By Barbara Forrest

Well, the Discovery Institute is apparently going to be nicely repaid for its investment in the Pelican State. DI’s promotion of its academic freedom legislation in Louisiana is bearing fruit. At its July 22, 2010, meeting, the Livingston Parish School Board announced its interest in teaching creationism under the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act. Actually, they did more than announce their interest. They proclaimed it. There are more Discovery Institute connections to this development than you can shake a stick at. But let’s let the headlines make the announcement, shall we? Here is how the announcement appeared on the Livingston Parish News‘s website on July 24:

Here is the headline in the print edition (click the image for a larger view):

Let’s Connect the Dots

If there was any doubt that people in Louisiana understand exactly why the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) was enacted into law in 2008, those doubts have now been dispelled. Our citizens have clearly connected the dots that link the LSEA and creationism. Note that the Livingston Parish News headline says “CREATION SCIENCE.” The opening blurb (visible in the larger image above) also says, “School board members want their curriculum designers to take advantage of a recent state law allowing science classes to add the controversial ‘pro-Christian’ interpretation of nature.” (A similar article in the July 24 Baton Rouge Advocate bears the headline, “School Board might OK teaching creationism.”) [all emphasis added]

Livingston Parish Director of Curriculum Jan Benton, in explaining to the school board on July 22 why the curriculum has not been changed in the wake of the LSEA, also explicitly made the connection. She told the board that “In the 2008 legislative session, the Science Education Act was adopted. It deals with creationism and the teaching of it in the schools. We had decided at that time to not teach it in our system.” [emphasis added]

School board member David Tate, who appears to be the ringleader in this outbreak, has also made the connection. Here is what Tate said at the board meeting:

Every one of us (board members) sitting up here believes in creationism. We just sit up here and let them teach evolution and not take a stand about creationism. To me, how come we don’t look into this as people who are strong Christians and see what we can do to teach creationism in schools?

It makes sense that Tate spoke up so prominently. He has been pushing to get creationism into the curriculum since 2004, as the Baton Rouge Advocate reported. In an excerpt from that story, note that there is a familiar name.

School Board member wants creationism taught October 22, 2004, Friday Metro Edition BYLINE: DEBRA LEMOINE LIVINGSTON – School Board member David Tate called Thursday for adding creationism to the science curriculum in Livingston Parish schools. . . . Tate said he wants creationism, which refers to a life-origin story in the biblical Book of Genesis, added to the evolution science lessons that are already part of the standard science curriculum. Representatives from the Family Forum have met with the parish school system’s curriculum director and secondary education director to recommend a format for supplemental materials to science lessons on creationism, said Randy Pope, assistant superintendent. [emphasis added]

Say what?! A proposal in 2004 from the Louisiana Family Forum to use **creationist** supplemental materials in Livingston Parish?! Rev. Gene Mills, the executive director of the LFF, must have momentarily forgotten that in 2008 when he denied in the the Hammond Daily Star that the LSEA — which at that point was entitled the “Louisiana Academic Freedom Act” — was about creationism :

Neither the Academic Freedom Act nor its companion, the 2006 Ouachita Parish School Board’s Science Curriculum Policy Resolution, would protect the teaching of creationism. . . . This bill is not about teaching creationism or religion. [See below for information about the Ouachita policy.]

Darrell White, a retired Baton Rouge City Court judge who helped found the LFF but now works for the group as a “consultant,” was the LFF representative who was working the school board in 2004. The LFF was apparently trying to get a head start on 2008, although, for some reason, the LP school board didn’t follow through that year. White (who travels around giving Bibles to judges) is also the direct liaison between the LFF and the Discovery Institute. Let’s digress momentarily to look at the evidence for that connection.

Darrell White, the Louisiana Family Forum, and the Discovery Institute

In 2003, when the Discovery Institute inserted itself into the Texas biology textbook selection process, White traveled to Texas to attend the Board of Education hearings in Austin and wrote a letter [pdf] to the board supporting DI’s attempt to manipulate that process. (White and the LFF are gearing up for a Texas-style attack on science textbooks in Louisiana, a topic that will require a separate post. But we can make book on the Discovery Institute’s involvement in this as well.)

In November 2006, when White engineered the passage of Ouachita Parish’s “academic freedom” policy — the pre-LSEA camel’s nose under the tent in Louisiana — his accomplishment was applauded by the Discovery Institute, which reprinted and linked to the policy on its website. (Download the policy from the Ouachita Parish School Board website here [pdf].) The Ouachita policy was also announced at Access Research Network (ARN), an intelligent design clearinghouse that is run by ID supporters in Colorado Springs and functions as a de facto arm of the Discovery Institute. The announcement, posted by ARN operative Tom Magnuson, has a most revealing URL: www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2006/12/06/intelligent_design_can_be_taught_in_loui.

The Discovery Institute positively gushed over White’s Ouachita Parish accomplishment in a December 6, 2006, post by DI staffer Anika Smith: “The Ouachita Citizen Provides Objective News in Louisiana.” (The gushing was induced not only by White’s accomplishment but by the fact that the Ouachita Citizen reported the Ouachita development so approvingly, highlighting White’s involvement, with no dissenting interviewees.) DI was so happy about the Ouachita Parish academic freedom policy that they cited it in their downloadable intelligent design “briefing packet” for teachers: “The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators” [pdf here; see pp. 8 and 14].

During the 2008 legislative session, White’s May 16, 2008, column, “Why We Should Support Academic Freedom Bills for the Science Classroom,” was posted on the ARN blog, The ID Report. A few days later, DI reprinted on their website his May 20 letter to the Baton Rouge Advocate, “Debate, Evidence, and Evolution.” On May 21, the Discovery Institute rewarded White and the LFF for doing all the legwork in the Louisiana “academic freedom” initiative by sending DI staffer Casey Luskin and Caroline Crocker, a Virginia creationist who was featured in the ID propaganda movie Expelled, to Baton Rouge to attend the House Education Committee hearing concerning the LSEA. As a de facto representative of the Discovery Institute, Crocker testified in favor of the bill. Subsequent to Crocker’s testimony, DI fellow David DeWolf revealed in a DI podcast interview that he had helped craft the Louisiana bill. (Listen to DI’s podcasts about Louisiana, including those with Crocker and DeWolf, here [May 2008] and here [June 2008].)

