By Barbara Forrest

There are times when the irony of life is so thick that one has to just stand back and marvel at it. Now is one of those times in Louisiana. June 25, 2010, marked exactly two years to the day since Gov. Bobby Jindal signed the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). Now, with coastal wildlife trapped and dying in sludge, with the human beings of the Gulf Coast facing the loss of culture, livelihoods, and our beautiful wetlands — courtesy of BP — Gov. Jindal felt called to set aside June 27 as an official day of prayer for divine assistance in “persevering” through this mess — and to post the call to prayer on his official state website. In 2008, his constituents couldn’t even get him to acknowledge the letters he got from scientists and citizens who asked him to veto the LSEA. But now, with the Gulf of Mexico hemorrhaging oil, he was only too happy to sign an official proclamation declaring a “Statewide Day of Prayer for Perseverance Through Oil Spill Crisis” [pdf]. The irony of this is as thick as the oil in the Gulf.

UPDATE, June 29, 2010: Hat tip to Bill Berkowitz in his guest commentary for Buzzflash.com, “Praying Away the Oil, BP’s Oil-Spewing Disaster: It’s God’s Message to America, Conservative Christian Evangelicals Say.” Berkowitz seems to have found the explanation for the official prayer vigil on June 27 at Charisma Magazine‘s News Online: “Governors Declare Day of Prayer for Gulf Spill.” The Charisma article confirms that David Barton drafted the basic prayer proclamation, which the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi could adapt for their states. It also quotes Cindy Jacobs, co-founder of the U.S. Reformation Prayer Network, who has been coordinating prayer efforts. Jacobs’ belief about the cause of the oil spill seems to shed some light on Gene Mills’ strange assessment (see below) of the oil gusher as the “second spiritual assault” on New Orleans:

Jacobs believes the oil spill is more than a natural disaster but partly the result of greed, debauchery on the beaches, poor environmental stewardship and a lack of U.S. support for Israel—all issues her network has been repenting of since the leak began.

‘Whenever there’s violent weather or some things like this, you have to ask if it’s just a natural disaster or if you’re reaping something that’s been sown,’ she said. ‘We feel this is a cumulative thing.’

Resume original post:

The official praying actually started on Monday, June 21, in the Memorial Hall (front lobby) of the Louisiana State Capitol, as we are informed by the Louisiana Family Forum, which distributed the governor’s official proclamation [pdf]. (Are we surprised?) According to the LFF’s June 22, 2010, Family Facts newsletter, “lawmakers, pastors, and intercessors joined Representative Regina Barrow, Senator Sharon Broome, and Governor Bobby Jindal  for a Prayer Vigil concerning the Deepwater Horizon Oil Explosion.” Also prominently featured in the LFF’s newsletter is a picture of Jindal undergoing the laying on of hands (the hands are unidentified). The Family Facts article also notes that “Governor Jindal read Psalms 146.” (See the LFF’s YouTube video of the 2007 pre-inaugural Christmas gala that LFF threw for him, at which he likewise underwent the laying on of hands in front of hundreds of attendees, with Rev. Mills presiding [at 2:17].)

It is ironic that Jindal could not squeeze into his schedule even one personal response to the Louisiana citizens, scientists, and teachers who implored him to protect the teaching of science in the state’s public schools. Yet he always seems to be available for the LFF’s political-religious photo ops, such as its 2009 Annual Legislative Awards Banquet, at which the LFF gives awards to Louisiana legislators who vote their way. So his finding room in his schedule for the prayer photo op is entirely typical of the way Jindal allots his gubernatorial time. The LFF asks, and the LFF receives. (See the Baton Rouge Advocate’s excellent June 28 editorial, “Bible Frauds on the March,” about the LFF’s power over the Louisiana legislature.)

The fact that people would turn to prayer is not surprising. Devout residents all along the Gulf Coast are understandably turning to anything they think will help. A good deal of prayer has been prompted in Louisiana in recent years by the well-known catastrophes that have blown in from the Gulf of Mexico. When people face losing everything they love, prayer is a source of hope and comfort. However, the irony of our anti-science governor signing a prayer proclamation when he would not sign his name to protect the teaching of science is a bit much. Yet it is to be expected in light of the fact that Jindal has thrown in lock, stock, and barrel with the extreme Religious Right. Vetoing the LSEA in 2008 would have meant breaking ranks with Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) director Rev. Gene Mills, who — being as much a political operative as a man of the cloth — is one of Jindal’s unofficial right-hand men. Mills orchestrated the passage of the LSEA. (See “Holy Warriors,” Jeremy Alford’s informative May 26, 2010, story on Mills and the LFF.)

