By Barbara Forrest

It’s almost Kitzmas time again, which means that it’s almost the sixth anniversary of the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover [pdf] that was handed down on December 20, 2005. Although the Kitzmiller ruling applies only in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, it has served as a powerful legal statement that intelligent design (ID) is merely warmed-over creationism, the teaching of which is unconstitutional in public school science classes. But in Louisiana we have something else to celebrate:  December 7, 2011, marked the first anniversary of the Louisiana Coalition for Science’s successful effort to persuade the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to approve new biology textbooks for public school biology classes.

It is important to recall this event because it marked the first — and so far only — victory that defenders of science have had in Louisiana, a state in which — where public officials are concerned — standing up for science is a liability rather than a cause for commendation. (UPDATE: An alert LCFS member noted my omission of the fact that LCFS successfully fended off HB 580 during the 2011 legislative session. This stealth creationist bill would have undercut the oversight of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education over school districts’ purchase of supplementary materials and would have written the professional staff of the Department of Education out of its role in reviewing textbooks, etc. That victory came in spring of this year, so we will have another anniversary to celebrate next June!)

The people who have attacked the teaching of science in Louisiana are still around. One of them is young-earth creationist (YEC) Charles Voss, who for years has partnered with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) in its effort to undermine the teaching of evolution. Voss is vice-president of the YEC Origins Resource Association (see the ORA Facebook page). ORA’s president is YEC chemist Edward Boudreaux (do follow this link), who was involved in the passage of the 1981 “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,” which was declared unconstitutional in 1987 by the United States Supreme Court. (See Boudreaux’s Facebook page.) Note that the ORA was founded in 1980 as “Louisiana Citizens for Academic Freedom in Origins.” (Ring any bells?) Let’s take a look at what Voss has been doing since the approval of the textbooks last year.

In 2002, the LFF had tried to block the approval of new biology textbooks, as they attempted to do again in 2010. They failed then, as they failed last year. But in 2003, after that first failure, Voss created his “Textaddons.com” website, on which he posted creationist addenda for almost a dozen well-known biology textbooks. To say that the addenda — all of which were variations on the same basic document — were incompetently done would be an understatement. They were heavily dependent on young-earth creationist sources, which were referenced throughout the addenda. When ID creationism edged out young-earth creationism as the chief threat to the teaching of evolution, Voss duly added ID references to the addenda.

In the wake of the LFF’s failure to block the approval of biology textbooks in 2010, Voss has now continued his earlier precedent by “updating” his Textaddons.com website. Given the attacks on the teaching of evolution in Louisiana which Voss has been involved, dating all the way back to 1994, a renewed warning to teachers against using his materials is in order. But Voss’s stuff is so pathetic that it’s just not worth a three-bell alarm (or a two-bell alarm, or even a one-bell alarm). Maybe a slight ting-a-ling, but nothing more. Only the most incompetent (or unprofessional) teacher would use this stuff.

Let’s just take a short tour through the site. A few representative samples will do. But pay attention, alert readers, because the Louisiana Coalition for Science will soon sponsor a contest for the first person to correctly identify the dumbest, most incompetent statement in a section of the website that will be identified later. Those of you who have read this far may want to compete!

Main Page of “Textaddons.com”

On the main page, Voss announces, “It is generally known that today’s Biology Textbooks mislead the reader into believing that evolution has no negative aspects.” In addition to the capitalization error, there is a substantive error here: Voss’s statement is based on the false premise that there are “negative aspects” of evolution. He probably means that that the textbooks do not include what creationists call — in their shopworn code language — “evidence against evolution.” While some aspects of evolution are not as well understood as others, there is no evidence against evolution. All available scientific evidence — all 152 years of it — supports evolution.

He also includes a weird, unclear disclaimer: “It should be noted that additional information is not presented for the subjects of Fossil Formation, the Fossil Record, Geological Column, Relative Dating, Radio-metric Dating and Intelligent Design. These exclusions are deliberate because of a possible interpretation that reflects on the age of the earth and therefore might be classified as an attempt to advance a particular religion and cause litigation.” Whatever he means concerning “a possible interpretation that reflects on the age of the earth” (Voss is a YEC, and ID is a form of old-earth creationism), he claims to have excluded information about ID. As an inspection of the addenda shows, that is false. Although Voss has sanitized the current versions under the pretense of trying to avoid legal issues, he has relied on ID sources.

Let’s look at just one addendum [pdf]: Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Biggs et al., Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 2004). (Note that all of the books for which Voss provides addenda are outdated; there are no updated addenda for the new textbooks approved last year.) This addendum is copyrighted for both 2006 and 2007, although an earlier version dates back to July 2004. One of Voss’s sources in this addendum (on p. 11 and elsewhere) is “Thaxton, Bradley, & Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, New York: Philosophical Library, (1984).” This is the first college-level ID creationist textbook and one of the founding books of the ID movement. (See the website, where the entire book can be downloaded in pdf for free.)

Another source in this addendum (p. 14) is “Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution. 2000, pp. 146,149.” Wells is a founding fellow of the Discovery Institute’s creationist wing, the Center for Science and Culture (formerly the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture). Icons is an ID creationist book in which Wells accuses scientists of fraud (pp. 234-235). (See this critique of Icons at Talkorigins.org.)

Yet another source is “Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986″ (p. 15), which is also a founding ID text. (See a review by Mark Vuletic at Talkorigins.org.) Denton still hangs out with ID people from the Discovery Institute and is an apologist for ID creationism (see this video interview).

The original 2004 version [pdf] of Voss’s addendum for Biology: The Dynamics of Life contained both young-earth and ID creationist sources in the footnotes (see p. 10, for example). Here is the list of sources for just one section, “Life in the Mesozoic” (with relevant hyperlinks added here).

1. Sarfati, J. D., Refuting Evolution. Master Books, 1999, <www.masterbooks.net>, pp.57-68 and
Refuting Evolution 2, 2002, pp.130-132.
2. Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution. Regency Publishing, 2000, pp. 111-135.
3. Davis, Kenyon & Thaxton, Of Pandas and People. Haughton Publishing Co., 1993, pp. 104-107.  [Note: This is the ID creationist book that I debunked in court in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).]
4.Wieland, Carl, Bird Evolution Flies Out the Window. Creation Ex Nilo, Vol. 16, No. 4, (Sept. 1994), pp. 16-19.
5. Sarfati, Jonathan, Dino-Bird Evolution Falls Flat. Creation Ex Nilo, Vol. 20, No. 2 (March 1998), p 41.

