Texas...Again

Texas has, once again, waded into the waters of the evolution/creation controversy.  The Texas Tribune reports that wording that is claimed to open the door to creationism has been provisionally left in the most recent guidelines for teaching science in the public schools.  Aliyya Swaby writes:

The process began in July, when the board convened a teacher committee that recommended the deletion of several high school science standards, including four controversial biology standards they said would be too complex for students to understand. In their recommendation for deleting a clause requiring students examine explanations on the "sudden appearance" of organism groups in the fossil record, they included the note, "Not enough time for students to master concept. Cognitively inappropriate for 9th grade students."

Republican board member Barbara Cargill led the charge Wednesday to keep three of those four standards in some form — arguing that they would actually help students better understand the science and keep teachers away from creationist ideas.

As I wrote a bit back, Barbara Cargill has, in recent years, been less vocal about her support for creationism and intelligent design, but has always supported the range of Wedge Strategy ideas promoted by the Intelligent Design movement, including “teach the controversy,” “teach the full range of scientific views,” and teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.    

The board members have also bought into the idea that fossil forms appear in the geological  record fully-formed, a notion completely debunked by Don Prothero. 

Update on the South Dakota Bill

The Argus Leader is running a story about the South Dakota “Strengths and Weaknesses” bill being bandied about.

Deb Wolf, a high school science instructional coach for the Sioux Falls School District, worries the bill would also undermine school boards' ability to enforce the curriculum they've approved.

"This is horrible, but let's say I believe in eugenics," Wolf said. "(SB 55) says that I couldn't be prohibited, I couldn't be stopped from teaching that as long as I did it in an objective scientific manner, and it doesn't specify what that means."

The bill now moves to the House where, if passed, it will go to the governor's desk for final approval.

Rachelle Smith, who has two children at John Harris Elementary School, was in disbelief that the bill was even under consideration.

Smith worries the bill, if passed, would cause parents to try to avoid certain teachers or request to change classes if a teacher strayed from science curriculum.

She also worries that her second-grade daughter, who loves studying science, won't be learning the subject properly.

The passage of any of these bills would set a terrible precedent. Science is not like any other discipline.  You are not entitled to your own set of facts.  That simply is not how the world works. 

Stealth Bill in Oklahoma

Another &ldauo;strenghts and weaknesses” bill has been put forth in Oklahoma. NCSE has the story:

Senate Bill 393 (PDF), styled the Oklahoma Science Education Act, is the latest antievolution bill in the Sooner State. SB 393 would, if enacted, in effect encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased — proponents of creationism and climate change denial are the usual intended beneficiaries of such bills — and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening. No scientific topics are specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 393 is Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced similar legislation that directly targeted evolution in previous legislative sessions, is suggestive.

Why is it suggestive? It is suggestive because every other bill that has dealt with “strengths and weaknesses” has been aimed specifically at evolution.This is a common tactic and one can only hope this one goes down in flames. 

Is Louisiana's LSEA Bad Science?

It isn't, according to University of Shreveport political science professor Jeff Sadow. He argues:

[Senator Karen Carter] Peterson’s annual exercise persisted — until this year. With Democrat John Bel Edwards now governor, neither she nor anyone else filed a bill to repeal the act. That’s because the author of the law, former state Sen. Ben Nevers, a Bogalusa Democrat, serves as Edwards’ chief of staff. In the past, surely knowing her bill never would make it out of committee, Carter kept trying regardless as an apparent attempt to make Jindal look bad. She has no wish to do the same to Edwards.

But Peterson’s and others’ opposition to the act should disturb anybody who desires academic excellence in Louisiana education. The law creates a minor incentive for science classrooms to explore important issues and develop critical thinking skills. It also stands as a bulwark against the potential imposition of politically motivated orthodoxy masquerading as science. To oppose the act reveals an intolerance of freedom in academic inquiry — and a willingness to indulge a totalitarian impulse seeking to control information and knowledge.

Here is the problem that I see: the modern creationism movement has taken great pains to divorce the notion of creationism from the Bible, or any organized religion. They treat it as science, and promote it as such. They don't promote it as religion. To be sure, every court case that has been adjudicated has shown that it is, but because of this, the teaching of creationism now masquerades as “Teaching the Controversy” “Teaching the Full Range of views," or “Teach the Strengths and Weaknesses.”  Oddly, enough, these methodologies don't include all of scientific inquiry, but just happen to focus on evolution (and sometimes climate change).  Waiting in the wings is “scientific creationism,”  a view supported by a large number of legislators, it seems. 