As it turns out — unsurprisingly — Mills also announced that he orchestrated the drafting of the prayer proclamation (which is posted on the governor’s official website). He says that Louisianians have not prayed enough about the oil catastrophe. In his June 24, 2010, e-mail to LFF supporters, he observed that despite the fact that “America has assembled the brightest minds, the newest technology and America’s finest for 65 consecutive days to seal this breach in the Gulf of Mexico,” we have “failed to . . . corporately ‘pause and pray’ and admit that our efforts are futile without the assistance of the Almighty!” So an official proclamation from the governor was needed. (Note the additional irony of the double-entendre in Mills’s exhortation that Louisianians must “corporately” pray that God will help us get rid of BP’s oily deluge.) In a remark aimed directly at other ministers, Mills divulges that he had help in drafting the proclamation:

Pastors, I requested that Governor Jindal initiate this call and have been assisted by David Barton of Wallbuilders, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council and others in crafting the proclamation and implementing its directive.

Most readers have heard of Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana state legislator who helped found the LFF and now wages nation-wide culture war from Washington, DC, as head of the Family Research Council. (Perkins pulled some creationist shenanigans of his own during his time in the legislature.) But David Barton, a Republican political operative in Texas who poses as a historian, is less recognizable in Louisiana. Barton founded Wallbuilders, an organization devoted to “presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage” — in other words, he spreads Religious Right propaganda about the Founding Fathers. (Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State exposed Barton’s pseudo-scholarship almost twenty years ago. See “Sects, Lies and Videotape: David Barton’s Distorted History.”)

Barton was one of the “expert” reviewers whom the far-right contingent of the Texas Board of Education selected to screw up the Texas history standards earlier this year. (Boston points out Barton’s “credentials” for this task: “Barton earned a bachelor’s degree in ‘Christian Education’ from Oral Roberts University in 1976 and later taught math and science at a fundamentalist Christian school founded by his father.” See also the extensive information on Barton at Texas Freedom Network’s excellent TFN Insider blog.)

It turns out that Barton is also a buddy of Bobby Jindal. He accompanied Jindal on a campaign tour of Baptist churches in North Louisiana in October 2006, after which Jindal was a guest (two days in a row) on Barton’s Wallbuilders Live! radio program. Jindal gushed to the audience about what a knowledgeable historian Barton is. (See “Governor Jindal’s Friends in Low Places” here.) So Jindal reveals that he is not only anti-science but — through his chummy association with Barton — anti-history as well. Mills’ partnering with Barton on the Louisiana prayer proclamation simply continues the close working relationship that exists among Jindal, Barton, Perkins, and Mills himself.

So Rev. Mills pulled together his divinely inspired effort to protect the Gulf Coast. Actually, ten days after the rig explosion, in his April 30, 2010, End of Week newsletter, he had already issued a call to prayer — which included a weird, ambiguous comment about a “spiritual assault” on New Orleans:

It is not coincidental that this event occurred at precisely the point Katrina tracked and struck its destructive blow to New Orleans. This second spiritual assault warrants that we “Cry Out for success in the Gulf!” [Katrina link is Mills'.]

Next, in a call for fasting as well, he provided a prayer, which, among other things, asked God to inflict the oil on someone else (look out Cuba!):

As we are led by the Holy Spirit, let us pray…

• For God’s hand upon His creation, the land, the sea, and the winds. “Father, direct and command prevailing winds to move southward. We call forth the green grass of our wetlands to thrive and flourish!” [underlining added]

Now for the final irony: Almost two months later, in his June 4 End of Week newsletter, “Drills, Spills, and Bills” (in which he updates readers on his lobbying successes at the Capitol), Mills is defending BP against the prospect of prosecution. Referring indirectly to the Obama administration’s announcement that there will be a criminal investigation, he makes no mention of the fact that eleven human beings — husbands, dads, sons, brothers, buddies — are dead because of BP — twelve if you count the recent, tragic suicide of Alabama fisherman Allen “Rookie” Kruse. And domestic violence calls have tripled in beautiful little Bayou La Batre, Alabama. (Family values, anyone?) But Mills is concerned about BP’s stock ratings:

[Obama's] policy decisions to close drilling and proceed with criminal investigations appear counter-intuitive, calculated, and politically theatrical. BP’s stock fell dramatically within minutes of the criminal investigation announcement! How will Louisiana subrogate against an [sic] bankrupt BP?

Obama has repeatedly charged BP with withholding information… does he really expect they will suddenly be forthcoming with all the latest intelligence now that their every word and action may be used against them in Congressional Investigation?  This is all a sad show for the media and the American people to avoid culpability. May God have mercy on our coast!