The partnership between DI and LFF produced the ultimate pay-off on June 25, 2008, when Bobby Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. On June 27, 2008, at 7:18 a.m., the morning the news hit the local newspapers, the Discovery Institute declared victory — literally.

Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum — A Match Made in Heaven (or Two Peas in the Same Pod — Pick Your Metaphor)

In June 2009, while the Louisiana Department of Education (DOE) was doing its job of drafting a policy according to which the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) would handle complaints about supplementary materials in science classes (see here for background), the Discovery Institute interfered in Louisiana policy-making a second time. Casey Luskin contacted Nancy Beben, the Director of Curriculum Standards in the Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Division at the Louisiana Department of Education. When Beben wouldn’t kowtow to him, Luskin criticized her publicly on DI’s Evolution News & Views weblog:

Knowing the DOE’s history of picking ‘experts’ who were evolutionists that opposed the LSEA, this past June I spoke with DOE staff member Nancy Beben, who helped draft the DOE’s proposed rules. I raised these concerns with Ms. Beben that the DOE’s proposed additions to the rules lacked express provisions giving due process to certain parties, like the publisher or the local school district, to defend the materials being challenged, and allowed the DOE to have arbitrary power to scuttle the decisions of the reviewers. Beben’s response to me told me everything I needed to know:

She snapped that ‘there are no parties in science,’ just ‘facts.’

The implications of that comment are profound: Ms. Beben and the DOE apparently view science simplistically (and inaccurately) as a monolithic enterprise without credible dissenting minority viewpoints. This means their view is directly inimical to the premise underlying the LSEA, which is that there can be credible minority scientific viewpoints worth disclosing to students when instructing them about controversial scientific topics.

Apparently Ms. Beben and the DOE not only don’t understand how science works, but their view is directly inimical to the intent of the LSEA. To put it bluntly, the DOE was trying to bureaucratically muzzle the intent of the Louisiana legislature and skirt state law by proposing rules that would effectively gut the LSEA.

In his last statement, Luskin employs the classic creationist tactic of projection — accuse your opponent of precisely what you are doing so that you can divert attention away from the fact that you are doing it. It was the Louisiana Family Forum, working with the Discovery Institute, that gutted (1) the BESE policies governing implementation of the LSEA (January 2009) and (2) the filing of complaints about supplementary materials (September 2009). BESE undermined the DOE — and the school children of Louisiana — by giving the Discovery Institute and the LFF exactly what they wanted: a complaint procedure that the creationists — i.e, the Discovery Institute and the LFF — can effectively control.

In September 2009, when BESE caved and allowed the LFF to shape the complaint procedure, one of the people who showed up with the LFF to lobby BESE at the September 16 meeting had already helped the Discovery Institute in its effort — ultimately successful — to get creationist code language inserted into the Texas state science standards on March 25, 2009. Donald Ewert, a creationist from Oklahoma, had testified to the Texas Board of Education that “The theory of evolution contributes very little to an understanding of basic science and scientific research.” At BESE’s September 16, 2009, Student/School Performance and Support Committee meeting, he rendered a similar service. Ewert is a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s list of scientists [pdf] “who dissent from Darwinism.”

There has been quite a bit of reciprocal back-scratching by scientists who are also creationists. Wade Warren, a biologist at Louisiana College who testified on LFF’s behalf in favor of the LSEA in 2008, also testified on DI’s behalf at the same Texas hearing that Ewert attended. Casey Luskin gave both Warren and Ewert due credit on DI’s Evolution News & Views blog. John West, associate director of DI’s creationist Center for Science and Culture, extended DI’s gratitude to Ewert and Warren in no less notable a venue than the Washington Post.

There is one more dot to connect in this clearly emerging picture of just how tight the Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum are. DI has reprinted on its website a June 26, 2010, guest column that Rev. Mills wrote for the Shreveport Times. Mills was trying to rebut a previous column by Louisiana attorney Charles Kincade in which Kincade criticized the LSEA. Mills leaped to the law’s defense:

Anyone who repeats Kincade’s tired old line that the LSEA will ‘permit the teaching of religious creationism‘ needs to be administered either a literacy test or a lie detector test: the statute expressly prohibits, at Louisiana Family Forum’s (LFF) insistence, ‘discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.’ [emphasis added] [See also my rebuttal of Mills in the ST here.]

It’s safe to say that there is an ongoing relationship here. In fact, the evidence is undeniable that there is a direct relationship between the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is one of the only two organizations that promoted the LSEA, the other being the LFF. DI therefore shares with the LFF the direct responsibility both for this law’s passage and for whatever creationist initiatives result from it, whether in Livingston Parish or anywhere else in Louisiana.

Now Back to Livingston Parish

So back in Livingston Parish, David Tate is again proposing that parish schools teach creationism, this time under the supposed protection of the LSEA. Let’s see what Tate had to say in 2008 about the Louisiana Science Education Act when he attended the April 17 Senate Education Committee hearing. He knew what everyone else knew, namely, that the bill which was initially introduced as the “Louisiana Academic Freedom Act” — in honor of its relationship to the Discovery Institute’s “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution” — and which was enacted as the “Louisiana Science Education Act” was intended to permit the teaching of creationism. He was quoted by the New Orleans Times-Picayune (April 18, 2008):

David Tate, a Livingston Parish School Board member, said after the meeting, ‘I believe that both sides — the creationism side and the evolution side — should be presented and let students decide what they believe.’ Tate said the bill is needed because ‘teachers are scared to talk about’ creation, even when students bring it up. [emphasis added]

So there we have it. Tate gave plenty of notice that he would try to put this law to its intended use.

Meanwhile, Back at the Discovery Institute . . .