In the current version of the addendum for Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Voss has left the content of “Life in the Mesozoic” exactly as in the 2004 version — except that he has deleted all of his blatantly creationist footnotes (p. 6).

Voss’s “Addendum Reviewers”

One important item on Voss’s main page is his list of addendum reviewers, which is most enlightening. The list is included along with Voss’s own bio here [Word doc]. His reviewers include Edward Boudreaux (see Boudreaux’s creationist credentials here) and — surprise! — John Oller, who should be well known to our readers. Twenty-four years after the Edwards decision, Boudreaux continues to mislead people by preaching creationism. In this video posted less than a year ago by the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, Boudreaux boasts (2:47) of having once challenged the (unnamed) chair of the Tulane University biology department during a joint interview in which the chair was “talking all this biology, and you know, I’m not a biologist, OK?” But he asserts that he is comfortable debating such people “because I know the truth.”

He advises his audience (3:16) to “never hesitate” to confront such people: “Any opportunity you get, if you know the truth, you don’t have to be an expert in science or in a certain area. If you know enough about it, just get right on in and let the Holy Spirit do the work with you, OK?” Well, OK! That’ll save creationists a lot of work!

Another of Voss’s reviewers is “Dr.” Don Patton, whose organization, the “Metroplex Institute of Origin Science” (MIOS), makes the following declaration:

Evidences supporting Intelligent Design often go hand in hand with the discoveries made within Creation Science. It must be formally noted, Creation Science involves scientific evidences and should in no wise be conveyed by the media as only a Biblical explanation of creation or any other religious belief. Creation Science is scientific evidences, not religious doctrine.

There is a reason that Patton’s doctoral status is highlighted in quotes here. Voss lists Patton’s qualifying credential as a Ph.D. in “Education (Geology).” If Voss had done just a little bit of googling, he would have found out that information on Patton’s purported degrees had been published in 1989 in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Here is the relevant information as compiled by Glenn Kuban, who wrote the RNCSE article (emphasis and editorial clarifications added):

[T]he printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools. When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU [Queensland Christian University, Australia], which he assured me was ‘three days away.’ Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, ‘PCI [Pacific College Incorporated], QPU, PCT, and PCGS [other purported 'educational' institutions] have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff. . . . Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent.’

Isn’t that interesting? Patton’s website now says that he received a Ph.D. in education in 1993, but it does not include the school that granted the degree. Wonder why?

“Added Info” Page

On a page entitled “Additional Information from Other Sources,” Voss has posted links to various YEC and ID websites. He also offers to provide free copies of “The Icons of Evolution Curriculum Modules,” consisting of DVDs based on Wells’ book, Icons of Evolution. (He cautions readers: “I want to know the school you are associated with and your home address. I will mail only to a home address.”) These curriculum modules, according to which “most of the traditional evidence presented for evolution in high school textbooks is wrong,” are distributed through Access Research Network, a clearinghouse for ID “educational” materials and de facto arm of the Discovery Institute.

There is much more that could be said about Voss’s newly revised website, but these samples suffice to make the point that no self-respecting teacher should use any of this stuff in her classroom. It’s the same old junk as Voss offered in 2003, when he first posted the site — except that it has only gotten more pathetic.

But stay tuned, readers — LCFS will soon sponsor a contest in which readers will be asked to identify the stupidest thing that we can find on Voss’s website. We will announce the details soon. The winner will receive a gift card for books — a prize that we think the LCFS audience will appreciate. 

By Barbara Forrest

Many teachers and administrators in Louisiana public schools — and probably some students and parents, too — may be wondering what science teachers are required to do under the terms of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which became law with Bobby Jindal’s signature in June 2008.  The law and the implementation policy adopted by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) allow teachers to bring creationist materials into their classrooms and use them until they get caught doing it. We know that the law permits this because (a) Sen. Ben Nevers, the bill’s sponsor, said so, and (b) the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) successfully lobbied BESE to delete the prohibitions against teaching creationism from the policy that implements the law. So evolution, the “origins of life,” global warming, and human cloning are all fair game in science classrooms. So now, with the law on the books, what do teachers have to do as a result? Here, after three years, is the definitive answer:

NOTHING.

NOT A SINGLE, ITTY BITTY THING.

The bill permits using creationist supplements, but it does not require teachers to do anything. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Zip.

Teachers do not have to do a single thing differently than they were doing before this ridiculous law was passed. Before the LSEA was passed, teachers were required to teach science according to the Louisiana Content Standards (pdf) and Grade Level Expectations. That’s what they are required to do today. Just teach science properly, and let the creationists stew in their own juices. And please contact the Louisiana Science Coalition if there are any problems. We’re here to help.

Please pass it on.

By Barbara Forrest

Friends, we at the Louisiana Coalition for Science would like to be able to say that we are pulling your leg. But we’re not. Louisiana is about to enact into law yet another stealth creationism bill in the form of HB 580 — unless the Senate finally decides to put a stop to this foolishness within the next 13 days when the current legislative session (mercifully) comes to an end. HB 580 passed in the House of Representatives on June 8 with a vote [pdf] of 87 yays, 5 nays, and 13 abstentions. (Thank you, Rep. Walt Leger, Rep. Patricia Haynes-Smith, Rep. Regina Barrow, Rep. Barbara Norton, and Rep. Charmaine Marchand Stiaes.) Louisiana is the embodiment of one of the cardinal rules that every pro-science citizen has to learn:  CREATIONISTS NEVER GIVE UP. To which we now add a corollary:  CREATIONISTS WANT IT ALL. Louisiana creationists were given the proverbial inch in the form of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), and since 2008 they have been industriously grabbing their mile.

Not content with (1) persuading the legislature to pass the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) — as if that would have taken any effort at all, (2) convincing the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to gut its LSEA implementation policy of prohibitions against using creationist materials in science classes, and (3) then convincing BESE that the review procedure for handling parental complaints about such materials should be stacked in favor of creationists, our creationist friends now want even more.

