Louisiana Coalition for Science

By Barbara Forrest

September 27, 2008

Scientist and writer John Timmer has reviewed the Discovery Institute’s stealth creationist textbook, Explore Evolution, in Ars Technica. Three of EE’s authors are well-known intelligent design (ID) creationists. Stephen C. Meyer is the director of the Discovery Institute’s ID creationist wing, the Center for Science and Culture (CSC). Two of his co-authors are his CSC associates Paul Nelson (a young-earth creationist) and Scott Minnich (a witness for the defense in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). The other two, Jonathan Moneymaker and Ralph Seelke, are lesser-known ID supporters.

In “A Biologist Reviews an Evolution Textbook from the ID Camp,” Timmer refers several times to the prospect that this book may be used in Louisiana science classrooms as a “supplement” of the kind intended by the “LA Science Education Act” (LSEA) [pdf], which was approved by the Louisiana legislature and signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal during the 2008 legislative session. Indeed, according to one Louisiana newspaper, Meyer’s colleague, CSC associate director John West, indicated that the Discovery Institute hopes to see EE adopted in Louisiana science classes as one of the supplements that the LSEA will permit teachers to use (Opelousas [LA] Daily World, 6/16/08). Contrary to its misleading title, Explore Evolution is a sustained, error-ridden attack on evolutionary theory. It also contains a section on Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity.” Both aspects of EE make it very much an intelligent design creationist textbook.

Timmer’s review comprises four web pages. Page 1, “The Politics of Exploration,” contains a reference to Louisiana:

In June, Louisiana became the first state to enact a law specifically enabling the use of supplemental materials for the critical evaluation of evolution; similar legislation has been introduced in several other states. EE appears to have been intelligently designed to be the sort of supplemental text that’s appropriate under the Louisiana legislation, and so it’s likely to be making an appearance in classrooms there. . . .

On page 2, “Shaking and Breaking the Tree of Life,” Timmer points out the scientific errors and underhanded tactics that permeate EE. With respect to the latter, he highlights the old creationist trick of finding “someone with a Ph.D. who’s willing to say anything.” He is referring to the EE authors’ citation of the work of Christian Schwabe, whose kooky views are far outside the scientific maintream:

Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn’t simply evidence-free (although it is); it’s borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery’s authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. . . .

On page 3, “Spurious Arguments and Logical Flaws,” Timmer exposes a tactic that mirrors Discovery Institute creationists’ dishonest attempts to win unearned legitimacy by getting themselves onto high-profile, public platforms with legitimate, mainstream scientists and scholars. In EE, the authors have placed a reference to Schwabe’s work in the same footnote with a reference to the work of Carl Woese. Woese is a “serious and significant scientist who has made contributions to our understanding of the history of life on earth,” which, Timmer points out, Schwabe is most certainly not. However, says Timmer, “By lumping them together in a single footnote, the authors attempt to illegitimately transfer some of Woese’s credibility to the evidence-free inanity that Schwabe publishes.” This kind of tactic is standard operating procedure for ID creationists at the Discovery Institute.

On page 4, “Not Fit for the Classroom,” Timmer points out that “The text of EE assiduously avoids any mention of intelligent design or creationism, but anyone familiar with the literature of these movements will recognize that their ideas pervade EE.” The scrubbing of the overt use of the term “intelligent design” in EE is clear evidence of the Discovery Institute’s recognition that using overtly creationist language — even their own brand name, “intelligent design” — is a legal liability. Their effort to sanitize their terminology began even before the Kitzmiller trial.

The Discovery Institute’s sanitizing of their terminology in EE repeats the tactic ID proponents used in an earlier creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, the first high school textbook that the ID movement produced. Pandas was written while Louisiana’s first creationism law, the 1981 “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,”  was being litigated. When the U. S. Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional in 1987,  the creationist terminology was hastily scrubbed from Pandas and replaced with the terminology of “intelligent design” prior to its initial publication in 1989. Continuing the creationist strategy of shifting their terminology in the wake of defeats in federal court, EE is the sanitized product of ID creationism’s resounding defeat in the Kitzmiller trial, a fact that Timmer clearly recognizes:

If it never mentions creationism or intelligent design, the decision to avoid doing so appears to be strategic, rather than intellectual. Presumably, it’s done for the same reason that many of the Discovery Fellows have chosen to downplay their personal beliefs about the identity of the designer: it would only get them in trouble when they try to get the book into the school system.

Timmer closes his review with a parting reference to Louisiana. Recalling the statement by Kevin Padian, a scientist and expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller trial, that intelligent design “makes people stupid . . . essentially makes them ignorant,” Timmer concludes on a note that should resonate strongly with all Louisiana citizens who value our public schools and want our children to be decently educated:

Sadly, thanks to the actions of the Louisiana state government, that state’s students are much more likely to be exposed to this sort of stupidity.

But the book doesn’t only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book, but its authors are expecting that legislators and the courts will be too stupid to notice that, or to remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion. As laws similar to Louisiana’s resurface in other states next year, we can only hope that legislators choose not to live down to the low expectations of EE’s authors.

Down here in Louisiana, we can only say “AMEN TO THAT.”

Anyone with knowledge that Explore Evolution or any other creationist material is being used in Louisiana public school science classes should contact the National Center for Science Education or the LA Coalition for Science.

Tags: Explore Evolution, LA Science Education Act