The boys at the Discovery Institute have been totally quiet about this development. They are surely hoping that no one will notice the elephant in the living room. DI will try to deny that what the Livingston Parish School Board discussed at the July 22 meeting reflects the intention of the law that they promoted. But promote it they did, eagerly and energetically, so they’re probably having kittens up there in Seattle. They’re probably already writing up a sanitized, code-term-saturated policy for the Livingston Parish School Board, which they hope will be more cooperative than the Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board turned out to be when DI tried to persuade that board to clean up its language.

One can just imagine the furious e-mail activity that must be taking place between Casey Luskin and Darrell White:

Casey Luskin: Hey, Darrell, you guys aren’t sticking to the script. We’ve been over this a hundred times. Didn’t you practice this with the school board ahead of time? You aren’t supposed to mention ‘intelligent design’ and you darn sure aren’t supposed to use the word ‘creationism’! OK, one more time — here’s how it goes: first, the Discovery Institute teaches the Louisiana Family Forum the code terms, and second, the Louisiana Family Forum teaches them to the school board. What’s hard about that, Darrell?

So for Pete’s sake, clean up your language down there! We spent all that time and energy helping you people out, and now you’re screwing everything up! Get with the program. We told you how you were supposed to do this. Instead of using the word ‘creationism,’ your people on the Livingston Parish School Board — or Ouachita Parish, or wherever — are supposed to say that they simply want the public schools to help students engage in “critical analysis” or “critical thinking” about evolution. Or maybe they can say that the school board just wants to add the “evidence for and against evolution” or the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” But none of this creationism talk, for heaven’s sake! They’re tipping everyone off! We already got our butts kicked once up in Pennsylvania!

Darrell White: Now, now, calm down, son. Everyone down here knows what’s really going on, and most people are totally cool with it. Creationism, intelligent design, critical analysis, strengths and weaknesses. What’s the difference? You and our other Discovery Institute friends already did your job by providing the template for the Louisiana Science Education Act — your “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution” — and then lending us David DeWolf to help us tweak and sanitize our version of it so we could sucker the legislature. And on top of that, y’all were nice enough to send Caroline Crocker — a real creationist who’s practically a movie star! — down here to testify for the bill. And then on top of all that, y’all helped us steamroll the DOE and BESE. We’re mighty obliged, son. But you can let the grownups take it from here. We may talk slow down here, but we know what we’re doing. It’s gonna work out fine.

Casey: OMG — But let’s get that code language into whatever **written** policy the school board comes up with, OK? And get the word out to your school board friends in other parishes. Can you at least handle that? Don’t make me have to come down there again. OMG.

NEWS FLASH for the Discovery Institute: Your old creationist terminology trick has been amply exposed and explained. This won’t work any more. It won’t fool anyone.

Here is the simple truth: The Discovery Institute is heavily invested in Louisiana — up to their eyeballs. Whether the Livingston Parish School Board or some other Louisiana school board implements the LSEA — in the way that we all know is intended — won’t matter. This Livingston Parish development — and any other initiative anywhere in Louisiana — will be the Discovery Institute’s baby (or, rather, its tarbaby). As we say way down south, “You cain’t disown this youngun. It’s the spittin’ image of its daddy!” The Livingston Parish CREATIONISM initiative — in whatever form it takes — will be the Discovery Institute’s offspring. Discovery Institute owns this.

By Barbara Forrest

The title of this post may sound strange. But read on, and you will see that there is more backbone in a minority of the members of the Florida legislature than in the entire Louisiana legislature. Just as it was doing in Louisiana, the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank in Seattle, was maneuvering in Florida to get its academic freedom (read: “stealth creationism”) legislation passed in the state of Florida in 2008. But the outcome in Florida was very different than the outcome in Louisiana. On February 29, 2008, a Discovery Institute “academic freedom” bill was introduced in the Florida Senate by Sen. Ronda Storms. That bill, SB 2962, passed. On March 4, a companion bill, HB 1483, was introduced in the House by Rep. Alan Hays. It also passed. In April, as the National Center for Science Education reported, “The antievolution bills — the so-called Academic Freedom Acts — in Florida are progressing, despite protests from teachers, scientists, and the Florida ACLU, and despite the criticisms of the legislature’s own staff.” By April 28, however, there was some doubt as to whether creationists in the Florida legislature could reconcile their own differences in time to get the bill passed before the legislature adjourned on May 2. They did not, and the legislation died. In 2009, creationists in the Florida legislature made another attempt at getting academic freedom legislation passed, but SB 2396 fortunately did not even get to the floor, and the bill died in committee. (See the excellent Florida Citizens for Science website.)

Florida seems to have learned its lesson (for the time being). The notable thing about Florida, however, was the vocal resistance to these creationist bills by Florida legislators on the debate floor of the House and Senate in 2008. (See videos below.) There was no such resistance on the floor of the Louisiana House and Senate when the Louisiana Science Education Act (LEA) was making its way through the legislature at exactly the same time as the Florida bills. In fact, where the Louisiana legislature is concerned, except for three “no” votes (pdf) in the House (which the three legislators cast without comment), there was no resistance at all.

The Florida Senate

Sen. Storms spearheaded the effort in the Florida Senate. In the video below, you will see her and a colleague, Sen. Don Gaetz, arguing for passage of the bill on the Senate floor, regurgitating the Discovery Institute’s code-language talking points. Notice that they were defending “critical analysis” in science classes. Sound familiar? Sen. Stephen Wise, another creationist representative (who sponsored the unsuccessful 2009 bill), tells his colleagues that “I just urge ya” to support the bill so that students and teachers could discuss “both sides” of the issue. Sound familiar? But you will also see Sen. Arthenia Joyner pointing out that the bill would permit introducing creationism into science classes. You will see Sen. Frederica Wilson pointing out that the bill promoted religion. Sen. Steven Geller also points out that the bill was intended to permit the teaching of intelligent design while deliberately avoiding the term “intelligent design.” Watch for yourself (2:44).

