NCSE Evolution and Climate Education Update for 2014/02/14

(by NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch)

Dear friends of NCSE,

Virginia's antievolution bill is dead. Plus the latest news on
antiscience legislation from the Sooner State, the Palmetto State, and
the Show Me State. And NCSE's Ann Reid and Glenn Branch, writing in
The Scientist, warn scientists about debating creationists.

ANTISCIENCE BILL IN VIRGINIA DIES

Virginia's House Bill 207 died in the House Education Committee on
February 11, 2014, when a deadline for bills to pass their house of
origin passed. The bill, which would have deprived administrators of
the ability to prevent teachers from miseducating students about
"scientific controversies," was previously referred by the House
Education Committee to the House Committee of Courts on Justice.
Unusually, the latter committee refused to accept the bill, so it
returned to the former committee, which failed to consider it again
before the passage of the deadline.

The sole sponsor of the bill was Richard P. "Dickie" Bell (R-District
20), who acknowledged to the Washington Post (January 29, 2014) that
evolution and climate change "might fall into [the] category" of
scientific controversies mentioned by the bill. Bell earlier told The
Recorder (January 23, 2014) that he was himself a creationist and
regarded global warming as "all theory at this point"; he later told
WRIC (January 31, 2014) that the bill originated with the Virginia
Christian Alliance, a radical religious right organization that
explicitly promotes young-earth creationism.

The Recorder (January 23, 2014) editorially opposed the bill, as did
the Virginian-Pilot (February 4, 2014), which editorially commented,
"[A]nti-evolutionists have shifted their approach to advocate teaching
evolution theory with a scientifically unjustified emphasis on its
uncertainties ... That approach animates Bell's bill, which would work
by tying the hands of school administrators," adding, "[S]cience
teachers -- alone among educators -- [would be] exempt from guidance
about what they should teach and repercussions for failing to cover
required curricula."

For the text of Virginia's House Bill 207 as introduced, visit:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141+ful+HB207 

For the stories in the Washington Post, The Recorder, and WRIC, visit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-oppose-va-bill-challenging-mainstream-science/2014/01/29/faa7924c-885c-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html 
https://recorder.our-hometown.com/news/2014-01-23/Top_News/Maple_fest_proposed_for_state_title.html
http://www.wric.com/story/24604300/opponents-say-education-bill-promotes-creationism-in-schools 

For the editorials from The Recorder and the Virginian-Pilot, visit:
https://recorder.our-hometown.com/news/2014-01-23/Opinions_%28and%29___Commentary/Education_bill_not_needed_001.html
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/bill-undermines-science-teachers 

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

AIBS OPPOSES OKLAHOMA'S ANTISCIENCE BILL

The American Institute of Biological Sciences expressed its opposition
to Oklahoma's Senate Bill 1765, which, if enacted, would deprive
administrators of the ability to prevent teachers from miseducating
students about "scientific controversies." Although no scientific
topics are specifically identified as controversial, the fact that the
primary sponsor of SB 1765 is Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who
introduced similar legislation that directly targeted evolution in two
previous legislative sessions, is suggestive. The bill is presently
before the Senate Education Committee.

AIBS's letter, dated February 10, 2014, and addressed to all the
members of the Senate Education Committee, described the bill as "bad
for science and bad for science education," adding, "If enacted, SB
1765 would merely offer a vehicle for advocates of particular
non-scientific belief systems to introduce their personal ideologies
into the curriculum," and observing, "There is no legitimate
scientific controversy about evolution or climate change. Scientists
have, and continue to, empirically test these concepts and with each
test the evidence grows stronger and our understanding more thorough."

For the text of Oklahoma's Senate Bill 1765 as introduced (document), visit:
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1765 

For AIBS's letter, visit:
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/20140210_ok_science_ed_act.html 

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

A FAIR TREATMENT OF EVOLUTION

At its February 10, 2014, meeting, the South Carolina Education
Oversight Committee approved a new set of science standards for South
Carolina -- with the exception of a clause involving the phrase
"natural selection." According to the Charleston Post and Courier
(February 10, 2014), Senator Mike Fair (R-District 6) explained,
"Natural selection is a direct reference to Darwinism. And the
implication of Darwinism is that it is start to finish." He added, "To
teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong. ... I
don't have a problem with teaching theories. I don't think it should
be taught as fact."