Yes, it is true that we should keep science agenda free (and that is becoming increasingly hard in this over-politicized culture), but the LSEA does not do this.  If anything, it promotes the stealth agenda of ID and creationism.

Strengths and Weaknesses Bill: Alabama.com Editorializes

Shelly Haskins of Alabama.com, an online conglomeration of several large newspapers (like Kentucky.com) has written an editorial about the negative national publicity that Mack Butler’s “Strengths and Weaknesses” bill (which she misidentifies as HB 572, instead of HB 592) in the Alabama  house has gotten:

This bill is just a waste of time in a year when Alabama legislators face real issues that need all of their time and attention, issues like how to fund state government before it implodes before our eyes, for instance.

Let's focus on the real problems facing our state, rather than meddling in the classroom, where I'm sure there's been no groundswell from teachers complaining that they aren't free to discredit evolution.

If, like the Alabama ACLU says, this bill opens up the door for "religious fanatics" to take over the classroom and open up Alabama to lawsuits, there's another practical reason to let this bill die. We can't afford more legal fees to defend possibly unconstitutional laws when we have no money to even run our own court system, much less police our streets or care for our elderly.

You might ask, "What would Jesus do?" Personally, I believe he would concentrate on feeding the multitude rather than blatantly calling attention to himself.

“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men,” Matthew 6:5.

It is unfortunate when well-meaning but ignorant legislators stick their noses into areas they have no business in. If passed, this will cause more headaches, like those that Louisiana currently has.

Update: Alabama "Strengths and Weaknesses" Bill: The Mask Comes Off

The Anniston Star has a story that makes clearer the motives of Mack Butler, the Alabama Republican representative who has introduced the "Strengths and Weaknesses" bill in the legislature.  Ostensibly, the bill was to require the teachers to promote inquiry and discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories.  Not by half.  Amanda Woolbright writes:

Butler called the bill one that “doesn’t promote anyone’s agenda” and said it would foster open and honest debate in science classrooms all over the state.

“There are some teachers who are uncomfortable teaching evolution as fact, and some are scared to tiptoe around alternate theories,” he said.

Yet, how local educators are currently teaching students wouldn’t drastically change.

“I’m a little puzzled why we have to create a law stating that. They are teaching evolution theory, as well as creation, so it’s currently taking place now,” said Mike Newell, director of operations for the Jacksonville Board of Education.

Many teachers in the state say they are already allowing students to explore various theories, including both creationism and evolution.

Once again, how that is done is critically important, but Butler is sticking his nose into the mix with a smoke and mirrors law because he doesn't like evolution. He could care less about controversies in gravitational theory, geology or any of the other hard sciences. But that is not the underlying reason that the bill is being put forth in the first place. For that we go to the last sentence in the article:

“There is animosity to anything Christian. We are getting so secular and hostile toward Christianity. I’m just trying to bring back a little balance,” Butler said.

Evolution = atheism

The dichotomy couldn't be more stark, or more misleading.

Alabama Introduces "Strengths and Weaknesses" Bill

NCSE is reporting that a bill that would allow teachers to investigate “strengths and weaknesses” of contentious scientific theories has been put forth by Mack Butler (no reason to point out his political party, since we all know what it is) as HB 592.  Here is the synopsis:

This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects. This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course.

Now, once again, ask yourself this question: why, in a science class, where all kinds of theories are taught, and the emphasis is on critical thinking in the first place, would such a bill be necessary?  Here's why:

The bill's sole sponsor is Mack Butler (R-District 30), who, discussing a different bill of his with Alabama.com (January 21, 2015), commented, “It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution.”

So, despite the vague wording, the whole purpose of this bill, it seems, is to protect the teaching of alternate theories to evolution, of which there are only two: Intelligent design and young earth creationism, neither of which have any solid science behind them.

This is what the Discovery Institute hath wrought: a legislative minefield where bills like this crop up here and there like an absurd Whack-a-Mole game.  And not a one of these legislators could describe evolutionary theory to save their lives.   