Despite BESE’s being so accommodating, the backers of HB 580 now want to repay BESE by depriving the board of any real control over the kinds of materials that parish and local school boards can adopt — and let the school boards have a blank check to do it. BESE very admirably resisted the Louisiana Family Forum’s attack on the selection of biology textbooks in 2010. They deserve much credit — and have our sincere thanks — for that. But the creationists who have used the board for their own ends for the last three years now want to tie board members’ hands when it comes to any real purview over textbooks. How’s that for gratitude?

HB 580 has been below the radar because of all the publicity surrounding Sen. Karen Carter Peterson’s unsuccessful SB 70 to repeal the LSEA for which Zack Kopplin and the LA Coalition for Science worked so hard. (Thank you, Sen. Peterson and Zack.) But HB 580 has been quietly moving along and could well end up joining the LSEA in the annals of Louisiana creationist history. We’ll stop talking now and let you read about it for yourself in the press release below (download pdf here). In addition, we provide a separate analysis of the bill here [pdf].

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TEXTBOOK SELECTION PROCESS ATTACKED BY YET ANOTHER STEALTH CREATIONISM BILL

HB 580 guts oversight of textbook adoption & use of taxpayer funds

Baton Rouge, LA, June 13, 2011

After failing last year to block approval of new biology textbooks by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), supporters of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) are now backing HB 580, a stealth creationism bill that amounts to an end run around BESE. It also expands the reach of the LSEA by removing from current law crucial protections that ensure quality science education materials. The Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS) urges the Senate to reject this bill. (See HB 580 at www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=11RS&billid=HB580&doctype=ALL.)

HB 580 contains the following provisions:

(1) Replaces BESE’s power to “prescribe and adopt” textbooks and instructional materials with the power merely to “recommend.” This will gut the board’s power to protect the quality of science textbooks and learning materials. Students could end up using substandard materials that teach pseudoscience.

(2) Allows local school boards to adopt and purchase — at taxpayer expense — textbooks and other materials that are not on the state list, without proper screening by scientists, educators, and curriculum experts, and with no spending limits. This blank check for bogus materials comes during a severe recession when schools face stiff budget cuts and teacher layoffs.

(3) Eliminates the Department of Education’s crucial role in (a) screening and reviewing textbooks and instructional materials to ensure their quality and (b) assuring that textbook adoption committees are composed of properly qualified members, as currently provided for under current law.

An analysis of the bill is available at:

http://lasciencecoalition.org/docs/LCFS_Analysis_HB_580_6.13.11.pdf.

Factors surrounding the introduction of this unnecessary bill raise additional red flags:

• HB 580 is among “Bills of Interest” that the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) is backing through its lobbying arm, Louisiana Family Forum Action. The LFF wrote and promoted the LSEA in 2008. The LFF also tried aggressively but unsuccessfully to block approval of new biology textbooks in 2010.
• The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Frank Hoffmann (District 15, West Monroe), promoted a creationist “academic freedom” policy as Asst. Supt. of Education in Ouachita Parish in 2006. In 2008, he introduced a companion bill to the LSEA, which he shepherded through the House of Representatives. As a member of the Textbook/Media/Library Advisory council last year, he voted against the new biology textbooks after the state textbook adoption committee had already approved them.

Having passed in the House, HB 580 has been assigned to the Senate Education Committee. Since the legislature will adjourn in less than two weeks, a committee meeting must be held soon. The next scheduled meeting is Thursday, June 16. The LCFS will send a representative to testify against the bill.

HB 580 is a bad law that threatens the quality of learning materials on which Louisiana students depend at a time when they need the highest quality science education possible. It is also a disaster for school budgets.

The LCFS urges the Senate to vote against the bill. Concerned citizens should call their Senate representatives and ask them to oppose it.

By Barbara Forrest

For the three years since the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) was enacted, the Louisiana Coalition for Science has hammered constantly on the fact that the LSEA is a creationist law. The Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) has consistently denied this. But other people who share the same political and religious views as the LFF seem to have their own ideas concerning what this law is all about. Maybe the LFF’s memo didn’t get sent out widely enough through the prayer network . . . or the divine communication channels broke down . . . or something.

A national prayer networking group, Intercessors for America, has revealed to the entire national prayer network via its website that the Louisiana Science Education Act, which the LFF wrote and promoted with the close assistance of the Discovery Institute, is . . . gasp . . a creationist law! Their March 2, 2011, prayer alert includes a notice about Zack Kopplin’s effort to repeal the LSEA: “Louisiana Student Battles Creationists.” Uh . . . oh.

The IFA is a “501(c)3 ministry organization” that recognizes “the need for God to intervene in U.S. governmental and cultural issues.” In keeping with that recognition, the group “informs, connects, and mobilizes intercessors to pray for our nation and its leaders.”

There is a similar group in Louisiana, Intercessors for Louisiana, founded in 1999 by Louisiana native Tony Perkins, who also co-founded the LFF and now runs the Family Research Council in Washington, DC. Rev. Gene Mills, LFF executive director, serves on the board of directors of the Louisiana group, along with a couple of well-known politicians.

The Louisiana group is a “network of informed intercessors who are called by God to pray for government so that His purposes will be accomplished in Louisana” and so that “the actions of our elected authorities would be in accordance with the Scripture.” Their February 2011 “Prayer Points” Prayer Report [pdf] reveals that they are currently requesting divine instructions for legislative redistricting, urging their readers (“Intercessors — To Arms!”) to “Pray for God’s lines to be drawn in the redistricting of our state.” They must send letters to legislators to “inform them of what God is saying at this time.”

The Louisiana group is no doubt in touch with the IFA given their common focus, especially since one of the IFA’s goals is “To connect Christians moved to intercessory prayer with like-minded intercessors.” The IFA is asking its followers to pray both for Zack Kopplin and the LFF concerning the current repeal effort. But something seems to have gone awry in the prayer network. Maybe it was sunspots.

Pray for the Holy Spirit to work in Zachary Kopplin’s heart, granting him understanding that ‘the universe was formed at God’s command.’ Intercede for the Louisiana Family Forum to be given the words to speak in defense of legislation that promotes open and objective discussion regarding Intelligent Design and creation. Intercede that Louisiana classrooms would truly be a place of learning and a place where students can exercise critical thinking skills.