The performance indicator in question reads, "Students who demonstrate
this understanding [of biological evolution] can ... analyze and
interpret data, using the principles of natural selection, to make
predictions about the long term biological changes that may occur
within two populations of the same species that become geographically
isolated from one another." Fair told The State (February 10, 2014),
"There's not but one theory coming from the principles of natural
selection," adding, "There are more than one. But the one being taught
and will continue to be taught is Darwinism."

"What frustrates us are when pieces of [the standards] -- evolution --
are singled out for religious and political reasons," South
Carolinians for Science Education's Robert T. Dillon, a professor of
biology at the College of Charleston, told The State. "Mike Fair
singles out evolution for special treatment. It is no more
scientifically controversial than photosynthesis." Dillon previously
told a blogger for the Post and Courier (January 8, 2014) that
"critically analyze" is used in the standards only twice, with
reference to evolution and climate change, and suggested the addition
of the adverb "critically" to the other 129 clauses containing the
word "analyze."

As NCSE previously reported, the South Carolina state board of
education voted in January 2014 to adopt the new set of science
standards, rejecting two different proposals that would have
compromised the treatment of evolution in the process. The EOC was
supposed to have voted on the standards before the board's vote, but
instead sent the standards to the board with a list of recommended
changes, including a revision that seemed to be intended to open the
door to the use of non-scientific critiques of evolution. Both the EOC
and the state board must agree on the standards for them to be
adopted.

The impasse is a replay of a similar situation in 2006, when Fair and
the EOC sought to expand the "critical analysis" language in the
portion of the science standards that addressed evolution. The then
state superintendent of education told The State (February 13, 2006),
"'Critically analyze' ... carries with it a whole campaign against
evolution." The board resisted, and the EOC finally voted to accept
the evolution standard without the "critical analysis" language, but
not until Fair attached a proviso to the state budget which required
the state to purchase textbooks which incorporate "higher order
thinking skills and critical thinking."

Fair spearheaded a number of previous antievolution efforts in South
Carolina, both in the Senate and on the EOC. The Greenville News (May
1, 2003) reported that Fair "said his intention is to show that
Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative that should be
taught in the public schools," and The State (June 17, 2005) described
him as "the dominant voice advocating for S.C. schools to teach more
than Charles Darwin's theories of evolution." Both of his most recent
antievolution bills, Senate Bill 873 and Senate Bill 875, died in
committee in June 2010.

For the stories in the Post and Courier and The State, visit:
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140210/PC1603/140219927/1005/state-committee-approves-new-science-standards-for-students 
http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/10/3257743/darwin-skepticism-halts-adoption.html 

And for NCSE's previous coverage in South Carolina, visit:
http://ncse.com/news/south-carolina 

UPDATE FROM MISSOURI

Missouri's House Bill 1472, which would require districts to allow
parents to have their children excused from learning about evolution,
is in the headlines, after the bill was referred to the House
Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education on February 3, 2014.

Interviewed by the Kansas City Star (February 6, 2014), the bill's
sponsor Rick Brattin (R-District 55) said that requiring students to
study evolution is "an absolute infringement on people's rights" and
that evolution is "just as much faith and, you know, just as much
pulled out of the air as, say, any religion."

David Evans, the executive director of the National Science Teachers
Association, explained, "Evolution by natural selection is the
unifying principle in the study of biology," and warned that Brattin's
bill would undermine American competiveness in science education.

Brattin also claimed to have received complaints about students
ridiculed in school for not accepting evolution, telling KCTV
(February 7, 2014) that  "[o]ur schools basically mandate that we
teach one side," adding, "It is an indoctrination because it is not
[an] objective approach."

Two high school students in Brattin's district interviewed by KCTV,
however, claimed not to be taught about evolution, and evidently were
unaware of or confused about it. The station also quoted a supporter
of Brattin's as reasoning, "Evolution is not taught in the Bible so it
shouldn't be taught in the class."

A separate antievolution bill in Missouri, House Bill 1587, which
would deprive administrators of the ability to prevent teachers from
miseducating students about "scientific controversies," was referred
to the House Commitee on Elementary and Secondary Education on
February 5, 2014.

