NCSE Evolution and Climate Education Update for 2013/02/15

(by NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch)

Dear Friends of NCSE,

Missouri's equal-time-for-"intelligent design" bill is in the news
again. And a new poll addresses public opinion about climate change.

MISSOURI'S "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" BILL UNDER SCRUTINY

Missouri's House Bill 291, which would, if enacted, require "the equal
treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent
design," is receiving renewed attention. The alternative weekly
Riverfront Times (February 7, 2013) interviewed HB 291's chief
sponsor, Rick Brattin (R-District 55), who described himself as "a
science enthusiast" and "a huge science buff." Brattin said that the
bill would require teachers and instructional materials to
"distinguish what is, in fact, theory and what is, in fact, empirical
data. ... There's so much of the theory of evolution that is being
taught as fact ... things like the primordial ooze." He added, "With
theories, they need to have equal treatment, objective treatment, not
one brushed aside."

In particular, Brattin claimed that "intelligent design" is unjustly
excluded from the science classroom, telling the Riverfront Times,
"I've had numerous college professors within biology, school science
teachers ... who say they are not allowed to teach any type of theory
[like intelligent design].... They are banned from the science
community." He denied that his motivation for advancing the bill or
that "intelligent design" itself is religious in nature, explaining,
"This isn't preaching that God designed this ... This is saying, it
had to come from some sort of intelligence." In 2012, however, Brattin
referred to belief "in a higher power" when defending House Bill 1227,
a bill identical to HB 291 that he introduced in the 2012 legislative
session.

Mother Jones then took note of HB 291 on its blog (February 8, 2013).
NCSE's Eric Meikle told the magazine that the bill -- which contains a
defectively alphabetized glossary providing bizarre definitions of
"analogous naturalistic processes," "biological evolution,"
"biological intelligent design," "destiny," "empirical data," "equal
treatment," "hypothesis," "origin," "scientific theory," "scientific
law," and "standard science" -- is "very idiosyncratic and strange,"
adding, "And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligen[t]
design." With respect to a provision that would require textbooks to
grant equal time to "intelligent design," Meikle commented, "I can't
imagine any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with this."

And John Timmer, intrigued because "[i]nstead of being quiet about its
intent, it redefines science, provides a clearer definition of
intelligent design than any of the idea's advocates ever have, and it
mandates equal treatment of ["intelligent design" and evolution],"
examined the bill in detail on his blog at Ars Technica (February 12,
2013). Among the other problems with HB 291, Timmer observed, "The
bill demands anything taught as scientific law to have 'no known
exceptions.' That would rule out teaching Mendel's law, which has a
huge variety of exceptions, such as when two genes are linked together
on the same chromosome." He predicted, "Given this confused mess, the
bill probably has very little chance of passing."

KOLR television (February 12, 2013) in Springfield, Missouri,
interviewed John Heywood, a professor of biology at Missouri State
University, about HB 291. "It's bad science and that makes it bad
education," Heywood explained. He added that teaching "intelligent
design" in the state's public schools would be unconstitutional and
would confuse students "as to what science is." A further concern was
expressed by Jared Webster, assistant principal at a local high
school: the cost of complying with the bill's requirements for
textbooks. Webster commented, "To buy new biology textbooks, you're
talking over 400 textbooks that tend to run $70 for each book[,] so
that's definitely not a small cost to the district to have to eat."

For its next story, the Riverfront Times (February 13, 2013) called
NCSE, whose executive director Eugenie C. Scott remarked, "This is the
last thing Missouri teachers need ... Particularly since his
definition and understanding of allegedly scientific defin[i]tions are
simply wrong." Noting that the bill is clearly rooted in creationism,
Scott explained that the "equal time" provision was unworkable:
"There's plenty of information on evolution ... The trouble is
intelligent design has shown no ability whatsoever to explain nature.
So there's really nothing to present for the intelligent design
position as science. ... And a careful reading of the intelligent
design position would quickly reveal that the message is ... evolution
doesn't work."

Neither HB 291 nor 2012's HB 1227 was the first instance of the
Missouri Standard Science Act (as the bill is officially known).
Robert Wayne Cooper (R-District 155) introduced the first version,
House Bill 911, in 2004. The bill was drafted by a group calling
itself Missourians for Excellence in Science Education, headed by Joe
White, a member of the Missouri Association for Creation, according to
the St. Louis Dispatch (March 4, 2004). Similar to the later bills, HB
911 went further, requiring the text of the bill to be posted in high
school science classrooms and enabling the firing of teachers and
administrators who failed to comply with the law. Both HB 911 and the
similar but milder HB 1722 died in 2004.