Say what? “Legislation that promotes open and objection discussion regarding Intelligent Design and creation”?????? The IFA alert — which, you will recall, is entitled, “Louisiana Student Battles Creationists” — announces that Zack “plans to team with Sen. Karen Carter Peterson in April to influence the Louisiana state legislature to reverse the Act and endorse life science textbooks that teach ‘real science’ as opposed to Intelligent Design.” Oops! The network clearly broke down somewhere. First, we already won the textbook fight. That part should have gone out in the IFA’s November 2010 prayer alert. Second, what’s that about intelligent design again?

But wait! Concerned supplicants can “READ MORE” in the IFA’s March 1 blog post, “Louisiana Student Battles Intelligent Design.” The IFA announces to their readers that “Zachary Kopplin, a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High School, is working with state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) to gain support to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) signed by Governor Bobby Jindal.” Here is the most delicious part (emphasis added):

Kopplin’s supporters and church-state separation proponents are praising his battle with the Louisiana Family Forum, (an affiliate of Focus on the Family and an advocate of Intelligent Design), comparing him to David in a fight against the ‘Goliath’ of the Religious Right.

Conscientious archivers may wish to download the IFA’s “Full Printable Version” [pdf] of the Prayer Alert, which includes the notice about Zack’s repeal campaign and a scriptural reference for the IFA’s prayer campaign to smite Zack’s repeal campaign (Hebrews 11:2). An additional bonus is the “Printable Bookmark Version” [pdf], which, like the full version, is direct and to the point although more concise.

STUDENT BATTLES CREATIONISTS

Zachary Kopplin, a Louisiana senior, is working with state Sen. Peterson to repeal an act that promotes classroom debate.

Pray for open discussions in class. Heb. 11:2

Just don’t rely on that scriptural reference. Alert readers will have noticed that it’s wrong. It should be Hebrews 11:3 rather than 11:2. Another slight network malfunction, perhaps?

By Barbara Forrest

Well, yet another 2011 creationist bill has died in committee: Kentucky House Bill 169 is caput. That makes four dead bills counting the one in New Mexico and the two in Oklahoma. Note, readers, that Kentucky is the state in which the young-earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis, has misinformed upwards of one million people through its notorious “Creation Museum” and will soon expand its misinformation campaign, courtesy of public tax incentives, through its “Ark Encounter” theme park. Here is the HB 169′s obituary at the National Center for Science Education, and notice who got a mention here (our emphasis added) with respect to a bill that was introduced and died in Kentucky last year:

When the Kentucky legislature adjourned sine die on March 9, 2011, House Bill 169 died in committee. . . . HB 169, if enacted, would have allowed teachers to ‘use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.’ No particular scientific theories were cited in HB 169, but the similar HB 397 introduced by the same legislator — Tim Moore (R-District 26) — in the previous legislative session explicitly listed ‘the study of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning’ as examples of scientific theories for which supplementary instructional materials could be used. The exact phrase appears in the Louisiana Science Education Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:285.1, on which HB 397 was apparently based.

So the state in which creationism is the chief tourist attraction, for Pete’s sake, has turned down a creationist law. We have the French Quarter, Mardi Gras, the Crawfish Festival, Jazz Fest, the Strawberry Festival, the Oyster Festival, the Italian Festival, and the Crescent City Blues & BBQ Festival, and beaucoups other fun stuff . WE HAVE NEVER TURNED CREATIONISM INTO A TOURIST ATTRACTION. But we have the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act on the books.

This does not look good, people. And we all know what we need to do about this, now don’t we?

By Barbara Forrest

UPDATE (March 5, 2011): The National Center for Science Education reports that the second creationist bill in Oklahoma, SB 554, appears to have died in committee.

SB 554, a hybrid of the ‘academic freedom’ antievolution strategy and the flawed Texas state science standards, appears to have died in committee on February 28, 2011, when a deadline for senate bills to be reported from committee passed. SB 554 was introduced by Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who described it in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 24, 2010) as ‘requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution.’

The Louisiana Coalition for Science again congratulates the find work of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education and the other committed citizens who worked to protect the education of Oklahoma students! And Oklahoma has given Louisiana even more reason to follow their example and work just as hard to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act.  [end update]

Good news and kudos to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE) for their good work in fighting for Oklahoma science education! Oklahoma HB 1551 (rtf) has been defeated in committee. The National Center for Science Education reports that OK Rep. Sally Kern’s bill, “which would, if enacted, encourage teachers to present the ‘scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses’ of ‘controversial’ topics such as evolution,” failed in the House Common Education Committee by a vote of 7-9. (It could be resurrected later in this session or in a future session.) The comments about the bill, however, were interesting.

The Oklahoman (February 23, 2011) reports comments by Rep. Fred Jordan, a House Common Education Committee member and a Republican, concerning HB 1551:

‘This bill is running circles around itself, and it’s going to make it harder and harder for teachers to know what to do in the classroom,’ said Jordan, R-Jenks. ‘We’re opening the door for teachers to kind of say whatever they want to say, whether it’s religious issues, creation, evolution,’ he said. ‘I really feel like we’re opening the door to where any and everything can come in.’  (emphasis added)

Rep. Jordan’s comments show that the issue of good science education is not a partisan issue. Everyone — Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. — should support teaching science by telling children the truth. And that includes telling the truth about evolution: it is the unifying concept of all biological disciplines.

The demise of HB 1551 leaves one Oklahoma creationist bill still in the pipeline, SB 554, which remains in the Senate Education Committee. This bill was introduced by Sen. Josh Brecheen, who in December 2010 candidly described his bill:

I have introduced legislation requiring every publically [sic] funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin’s religion.  (emphasis added)

Gee, that comment rings a bell.

The fact that yet another creationist bill in yet another state has been rejected just adds more urgency to the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. This is especially important to the young people of Louisiana, whose education was targeted by the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute.

Please contact the Louisiana high school and university students you know and ask them to call and e-mail (1) the Louisiana Senate Education Committee and (2) their respective members of the Senate and House of Representatives to ask them to vote in favor of the repeal bill that Senator Karen Carter Peterson is going to introduce. Zack Kopplin, a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High School, is leading the way.

Let’s get going!