There isn’t much else to say after this revelation, is there? Except to recall — once again — that, under the governorship of Bobby Jindal, Gene Mills is calling the shots on Louisiana science education policy. Have mercy, indeed.

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?

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.

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.

As the new decade begins in 2010, “Top Ten” lists  are a popular way to commemorate the events of 2009, and science is well-represented in the list-making. Wired Science lists the “Top Scientific Breakthroughs of 2009.” The Examiner lists the “Top 10 Science Stories of 2009.” Scientific American has posted a slideshow of “The Top 10 Science Stories of 2009.” ScienceNOW, a website by the American Association for the Advancement of Science for publishing breaking science news , has listed “The Top 10 ScienceNOWs of 2009.” National Geographic News lists the “Top Ten Videos of 2009: Nat Geo News’s Most Watched.” And Religion Dispatches lists its “Top Ten Religion & Science Stories.” Louisiana closes out 2009 by being on two “Top Ten” lists, but these are lists on which the citizens of Louisiana should be embarrassed to be included. Virtually all of the above lists include stories that highlight important discoveries related to evolution. Louisiana, however, made it onto these two lists for its attack on the teaching of evolution.

• The National Center for Science Education has posted its “Top Ten Evolution/Creationism Stories of the Year.” Louisiana is NCSE’s story #5, which highlights (using hyperlinks) the Louisiana Family Forum‘s commandeering of both the policy and the complaint process related to implementation of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act:

5. Louisiana faces “academic freedom” In 2008, the Louisiana Science Education Act was signed into law, which opened the door to teaching creationism in public school science classes. Since then, the state board of education has ignored the recommendations of its own science education professionals, turning instead to the Louisiana Family Forum for guidance. Under the board’s guidelines, supplementary classroom materials can’t be rejected just because they include creationism. And challenging the materials triggers a convoluted hearing process that the Louisiana Coalition for Science calls “seriously flawed.”

“A mixed result in Louisiana”

“More bad news from Louisiana”

Louisiana coverage

(See LCFS articles about this here and here.) (NOTE: Readers who value good science education can begin 2010 by joining NCSE, which is the only organization devoted solely to protecting the teaching of evolution from creationist attacks. Disclosure: I serve on the NCSE Board of Directors.)

• Lauri Lebo, a journalist who provided excellent coverage of the trial in the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005) and who published a book about the trial, has included Louisiana as #3 in the list she compiled for Religion Dispatches.

3. Just Say No . . . To Louisiana The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB), one of the nation’s leading scientific societies, took the unusual step in February to boycott Louisiana due to the state’s new anti-science law. In 2008, lawmakers voted to pass the Science Education Act, which was signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal. The law, based largely on wording from the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute’s sample academic freedom bill, explicitly says that teachers are permitted to use supplemental materials to teach critiques of evolution and opens the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design. In response, SICB chose to hold its annual conference in Utah, whose state Board of Education recently passed a resolution recognizing that “the Theory of Evolution is a major unifying concept in science.”

Looking at the bright side, Louisiana is blessed with dedicated public school science teachers and accomplished scientists. Readers around the state should (1) let your science teachers know that you support teaching evolution and thank them for their efforts to teach good science, and (2) inform your school board members that you will be watching them to make sure that they do not allow creationist materials into our public school science classes. As always, if you learn that such materials are being used, please contact the Louisiana Coalition for Science.

LFF director Rev. Gene Mills, whose own children do not attend public schools, attended the meeting but did not speak. Among the creationists testifying 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.

Also testifying at the September 16 meeting was Charles Voss, vice-president of the creationist Origins Resource Association, who attempted in 1994 to persuade the Livingston Parish School Board to adopt a creationist curriculum guide. LFF “consultant” Darrell White, who was also involved in the 2002 disclaimer effort and who promotes creationism on his website, testified, as did Wade Warren, a creationist at Louisiana College who works cooperatively with the Discovery Institute (DI), the creationist think tank in Seattle, WA, that helped write the LSEA. (See DI’s interview with Warren.)

Lenni Ditoro, who testified last year in favor of the LSEA before the Senate Education Committee, also spoke in favor of the changes to the DOE proposal. Ditoro is the former head of the LFF’s “Education Resource Council.” Oklahoma creationist Donald Ewert was brought in from out of state to testify. Ewert is a signatory to the Discovery Institute’s “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism“; his name appears on a list of “Intellectual Doubters of Darwinism” at the creationist IDEA Center website. In Oklahoma, Ewert promoted “academic freedom” legislation similar to the LSEA (SSPS audiotape, 9/16/09). He was involved in the creationist effort to influence state science standards in Texas in March 2009 (see below).

