NCSE Evolution Education Update for 2009/03/20

(by NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch)

Dear Friends of NCSE,

A new antievolution bill in Texas, and plenty of further news from the Lone
Star state, too. Iowa's antievolution bill is dead. And NCSE announces its
very own YouTube channel.

"WEAKNESSES" BY THE BACK DOOR IN TEXAS

House Bill 4224, introduced in the Texas House of Representatives on March
13, 2009, would, if enacted, require the Texas state board of education to
restore the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the Texas state science
standards. The current standards for high school biology include a
requirement that reads, "The student is expected to analyze, review, and
critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to
their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and
information." As NCSE previously reported, in 2003 the "strengths and
weaknesses" language in the standards was selectively applied by members of
the board attempting to dilute the treatment of evolution in the biology
textbooks then under consideration. When a panel of scientific and
educational experts revised the standards, the "strengths and weaknesses"
requirement was replaced with "The student is expected to analyze and
evaluate scientific explanations using empirical eviden!
ce, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing." In a
close vote on January 23, 2009, the board gave its preliminary approval to
a version of the standards without the "strengths and weaknesses" language;
a final vote is expected at the board's March 25-27, 2009, meeting.

Introduced by Wayne Christian (R-District 9), House Bill 4224 would add a
section to the Texas Education Code providing, "(a) As part of the
essential knowledge and skills of the science curriculum under Section
28.002(a)(1)(C), the State Board of Education by rule shall establish
elements relating to instruction on the scientific hypotheses and theories
for grades 6-12. (b) Instructional elements for scientific processes: the
student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make
informed decisions. The student is expected to analyze, review, and
critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to
their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information;
(c) Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course
materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be
penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position
on scientific theories or hypotheses; (d) No govern!
mental entity shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this
state from helping students to understand, analyze, review, and critique
scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their
strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

It is already clear that the state's scientific and educational communities
are firmly opposed to the inclusion of the "strengths and weaknesses"
language in the science standards. According to a survey conducted by the
TFN Education Fund in conjunction with Raymond Eve, a sociology professor
at the University of Texas, Arlington, professors of biology at Texas's
colleges and universities overwhelmingly reject the notion of teaching the
"weaknesses" of evolution, with almost 80% regarding it as likely to hinder
student readiness for college and 72% regarding it as likely to hinder
student ability to compete for 21st-century jobs. Additionally, over 1400
Texas scientists have endorsed the 21st Century Science Coalition's call on
the state board of education to approve science standards that "encourage
valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all
references to 'strengths and weaknesses,' which politicians have used to
introduce supernatural explanation!
s into science courses." And the president of the Science Teachers
Association of Texas described the "strengths and weaknesses" language as
"vague and misleading," while also noting that it provides a pretext for
the problematic insertion of religious beliefs into the science curriculum.

For the text of Texas's HB 4224 as introduced, visit:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB04224I.htm

For the survey of Texas biology professors (PDF), visit:
http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FinalWebPost.pdf?docID=861

For the 21st Century Science Coalition, visit:
http://www.texasscientists.org/

For the remarks of the president of STAT (PDF, p. 17), visit:
http://www.statweb.org/STATellite/Dec08.pdf

And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Texas, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/news/texas

UPDATES FROM THE LONE STAR STATE

With evolution sure to be a hotly debated topic at the next meeting of the
Texas state board of education, with a bill just introduced in the Texas
legislature aimed at restoring the contentious "strengths and weaknesses"
language to the standards, and with a different bill aimed at exempting the
Institute for Creation Research's graduate school from the regulations
governing degree-granting institutions in Texas, there's no shortage of
news from the Lone Star state. NCSE, of course, continues not only to
report on the antics of creationism in Texas but also to help concerned
Texans to combat them: Texans wishing to express their concerns about the
standards to the Texas state board of education, which is expected to have
its final vote on the standards at its meeting in Austin on March 25-27,
2009, will find contact information and talking points in the Taking Action
section of NCSE's website and on the Texas Freedom Network's website.