By Barbara Forrest

New Mexico’s stealth creationist bill, HB 302, which in many respects closely tracked the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), has been tabled, meaning that it is dead for the current legislative session. The bill’s obituary was posted by the National Center for Science Education , and its demise was confirmed by a dedicated pro-science citizen in New Mexico who helped put it to sleep. This development should serve as an example to Louisiana legislators, who will have an opportunity in the upcoming regular session of the Louisiana legislature to send the LSEA to a similar fate by repealing it outright.

NCSE’s announcement of the tabling of HB 302 notes that it was a version of the “currently popular ‘academic freedom’ antievolution strategy,” which means that it was, like the LSEA, an offspring of the Discovery Institute’s deceptively named “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution.” And of course, just as the LSEA was supported by a creationist group, the Louisiana Family Forum, the New Mexico bill was promoted by a similar group, the Intelligent Design Network of New Mexico. New Mexicans for Science and Reason has information about HB 302 here.

Of the various “academic freedom” bills introduced so far this year, the New Mexico bill is the first to fall. That leaves bills pending in Oklahoma (two bills there), Kentucky, Tennessee (two bills), and Missouri. So far, Louisiana is still the only state foolish enough to give such legislation the status of law. Let’s hope our legislature decides to restore some respect to the state when they get Zack Kopplin’s repeal bill, which will be introduced in the coming weeks.

Louisiana citizens should begin contacting their legislators now and ask them to support the bill. As soon as it is filed, specific information about it will be posted here.

“The main deficiencies in the books are in taking a doctrinaire, everything-is-solved attitude, toward just about every problem addressed. . . . They should all be sent back to the publishers as unacceptable.” — John W. Oller, Jr., letter of November 8, 2010, to Louisiana Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council urging that proposed biology textbooks be rejected

By Barbara Forrest

**Note:  Since this post is longer than usual in order to cover the topic adequately, readers may wish to print it. This post has been updated; see below.

On February 2, 2010, The Lancet, one of the world’s premier medical journals, retracted [pdf] a 1998 article [pdf] in which British physician Andrew Wakefield was lead author (with twelve co-authors).

Following the judgment of the [United Kingdom] General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect. . . . In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were ‘consecutively referred’ and that investigations were ‘approved’ by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.

Wakefield is the now-notorious physician who, by means of this 1998 article, promoted the idea that the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine causes autism. Readers will surely wonder what this has to do with creationism in Louisiana. Please keep reading. There is a connection that highlights once again the error of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) in handing over to creationists the policies implementing the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). On Tuesday, December 7, BESE must decide whether to approve the biology textbooks that have been proposed for adoption by the state. We can only hope that, at that meeting, board members will call a halt to the influence that they have allowed the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) to have over science education policy during the last two years.

John W. Oller, Jr., a professor in the Department of Communicative Disorders at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, is a creationist who is integrally involved in the LFF’s attack on the textbook selection process in Louisiana. (See him pictured (on left) at the September 16, 2009, BESE meeting with his LFF colleagues Darrell White, Lennie Ditoro,and Rev. Gene Mills.) He also serves on the “Technical Advisory Board” of the young-earth creationist Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which is headquartered in Dallas, Texas (see below). In 2002, he assisted the LFF in its first effort to influence the selection of state-approved biology textbooks, an effort that BESE fortunately rejected (“Evolution Disclaimer Supported,” Baton Rouge Advocate, December 11, 2002, 1A). He is now assisting the LFF again in its second attempt to discredit every single biology textbook that has been submitted this year for BESE’s approval. More will be said about this below. (See “Textbook Attack in Louisiana.”) But the main point of this post is to reveal Oller’s connection to Andrew Wakefield, an association that no respectable scholar should cultivate.

First, the background: Wakefield co-authored a now-infamous 1998 article suggesting that the MMR vaccine causes autism. He capitalized professionally on this supposed connection. However, major scientific studies have shown that there is no causal connection between vaccines and autism. In 2002, a Danish study of 530,000 children found no link between vaccines and autism. A Japanese study in 2005 got the same result. In 2008, an American study published in PLoS ONE provided “strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV [measles virus] RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure.” In 2009 and 2010, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against parents who had sought damages in the belief that vaccines had caused their children’s autism. (See here and here for press coverage.) However, Wakefield was publishing articles based on suspicious research as early as 1993. (See this July 2009 ruling [p. 6] [pdf] by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.)

Real harm to children resulted from Wakefield’s promotion of the autism-vaccine connection. His flawed (and dishonest) study, based on only twelve children, caused a precipitous drop in childhood vaccinations in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in the diseases that vaccinations have so successfully prevented. According to British journalist Brian Deer, whose reporting led to the investigation of Wakefield, “[O]fficial figures showed that 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales were reported last year [2008], compared with 56 in 1998. Two children have died of the disease.” (See Deer’s website here.)

The retraction of a scientific article is very serious business, especially in world-class journals such as The Lancet. (See this article in Neurology Today on the subject.) Elsevier, which publishes The Lancet and is the world’s leading publisher of scientific and medical information, states its grounds for retractions:

Article Retraction: Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like.

Wakefield met the last criterion for retraction in his 1998 article. As a practicing physician, he also violated important ethical standards by ordering unnecessary, invasive tests on children for the sake of his research. Speaking at a parents’ meeting in California in 1999, he joked about drawing blood from children attending his own son’s birthday party, for which he paid each child five pounds — about eight U.S. dollars:

But, and, they put their arms out and they have the blood taken. All entirely voluntary. [laughter]. And when we did this at that party, two children fainted, one threw up over his mother [laughter]. . . .

And (NAME) burst into tears. Ruined his birthday party. But people said to me, Andrew, look, you know, you can’t do this, people, children won’t come back to you. [laughter]. I said you’re wrong, I said: ‘Listen, we live in a market economy. Next year they’ll want ten pounds!

[Read the transcript and listen to the audio file.]

Wakefield compounded these violations by profiting handsomely (to the tune of about $750,000 in U.S. currency) from advising lawyers representing parents who planned to sue vaccine manufacturers — without disclosing this to The Lancet prior to publication of his article. He had also filed for a patent on his own measles vaccine, from which he planned to profit further after he discredited the MMR vaccine.

High-profile publicity about Wakefield’s transgressions began six years ago — in 2004 — with Brian Deer’s reporting in the Times in London. That same year, ten of Wakefield’s twelve co-authors themselves issued a partial retraction of the 1998 article:

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper. . . . [See also the March 4, 2004, BBC story.]