The Florida House of Representatives

Debate in the Florida House of Representatives was much the same. Discovery Institute shills repeated DI’s talking points. However, several legislators cut right through them, as you will see in the video below. You will see (at :37) Rep. Geraldine Thompson catch Rep. Hays in a lie about his bill (either he was lying or had not read his own bill). When she questioned Rep. Hays about a section of the bill that allowed students to skirt “normal testing procedures” by escaping penalties in their schoolwork for “subscribing to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution” — in other words, allowing students to write on their exams “what they believe rather than what they have been taught by their instructors” — Hays denied that this was in the amended bill. However, some minutes later, Rep. Thompson read from the engrossed bill that contained all the amendments, and, sure enough, that exemption was included. Hays, a retired dentist (shades of Texas?), should have known better than to lie to a retired college administrator and teacher whose hobby is historical research.

Later, when challenged again by another House colleague, Hays defended the bill as enabling students to engage in — here it comes! — “critical analysis” on this “lightning-rod issue.” Hays tried to fend off additional challenges from other House members. Finally, in a fit of exasperation, he fulminated on the House floor:

It’s very difficult for me to speak any more plainly than I’ve already spoken. But what this bill does is tells the teacher to go ahead and teach the theory of evolution and make sure that your students have a complete view of that theory, and [that] they know that it is only a theory. It is not gospel law. It . . . it . . . there’s no proof that any species has transitioned from one thing to another. No people have ever come from tadpoles. . . .

Hays got the rejoinder he deserved from Rep. Keith Fitzgerald (a college professor):

The sponsor of this bill told us the other day that there’s no evidence of evolution turning a fly into a monkey. But this bill shows definitively that bad bills can turn legislators into monkeys. . . .

Rep. Audrey Gibson (whose hobbies, quite appropriately, include weight training) then threw a punch of her own:

The difficulty that I have with this bill is that the sponsor seems not even to know what the definition of ‘critical analysis’ is. Well, if you can’t define a thing, then how in the world can you legislate it?

BINGO!

Hays faced similar challenges from other colleagues, Rep. Elaine Schwartz and Rep. Mary Brandenburg, who recognized full well what this law would do to Florida science education. Watch and enjoy (9:24).

Lagniappe

As lagniappe (a Louisiana word for “a little extra”), below is another video (3:22) in which Rep. Hays lies again, this time about Expelled, a Discovery Institute pro-intelligent design propaganda film that Hays, speaking from the House floor, urged his colleagues to see. Its release in Florida was timed to coincide with the legislative session — as it had been in Louisiana, but with little public awareness of it here. (Aside: Rotten Tomatoes says, “Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.” The Internet Movie Database gave it a 3.7/10 rating. MSNBC called it “far worse than stupid.” For a real treat, read movie critic Roger Ebert’s review: “This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.”) Hays was confronted about the film by Rep. Fitzgerald: “This movie you’re talking about — is this not about being able to teach intelligent design in the schools, which you just said, in response to Rep. Gelber, is not what you’re trying to do with this bill?” Here is Hays’ reply:

No, it’s not about teaching intelligent design. It’s a documentary.

 

The same word that Judge John E. Jones III used to describe some of the defense testimony in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005) applies here: Rep. Hays’ reply was an exercise in mendacity. Only a few weeks earlier, Hays had sponsored a news conference (seen in the video above) featuring Ben Stein, the star and narrator of Expelled. Standing right behind Stein in front of the news cameras was Casey Luskin, the Discovery Institute staffer who promotes intelligent design for a living (see Casey’s press conference talking points). (See Little Green Footballs’ post about Casey. See Steve Doocy interviewing Casey on Fox News.) A few weeks later, Casey traveled all the way down to Louisiana to attend the May 21, 2008, House Education Committee hearing on the Louisiana Science Education Act — which our legislators were all too eager to pass. The Florida creationist legislators won the floor votes in the House and Senate, but they apparently couldn’t conquer their own internal disagreements in time to get the bill passed. Moreover, as seen above, they encountered loud, public, determined resistance from other legislators. At one point during, Rep. Hays questioned his fellow legislators:

“My question to you today is, what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that our students are going to learn how to critically analyze a theory? That’s what you seem to be saying. . . .

What Hays was hearing from his House colleagues who spoke out was definitely not fear. It was the sound of legislative backbones straightening up and standing up. We haven’t heard such sounds in Louisiana for . . .  gee, memory fails us here. We know what Louisiana legislators — even the half-way principled ones — were afraid of when the LSEA was coursing through the corridors of the Louisiana State Capitol:  Bobby Jindal. In the 2008 legislative session, when Jindal was newly inaugurated and still on his gubernatorial honeymoon, everyone was afraid to cross him. As it turned out, they apparently had reason to be — see Jeremy Alford, “Bobby Jindal — the Good-bye Guv.”

But with respect to Florida legislators who recognized the “academic freedom” legislation for what it truly was and spoke out against it, the thought of what they might be risking politically certainly did not intimidate them. In light of these Florida legislators’ willingness to publicly defend the teaching of science, we in Louisiana just have to ask:

Couldn’t even one Louisiana legislator have stood up publicly on the debate floor the way these Floridians did? Just one?

As the whole world knows, we’re not having fun in Louisiana right now. The terrible, ongoing tragedy in the beautiful Gulf of Mexico threatens to wipe out a culture and way of life that have existed here for 300 years. (To help families who face the loss of everything they have worked for all their lives, please go to the Southern Mutual Help Association.) Louisiana has suffered more than its share of catastrophes in the last five years. That’s why, in the face of what is happening in the gulf — with all that this disaster portends for the future of the state — the news that South Carolina’s “academic freedom” bill has died in committee simply highlights once again the utter irresponsibility of Louisiana state officials who made our state number one in promoting creationism.

The National Center for Science Education reports that two anti-evolution bills in South Carolina, S 873 and S 875, introduced by SC Senator Mike Fair in 2009, have died in committee. Senate Bill 873 would have required the South Carolina State Board of Education to “examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind” in order to  “determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism.” If this bill had passed, South Carolina would have faced a wholesale, Texas-style assault on not only its science curriculum but, most likely, on its social studies curriculum as well.