In its recommendation to the SSPS Committee, DOE proposed that, when a complaint about supplementary materials is filed, “the DOE will select three reviewers” who “should be experts” capable of determining whether the contested materials meet the necessary criteria for use in public school science classes. A meeting would be held in which both the complainant and the LEA (Local Education Agency, i.e., the school district) and their chosen representatives would present their positions and answer reviewers’ questions. Then, according to the DOE’s proposal, “the DOE will consider the report of the reviewers and make recommendations to BESE.” Further, the proposal specified that “the DOE may elect to support, reject or modify the recommendations of the reviewers or may substitute its own recommendation” to BESE. In short, DOE professionals, exercising their professional judgment, would do their jobs properly and preserve the integrity of Louisiana’s science curriculum.

However, on September 16 the LFF sought and obtained from BESE’s SSPS Committee a substantial change in the complaint procedure that diminishes the influence of DOE’s professional staff. As the revised draft of the complaint procedure now reads, “The DOE shall have the opportunity to appoint two reviewers of the materials. The challenger, the LEA, and the publisher (if any) shall each have the opportunity to appoint one reviewer of the materials.” Furthermore, rather than allowing DOE to consider the reviewers’ reports and then make its recommendation to BESE, the revised draft now requires that “the DOE will forward the reports of the reviewers to BESE,” even though “the DOE may elect to make its own recommendation.”

Consequently, the prerogative of DOE professionals to handle the review process and make a recommendation to BESE has been seriously undermined. There is no guarantee that the three non-DOE reviewers, especially the school district’s and the publisher’s appointees, will have the requisite expertise to evaluate contested materials. A school district that permits the use of creationist materials is likely to choose a creationist reviewer. The publisher of creationist materials is virtually certain to choose a creationist. Moreover, the involvement of the LFF in the response to such complaints is a certainty. Charles Voss has “published” on the Internet creationist supplementary materials that he calls “Textbook Addenda“, which the LFF promotes on its website as among the “many practical alternatives available today to the uncritical teaching of evolutionism.”

BESE’s amended complaint procedure guarantees that a creationist such as Voss himself or his supporters will be allowed to review their own materials. In fact, at the September 16 meeting, John Oller actually spoke in favor of a process that “provides the opportunity for people to produce supplementary materials along the lines that Dr. Voss has done” (audiotape of SSPS Committee meeting, 9/16/09). The same holds for reviewers appointed by publishers of materials such as the Discovery Institute’s stealth creationist textbook, Explore Evolution, and its creationist DVDs, which LFF also promotes on its website. Such reviewers would be manifestly unqualified to render judgments concerning materials for use in Louisiana’s public schools. In short, as BESE’s complaint procedure is now drafted, DOE’s expert reviewers will be in the minority, and DOE staff will not be allowed to independently assess the reviewers’ reports but must instead transfer the reports directly to BESE for evaluation.

Judging from BESE members’ consistent concessions to LFF creationists concerning the implementation of the LSEA, their evaluations will be unlikely to favor scientific expertise and professionalism. On the contrary, BESE’s actions since the passage of the LSEA indicate that the board will rubber-stamp anything that Bayard and the LFF recommend. The approved procedure will enable creationists and their allies to turn every complaint about creationist materials into a dog and pony show that they can manipulate and exploit. There are precedents for this tactic in other states.

In Kansas in 2005, creationists bogged down the revision of state science standards that were sent out for external review by the creationist-dominated Kansas Board of Education. They then staged a “kangaroo court” composed of creationists who testified about the standards before members of the state board. Earlier this year, creationists on the Texas Board of Education appointed their own “experts” (i.e., creationists) to the review panel charged with evaluating the draft of state science standards. At a hearing in March, Ewert presented pro-creationist testimony before the Texas Board of Education, just as he did at the SSPS Committee hearing on September 16 (SSPS Committee audiotape, 9/16/09). His Texas testimony is referenced on the Discovery Institute website by DI staffer Casey Luskin, who traveled to Louisiana to attend the May 21, 2008, House Education Committee hearing on the LSEA. Wade Warren also testified [pdf] before the Texas Board of Education. As a result of these efforts in Texas, creationist code language is now embedded in the standards and will remain for an entire decade until the next revision.