In 2007, the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council (GMC) began an investigation of Wakefield that continued until this year, making it the longest investigation in the GMC’s history. In February 2010, The Lancet‘s total retraction of Wakefield’s article made international headlines. Following the retraction, he resigned from his job as research director at Thoughtful House, a facility for autistic children that he helped found in Austin, Texas. Yet the retraction was only a foreshadowing of what was soon to follow. On May 24, 2010, the GMC banned Wakefield from practicing medicine in the UK. (See the GMC’s nine-page ruling [pdf].) In other words, he has lost his license to practice medicine in the UK.

[T]he Panel concluded that Dr Wakefield’s misconduct not only collectively amounts to serious professional misconduct, over a timeframe from 1996 to 1999, but also, when considered individually, constitutes multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct. . . .

Accordingly the Panel has determined that Dr Wakefield’s name should be erased from the medical register. . . . [I]t is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.

Dr. Paul Offit, Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a national expert on vaccines. In his book, Autism’s False Prophets (Columbia University Press, 2008), he discusses Wakefield extensively. (See especially chapters 2 and 3.) Offit notes that on the day Wakefield’s Lancet paper was published, he held a press conference announcing that he had found the cause of autism (18). However, as Brian Deer discovered six years later, although Wakefield had written that his “investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee,” the committee “had never approved Wakefield’s study” (37).

Wakefield’s team had put children under general anesthesia, performed spinal taps, threaded fiber-optic scopes into their intestines, taken biopsies, and collected large quantities of blood for testing. These procedures weren’t trivial. Several children had difficulties with the anesthesia, and one five-year-old child was in critical condition after his colon was perforated in several places. If the Ethical Practices Committee hadn’t granted its approval, then Wakefield and his coworkers had circumvented a process designed to protect children from unnecessary and potentially harmful tests — a serious charge. (Offit 38)

Dr. Offit also points out that “although study after study showed MMR didn’t cause autism, Wakefield remains unrepentant, wedded to a belief he considers irrefutable” (54). He also relates the view of David Salisbury, the director of immunization for the Department of Health in the UK, concerning Wakefield:

I don’t think he’s an innocent in this. . . . He knew exactly what he was doing. And throughout he has never shown the slightest contrition for what he has caused. He’s had more than enough opportunities to say to the world, ‘I deeply regret the fact that I, acting out of the best of interests, got this wrong and now realize the consequences of what has happened.’ He’s never done this.  (Offit 55-56)

THE AUTISM-CREATIONISM CONNECTION — JOHN W. OLLER, JR.

Given Wakefield’s ethical violations, which began coming to light in 2004, it is a no-brainer that responsible professionals should neither associate with him nor cite him as an authority in their scholarly publications. Yet John Oller has done both.

Oller organized a 2007 conference in Lafayette, LA, “Solving the Autism Puzzle,” at which Wakefield was one of the featured speakers. This was the same year that the General Medical Council began its investigation of Wakefield in the UK, a development about which Oller must surely have had some inkling given the previous three years of high-profile publicity. However, Oller mistakenly accepts Wakefield’s contention that vaccines cause autism and continues to promote this idea, despite all the evidence against it. After Oller’s involvement in the September 2009 episode in which the LFF commandeered BESE’s policy governing complaints about supplementary materials used under the LSEA (see below), his book, Austism: The Diagnosis, Treatment & Etiology of the Undeniable Epidemic, was published (Jones and Barlett 2010). Here’s the kicker: Andrew Wakefield wrote the foreword. (Read it here [pdf]). Wakefield affirms that “this [Oller's] book is unashamedly invested in the belief that the vaccine-autism story has far from run its course” (x).

Forewords are usually written at the author’s invitation, and Wakefield begins his foreword by acknowledging Oller’s invitation (ix). Such an invitation is typically reserved for someone whom the author holds in high esteem for his contributions to his profession. The foreword helps frame an author’s discussion and lends prestige to the work. At least, it is supposed to lend prestige. Given Wakefield’s record of unprofessional behavior — where helpless children are concerned — one would think that any academic author who is concerned about his reputation would avoid Wakefield like the plague. But not John Oller. His standards are far outside those of the mainstream academic community.

Oller is a young-earth creationist who, in September 2009, helped persuade BESE to give the LFF control over the procedure governing complaints about creationist supplementary materials in public schools. This procedure was part of BESE’s implementation of the LSEA. In connection with this development, Oller was featured in a September 28, 2009, press release on this website:

Among the creationists testifying [at the September 16, 2009, Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meeting] was University of Louisiana-Lafayette professor John W. Oller, Jr., who is a member of the “Technical Advisory Board” of the young-earth creationist Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, Texas. He wrote anti-evolution articles for ICR’s magazine, Impact, for almost twenty years. [UPDATE 9/29/09: It gets worse. Further research has revealed that Oller is also involved with Answers in Genesis, the young-earth creationist outfit that operates the infamous "Creation Museum" in Kentucky. He was one of "eleven creation scientists" who attended a meeting there in 2006 and is shown in a photograph at the museum (left rear, in bright blue shirt). This museum has mis-educated thousands of children. See critiques of this facility here and here, along with a statement of concern by scientists (real ones).] Oller’s field is linguistics; he has no credentials in either biology or science education. In December 2002, he participated in the LFF’s effort to have evolution disclaimers inserted into state-approved biology textbooks (Advocate, 12/11/2002), a move that BESE at that time fortunately defeated by a 7-3 vote.

Here is what Oller said during that 2002 effort, as reported in the Advocate (12/11/02):

John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review.

Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.

Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings.

‘We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed,’ he said.

As Yogi Berra famously said, “It’s deja vu all over again.” Now, in 2010, Oller is at it again. The public record [pdf; see p. 4] indicates that he made an oral presentation against the proposed biology textbooks at a September 30 meeting of the Life and Environmental Science Committee, which was convened as part of the 2010 textbook adoption process. (See Oller’s completed public comment form. [pdf]) He also submitted for the public record a November 8 letter [pdf] to the Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council in lieu of his personal testimony at the council’s November 12 meeting.