Senate Bill 875, however, was a mostly verbatim repeat of Louisiana’s SB 561, the “Louisiana Academic Freedom Act,” which was renumbered to SB 733 and passed in revised form as the “Louisiana Science Education Act.” The South Carolina  bill was the only one that remained among the variants of the Discovery Institute’s model “academic freedom” statute that were introduced around the country in 2009 and 2010.

The not-coincidental similarities between SB 561 and S 875 are striking. The table below lays them out, with the similarities in colored highlights:

The commonalities in these two pieces of creationist legislation are clear. But there is one glaring difference between them. In South Carolina, the legislature let Mike Fair’s bill die a well-deserved death in committee. In Louisiana, after doctoring SB 733 up with more code language and sanitizing its title, legislators fell all over themselves to pass it. The governor signed it — much to the delight of the creationist Discovery Institute, which immediately declared victory. And the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education allowed creationists to dictate the current policy that implements it.

— Rev. Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum

Hammond Daily Star, 4/11/08

Update 6/1/10: The photo above is linked to Focus on the Family’s YouTube interview of Rev. Mills. In this interview, he explains that God is working through him in the Louisiana Family Forum’s public policy initiatives:

FOF Interviewer: What keeps you motivated? . . . What keeps you in the fight? What gives you energy?

Rev. Mills: You know, I find my inspiration in scripture, where it says that God’s purposes are found in me, and I best accomplish it when I’m expressing that witness or providing that testimony to those who need to know. And this is one way in which I can fulfill that basic life purpose — is expressing truth in the arenas where it doesn’t often go, including the public policy arena.

By Barbara Forrest

Ever since the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) was introduced and subsequently enacted into law in 2008, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), which “drafted and promoted” the bill, has sworn to high heaven (so to speak), that this legislation had not a thing to do with religion. The above statement by Rev. Gene Mills in his letter to the Hammond Daily Star is the most prominent and direct denial. (Mills wrote the letter in an effort to do some quick damage control after Sen. Ben Nevers told the newspaper that he introduced the bill because the LFF thought that “scientific data related to creationism should be discussed [in public schools] when dealing with Darwin’s theory.”) A year after penning this denial, Mills told Gambit Weekly pretty much the same thing. According to GW,

The bill’s original creator, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a self-described ‘voice for traditional families in Louisiana,’ insists the new law is religiously neutral. According to the Rev. Gene Mills, the group’s director, ‘As written, it’s bulletproof.’ [bold added]

But as an analysis [pdf] of the LSEA shows, and as Mills himself later confirmed in a way that leaves no doubt, the Louisiana Science Education Act is all about religion.

In December 2008-January 2009, Mills was busily attempting — successfully, as it turned out — to gut the policy that had been proposed for Bulletin 741, the Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, which would govern the implementation of the LSEA in public schools. As drafted by the Louisiana Dept. of Education [pdf], the policy would have specifically prohibited teachers from (1) promoting religion under the guise of teaching “critical thinking” and (2) supplementing the curriculum with “materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” These were precisely the parts of the policy to which Mills objected, as he told the Lafayette Daily Advertiser in January 2009:

Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative Christian group that supported the law, said . . . that he was unhappy with some of the policy language prepared for discussion at a December [2008] meeting of the BESE committee. . . . Mills declined to discuss his specific objections. ‘I would just summarize it this way,’ he said. ‘I would think that it left religious neutrality and took a tone of religious hostility. Or at least it could be interpreted by some to have done that.’ [bold added]

Mills wanted the two above prohibitions removed from the policy, and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) unanimously gave him what he wanted. But consider his reason: he interpreted a justifiable attempt to prevent religious beliefs from being taught to children as science in public schools as hostility to religion. Why would he have taken this position if the LSEA were not an attempt to promote religion? The answer is, of course, that he would have no reason to object unless the LSEA were precisely an attempt to promote religion.

An even more important — and directly relevant — question is why a minister who homeschools his younger children and sends his older ones to a private Christian high school is so concerned about what is going on in public schools. (Mills publicized his children’s educational arrangements in his December 2008 “Christmas Letter” to his supporters.) He is so concerned, in fact, that he successfully commandeered the policy governing what other people’s children are being taught about science in public schools. The answer to this latter question is clear: Rev. Gene Mills, who does not allow public schools to educate his own children, nonetheless wants to use public education — and the public policymaking process — to carry out LFF’s mission:

Our Mission is to persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence.

The Religious Right has long seen public schools as an important center of influence for indoctrinating young minds. (Texas is a perfect example. See here and here.) Anyone who doubts that religion is Mills’ explicit motivation need only consult the list [pdf] of 2010 bills that LFF asked its supporters to follow in the legislature. Bills in which the LFF has an interest are grouped into categories. The final category, under which four bills are listed, is entitled “Biblical Worldview” [pdf].

The wording of the LSEA itself reflects the LFF’s and its co-author, the Discovery Institute’s, preoccupation with religion. The legislation stipulates that the LSEA “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.” (This wording comes straight from the Discovery Institute’s “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution.”) The façade of religious neutrality in the disclaimer is just that — a façade. If religious neutrality were truly the goal, there need be no mention of religion in the legislation at all. Legislation intended only to enhance the teaching of science requires no religious disclaimer. Including it in the LSEA is merely the LFF’s and the Discovery Institute’s transparent attempt at pre-emptive legal self-defense. People who are not trying to sneak religion into public institutions can simply remain silent on the subject. But the creationists at the LFF and the Discovery Institute hath protested a bit too much for their disavowals of religious intent to be credible.

This is nothing new, however. Creationists always talk too much, and Rev. Mills is no exception. He, like all Religious Right leaders, has no choice. He must constantly reassure LFF’s supporters (aka financial donors and foot soldiers who help them lobby legislators) that LFF is toiling in the halls of the Capitol doing the Lord’s work. So in his December 22, 2009, Christmas e-newsletter, an excerpt of which is below (with color highlighting added here for emphasis), Rev. Mills provided a list of the LFF’s accomplishments, which included the successful commandeering of the BESE policy governing implementation of the LSEA. And he made it very clear that the real credit for this accomplishment goes to . . .  Jesus Christ.