For Missouri's House Bill 1472 as introduced, visit:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/biltxt/intro/HB1472I.htm 

For the stories from the Kansas City Star and KCTV, visit:
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/06/4803445/missouri-bill-would-let-parents.html 
http://www.kctv5.com/story/24664815/missouri-lawmaker-wants-to-make-evolution-teaching-optional 

For Missouri's House Bill 1578 as introduced, visit:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/biltxt/intro/HB1578I.htm 

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

REID AND BRANCH ON CONFRONTING CREATIONISM

With the recent debate between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Ken Ham
of Answers in Genesis attracting as many as three million viewers, it
is likely that interest in creationism/evolution debates will
skyrocket. Writing in The Scientist (February 7, 2014), NCSE's Ann
Reid and Glenn Branch warn that "formal oral debates between
scientists and creationists are by and large counterproductive -- at
least if the goal is to improve the public's understanding of
evolution and the nature of science, and to increase the level of
support for the teaching of evolution uncompromised by religious
dogma."

In Nye's case, Reid and Branch acknowledge that the debate was not
disastrous: "Debates are performances, and Nye is a splendid
performer." They conclude by applauding "scientists who are concerned
about the precarious state of evolution education in the United States
and want to confront creationism," but urge, "participating in formal
oral debates with creationists is far from the best -- and certainly
not the only -- way to do so. By all means, confront creationism, but
do so in ways that advance, rather than hinder, the goal of a
scientifically literate public that supports the teaching of
evolution."

The Nye/Ham debate on "is creation a viable model of origins in
today's modern scientific world?" took place on February 4, 2014.
Live-streamed to perhaps as many as three million viewers worldwide,
the event also received wide media coverage, including from Religion
News Service (January 30, 2014), CBS News (February 4, 2014), MSNBC
(February 4, 2014), the Associated Press (February 4, 2014), NBC News
(February 5, 2014), and Live Science (February 5, 2014), with comments
from NCSE's staff frequently featured. The debate is currently
viewable at Answers in Genesis's YouTube channel.

Before the debate, NCSE's Josh Rosenau expressed optimism about the
outcome -- and provided Ken Ham bingo cards for its viewers -- in a
post on NCSE's Science League of America blog (February 4, 2014). In a
subsequent post (February 5, 2014), Rosenau assigned the victory to
Nye, writing, "How did Nye manage to do so well? A lifetime of
experience and a passionate love of science surely played important
parts, but I like to think this group helped a lot, too," and
including a photograph of Nye at NCSE's office, where he spent a day
being prepared for the debate by NCSE's staff.

For Reid and Branch's column in The Scientist, visit:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39118/title/Opinion--Confronting-Creationism/ 

For the cited coverage of the Nye/Ham debate, visit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/ham-on-nye-debate-pits-atheists-creationists/2014/01/30/140d58ee-89ec-11e3-a760-a86415d0944d_story.html 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-nye-defends-evolution-in-kentucky-debate/ 
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bill-nye-creation-museum 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bill-nye-defends-evolution-in-kentucky-debate/2014/02/04/7faa3184-8dfd-11e3-99e7-de22c4311986_story.html 
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836 
http://www.livescience.com/43127-nye-creationism-debate-response.html 

For the debate at Answers in Genesis's YouTube channel, visit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI 

For Rosenau's pre-debate blog post, bingo cards (PDF), and post-debate
blog post, visit:
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/getting-ready-nye-ham-debate-0015367 
http://ncse.com/files/Ham%20Bingo.pdf 
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/how-bill-nye-won-debate-0015369 

WHAT'S NEW FROM THE SCIENCE LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Have you been visiting NCSE's blog, The Science League of America,
recently? If not, then you've missed:

* Ann Reid making her debut appearance on the blog by explaining why
NCSE matters:
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/why-ncse-matters-0015395 

* Josh Rosenau marking the fifteenth anniversary of the Wedge document:
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/crystal-anniversary-wedge-document-0015370 

* David Almandsmith making his debut appearance by worrying about
death from above:
http://ncse.com/blog/2014/02/deadly-neighborhood-pinball-machine-0015383 

And much more besides!

For The Science League of America, visit:
http://ncse.com/blog 

Thanks for reading. And don't forget to visit NCSE's website --
http://ncse.com -- where you can always find the latest news on 
evolution and climate education and threats to them.

--
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 

Check out NCSE's new blog, Science League of America:
http://ncse.com/blog 

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