Concerning the new biology textbooks, which were placed in public libraries for citizen review over the summer, he makes some bold statements in this letter to the advisory council. Oller, who has absolutely no credentials in any of the natural sciences (his degrees are in French, Spanish, and linguistics), claims that “The authors of the books . . . seemed not to have access to modern databases of the journal literature of the most recent decades of biological research.” (That would be news to my friend Kenneth Miller, who uses the most current biological research available both in his work as a cell biologist at Brown University and as co-author with Joe Levine of one of the currently proposed textbooks that Oller is attacking.)

Oller also refers to the “death knell of evolutionary dogma” (creationist talk), which he blames for the “sorry state of our current educational system and the rampant crime and deterioration of our social and economic systems.” He must have picked up this idea from his colleagues on the Technical Advisory Board at the Institute for Creation Research, where the late Henry Morris, a lead figure in the American young-earth creationist movement, wrote an article ominously entitled “Evil-ution.”

As evolutionism has become the dominant teaching in our schools and colleges, those evil doctrines and practices whose rationale is based on evolution have inevitably followed. In terms of its impact on society—especially a society once founded on principles of Biblical morality as ours was—evolutionism has indeed evolved into evil-utionism. . . .

The practices of sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and abortion are already widely promoted and accepted as ‘normal’ and even ‘good’ in our culture, in the name of evolutionism. Infanticide, and euthanasia are being increasingly advocated, on the same basis. . . .

Oller has a long history of creationist activity. He-coauthored an article for a 1994 book entitled The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, in which he and his co-author posed the question: “Are human beings just beasts with more flexible and better-developed vocal systems, or are we utterly unique creatures who approximate the divine traits of an invisible, omniscient . . . , omnipresent . . . and omnipotent . . . Creator who, according to the Bible, stands both within and outside the space-time continuum?” (Answer: B) The editor was J. P. Moreland, and the foreword was written by Phillip E. Johnson, both of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, the creationist think tank that helped write the LSEA in 2008.

In July 2006, Oller participated as an invited speaker (topic unknown) at a workshop [pdf] sponsored by ICR and the Society for the Advancement of Creation Science in Starkville, Mississippi. Part of the mission of this workshop was “to develop a new generation of faculty at secular universities who confidently express a Biblical creationist worldview in their research and teaching.”

Also in July 2006, Oller was among “eleven creation scientists [who] gathered together for a 5-day conference” at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, the state-of-the-art misinformation center that has now attracted more than one million visitors. He was photographed (upper left, rear) in front of an exhibit showing children playing alongside animatronic dinosaurs, depicting, as the museum website says, how “children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers.”

UPDATE (12/4/10): An alert reader in Louisiana (hat tip!) pointed out that in Oller’s 2008 article for Answers in Genesis, “More than PIE: Babel Explains Distinct Language Families,” his explanation for the diversity of human languages is the unscientific, biblical story of the tower of Babel, as even just the title makes clear. Here is the heart of his article, with a clarification inserted in blue:

Standard theories argue that languages change when people are separated, but the Bible teaches that people were separated at Babel because God miraculously changed the common language. So which story fits the facts? The miracle of Babel or gradual change? How did we get all these languages? . . .

Enemies of the Bible have especially made sport of this part of the biblical narrative. They have supposed that all the diversity of the languages of the earth can be explained by gradual change. If the Darwinian idea were correct, we should expect a very different picture than the one we have. . . .

In their efforts to explain the multitude of languages, secular [i.e., non-religious] theories come up empty. They are upstaged by the biblical narrative, which credits God with the gift of language and the vast diversity of different language families. . . .  [end update]

Such is the evidence for the quality of the scientific judgment of Prof. Oller, who, in his LinkedIn profile, specifies that his interests are “consulting offers” and “expertise requests.” He hangs out with not only the the disgraced (and disgraceful) Andrew Wakefield but also with young-earth creationists who have misinformed an untold number of innocent children. His association with ICR indicates that he believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Yet, according to Oller, the scientists with hard-earned, professional expertise in biology who wrote the proposed textbooks don’t know what they’re doing. Oh, and — lest we forget — evolution is causing the downfall of society.

One has to wonder whether BESE would have given the LFF control over science education policy if they had known who the LFF’s “experts” really are. Ladies and gentlemen of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, wouldn’t you like to rethink — and rescind — your decisions of the past two years?

By Barbara Forrest

Well, friends, the fun just never stops here in Louisiana. As the saying goes, “Here we go again.” What, you ask, is the state of Louisiana up to now?

We now have a Texas-style attack on the selection of biology textbooks, courtesy of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), which brought us the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) of 2008. (See the LFF’s “Action Item” in its August 10, 2010, Family Facts newsletter.) This attack began with a volley of letters written by LFF operative Darrell White to various Louisiana newspapers in July of this year. (See White’s July 22, 2010, letter in the Hammond Daily Star. See my response in the July 26 Daily Star.) However, the process has been developing under the radar. The November 9, 2010, story on the front page of the Baton Rouge Advocate has now provided a glimpse of what may be about to happen on Friday, November 12, at a meeting of the Textbook/Media/Advisory Council in Baton Rouge [agenda here (pdf)]. According to the Advocate article, the LFF and its followers just have all kinds of problems with the biology textbooks.

Critics contend some biology I, biology II and other school books under scrutiny  for public classrooms put too much credence in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

‘It is like Charles Darwin and his theory is a saint,’ said Winston White, of Baton Rouge, who filed a comment with state officials reviewing the textbooks. . . .

Darrell White, who is the father of Winston White and is  co-founder of the Louisiana Family Forum, said the proposed biology textbooks he reviewed fail to meet the benchmarks spelled out in a [2008] law aimed at expanding classroom talks on the theory of evolution.

‘If this was a beauty contest, we have got all ugly contestants in these biology textbooks,’ [Darrell] White said.

And — hush my puppies! — the article says that “In written comments to state officials, David Mathers, of West Monroe, said he would ‘like to see intelligent design explained as an alternate theory to the theory of evolution.’” Moreover, Curt Eberts of Monroe “faulted a biology textbook he reviewed for lacking material on the concept of intelligent design.” One would think that these folks were coordinating their efforts, wouldn’t one?

The meeting is open to the public, and concerned citizens may want to attend. But first, a little history is in order, because this goes all the way back to 2002, when the LFF made its first attempt to influence the selection of state-approved biology textbooks. So let’s take a little stroll down memory lane.