‘Now to him who is able to do exceedingly and abundantly beyond all that we can hope or imagine, according to the power which works in us.’ — Ephesians 2:20

‘Now to Him‘ –Isn’t that the authentically real reason for this season? Jesus’ birth—the Advent— and even the vision placed in the hearts of the founders of Louisiana Family Forum was inspired by ‘Him!’ We celebrate ‘Him‘ individually and organizationally!

‘Who is able’—Because of Him, LFF’s accomplishments are many in 2009:

• Crafted the only congressional redistricting plan under consideration,
• Fought for and won the largest tax rollback for families in Louisiana history,
• Fought for and won the health professional’s Rights of Conscience Protections, and
• Advanced classroom-ready Louisiana Science Education Rules through the perilous State Board of Education process!
  

Rev. Mills has exaggerated just a bit here. There was nothing “perilous” in the LFF’s advancing those “classroom-ready” rules for implementing the LSEA. Courtesy of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, taking control of BESE’s LSEA policy was a freaking cakewalk, as the Baton Rouge Advocate clearly recognized:

The list of the weak-kneed on this issue gets longer and longer every time it is discussed. Not only the BESE members but state Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek acquiesced in the lobbying from creationism backers such as the Louisiana Family Forum. The latter is a particularly influential backer of Jindal. Three members of the 11-member BESE are Jindal appointees.

BESE joins the ranks of the wimps who have rolled over on the issue of creationism.

In the Christmas newsletter, Mills also informed readers that LFF had learned from a survey of its supporters what “God’s Spirit moved” them to ask the LFF to include on its “to do” list for 2010. God had moved LFF’s supporters to request that it “double LFF’s pastors network,” “recruit and train citizen activists,” and “grow [LFF's] legislative team.” He signed off by reminding readers of an important, looming deadline:

P.P.S. Year end gifts will be graciously received until midnight December 31st.

So there you have it, fellow citizens. Jesus is the reason for the season — and for BESE’s unanimous decision to give control of science education policy to Rev. Gene Mills.

To increase high school students’ exposure to evolutionary theory prior to their enrolling in a college biology course, a high school biology teacher in Louisiana could request to show his/her students Judgment Day. The program appears to meet the ‘supplemental instructional materials’ criterion of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). Certainly we would argue that viewing Judgment Day ‘promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories’ . . . by its thoughtful coverage of the information presented by witness[es] for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Although the LSEA has all the appearances of a stealth creationism document . . . , it does not prohibit a high school biology teacher from requesting to supplement the standard textbook with high-quality scientific material such as Judgment Day.

The above passage is an excerpt from an article by Dr. Beth Leuck, Professor of Biology, and Dr. Greg Butcher, Assistant Professor of Neuroscience, colleagues at Centenary College of Louisiana, in the November/December 2009 Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Entitled “The Effect of Viewing NOVA’s Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial Docudrama on College Students’ Perceptions of ‘Intelligent Design’ and Evolution,” their article describes the results of Leuck and Butcher’s survey of Centenary biology students’ attitudes toward evolution and intelligent design (ID) creationism both before and after viewing this PBS NOVA documentary (video below) about the legal case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District 2005 (see below).

After viewing the original broadcast ourselves, we decided that Judgment Day offered an educational and entertaining account of the theory of evolution and of a contemporary ‘evolution war’ to which college biology students should be exposed. Therefore, we decided to show the program to students in Centenary College of Louisiana’s Biology 101 class (Principles and Methods of Biology) to supplement the section on evolution that students had just completed.

The article is online here (html). It is downloadable in pdf here (with the kind permission of Dr. Leuck and Dr. Butcher).

The results that Leuck and Butcher observed in student attitudes after showing Judgment Day were remarkable. Before viewing the documentary, slightly more than 40% of the students disagreed with the statement, “Intelligent design is a scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.” After viewing the program, 60% of them disagreed. Whereas slightly over 20% weren’t sure before the program, only about 4% were uncertain after viewing it.

Leuck & Butcher Figure 1

The results showed that when students are offered truthful, understandable information, they are able to see the difference clearly between evolution, which is a robust scientific explanation of the history of life on Earth, and intelligent design, which is nothing more than a retread of traditional creationism that lacks scientific support. As Leuck and Butcher observed, “In the end, 70% of the students who watched Judgment Day believed that there are no scientifically valid data supporting ‘intelligent design’.”

Judgment Day, the Peabody Award-winning NOVA documentary about the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District 2005, “the Dover trial,” was first broadcast on November 13, 2007. Kitzmiller was the first legal case involving intelligent design creationism. Eleven parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, filed suit after the Dover school board adopted a policy requiring biology teachers at Dover Regional High School to read a disclaimer to their students before teaching evolution. Intended to undermine students’ acceptance of evolution, the disclaimer instructed students that, among other things, “The Theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.” The board also purchased 60 copies of an intelligent design creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, for placement in the school library as a “reference” book for students interested in learning more about intelligent design. (As an expert witness for the plaintiffs, I wrote both an expert witness report [pdf] about the ID creationist movement and a supplementary report [pdf] about Pandas.)

The Kitzmiller case was ultimately the fruit of the relentless promotion of intelligent design by the Discovery Institute, the creationist think tank that later helped write the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) and sent representatives to argue for its passage before the Louisiana House Education Committee on May 21, 2008. Despite the fact that the trial had exposed ID as creationism and that its proponents’ arguments had been shredded in court by the expert witnesses and attorneys for the plaintiffs, the Discovery Institute — partnering with the Louisiana Family Forum — subsequently targeted Louisiana for passage of a version of its deceptively named “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution.” Their scheme worked: with the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008, our state became a victim of the Discovery Institute’s devious “Wedge Strategy” and the Louisiana Family Forum’s successful campaign to commandeer public school science education policy in order to advance its theocratic agenda.