The LFF is using a similar tactic in order to control the policy implementing the LSEA, which they authored with assistance and legal advice from the Discovery Institute. The September 16 concession is the second time that BESE has allowed the LFF to dictate public school science education policy. On January 13, 2009, BESE voted 10-0 to delete vital safeguards against the teaching of creationism from the policy governing Louisiana school administrators in their implementation of the LSEA. In that case, too, the expert recommendations of the DOE were ignored. The very next day, on January 14, Mills told a religious news service that “Louisiana is open for business.”

This creationist-friendly policy is now in effect in Bulletin 741, the Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators. (See Bulletin 741, [doc] August 2009, p. 45). The September 16 draft of the complaint procedure will expand this policy. The passage of the LSEA — and BESE’s subsequent adoption of whatever policies the creationists at the LFF dictate — have damaged Louisiana’s already tarnished image in the rest of the country. In fact, these actions have done tangible harm to the state. In February 2009, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) notified Gov. Jindal that the SICB will hold its 2011 convention in Utah rather than in New Orleans because of his signing the LSEA. SICB will boycott Louisiana as long as the LSEA remains on the books. In August 2008, the president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which met in New Orleans in April 2009, had already called for scientists to protest such decisions “with our feet and wallets”:

I think we need to see to it that no future meeting of our society will take place in Louisiana as long as that law stands, nor should we hold it in any other state (are you listening, Michigan and Texas?) that passes a similar law. And I call upon the presidents of the American Chemical Society, the American Association of Immunologists, the Society for Neuroscience, and all the other scientific societies around the U.S. and the world, to join me in this action and make clear to the state legislators in Louisiana, the governor of the state, and the mayor and business bureau of New Orleans that this will be the consequence.  (ASBMB Today [pdf], August 2008)

In June, concerned citizens and scientists from across Louisiana sent dozens of letters to BESE asking board members to restore the integrity of the policy that had been gutted in January. Their requests were ignored. Rather than restoring the protections against teaching creationism that the DOE had initially written into the policy, BESE published the policy in Bulletin 741 without the necessary safeguards. With the SSPS Committee’s approval of the pro-creationist complaint procedure on September 16, BESE has once again allowed the LFF to dictate policy governing science education in Louisiana.

Louisiana Coalition for Science is a grassroots group working to protect the teaching of science in Louisiana. On the web at http://lasciencecoalition.org. **Download press release here [pdf].

Mrs. Supriya Jindal should be applauded for endorsing Head Start’s early childhood program during her August 13 visit to the Regina Coeli Child Development Center. Head Start richly deserves her endorsement. She should also be applauded for highlighting the importance of math and science education: “Louisiana is becoming a hub for industries and companies of innovation and, important to all of us, companies that will require a work force that’s knowledgeable in the areas of math and science. . . . it is industries like these that will power and grow our state and nation for the years to come. But their success will depend heavily upon our ability to provide a mathematically and scientifically proficient work force.” Speaking on behalf of herself and her husband, Gov. Bobby Jindal, she thanked the Head Start teachers for “inspiring the future leaders of our state who will help make Louisiana the greatest place in the world to find a great job and raise a family.” Concerning the importance of math and science education, Mrs. Jindal could do the state another service by speaking to her husband about the creationist bill that he signed into law as the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act. Louisiana is suffering tangible harm because of her husband’s signing this bill. First, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, a national scientific organization, decided against holding its 2011 meeting in New Orleans even though it has held three previous meetings there. SICB wrote to Gov. Jindal in 2008, as did eight other national scientific organizations, asking him to veto the LSEA. The governor didn’t respond. So on Feb. 5 of this year, SICB wrote to him again, telling him that “The Executive Committee voted to hold the 2011 meeting in Salt Lake City in large part because of legislation . . . you signed into law in June 2008.” Salt Lake City was chosen because the Utah State Board of Education has publicly stated the importance of evolution to Utah’s K-12 curriculum. (See http://www.sicb.org/resources/LouisianaLetterJindal.pdf.) Again, the governor didn’t respond, and New Orleans lost a major convention — and the dollars that attendees would have spent. Last week, because of the creationist LSEA, Louisiana received a grade of “F” in a study of state science standards by Dr. Louise Mead and Anton Mates of the National Center for Science Education that was published in the journal “Evolution: Education and Outreach.” Their study, “Evolution: How Does It Fare in State K-12 Science Standards?” reports, “The coverage of evolution in Louisiana’s state science standards is actually adequate and would have received a grade of C but for the Louisiana Science Education Act… The brief but adequate treatment of evolution in the state science standards is completely undermined by the LSEA, and the standards now score an F.” The study received national attention in “Education Week” and “USA Today.” The damage that the LSEA has done to Louisiana could have been avoided with a stroke of Gov. Jindal’s veto pen. Vetoing this creationist bill would have been an easy way of encouraging economic development for free, and Louisiana would have earned the nation’s respect. The only way to undo the damage now is to repeal the LSEA. This would be a service to Louisiana’s school children by helping to insure that they receive a quality science education that prepares them for the 21st century world. Surely, Mrs. Jindal can use her influence with her husband to persuade him to spearhead the repeal of this harmful, unnecessary law.