Readers of this blog already know about the Louisiana Science Education Act, which we enjoy courtesy of the LFF and some (actually a lot of) helpful politicians. Senator Ben Nevers introduced the bill on behalf of the LFF in 2008, and Rep. Frank Hoffman of Monroe shepherded the bill through the House of Representatives, where he sits on the House Education Committee. Sen. Nevers was quoted as saying that he introduced the bill because the LFF thought that “scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory.” Rep. Hoffman had been Assistant Superintendent of the Ouachita Parish School District in 2006 and had, along with Darrell White, helped engineer the Ouachita Parish School Board’s adoption of an “academic freedom” policy [pdf] that was the forerunner of the LSEA. According to the Ouachita Citizen’s November 29, 2006, story about the adoption of the policy, “Assistant superintendent Dr. Frank Hoffman said the issue is not about evolution or religion, but rather giving school teachers the freedom to teach all facets of a subject.” (Remember these little factoids. You’ll see why momentarily.)

But getting the LSEA passed wasn’t quite enough for the LFF. They wanted control over the LSEA implementation policy, which falls under the purview of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE). In January 2009, BESE obliged by stripping the draft policy (which had been drawn up by the Louisiana Department of Education) of its prohibition against teaching creationism, in effect gutting it. But BESE didn’t stop there. In September 2009, they handed the LFF another victory in the form of control over the complaint procedure governing the review of supplementary materials used in classrooms. If a parent complains about creationist materials, the review process will be stacked in favor of the creationists. But all of this recent history is rooted in the LFF’s first effort in 2002 to influence the selection of state-approved biology textbooks. So let’s go there now.

The LFF’s First Attack on Biology Textbooks

The state of Louisiana selects new textbooks every seven years. The scheduled 2009 process was delayed for one year. It has been under way for several months, having last been done in 2002. The LFF’s current effort to secure control over science education policy in Louisiana actually began during this 2002 selection process. Speaking in 2006, after securing the passage of the Ouachita Parish policy, Darrell White recalled the 2002 effort.

In 2002, White reviewed science textbooks that the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education approved. He said those were flawed textbooks that numerous state lawmakers, public officials, college professors and high school teachers opposed.

He said documented scientific errors, misleading statements and ‘glaring omissions’ were noted in all of the  textbooks BESE approved.

‘They really give a one-sided story,’ White said.  ‘They don’t teach the weaknesses of Darwinism, and the weaknesses of evolution need to be taught right along with the strengths.’ BESE officials said those who opposed the textbooks should take their concerns to the individual school boards that use the books.

‘This [the passage of the Ouachita policy] is just a follow up today to what started back in 2002,’ White said. (“Board Gives Teachers ‘Academic Freedom,’” Ouachita Citizen, November 29, 2006)

In 2005, the LFF chronicled its 2002 effort in its now defunct “Forum Notes” [pdf]:

During the summer and fall of 2002, Louisiana citizens had an opportunity to review proposed new biology textbooks pursuant to 7-year adoption cycle promulgated by Louisiana Department of Education. In December of 2002, a group of educators, lawmakers, parents, and other concerned citizens presented uncontradicted facts to education officials (Louisiana Textbook Adoption Committee, Textbook Review Committee, and State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) showing that new biology textbooks proposed for adoption contained numerous inaccuracies and satisfied neither the state science standard benchmarks as promulgated by Louisiana Department of Education nor the above-stated curricula standards announced by Congress for science education. All of the proposed biology texts censor or downplay scientific criticisms of biological evolution and fail to ‘recognize and analyze alternative scientific models.’ SBESE rejected six proposed textbooks; however SBESE inexplicably approved ten biology books that contain the same errors. SBESE initially considered adopting Alabama’s approach by insisting that an insert label be placed in the front of all biology textbooks, but ended up rejecting that proposal and instead advised concerned citizens to voice their views about the textbooks to local school boards.

To its credit, BESE rejected this effort by a vote of 7-3 against inserting disclaimer stickers into Louisiana biology books. (See National Center for Science Education, “Louisiana Rejects Evolution Disclaimer,” December 11, 2002. See also “State Rejects Evolution Disclaimer,” New York Times, December 13, 2002.) But, as they say, that was then, and this is now. BESE has unfortunately become complicit in the LFF’s grab for control over science education policy. (See Louisiana Coalition for Science, “BESE can’t say we didn’t tell ‘em,” January 10, 2010.) So let’s now fast forward back to the present.

The LFF’s 2010 Attack on Biology Textbooks

The biology textbooks that various publishers submitted for consideration in 2010 were placed on display in various public libraries around the state where citizens could review them. Citizens could also submit comment forms [pdf] concerning the books. The books were on display until September 11, and comment forms had to be submitted to the Dept. of Education by September 13. (See the General Timeline [pdf] for the 2010-2011 State Textbook Adoption Cycle.) The LFF put out calls through its weekly Family Facts newsletter and Rev. Gene Mills’ End of Week newsletter for their followers to review the books and fill out the forms. The comment forms were transmitted to the Textbook Review Committee, which was appointed by the Dept. of Education to review the textbooks and receive public comments. This had to be done by the first week of October. According to the timelines specified in Bulletin 1794 — State Textbook Adoption Policy and Procedure Manual [Word], BESE had to receive all of the necessary information in order to approve the textbooks by the end of October.

BESE’s Student/School Performance and Support Committee (SSPS), chaired by LFF point man Dale Bayard, met on October 19, 2010. The committee’s meeting packet contains a recommendation from the Dept. of Education that the SSPS Committee approve the textbooks. (See the SSPS Committee’s meeting packet [pdf].) Notably, the recommendation form also says that “No problematic areas are foreseen” concerning the textbooks. The form is signed by LDoE Director of Curriculum Standards Nancy Beben, State Superintendent Paul Pastorek, and other LDoE officials. However, rather than approving the books, SSPS deferred the decision and referred the matter to the Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council, which, according to the Advocate article, is not very well known. It was apparently created by statute. The advisory council consists of various people, including two state legislators. (See the specifications [pdf] for council membership and duties.) And the two legislative members are . . .  — wait for it — . . .  Senator Ben Nevers and Rep. Frank Hoffman.

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.