With Texans still reeling from the detailed profiles of the chair of the
Texas state board of education, avowed creationist Don McLeroy, published
in the Austin American-Statesman (March 8, 2009) and the Texas Observer
(February 20, 2009), Texas Citizens for Science (March 14, 2009) recently
disclosed that McLeroy endorsed a bizarre creationist screed entitled
Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences' Sinister Scheme to Teach
Our Children They're Descended from Reptiles -- aimed, of course, at
Evolution, Creationism, and Science, issued by the National Academy of
Sciences and the Institute of Medicine in February 2008 to general
acclaim. McLeroy, however, praises Sowing Atheism for showing "how the NAS
attempts to seduce the unwitting reader by providing scanty empirical
evidence but presented with great intellectual bullying -- both secular and
religious."

On its blog (March 18, 2009), the Texas Freedom Network summarized the
themes of the book -- "Scientists are 'atheists.' Parents who want to
teach their children about evolution are 'monsters.' Pastors who support
sound science are 'morons'" -- and pointedly asked, "Is that the sort of
message Chairman Don McLeroy and his cohorts on the State Board of
Education have in mind for Texas science classrooms if they succeed in
their campaign to shoehorn 'weaknesses' of evolution back into the science
curriculum standards?" Mavis Knight, a member of the Texas state board of
education who supports the integrity of science education, wrly commented
to the Dallas Observer (March 18, 2009), "So much for neutrality in the
chairman's position." Looking forward to the board's impending vote on the
standards, she added, "I am confident several of us will hold firm, but
it's the swing votes you have to concern yourself with -- and I don't know
how much pressure is being put on the swing!
voters. ... It definitely won't be boring."

Fox News (March 18, 2009) offered a detailed story about House Bill 2800,
which would, if enacted, exempt institutions such as the Institute for
Creation Research's graduate school from Texas's regulations governing
degree-granting institutions. Although the ICR is not named, "[the bill's
sponsor Leo] Berman says ICR was the inspiration for the bill because he
feels creationism is as scientific as evolution and should be granted equal
weight in the educational community." Berman was also quoted as saying, "I
don't believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions
of years ago." NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott responded,
"Their science education degrees are greatly inferior to those at, say, the
University of Texas or Baylor University or even a good community college,
frankly," adding, "Teaching that the Earth is only 10,000 years old is a
little irregular in modern science."

Concern about HB 2800 was not confined to worries about the ICR's graduate
school. A spokesperson for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board,
which denied state certification to the ICR's graduate school in 2007,
argued that "HB 2800 appears to open the doors of Texas to predatory
institutions ... Were the bill to become law, it could have the effect of
leaving students defenseless against exploitation by diploma mills and
other substandard institutions." Similarly, Steven Schafersman of Texas
Citizens for Science warned, "This would open the door to other
fly-by-night organizations that come in and want to award degrees in our
state, because the bill is highly generalized," and NCSE's Scott added, "It
would certainly open the door to all kinds of chicanery ... I mean, all you
have to do, it looks to me from the bill, is start a non-profit
organization, don't take any federal or state money, and then offer degrees
in any fool subject you want."

Discussing House Bill 4224, which would, if enacted, require the Texas
state board of education to restore the "strengths and weaknesses" language
to the Texas state science standards, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (March
19, 2009), reported, "The bill does not address evolution specifically, but
that seems to be its target. ... [The bill's sponsor Wayne] Christian said
he filed the bill to allow teachers to continue to teach the strengths and
weaknesses of the theory of evolution." Steven Schafersman of Texas
Citizens for Science told the newspaper that the language was removed from
the proposed new standards because it is not scientifically based, and
warned that HB 4224 was likely to encourage teachers to teach creationism
in violation of the constitutional strictures against doing so. He also
said that for Texas to compete nationally and globally, the education
standards must be based on "good science and not get bogged down with these
religious interventions into our s!
ecular schools."

A further concern about HB 4224 discussed in the Star-Telegram's article
was the bill's provision that "Students may be evaluated based upon their
understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or
institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a
particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses." (The article
reports, incorrectly, that the bill would afford the same protection to
teachers; it is in fact silent about the beliefs of teachers, although it
explicitly allows them to present "strengths and weaknesses" -- a
creationist catchphrase -- to their students.) Schafersman commented,
"Students could claim they believe anything they wanted in anything in
science and if that's what they say, the teacher would be forced to give
that student an A," but Christian countered that students would still be
responsible for learning the material presented in the curriculum: "They
can be lazy if they want to ... but teachers !
are still in charge of the grading system," he contended.