By showing Judgment Day, Leuck and Butcher achieved notable results in dispelling students’ misinformation about evolution and their misconception of ID as science. (In addition to information about the trial, the program features excellent explanations of the science supporting evolution, illustrated by state-of-the-art animations.) They recommend that both Louisiana public school teachers and university professors show this documentary to their students:

Adding Judgment Day to classroom units on evolution at both the high school and college level may be particularly important in states like Louisiana that have a history of resistance to scientific explanations of the origin of life on earth.

Although the Louisiana Science Education Act was promoted and passed in order to allow creationist materials into Louisiana science classes, as its legislative sponsor Sen. Ben Nevers admitted, public school science teachers already had the freedom to supplement their instruction with quality materials that tell students the truth about evolution. Judgment Day tells the truth not only about evolution, but about what happens to communities and the educational process when creationists are permitted to push their divisive agenda at the expense of children.

The people of Louisiana should take this lesson to heart. As more of our children leave the state to seek opportunities elsewhere, they will encounter the fact that people who know about this law view the state as a laughingstock. This is what our fellow Americans see, rather than the efforts of dedicated teachers and scientists who quietly do their jobs every day. We should not want our children — all too many of whom will leave, and have already left, Louisiana for better opportunities elsewhere — to bear the burden of the ignorance of the public officials who assisted in the passage of the LSEA and the policies governing its implementation. (See “Louisiana Open for Business — Creationists Welcome” here.)

To facilitate the preview of the film by public school teachers and science professors who might wish to show it to their students, we offer it below in its entirety.

Quote #1:

I think a real careful reading of the statute itself would show that religion is prohibited from being taught in any classroom in the state of Louisiana under the auspices of this law. . . . I think it enhances academic freedom and expands a student’s right to know . . . .

Quote #2:

This is strictly about teaching science in the classroom. . . . It has nothing to do with religion. . . . I have been criticized, but I had no meaning other than what the bill says. . . . I think this is certainly needed in Louisiana, and I think it will be a model across the nation.

Would anyone like to guess who made these statements?

If you guessed that both quotes come from Louisiana politicians, you get a gold star. Here they are again, with the names of the politicians — and the dates when the statements were made.

Quote #1:

I think a real careful reading of the statute itself would show that religion is prohibited from being taught in any classroom in the state of Louisiana under the auspices of this law. . . . I think it enhances academic freedom and expands a student’s right to know . . . .

— Louisiana Senator Bill Keith, defending his “Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,” ca. 1987

Quote #2:

This is strictly about teaching science in the classroom. . . . It has nothing to do with religion. . . . I have been criticized, but I had no meaning other than what the bill says. . . . I think this is certainly needed in Louisiana, and I think it will be a model across the nation.

— Louisiana Senator Ben Nevers, defending his “Louisiana Science Education Act” (erstwhile “Louisiana Academic Freedom Act”), April 2008

In 1981, the Louisiana legislature passed and Gov. Dave Treen signed the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” (See the YouTube video about this law at the end of this post.) This law required that “Commencing with the 1982-1983 school year, public schools within this state shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science.” It was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1987, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard.

In 2008, the Louisiana legislature passed and Gov. Bobby Jindal signed the “Louisiana Science Education Act“ (LSEA). The LSEA “requires [the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education], upon request of a local school board, to allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” Here is Jindal’s June 2008 response on Face the Nation when asked about his support for teaching creationism:

Both the 1981 and the 2008 laws were justified as defenses of “academic freedom.” Both were introduced specifically to promote creationism: the Balanced Treatment Act was designed to promote “creation science,” and the LSEA was introduced to promote intelligent design (ID) creationism. Senator Nevers revealed this to the Hammond (LA) Daily Star, using the word “creationism” right along with one of the Discovery Institute’s favorite euphemisms, “strengths and weaknesses”:

The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill, Nevers said.

‘They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory. This would allow the discussion of scientific facts,’ Nevers said. ‘I feel the students should know there are weaknesses and strengths in both scientific arguments.’  [4/6/2008; bold added]

However, in post-Edwards v. Aguillard Louisiana, the LSEA had to be disguised with code language. “Academic freedom” and “critical thinking” are two of the code phrases with which Nevers, the Louisiana Family Forum, and the Discovery Institute tried to disguise the LSEA (“strengths and weaknesses” had been used in SB 561, the initial version of the LSEA). So one could practically hear the conniption fit that Louisiana Family Forum director Rev. Gene Mills was having over in Baton Rouge after Nevers strayed off the terminological reservation. Mills had to try to repair the damage and get the “academic freedom” code language back into circulation fast, so he quickly wrote a letter to the Daily Star:

The Daily Star’s report regarding Sen. Ben Nevers’ Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill, which was drafted at the request of Louisiana Family Forum Action, unfortunately contained factual errors which we would like to correct. Neither the Academic Freedom Act nor its companion, the 2006 Ouachita Parish School Board’s Science Curriculum Policy Resolution, would protect the teaching of creationism. Senator Nevers himself has publicly stated that it ‘would be unfair to label his bill as one that would pave the way for the teaching of creationism.’ This bill is not about teaching creationism or religion. . . . Clearly, Senator Nevers’ legislative intent is to promote academic freedom to teach science. . . .  [Daily Star, 4/11/2008; bold added]

In doing this, Mills was simply re-enacting Sen. Bill Keith’s disingenuous defense of the teaching of “creation science” as a defense of academic freedom. In 1987, New York University law professor Arthur Miller hosted a TV program, Headlines on Trial, which devoted one show to the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act, which required Louisiana public school science teachers to teach creation science whenever they taught evolution. Making the case in favor of the legislation were Sen. Keith and well-known young-earth creationist Duane Gish. Making the case against it were Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, and attorney Jay Topkis, who argued — and won — the case for the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. Playing devil’s advocate with Keith, Miller asked, “We normally rely on school boards and high school teachers to make decisions like this, not the big shots in the state capital. What are you worried about?” Here is Keith’s response:

I’m worried about academic freedom. I think that a great deal of scientific material that points to creation is being summarily censored out of the public school curriculum. And I think that’s wrong.