Another Ersatz Science Bill Fails

NCSE reports that the time limit on the reading of Oklahoma House Bill 1674 was allowed to lapse.  According to the story:

Along with Senate Bill 758, which died in February 2013, HB 1674 was one of two proposed laws that would have undermined the integrity of science education in Oklahoma. If enacted, HB 1674 would have encouraged teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." HB 1674 specifically mentioned "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as subjects which "some teachers may be unsure" about how to teach.

Funny how these bill always emphasize just these subjects, as if the science is settled on all of the other subjects being taught.

Open Letter to Arizona Senator Judy Burges

Recently, Judy Burges of the Arizona senate, along with some senatorial colleagues, put forth an “strengths and weaknesses” bill for passage by the legislature. The bill, SB 1213, reads in part:

The state board of education, the department of education, county school superintendents, school district governing boards, school district superintendents, school principals and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher in this state from helping pupils understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

This is classic language from the Discovery Institute. The idea is to contrive “weaknesses” in evolution and other related disciplines and then promote the idea of teaching alternatives to them. In all of the cases of which I am familiar, the “weaknesses” turn out to be incorrect interpretations of data, such as “No transitional fossils” or “natural selection cannot increase genetic information.” I have drafted a letter to Senator Burges. It reads:

Dear Senator Burges,

Although not a resident of the state of Arizona, I am concerned by the text of the bill being promoted in the legislature (SB 1213) that has, as its intent science instruction. For one thing, I assumed that it was axiomatic that one of the primary purposes of the public schools was to, in the words of the bill "help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens." Consequently, the promotion of this bill seems redundant and, unless you are concerned that this is not happening in the Arizona public schools, I am curious why such legislation is necessary.

Additionally, I am concerned that, of all of the scientific disciplines that would fall under this kind of legislation, only certain ones dealing with the life sciences are being singled out for special treatment. If the purpose of this bill is to produce scientifically literate students, then surely such a bill would strive to be comprehensive, including other disciplines for which there are theoretical constructs such as Newtonian and quantum physics. I am further concerned that such a bill will give cover to the teaching of scientifically unsound concepts such as young-earth creationism, as has happened in Texas.

As I indicated at the beginning of my letter, I am not a resident of Arizona but I also know that properly educated students coming out of Arizona affect the scientific enterprises of the country as a whole. Therefore, I ask that you either rethink the wording of your bill to include other scientific disciplines or withdraw the bill as being unnecessary. Thank you for your time.

-Sincerely,

James Kidder, Ph.D.
Knoxville, Tennessee

I never received a response to a letter I wrote Barbara Cargill of Texas. I doubt I will get one from Senator Burges. We shall see.

Two Bills Die in Texas Legislature

The NCSE is reporting on two bills that have died on the vine. The first one is the exemption bill for the ICR that would allow them to operate and grant degrees without having to undergo the same standards that every other degree-granting institution does. The second is the bill that would have put back the "strengths and weaknesses" language into the science standards. As the article notes, the ICR is suing the Texas Higher Education Commission for its decision. Good luck with that one, guys.

Texas: The Aftermath Continues

An article in the Wichita Falls TimesRecordNews (As Falls Wichita...?) shows how the Texas State Board of Education decisions about the science curriculum is already having an effect. The article, by Ann Work, has this to say:

Local chemistry teacher Shelby Patrick said some tried, but failed, to bring the concept of intelligent design into the science curriculum as an alternate consideration to natural selection and other evolutionary topics.

“If an idea (like intelligent design) cannot be objectively tested, then it is not science. That was the main point many of us in the science field were trying to get across during this review of new standards,” Patrick said.

John Davison, science coordinator at Wichita Falls High School, said he liked the new verbiage that drops the old “strengths and weaknesses” approach in favor of critical analysis. “When you say something has a weakness, it conjures up the idea that there might be something wrong with it. When you’re coming up with a theory, you never really come up with a total wrong or right. You keep adding the facts and going to where they point. It’s not a situation where you’re trying to be the person who is standing up and fighting for it,” he said. “You’re just a pawn in the game, showing whatever the facts are.”

I submit that the "weaknesses" language was designed to do exactly that: promote the idea that there might be something wrong with the theory. It was designed to get in under the wire and open the door to alternative ideas such as ID or creationism. I am curious to see how the ID front will respond to the changes in wording.