scientists who rejected his offer to come to LSU cited the Louisiana Science Act as the reason they wouldn't come to LSU. Also, "I just lost an evolution biologist" who said he was leaving the state because his children are nearing school age and he didn't want them to attend a school where they might not be taught true science.

"Teaching pseudo-science drives scientists away," Carman said.

Reaves, answering Walworth's statement that "evolution is only a theory," said "gravity is only a theory. It's a scientific theory, based on research."

Russell Armstrong, of the governor's office, and Louisiana Family Forum Action Director Gene Mills opposed the bill.

Mills said that no complaints about teachers or lawsuits challenging the law have been filed, so the bill was "a political solution in search of a problem."

Armstrong encouraged senators to reject the bill because the law "is about academic freedom." He said repealing it "would show no improvement for children" and would "limit educators' ability to teach" alternative ideas.

Three committee members — Sens. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, and Jack Donahue, R-Mandeville — were absent and Committee Chairman Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie, did not vote.

: the worst thing is to rush into action before the consequence have been properly debated.

We give our obedience to those whom we put in a positions of authority, and we obey the laws themselves, especially those which are for the protection of the oppressed, and those unwritten laws which it is an acknowledged shame to break .

Evolution debate on tap
(Jacob Mayer, Amarillo Globe-News, May 13, 2012)

Next year, a debate as old as Darwin could be revived in Texas.

The State Board of Education is scheduled to review science materials in summer 2013, when Amarillo attorney Marty Rowley, Amarillo Independent School District board president Anette Carlisle and a handful of other contenders for seats on the panel hope to stir anew efforts to kindle classroom discussion of alternatives to evolution.

All that’s certain is sentiments would be strong.

“It hits people in a very emotional place,” said Patte Barth, director of the Center for Public Education, an initiative of the National School Boards Association.

Texas, Kansas and Tennessee, site of the famed Scopes trial 87 years ago, debate the topic the most, Barth said.

Here, politics play a significant role because the State Board of Education is an elected, rather than appointed, body.

Science standards regarding evolution have been debated in board races throughout the state in the run-up to the May 29 primary. All 15 board seats are up for re-election because of redistricting. Early voting starts Monday.

In District 15, Rowley is running against Carlisle, and science is a hot topic.

Carlisle's stance is decisions about science curriculum should be based on the consensus of experts and educators in the field.

“I would defer to the experts and say, ‘Are we doing what’s right?’” she said. “I think that’s what they went with when they passed the science curriculum standards at the state board the last time. They relied on expert input.”

Barth said several national science organizations have advocated for standards that teach evolution exclusively.

Rowley said he disagrees with those viewpoints.

“Evolutionists would say that we progressed to this point through a series of unplanned, random circumstances and random events,” he said. “I don’t believe that tells the whole story. I think there is more to our creation that indicates an intelligent being that has played a significant role.”

Scientists already look at the strengths and weaknesses in anything they study, Carlisle said.

Including religious beliefs in science curricula would be troublesome because not every student holds the same beliefs, she said.

“We have multiple belief systems in our student population, and we have to be respectful of that and not try to force any one person’s belief system on other students,” she said.

Evolution’s flaws as well as alternative theories should be part of the discussion, Rowley said.

“If we’re doing that, and we’re also presenting competing theories in whatever the subject matter might be, what I believe we’re doing is developing stronger graduates,” he said.

As the evolution debate simmers, increasing attention is being paid to students’ performance in science in U.S. classrooms.

Texas ranked 29th in eighth-grade National Assessment of Educational Progress science test scores released last week.

Students took the tests during the first year teachers used new state science standards, according to the Texas Education Agency. The board revised the standards in 2009, but they didn’t take effect until fall 2010, according to the agency.

The current state science curriculum says, “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of the scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

That sentence replaced language in 2009 that addressed the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including evolution, according to Texas Education Agency.

The board approved supplemental science materials in July that maintained the status quo.

Barth said the debate in several parts of the country centers around what people consider science and what they consider religion.

Kathleen Porter-Magee, senior director of the High Quality Standards Project at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said a study of science standards in all 50 states showed many tried to avoid the evolution issue altogether, either by not using the term or glossing over the topic.

“All of those are definitely ways that states try to dance around the issue and not push any hot buttons,” she said.

Porter-Magee said she understands some religious groups want intelligent design worked into the curriculum.

However, she said, states should still directly address evolution and keep it separate from other theories.

“Intelligent design is not scientific content, whereas evolution is scientific content,” Porter- Magee said.

Still, some people think teachers should teach other theories alongside evolution so students understand all of the competing viewpoints, said Mark Biedebach, professor emeritus in the California State University-Long Beach department of biological sciences.

“It should be taught in a manner that does not favor any particular philosophical perspective and does not threaten the philosophical perspective of any students in the class,” he said.

“That’s simply not the case the way it is presented now.”

Biedebach said textbooks currently are heavily biased toward evolution.

Porter-Magee said implementation of new Common Core State Standards could cause the evolution and intelligent design issues to once again become a large national issue.

Forty-six states have agreed to use the Common Core standards, but Texas is not in that group.

The debate, Barth said, is bound to linger.

“It never really quite goes away,” Barth said.

Steven Schafersman, D-Midland, also is running for the District 15 seat. He will be uncontested in the primary election.

Including religious beliefs in science curricula would be troublesome because not every student holds the same beliefs, she said.

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of the scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

“It should be taught in a manner that does not favor any particular philosophical perspective and does not threaten the philosophical perspective of any students in the class,” he said

Including religious beliefs in science curricula would be troublesome because not every student holds the same beliefs, she said.

and not every student is able to absorb scientific FACT.

and not every student is able to absorb scientific FACT.