HB 291 is one of two antievolution bills presently active in the
Missouri legislature. The other, House Bill 179, is a typical instance
of the "academic freedom" strategy for undermining the integrity of
science education, which would allow teachers "to help students
understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the
scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of
biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution." Significantly, there
is a substantial overlap between the sponsors of HB 291 and HB 179;
Brattin in particular is among the sponsors of both. Both bills have
been referred to the House Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee; neither has yet been scheduled for a hearing.

For the text of Missouri's House Bill 291 as introduced, visit:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0291I.htm 

For the Riverfront Times's interview with Brattin, visit:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/02/rick_brattin_creationism_gop_missouri_schools.php 

For the post on Mother Jones's blog, visit:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/intelligent-design-missouri-evolution 

For John Timmer's story on Ars Technica, visit:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/missouri-bill-redefines-science-gives-equal-time-to-intelligent-design/ 

For KOLR's story (video and transcript), visit:
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=766722 

For the Riverfront Times's interview with Scott, visit:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/02/national_center_science_education_rick_brattin_evolution.php 

For the text of Missouri's House Bill 911 from 2004, visit:
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.htm 

For the text of Missouri's House Bill 179 as introduced, visit:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0179I.htm 

And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Missouri, visit:
http://ncse.com/news/missouri 

A NEW POLL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

"The percentage of Americans who think climate change is occurring has
rebounded ... and is at its highest level since 2006," according to a
new poll conducted by researchers at Duke University. "Whether in
response to extreme weather events like mega-storm Sandy or the
improved economy, public opinion has clearly rebounded from its low
point of a couple years ago," said researcher Frederick Mayer.

Asked "Is the earth's climate changing?" 49.9% of respondents said,
"Yes, I'm convinced," and 33.5% said, "Probably yes, but I'd like more
evidence," while only 8.5% said, "Probably no, but more evidence could
convince me," and only 7.6% said, "No, there isn't any solid
evidence." Acceptance of climate change was correlated with political
affiliation: 70% of Democrats were convinced, as opposed to only 27%
of Republicans and 48% of independents.

Respondents who agreed that the climate is changing were asked, "Is
climate change primarily because of human activity or natural causes?"
Human activity was the choice of 64.4%; natural causes was the choice
of 34.8%. They were also asked, "How serious a threat is climate
change?" Very serious was the choice of 37.7%; somewhat serious was
the choice of 45.9%; not that much of a threat was the choice of
14.8%; not a threat at all was the choice of 1.1%.

All respondents were also asked, "How much do you trust scientists to
provide impartial and accurate findings on climate change?" A great
deal was the choice of 20.2%; a fair amount was the choice of 42.9%;
just some was the choice of 24.7%; very little was the choice of
11.9%. Trust in scientists was also correlated with political
affiliation: 79% of Democrats trusted scientists a great deal or a
fair amount, as opposed to 49% of Republicans and 59% of independents.

According to a Duke University press release issued on February 7,
2013, "[t]he Internet survey was conducted Jan. 16-22, 2013[,] by Duke
in partnership with KnowledgePanel and involved e-mails to randomly
selected households throughout the United States. The margin of error
for 1,089 respondents was 3 percentage points. Funding for the survey
came from Duke's Climate Policy Working Group."

For the topline results from the survey (PDF), visit:
http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/Topline%20Results.pdf 

For the press release about the survey, visit:
http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/news/poll-americans-back-climate-change-regulation-not-taxes 

And for NCSE's collection of polls and surveys on climate change, visit:
http://ncse.com/polls/polls-climate-change 

CORRECTION

The February 8, 2013, Evolution and Climate Education Update story on
"Darwin Day in The New York Times" contained a typographical error:
Paul Broun, who was in the news in 2012 for describing evolution as
"lies, straight from the pit of hell ... lies to try to keep me and
all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a
savior," represents a congressional district in Georgia, not New
Jersey.


-- 
Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncse.com 
http://ncse.com 

Read Reports of the NCSE on-line:
http://reports.ncse.com 

Subscribe to NCSE's free weekly e-newsletter:
http://groups.google.com/group/ncse-news 

NCSE is on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter:
http://www.facebook.com/evolution.ncse 
http://www.youtube.com/NatCen4ScienceEd 
http://twitter.com/ncse 

NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://ncse.com/join