— Barbara Forrest

In “Why Science Standards Are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up,” Dr. Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates of the National Center for Science Education survey the science standards of 49 states and the District of Columbia. (Download the pdf here. Html text is here.) Mead and Mates point out that science standards are frequent targets of creationist attacks: “[T]here is no other arena in which the religious controversy surrounding evolution plays out to such a detrimental degree as in the generation of poor science standards.” Louisiana’s standards were given a grade of C in the well-known 2000 study conducted by Lawrence Lerner under the auspices of the Thomas Fordham Institute, Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. (Paul R. Gross led a 2005 update of the Lerner study; Gross’s survey, using a slightly different grading scale than Lerner’s, awarded Louisiana a “B.”)

Science standards are the most important safeguards of quality science education in each state. As Lerner said in his 2000 study, “They are meant to serve as the frame to which everything else is attached, the desired outcome that drives countless other decisions about how best to attain it. If a state’s standards are unsatisfactory, some of its other reform efforts are apt to be less likely to succeed, maybe even futile.” Louisiana’s standards, which both the Lerner and the Mead-Mates studies judged to be adequate, have now been undermined by the Louisiana Science Education Act, which permits teachers to introduce creationist critiques of evolution into public school science classes. Moreover, Mead and Mates point out, the policy that the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) adopted to implement the law made matters even worse.

In the case of Louisiana, there is certainly reason to think that . . . evolution will be invidiously singled out for attention and that creationist critiques of evolution will be used. When Louisiana’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy about what types of supplementary classroom materials will, and will not, be allowable under the new law, a draft provision that ‘materials that teach creationism or intelligent design… shall be prohibited from use in science class’ was deleted. [See the LCFS post here.]

As if that were not bad enough, the LSEA’s permitting the use of creationist “supplementary” textbooks in addition to state-approved textbooks effectively functions as a disclaimer of the reliability of the state-approved textbooks, which Mead and Mates also point out. Here is Mead and Mates’s summary of Louisiana’s situation:

The coverage of evolution in Louisiana’s state science standards is actually adequate and would have received a grade of C but for the Louisiana Science Education Act. Following the passing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) was ordered to establish science education guidelines consonant with this act. These guidelines, passed in January 2009, state that BESE is to provide ‘support and guidance of teachers regarding effective ways to understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review concepts, laws, principles, and scientific theories.’ To this end, teachers are permitted to use ‘supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials,’ save for those prohibited by BESE after a lengthy and onerous review process. The Louisiana Department of Education proposed that these guidelines forbid ‘materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind,’ but BESE removed this caveat after objections by creationist organizations and the sponsor of the LSEA [Senator Ben Nevers]. The brief but adequate treatment of evolution in the state science standards is completely undermined by the LSEA, and the standards now score an F.

Louisiana is not the only state to flunk this evaluation. We are in the company of Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. But we are the only state that flunked for passing legislation to give teachers the “academic freedom” to mislead children about evolution and the true nature of science.

Summer is two-thirds over, and nothing much is going on. (Exception: we can be sure that creationists are busy plotting — they never slack off. This is a significant factor in their success at causing trouble and catching pro-science advocates off guard. There’s a lesson here.) So it’s a good time to review some little-noted developments that occurred after the 2008 passage of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act. As it turns out, the Discovery Institute (DI), national headquarters of the intelligent design creationist movement, despite its declaration of victory when Gov. Jindal signed the LSEA, continues to stay abreast of what goes on down here. They even monitor our small town newspapers.

First, a little background: For the details of Louisiana’s adoption of this legislation, see this analysis of the bill’s creationist history and content. See direct evidence of the DI’s influence on the content of the bill here. Listen to DI creationist David DeWolf discuss his role in crafting the LSEA here. To hear DI staffer Casey Luskin’s podcasts concerning Louisiana, go here and here. Luskin accompanied creationist Caroline Crocker to Baton Rouge on May 21, 2008, where she testified (ram video) in favor of the LSEA. Crocker discusses her role in the LSEA here. She has a history of teaching creationism as a college instructor; slides that she used in her classes can be seen here. Her interview with Coral Ridge Ministries about that episode is here. (CRM also produced a truly vile piece of anti-evolution propaganda, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. Watch it here.)

Now let’s return to the review of developments so far this year. In January 2009, John West, the associate director of DI’s creationist Center for Science and Culture, divulged that DI has been giving legal advice to the Louisiana Family Forum, with whom it partnered to help write and promote the LSEA. DI also was involved in the LFF’s successful effort to persuade the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to guts its policy for implementing the LSEA.

A Discovery Institute representative is trying to travel to Baton Rouge for today’s hearing, West said. He also confirmed that his group has continued advising the Louisiana Family Forum on the law. The Baton Rouge-based organization often pushes for more religious expressions in the public sphere.

(Bill Barrow, “Science Lesson Content Debate Expected Today,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 13, 2009)

DI continues to monitor Louisiana, right down to our small-town newspapers. On January 25, 2009, Dr. Holly Wilson, a philosophy professor at the *University of Louisiana-Monroe (*identification only), had a very good letter in the Monroe News Star in which she pointed out, as a Catholic, that intelligent design creationism is not consistent with Catholic theology. (She’s right. The Catholic Church endorses the scientific theory of evolution. Read Pope John Paul II’s comment on evolution here. See the roster of speakers at the Vatican’s Pontifical Gregorian University “International Conference on Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories,” March 3-7, 2009. Note that only distinguished scientists — and no creationists — were invited.) Here is her letter (keep reading below for more of today’s post and analysis).

January 25, 2009
It’s not a Catholic theory of creation

[By Dr. Holly Wilson]

The newest strategy of the Discovery Institute to promote its agenda of creationism and intelligent design is to work for and promote “Academic Freedom” legislation for science education in K-12 schools.

If you go to the Discovery Institute Web site you will find them reporting on and praising state-level efforts to change laws. Not only are they committed to promoting their religion of Christianity, they are promoting only their Protestant version.

As a Catholic, I would be worried about my children or my students having to be exposed to their vision of a Creationist God in the public school system rather than the Catholic vision of the Creationist God who has been creating in and through evolution. I would not want my children or students to think that God only created once back about 10,000 years ago and created the species as they are now or just slightly evolved to this point. If creationism and intelligent design are going to be taught in science classrooms, I would want the Catholic version taught.

I don’t want my children or my students being exposed to the Protestant idea that the Bible has to be interpreted literally. I want my children and my students exposed to Catholic interpretation of the Bible, namely that the Bible needs to be interpreted in its own historical context and hence the words used then don’t mean the same things they mean now in the 20th century.

I would want my children and students to have a historical consciousness and know our understanding of how God created and is still creating can be known through modern science as modern scientists understand it. I don’t want my children or students exposed to the Protestant belief that science and religion are in conflict.

Further, I don’t want my children and students being taught to believe that science and metaphysics are the same thing. I want my children and students to be able to think critically about the distinction between metaphysics and science.

Medieval fathers of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas taught the difference between metaphysics and science, and I would want my children and students exposed to that distinction and not have them exposed to ideas that gloss over this essential distinction.

Frankly, I don’t want my children or students exposed to the Protestant version of creationism. Intelligent design is nothing by the Protestant version of creationism. All the talk of irreducible complexity is just their way of arguing that species had to be created by God as they are because they could not have evolved from other species the way evolution tells us they did. And that metaphysical argument is precisely against my beliefs as a Catholic about how God created the species.

If the BESE board is going to let metaphysics be taught in a science curriculum, I want them to include the Catholic version of creationism, too. Thirty percent of Louisianians are Catholic. So at least 30 percent of the metaphysics education in science classrooms should be Catholic.

If my children and students have to be exposed to Protestant metaphysics, then they should also equally hear, and this is on account of academic freedom, Catholic metaphysics.

The Rev. George Coyne, the directory of the Vatican Observatory, in a 2006 talk said, “Intelligent design reduces and belittles God’s power and might.” He went on to say that science should be seen as a “completely neutral” endeavor and that science and religion should be totally separate pursuits.

John Paul II in his “Message to the Vatican Observatory Conference on Evolutionary and Molecular Biology” declared that today evolutionary theory is no longer a hypothesis. He also went on to say that evolutionary theory is increasingly accepted by scientists and supported by a convergence of research from many different fields.

The pope referred to “the need for a correct interpretation of the inspired word, of a rigorous hermeneutics. It is fitting to set forth well the limits of the meaning proper to Scripture, rejecting undue interpretations which make it say what it does not have the intention of saying.”

He also acknowledges that natural philosophy plays a legitimate role in the explanation and mechanism of evolution, but it does not necessitate a reductionist metaphysics. Intelligent design proponents, like Philip Johnson, believe that evolutionary theory is necessarily materialist and reductionist, but the pope understands that science and religion are separate entities with separate magisteria and thus it is not necessary to hold that the spirit of a human being arose out of matter. Human nature is still in the image of God even if human beings evolved from other animal species.

It is clear that the Catholic Church’s position is inconsistent with intelligent design. Catholics are not opposed to academic freedom, but we would like to have our perspectives included in that if there is going to be a violation of the separation of church and state in the science classrooms of Louisiana.

Of course, better yet, would be that there be no violation of the separation of church and state in the science classrooms of Louisiana and that our children and students be exposed only to the neutral theories of science. Let our children also learn that science is a methodology, not a dogma. And I will be happy.

---

Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, quickly posted an online comment at the News Star taking issue with Dr. Wilson. Soon afterwards, an op-ed from Discovery Institute fellow David DeWolf, who had helped craft the LSEA, appeared in the newspaper. Here is a relevant excerpt from that op-ed (with creationist code talk in red and LCFS commentary in blue):

What is at stake in Louisiana is not a divide between Catholic and Protestant — or even a divide between religious and non-religious — but a question of whether Louisiana students can question the materialist dogma that is frequently peddled in the guise of science instruction. [emphasis added]

Students should be free to question whether materialist explanations for the origin of biological complexity [more code talk] are plausible; and they should be free to study both the evidence that supports a materialist explanation (such as random mutation and natural selection) as well as the evidence that leads to skepticism. [Yet more code talk that attempts to create the impression that there is scientific evidence against evolution. There isn't.] . . .

. . . Wilson badly mischaracterizes the Discovery Institute, which is blamed for foisting a ‘Protestant version’ of science on Louisiana. [See Pope John Paul II's comment on evolution linked above.]

For openers, the Discovery Institute *has never advocated mandating the teaching of intelligent design*, but rather has promoted science education policies that encourage students to learn about the strengths and weaknesses in mainstream evolutionary theory (Darwinism) [more code talk for undermining evolution].

[*Note: From the foreword of Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, co-authored by DeWolf:

Happily, the law is not on the side of an enforced Darwinian orthodoxy. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." As this guidebook will show, teachers and school boards who choose to tell students about the evidence and arguments for intelligent design actually fulfill this Supreme Court mandate. [emphasis added]

Referring to the Supreme Court case that originated in Louisiana, the foreword interprets the Court’s recognition of the constitutionality of teaching genuine scientific theories to school children as a mandate to teach intelligent design (which is creationism and therefore unconstitutional under Edwards). While the foreword was written by fellow creationist Jon Buell, co-authors DeWolf and Stephen C. Meyer are long-time fellows of the Discovery Institute’s creationist Center for Science and Culture. Meyer is the director of the CSC. They obviously did not object to Buell’s reference to the teaching of ID as the fulfillment of a Supreme Court mandate.]

Second, the Discovery Institute is headed by a Roman Catholic, Bruce Chapman.

[Actually, Chapman established the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute long before his conversion to Catholicism in 2002, prior to which he was an Episcopalian, thus a Protestant.]

The man responsible for the argument from ‘irreducible complexity,’ [another creationist term] which Wilson attributes to this same Protestant narrowmindedness, is Michael Behe, a distinguished Catholic scholar from Lehigh University.

[Being Catholic, which is an entirely personal matter to be respected under the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, means nothing with respect to intelligent design creationism except that its Catholic proponents are out of step with their own Church. But as for Prof. Behe, not only is he out of step with his Church in being an ID proponent, he is also out of step with his own Lehigh University Department of Biology, which has posted a disclaimer of his creationism on the departmental website, which reads in part, "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."]

As it happens, in addition to being a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, I am also a Roman Catholic.

[Again, see above. If this is not convincing, please see Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, July 2004, a report by the Vatican's International Theological Commission, approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/aka/Pope Benedict XVI, when he was President of the Commission and also head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.]

Based on an analysis of nothing more than this short excerpt from DeWolf’s Monroe News Star op-ed, it is clear that the facts are on Dr. Wilson’s side. (The next post will feature Barbara Forrest’s response to DeWolf’s op-ed, which the News Star was very kind to print.)

Finally, the fact that DeWolf and Chapman saw and responded to Wilson’s letter in the newspaper of a small Louisiana town like Monroe indicates how closely they continue to monitor events down here. Their continued monitoring of Louisiana shows how deeply invested they are in manipulating the only state that has so far been foolish enough to buy what they were selling last year.