Now let’s flash forward again to June 2008, when the Discovery Institute, too, was denying to high heaven that there was any intent to promote creationism in the LSEA that it helped write. DI staffer Robert Crowther protested, “Critics have smeared the LSEA by falsely claiming the law would allow the teaching of creationism or other religious beliefs.” John West, associate director of DI’s creationist wing, the Center for Science and Culture, was in a distinctly Bill-Keith-like state of high dudgeon — and he was using Keith’s own 1980s-era terminology of “academic freedom” and “censorship”:

‘This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,’ said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute. ‘Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on.’

In Louisiana, where French is still the second language, we know what this means: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The study of history reinforces this old truism, and it’s amazing what a little history reveals about the ancestry of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act: the LSEA is merely a resurrection — in drab, washed-out, and totally transparent terminological clothing — of the 1981 “Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.”

The National Center for Science Education — a treasure trove of pro-science assistance in more ways than one — has posted the Headlines on Trial segment on its YouTube page. We post it here for the historical information and viewing pleasure of our readers.

Kentucky House Bill 397, a clone of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, is dead.

HB 397 (BR 1517) – T. Moore, J. Carney

AN ACT relating to science education and intellectual freedom.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 158 to encourage local district teachers and administrators to foster an environment promoting objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories; allow teachers to use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning; clarify that provisions do not promote religious doctrine or discrimination; provide that the section may be cited as the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act.

Common sense has carried the day in the Bluegrass State!

The National Center for Science Education has posted an announcement of the demise of HB 397. (Download the entire bill here [Word doc]). The bill died in the Kentucky House Education Committee, to which it had been referred on February 10. The chair of that committee is Rep. Carl Rollins. We commend the Kentucky House Education Committee for letting this bill die rather than imitating the entire Louisiana legislature, Governor Bobby Jindal, and the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. They are living proof that politicians can follow principle rather than the dictates of the Religious Right — even in the Bible Belt, where Kentucky, along with Louisiana, is located.

The Discovery Institute, which is the headquarters of the intelligent design creationist movement, is heavily invested in the Louisiana legislation and the BESE policies. DI creationists helped write the LSEA and provided legal advice to the Louisiana Family Forum during the process of promoting the legislation and gutting BESE’s policies for administering it. DI staffer Casey Luskin showed up in Louisiana in May 2008 when the LA House Education Committee heard testimony on the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). In March of this year, he wrote a gloating entry with an amusingly ominous headline at Evolution News & Views, DI’s news “analysis” blog:

Proliferation of Academic Freedom Bills Is Darwin Lobby’s Worst Nightmare

In this piece, Luskin used KY HB 397 as an example of how the champions of “academic freedom” legislation were scaring the bejeezus out of “the intelligentsia” who were “very worried about the prospect of teachers gaining academic freedom, as a bill presently in the Kentucky legislature would allow.” According to Luskin,

The Kentucky bill contains an excellent example of language refuting assertions from critics that these bills allow the teaching of religion: ‘This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.’ The operative language of the academic freedom bills is entirely beneficial:

• The Kentucky bill encourages teachers to ‘promote critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories being studied.’

Luskin then cites both the Ouachita Parish academic freedom policy and the LSEA as among the precedents for the proposed Kentucky legislation, asserting that “it isn’t just academic freedom legislation from the past three years that’s calling for critiques of evolution in the classroom”:

• Ouachita Parish, Louisiana: ‘[T]he teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy … [T]eachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.’

(In November 2006, Louisiana Family Forum operative Darrell White persuaded the Ouachita Parish School Board to adopt its own “academic freedom” policy [pdf], which served as the template for SB 561 before it was revised as SB 733 and adopted as the LSEA. The Discovery Institute applauded the move.)

And finally — ta-da! — Luskin invokes the Louisiana Science Education Act:

And then of course there’s Louisiana 2008 Science Education Act, which requires that Louisiana schools shall ‘create and foster an environment…that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.’

And to think that the Louisiana legislature and Bobby Jindal literally handed the Discovery Institute this bragging point. At least the Kentucky House Education Committee had better sense.

If you have any friends in Kentucky, shoot them an e-mail and congratulate them. Their House Education Committee placed the interests of the children of Kentucky above the interests of the legislators who are shilling for creationists.

Serving as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has been an honor that I have enjoyed since 2004. NCSE is the national clearinghouse for information about and assistance with protecting the teaching of science in public schools, especially the teaching of evolution.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education. We educate the press and public about the scientific, educational, and legal aspects of the creation and evolution controversy, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels. Our 4000 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious affiliations.  (See NCSE’s FAQ here.)

The executive director, Dr. Eugenie Scott, recently gave a talk entitled “Creationism: Still Crazy After All These Years.” Her talk (56:03 minutes) is posted below for the information of LCFS readers. She is speaking about the history of intelligent design creationism as it has developed from the earlier “creation science” movement. At 29:54, she begins talking about Louisiana’s creationist law, the Louisiana  Science Education Act of 2008.

Dr. Scott’s talk is a very good primer on the development of creationism in the United States — all the way to our own state of Louisiana. Readers who want to support the important work that NCSE does can join online.

January 2010 Featured

By Sandhya Bathija

For Barbara Forrest, fighting for church-state separation and quality science education in Louisiana – and the rest of the nation – has become her civic duty.

“Someone once said, ‘knowledge brings responsibility.’ I had the skills to do it, I knew what was going on, I understood it,” Forrest said, describing why she wrote her first book with co-author Paul R. Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, a 2004 work (updated in paperback in 2007) that exposed the theocratic agenda of the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations. “I don’t want these people running my country and running my kids’ schools.”

Read the rest of this article on AU’s website.

These interviews are posted so that Louisiana citizens will know that what has happened here has captured the attention of our fellow citizens around the country. They support us, but they are dumbfounded that Louisiana has once again passed creationist legislation after having precipitated the U. S. Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) with the passage of the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” in 1981.

REMINDER: Readers with information that creationist materials are being used in Louisiana public school science classes should contact the Louisiana Coalition for Science.