For information about taking action in Texas, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/taking-action
http://www.tfn.org/

For the profiles of McLeroy, visit:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/03/08/0308mcleroy.html
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2965

For information about Science, Evolution, and Creationism, visit:
http://www.nap.edu/sec
http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/01/kudos-science-evolution-creationism-002137

For the reports on McLeroy's endorsement of Sowing Atheism, visit:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/what-does-don-mcleroy-really-want-to-teach/
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/03/in_advance_of_next_week.php

For Fox News's story about HB 2800, visit:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509719,00.html

For the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's story about HB 4224, visit:
http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/1264169.html

And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Texas, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/news/texas

ANTIEVOLUTION BILL DEAD IN IOWA

House File 183, the so-called Evolution Academic Freedom Act, died in
committee in the Iowa House of Representatives on March 13, 2009. The bill
purported to protect the right of teachers in the state's public schools
and instructors in the state's public community colleges and state
universities to "objectively present scientific information relevant to the
full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution
in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or
biological evolution," providing that they "shall not be disciplined,
denied tenure, terminated, or otherwise discriminated against" for doing
so. Also, the bill added, although students "shall be evaluated based upon
their understanding of course materials through standard testing
procedures," they "shall not be penalized for subscribing to a particular
position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution."

The Iowa State Education Association -- the state affiliate of the National
Education Association, representing over 34,000 education employees in Iowa
-- was opposed to HF 183, and over two hundred faculty members at Iowa's
colleges and universities endorsed a statement calling on Iowa's
legislature to reject it, arguing, "It is misleading to claim that there is
any controversy or dissent within the vast majority of the scientific
community regarding the scientific validity of evolutionary theory." In a
March 13, 2009, guest post at The Panda's Thumb blog, Hector Avalos of Iowa
State University, one of the faculty members who drafted the statement,
commented, "Although the bill was given little chance of passing from the
start, the petition helped to inform legislators and the public of the
depth of resistance to such a bill within the academic and scientific
community. Iowa faculty wanted to nip this bill in the bud before we had
another Louisiana on our hands."

Avalos was alluding, of course, to the Louisiana Science Education Act,
enacted (as Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:285.1) in 2008 over the protests
of the state's scientific and educational communities; as the Baton Rouge
Advocate (April 19, 2008) editorially recognized, "it seems clear that the
supporters of this legislation are seeking a way to get creationism ...
into science classrooms." The LSEA is the only "academic freedom'
antievolution bill to have been passed, despite attempts to pass such bills
elsewhere. So far in 2009, there have been six: Alabama's House Bill 300,
Florida's Senate Bill 2396, Iowa's House File 183 (died in committee),
Missouri's House Bill 656, New Mexico's Senate Bill 433, and Oklahoma's SB
320 (died in committee). Such bills are typically based on a policy adopted
in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, in 2006 and/or a model bill promoted by the
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the institutional
home of "intelligent design" crea!
tionism.

For Avalos's post on The Panda's Thumb blog, visit:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/iowa-gives-the.html

And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Iowa, visit:
http://ncseweb.org/news/iowa

LIGHTS! CAMERA! EVOLUTION!

NCSE is expanding its on-line video presence with its new YouTube
channel! Here you'll find reports from the evolution/creationism wars --
footage of contentious testimony, landmark and illuminating speeches,
conference coverage, excerpts from television appearances, and
presentations. In the future, look for classroom videos, tutorials for
teachers, videos contributed by NCSE members, and much more.

When you visit our YouTube channel, check out a couple of key areas. At top
right you'll see the latest, hot video. (In this case, executive director
Eugenie C. Scott explaining evolution to the Texas Board of
Education.) Below this video window you'll see the Playlist area.

We've broken down our initial offerings into different categories -- Genie
Scott's testimony before the Texas Board of Education; the board's
chairman, Don McLeroy, expounding why evolution is false; and some
light-hearted coverage of our recent Project Steve celebration.

Please explore the site, tell us what you like (and don't), and suggest
improvements and changes. Send your comments to Robert Luhn at
luhn@ncseweb.org.

For NCSE's YouTube channel, visit:
http://www.youtube.com/NatCen4ScienceEd

REMINDER

If you wish to unsubscribe to these evolution education updates, please send:

unsubscribe ncse-news your@email.com

in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2.org.

If you wish to subscribe, please send:

subscribe ncse-news your@email.com

again in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2.org.

Thanks for reading! And as always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site:

http://www.ncseweb.org

where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and
threats to it.


Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x310
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc

Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc

NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership