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

It’s Kitzmastime! Today, December 20, marks the fifth anniversary of the victory for science education and the Constitution in the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005). As a result of the ruling [pdf] in favor of the plaintiffs delivered by Judge John E. Jones III, we now have a landmark legal opinion that will serve as the resource of first resort for the judge in the next case stirred up either by the creationists at the Discovery Institute or their foot soldiers in Whereverville, USA. This notable pre-Christmas holiday comes on the heels of a victory for science education in Louisiana: the decision by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve new high school biology textbooks for public schools. To celebrate both this local victory and the Kitzmastide anniversary, the Louisiana Coalition for Science has an inspirational Kitzmas present for you.

On December 7, fifteen Louisiana citizens stepped into the spotlight to ask the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to approve new high school biology textbooks for public schools. Spurred by its success at getting the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) passed in 2008, and then its subsequent success at gaining control over BESE policies governing the implementation of the LSEA (see here and here), the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) then went after the biology textbooks. But this time, the LFF lost. BESE approved the textbooks, first at a meeting of the Student/School Support and Performance Committee meeting on December 7, and again at the general board meeting on December 9. The students of Louisiana who depend on public schools won this round.

What made the difference this time? The difference this time was that pro-science citizens had time and momentum on our side. Thanks to the vigilance of the Baton Rouge Advocate in bringing to public attention the LFF’s attack on the textbooks, and thanks to an organic swell of activism by citizens who were concerned enough to sacrifice their time in order to fight it, the LFF was stopped in its tracks.

Every one of the citizens and students who testified in favor of the textbooks on December 7 had to sacrifice valuable work and study time — not to mention personal time — in order to get involved. Professors and students were in the middle of final exams. Public school teachers had to use their personal days. Scientists and other professionals had to let important work sit while they attended the meeting. Clergy had to disrupt their busy schedules so that BESE members could hear a religious voice in support of good science education rather than only the LFF’s voice attacking it. The Louisiana Science Teachers Association President Shannon Lafont attended the meeting and read a statement from the LSTA.

We also had help in the form of citizen alerts sent out by the Louisiana ACLU and the Forum for Equality, for which we are most grateful. In addition, the Biotechnology Institute in Washington, DC, sent a letter of support that was distributed to BESE members during the meeting. And, as they always do, the National Center for Science Education rendered invaluable assistance.

National media were covering the issue as well — such as John Farrell’s article for Forbes, a national business publication. Lauri Lebo, whose reputation as a fine journalist was sealed with her coverage of the Kitzmiller trial and subsequent book, was covering it on her Religion Dispatches blog.

But ultimately, the credit goes to the Louisiana citizens who showed up at that BESE meeting, both those who testified and those who were in the audience as a show of moral support. After so much negative publicity about Louisiana — much of it well-deserved, unfortunately — the nation now needs to hear the voices of the wonderful citizens who gave their time to show up and speak out.

At this point, you are probably wondering, “So where’s my Kitzmas present?” Here it is: a downloadable collection [pdf] of the testimony of these citizens compiled for your reading pleasure and inspiration. We offer an excerpt from the introduction:

The testimony presented here is a testament to the quality and dedication of the students, teachers, scientists, and concerned citizens who made their voices heard in this effort. However, although we succeeded on December 7, several decades of history have taught us that creationists never take no for an answer. They never give up their efforts to force their particular religious agenda into the classrooms — and into the minds — of our young people. In order to make sure that Louisiana students get the education they deserve and that the religious freedom of every student is respected, the people of Louisiana — parents, teachers and professors, scientists, the business community, clergy, and concerned citizens — who want children properly educated must make their voices heard and must back up their words with actions. The Louisiana Coalition for Science invites them to join us in this effort.

There will be a next time. The Louisiana Family Forum is not going to shrink away after one defeat. They’ll be back next year, making mischief again with the help of the Discovery Institute. And the Louisiana Coalition for Science will again need the help of citizens who value both good science education and the constitutional separation of church and state. We will need eyes and ears in every area of Louisiana. We will need people to contact their legislators to help in Zachary Kopplin’s effort to repeal the LSEA. And we are going to ask you for this help.

So settle in with some hot chocolate beside your Christmas tree and read this collection of testimony from your fellow Louisianians who cared enough to get involved. Oh, and one more thing . . .

HO, HO, HO! MERRY KITZMAS!

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

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

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

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

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

Leuck & Butcher Figure 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Knox County, Tennessee, a parent named Kurt Zimmermann has complained to the school board about the use of the word “myth” in his son’s honors biology textbook, Asking About Life (Tobin and Dusheck, 2nd ed., 2001), which is being used at Farragut High School. Zimmermann’s complaint is nothing new. It sounds much like many other complaints made to school boards by creationist parents. But this one has a Louisiana connection.

Background

Mr. Zimmermann, a Sunday School teacher, objects that the book’s use of the word “myth” undermines his child’s belief in the truthfulness of the Bible and displays a bias against Christianity. In the complaint form that he filled out, he cites p. 319 of the book, on which there is a reference to “Creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.” At the April 7, 2010, Knox County School Board meeting, Mr. Zimmermann offered some remedies for the situation: “You could pitch the book, you could fix the book, you could come up with an alternative. There’s things you can do.” His friend Steve Cook, also a Sunday school teacher, agrees: “I am at my church teaching that there is a creator and I have students coming to me telling me there isn’t a creator.” (See this video clip of the school board meeting. See also “Ban a Science Book? School Board Delays Action,” at Metropulse, 4/8/2010.)

In order to evaluate the complaint that the word “myth” is offensive to Christians, the school’s review committee consulted Dictionary.com. Mr. Zimmermann used Webster’s Dictionary, where he found a section of the definition reflecting his contention that the word is insulting to Christians: “Describing Christian beliefs, such as Bible stories, as myth is therefore usually considered an attack on those beliefs.” But there is nothing inherently offensive or disrespectful to Christianity about the use of the word “myth.” The most respected dictionary in the English-speaking world, the Oxford English Dictionary, gives this as the first definition of the word:

1. a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

The OED provides a representative statement in which the word is used with this meaning:

1978 J. D. CRICHTON in C. Jones et al. Study of Liturgy I. 7 The myth was a sacred narrative, whether true or fictional, which gave an account of, or ‘explained’, the origins of human life or of the community.

The word can indeed be used in a way that reflects Mr. Zimmerman’s objection, as in the second definition in the OED:

2. a. A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing.

However, the very next definition that follows this one points once again to a perfectly respectable — and respectful — way to use “myth”:

[2.] b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious). [emphasis added]

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the most venerable of all school reference works, the article on “Christian Myth and Legend” opens with a wonderfully sensitive recognition of the importance of the concept of myth to Christianity:

Myths and legends number among the most creative and abundant contributions of Christianity to the history of human culture. They have inspired artists, dramatists, clerics, and others to contemplate the wondrous effects of Christian salvation on the cosmos and its inhabitants. They conjoin diverse cultural horizons and fuse them creatively with the religious histories that exist prior to and alongside the orthodox Christian world. . . .

But Mr. Zimmermann and his son find the word objectionable, so he and three like-minded supporters registered their complaints against Asking About Life (AAL) at the April 7 school board meeting. (Given the volatile nature of the issue, all parties — both complainants and board members — conducted themselves with admirable Southern courtesy, as shown in the school board’s 4/7/10 video of the meeting.)

The school board has a review process for citizen complaints, which Mr. Zimmermann apparently followed correctly. The book unanimously passed inspection by the six-member review committee appointed by the principal of Farragut High School. The committee members’ individual review forms, along with Zimmermann’s complaint, are included in the board’s April 7 agenda [pdf]. Below is the clip of the complaint, which reveals the Louisiana connection. Anyone who has followed the posts at the LA Coalition for Science website for the last two years will see a familiar name (click on image below):

Kurt Zimmermann's Complaint

For readers who are not familiar with what has been going on in Louisiana, here is the connection:

Where the form asks, “What reviews of this material have you read?,” Zimmermann wrote, “19 page Review by Charles H. Voss, Jr. Ph.D. dated August, 2006.” This indicates that Zimmermann is taking as his authority for evaluating Asking About Life none other than Louisiana’s own Charles H. Voss, Jr., a longtime creationist who is well known among creationist-watchers for his mischief-making in our state. In September 2009, working with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), an affiliate of Focus on the Family, Voss was instrumental in persuading the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to adopt a creationist-friendly procedure for reviewing complaints about the use of creationist supplementary materials in public schools. (See “Procedure Crafted for Handling Evolution-materials Complaints,” Baton Rouge Advocate 9/17/09.) One year earlier, the LFF had engineered the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act under which the use of such materials is permitted.

Background on Voss

Voss has promoted creationism in Louisiana for years. In 1993, he wrote a pamphlet entitled “Did God Direct Evolution?” [pdf], in which he rejected the mainstream belief in theistic evolution (the religious belief that God used evolution to shape life on Earth), opting instead for full-blown, biblical, young-earth creationism: “Ninety percent of the known indicators of the earth’s age say the earth is young while only ten percent give old ages to the earth.” He contends that scientific evidence and the Bible make it “impossible to merge biblical creation and evolution into a single theory such as theistic evolution.” According to Voss, “God-directed evolution seems plausible on the surface, but it is in conflict with the biblical record. . . . God did not direct evolution!” Among his items of evidence is this: “Human-appearing sandal prints have been found in supposedly 600-million-year old rock — a 600-million year discrepancy.” (This little factoid is documented on websites such as “The Bible UFO Connection.”) In his biosketch in the pamphlet, he informs readers that he “considers creation research and Bible study as avocations and believes that he can show logically that God does exist.”

In 1994, he and his colleagues in the creationist Origins Resource Association attempted (unsuccessfully) to convince the Livingston Parish, LA, School Board to adopt a creationist curriculum guide that was riddled with errors. (See Barbara Forrest, “Combating Creationism in a Louisiana School District,” The Textbook Letter, July-August 1997.) He now partners with the Louisiana Family Forum to promote his “Biology Text Addenda” at TextAddOns.com, among which is the “19 page review” of Asking About Life that Mr. Zimmermann is using in Knox County. (The AAL addendum is included in the Knox Co. School Board agenda packet [pdf].) Voss has written creationist addenda for eleven well-known biology textbooks; he has posted them  in pdf for downloading by teachers, students, and parents. However, he does not have the expertise in biology that would qualify him to critique biology textbooks. His degrees are in electrical engineering, and he is a retired professor of electrical and computer engineering. His credentials are listed along with the names of the creationist reviewers of his addenda on his TextAddOns website [pdf].

By way of contrast, the co-author of Asking About Life, Albert J. Tobin, Ph.D., has distinguished credentials in the biological sciences.

Allan J. Tobin, Ph.D., is Managing Director of MRSSI and Senior Scientific Advisor to the High Q Foundation and to CHDI Inc., organizations dedicated to the development of therapies for Huntington’s disease. He is also Professor Emeritus at UCLA. Tobin received his S.B. (1963) from MIT, in Humanities and Science, and his Ph.D. (1969) from Harvard, in Biophysics. After postdoctoral training at the Weizmann Institute and at MIT, he became Assistant Professor of Biology at Harvard from 1971 to 1975. In 1975, he moved to UCLA, where he later became Professor of Physiological Science and Professor of Neurology. He was a visiting scientist at the Institut Pasteur in 1982 and at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in 2002-2003. At UCLA, he was Chair of the Interdepartmental Neuroscience Progam from 1989-1995, Director of the Brain Research Institute from 1995-2002, cofounder of the NeuroEngineering Training Program, and, from 1996, the Eleanor Leslie Chair in Neuroscience. Tobin’s research laboratory at UCLA used molecular and cellular techniques to study the function, regulation, and degeneration of GABA-producing neurons in the brain and spinal cord, in order to address basic mechanistic questions important for Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and spinal cord injury. He was Scientific Director of the Hereditary Disease Foundation from 1979 to 2002 and is the coauthor of Tobin and Dusheck, Asking About Life, a prize-winning textbook.

Dr. Tobin’s co-author Jennie Dusheck is a professional science writer, currently an author at Cengage Learning, with a B.A. in English and zoology (terrestrial evolutionary biology, animal behavior and ecology) from the University of California-Berkeley. [UPDATE 4/12/10 — Ms. Dusheck has informed me that she is a freelance writer, not a Cengage employee. She wrote and is responsible for the chapters on evolution in AAL. Readers can see the full extent of her credentials here.] She also has an M.A. in zoology from the University of California-Davis (ecology, evolutionary biology, developmental biology, plant-animal interactions, and statistics and experimental design). She earned a Certificate in Science Writing from the University of California-Santa Cruz. Ms. Dusheck is also a member of the National Association of Science Writers, the Northern California Science Writers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Authors Guild.

Back to Knox County

The school board did not vote on Zimmermann’s complaint at its April 7 meeting but decided to table it until a later meeting. Board chair Indya Kincannon noted that the textbook review committee members were not there to speak for themselves, so she moved to defer action for one month in order to allow the committee to be present at the next meeting. Although this move was very considerate on Ms. Kincannon’s part, if past experience in Louisiana is any indication of what is going on in Tennessee, when school boards defer such clear-cut creationist initiatives until a future meeting, the creationists then have extra time to marshal their forces even further, making them more difficult to deal with. Backed up by the review committee’s unanimous recommendation to retain the book, the board should have made an unequivocal decision to deny Mr. Zimmermann’s request. To their credit, the majority of board members, in a 6-3 vote, did reject an effort by board member Karen Carson to work out a compromise that would have permitted the use of Voss’s addendum:

Karen Carson, of the West Knox County 5th District, tried to find middle ground with an amendment that would have upheld the school committee’s recommendation but also offered to biology teachers a critical analysis of the textbook submitted by Zimmermann and written by Charles Voss. (Voss, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Louisiana State University, is a longtime activist for the cause of creationism and vice president of an outfit called the Origins Resource Association.) But Carson’s amendment satisfied no one, especially after she revised it to make it subject to review by school system science staff, and it failed on a 3-6 vote. [Metropulse, 4/8/2010; emphasis added] [See the Origins Resource Association here. See also the ORA's Facebook page.]

Note carefully that the addendum is referred to as a “critical analysis.” The LA Science Education Act is designed to promote “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” (emphasis added). Voss includes “critical thinking” exercises in his addenda, and the LA Family Forum promotes them on a “Critical Thinking in the Classroom” page on its website.

The August 2006 addendum that Zimmermann used and that Ms. Carson wanted to offer to Knox Co. biology teachers is interesting in another respect: this addendum is a sanitized version of an earlier one that was dated “October 2003.” The 2003 version is saturated with creationist language and young-earth creationist source citations. In 2006 — after the verdict in Kitzmiller v. Dover — Voss tried to cleanse the creationist language from his 2003 addendum; in fact, he “updated” all eleven of the addenda on the Textaddons.com website. (Each addendum is simply a variation on the same basic document, adjusted for a specific biology textbook.) In the October 2003 version of the AAL addendum, Voss’s first three table of contents entries are direct references to items on the page that Zimmermann cites in his complaint:

1. Creation is a Myth – p. 319
2. Creation is Not Science – p. 319
3. Each Species is Created – p. 319

Voss responded this way in the 2003 addendum to the use of the word “myth” that Zimmermann finds objectionable:

The statement ‘… and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the “Judeo-Christian God in 7 days”‘ has not been proven. Such a statement is not science but an opinion of the textbook authors and reveals a decided bias. Such statements do not belong in a science textbook. [p. 1]

(To the complaint form question, “What do you believe is the main idea of this material?,” Zimmermann wrote, “A clear bias by the authors towards Christianity.” To the question, “What would you like your school to do about this material?,” he wrote, “Immediately remove the book.”)

To the statement in AAL that “creation ‘science’ is not science” (p. 319), Voss responded in unequivocal creationist language in the 2003 addendum:

The statement ‘But creation “science” is not science’ is very misleading in that by context it implies that evolution is science. . . . Any definition of science that can label the term ‘evolution’ as commonly used as science will also include creationism as science. [p. 1; emphasis added]

To the AAL statement, “In that book [The Origin of Species] Darwin rejected the idea that each species had been specially created,” Voss responded:

The statement ‘In that book, Darwin rejected the idea that each species had been specially created’ may have been accepted in Darwin’s time but it is not accepted today by creationists. Today’s thinking is that, in general, the ‘Biblical kind’ is equivalent to the family level and in a few instances a genus. [p.1; emphasis added] ["Biblical kind" is a traditional creationist term that refers to the "kinds" of living things as God created them in the Book of Genesis.]

Voss’s sources in the 2003 version of the addendum include Creation Research Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo (now Creation Magazine), both young-earth creationist journals. He included numerous citations of articles by “John Woodmorappe,” which is the false name under which creationist Jan Peczkis writes. He even cited the intelligent design (ID) creationist supplementary textbook, Of Pandas and People, as a source. (Pandas was thoroughly exposed in my testimony and expert witness report [pdf] in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005.) Voss cited the seminal ID creationist book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984), co-authored by Discovery Institute fellows Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley (with Roger Olsen). He also cited Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), which helped bring about ID proponent Phillip Johnson’s creationist epiphany in 1987.

By August 2006, after the decisive verdict in the Kitzmiller case that teaching ID is unconstitutional, Voss had sanitized his addenda, just as Pandas had to be sanitized after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling that teaching “creation science” is unconstitutional. (The “creation science” language in Pandas was replaced with “intelligent design” language.) Most noticeably, he completely sidestepped AAL‘s statement about creationism and myth that Zimmermann finds objectionable, substituting instead an objection to the definition of evolution on p. 320. Here are his new TOC entries in the August 2006 addendum that Mr. Zimmermann is using:

1. What is Evolution? – p. 320
2. The Fossil Record Tells a Story of evolution – p. 327
3. Extinct Living Fossils – p. 328

Responding to AAL’s statements on p. 320 that Darwin’s theory of evolution includes the ideas of the common descent and natural selection, Voss voices his disagreement in terms of the traditional creationist objection to “macroevolution” but conspicuously avoids the word “creationism”:

Darwin observed the ability of organisms to adapt (micro-evolution) and assumed that on this basis macro-evolution was true. Macro-evolution could be said to occur if a dog became a cat or a dinosaur became a bird. It occurs at the genus or higher level and implies that all life on Earth descended from a few types of cells that somehow came into being in the past. Many scientists do not agree with this hypothesis. [p. 1]

The rest of the addendum is similarly sanitized — but only of the overtly creationist terminology, not the substantive creationist content. Nor did Voss cleanse out all the creationist citations. He retained Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and The Mystery of Life’s Origin. He also retained a citation of an article about Haeckel’s embryos that ID creationist and Discovery Institute fellow Jonathan Wells slipped past the gatekeepers at American Biology Teacher in 1999. In this article, Wells recites his now-signature complaints against using Ernst Haeckel’s 19th-century drawings of embryos as evidence for evolution. This horse has been dead for years, and Wells’s complaints have been addressed many times, including in a later issue of American Biology Teacher. Yet the citation remains in both the 2003 and 2006 versions of Voss’s AAL addendum. [Update 4/12/10: Ms. Dusheck also pointed out that no edition of AAL contains the Haeckel mistake about which Wells complains in his article. I would add that Voss's one-size-fits-all addendum is not an accurate critique of any of the books that he has targeted.]

Voss has simply followed a page out of the Discovery Institute code language playbook by revising his addenda to make them appear superficially to be about evolution rather than creationism, just as the Discovery Institute did with its newest ID textbook, the deceptively titled Explore Evolution.

So what does all this analysis boil down to with respect to the Zimmerman complaint?

Here’s the central point: Mr. Zimmermann cited Voss’s creationist textbook addendum as his sole review material for a textbook in which he ostensibly objects to the use of one word, “myth,” which he says offends Christians. Zimmermann’s complaint about AAL zeroes in on exactly the item in the book that is the first item in Voss’s 2003 addendum, making exactly the same point: that calling creationism a myth betrays the bias of the authors and does not belong in a textbook.

There is nothing new in this type of complaint, just as there is nothing inherently offensive about the book’s use of the word “myth.” But there seems to be more to the story, which Zimmermann voiced through the national megaphone of Fox News. (Despite commenting at the April 7 school board meeting on the unwelcome attention “that I have received, and my family — socially, at work, in the media — nationally, incidentally,” he has appeared on Fox News at least twice, on April 7 and again on April 8. In fact, his April 7 appearance was on the morning of April 7, before the evening school board meeting.) Zimmermann has said that he lodged the complaint about the book after his son and some other students complained about the word. But in the April 7 Fox News interview, he elaborated on this basic account:

Since I brought that issue up, there’s been a host of other parents that have come forward, and there are other things in that book that are pretty, uh, technically inaccurate and things of that nature. So it’s more than just the statement that I was concerned about. So it’s kind of grown a little bit.

So now there are other things in AAL that he is complaining about. (Mark Littleton, a supporter of Zimmermann’s who spoke at the April 7 board meeting, read a list of “historical and scientific inaccuracies” in the book — which he compiled after having looked at it for the first time only a couple of days before the meeting.) There is more “technically inaccurate” material in the book, says Zimmermann, who professed during the April 7 Fox News interview that “It was really the kids who identified it ['myth']. I’m not smart enough to pick that stuff up. They are.”

This comment raises the question of who identified the other, “technically inaccurate” aspects of the book. Who is advising Zimmermann? The kids? That is very unlikely if the Knox County case, like so many other past creationism episodes around the U.S., runs true to form. Even if Mr. Zimmermann has not been working in tandem with a creationist organization so far, some group will now likely beat a path to his door. And if the Louisiana Family Forum runs true to form, they may very well contact Zimmermann since he is using one of their preferred “supplementary materials” as advertised on the LFF website. Indeed, Voss himself may already be directly involved. In response to a statement about the addendum that board member Karen Carson made during the meeting, Zimmermann said, “You’re talking about the addendum that was provided by Dr. Voss?” (emphasis added) Zimmermann’s statement sounds as though Voss actually gave him the addendum. (There is a precedent among LFF creationists for their involving themselves in such issues. LFF operative Darrell White inserted himself [pdf] into the Texas textbook selection controversy on behalf of the Discovery Institute in 2003.)

Here is the Fox News interview, followed by a closing message from the Louisiana Coalition for Science to the Knox County School Board:

To the ladies and gentlemen of the Knox County School Board: Please don’t give in to these creationist demands. When you compromise good science education with creationism, you don’t solve your problem — you exacerbate and prolong it. Sometimes you just have to say no. Stand your ground, as the Louisiana legislature and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education refused to do when we were faced here with an effort to inject creationism into science education — an effort in which Dr. Voss was integrally involved. Set a different precedent — one that says to your local constituents and to the rest of America that the integrity of authentic science education will be protected at every level in the state of Tennessee. The rest of the country will admire you for it. The scientific community will appreciate your courage. And the supporters of good science education who in 2008-2009 tried and failed to stop Voss and his creationist colleagues in Louisiana will cheer you on.

January 2010 Featured

By Sandhya Bathija

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

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

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

In June 2009, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) received dozens of letters from concerned teachers, scientists, and citizens all over Louisiana asking them to reject a creationist-influenced policy governing the implementation of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) of 2008. This law, written by the Louisiana Family Forum with assistance and legal advice from the Discovery Institute, permits the use of creationist supplementary materials in public school science classes. Several months later, in January 2009, BESE adopted the policy by which local school districts must implement the LSEA, gutting the prohibitions against teaching creationism that had wisely been written into the policy by the Dept. of Education on the advice of expert science teachers and scientists on the specially constituted Louisiana Science Education Act Advisory Committee. The policy was inserted as §2304, “Science Education,” into Bulletin 741 [doc], the Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, to instruct parish and local school officials concerning the implementation of the LSEA. First, however, the policy had to be posted in the Louisiana Register for public comment (April 2009 [pdf], pp. 740-741). BESE received public comments in the form of letters from citizens, teachers, and scientists who support teaching science honestly and accurately. BESE ignored their letters, and the policy is now in effect. In January 2010, Louisiana begins the new year burdened with not only a creationist law implemented by a creationist policy, but now also a creationist complaint procedure that will turn every complaint about supplementary materials into a dog and pony show rather than a serious consideration of materials being used in a science class.

In September 2009, BESE adopted a complaint procedure which, like the implementation policy written by the Louisiana Dept. of Education, was also revised to suit the Louisiana Family Forum. Like the policy, the complaint procedure has been posted for public comment in the Louisiana Register (November 2009 [pdf], pp. 2590-91). In response to this posting, letters were sent to BESE by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Center for Science Education, and Barbara Forrest. The letter from Dena Sher, AU State Legislative Counsel, is here [pdf]. The letter from NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott is here [pdf]. (See NCSE’s article, “NCSE Advises Louisiana,” here.) The letter from Barbara Forrest is here [pdf].

BESE has consistently — and unanimously — supported the Louisiana Family Forum’s creationist revisions to the areas of the LSEA that are under its purview. The board has been fully informed by concerned citizens and organizations that it is doing the bidding of documented creationists. Louisiana citizens should download copies of the above letters, distribute them to their parish school board members, and let the board members know that they do not want creationist supplemental materials adopted for use in their public schools. When some school board or individual science teacher walks through the giant creationist loopholes in the policy and complaint procedure, it will be with the explicit consent of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, who refused to listen to their own staff at the Dept. of Education and to the teachers and scientists who actually do the work of educating students. BESE members cannot say that they did not know what they were doing. We have told them — twice.

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.

• The first and most important resource is Judge Jones’s ruling itself, which University of Cincinnati law professor Marianna Brown Bettman called “judicial poetry.” Download the ruling here [pdf].
• The National Center for Science Education has posted a comprehensive archive of trial documents here.
• Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, was interviewed about the trial on Point of Inquiry. NCSE served as a pro bono consultant to the plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout the entire period of preparation and during the trial itself.
• The ACLU of Pennsylvania, whose legal director Vic Walczak served as one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, has posted all trial transcripts here.
• One of the best articles about the trial, which ran from September to early November 2005 was written by Margaret Talbot for The New Yorker. See “Darwin in the Dock.”
• LCFS co-founder Barbara Forrest served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. She wrote a first-person account of the trial, “The Vise Strategy Undone,” for the July 2006 Skeptical Inquirer.
• The Peabody Award-winning NOVA documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, aired on PBS on November 13, 2007. It is now available on Google Video.

In honor of the stunning victory for science education and for the First Amendment’s guarantee of the separation of church and state in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005) . . .

MERRY KITZMAS!!

To parents, public school teachers, principals, curriculum supervisors, school boards, and district superintendents of Louisiana:

Thank you for all you do to support Louisiana’s public schools. The public school system is a lifeline for our state’s young people, who count on you to make sure that their education prepares them for the 21st-century world. A good education is essential to their ability to live decent lives as productive citizens.

As the 2009-2010 school year begins, please remember that Louisiana now has a creationist law: the Louisiana Science Education Act [pdf] of 2008. For an analysis of the LSEA, see this document [pdf]. This law was promoted by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a religious group whose director, Rev. Gene Mills, does not send his children to public schools (Gene Mills’ Christmas Letter 2008). In drafting the LSEA and influencing the BESE policy that implements it, the LFF partnered with an out-of-state creationist think tank, the Center for Science and Culture (CSC). The CSC is part of the Discovery Institute (DI) in Seattle, WA, the national headquarters of the intelligent design (ID) creationist movement. To learn more about the ID movement, see “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals” here [pdf].

You should be on guard against the creationist “supplemental materials” that this law permits under the guise of “critical thinking,” “logical analysis,” and “objective discussion.” Teaching creationism in public school science classes was declared unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard 1987, which originated in our own state of Louisiana. Since “intelligent design” has been exposed as nothing more than creationism, the Edwards ruling applies to ID as well. Below are materials that should NOT be used in Louisiana’s public school science classes, along with tips that will help you recognize such materials. Our list may not include everything that could show up in our public schools. If you have questions about any materials, please contact the Louisiana Coalition for Science. We work directly with the National Center for Science Education.

*Note: This list will be updated as additional materials are identified, so please visit periodically.

Creationist Books and Other Print Material

• Creationist textbook addendums at Textaddons.com —  These addendums were written by Charles Voss, a long-time Louisiana creationist. In 1994, he participated in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Livingston Parish School Board to adopt a creationist curriculum guide. He now partners with the Louisiana Family Forum to promote these addendums, which he has written to be used with state-approved biology textbooks. LFF operative Darrell White promotes the addenda on his creationist “Origins Science” web page.
• Explore Evolution —  This is the Discovery Institute’s new stealth creationism textbook. It is intended for use as a supplement to approved classroom materials. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) offers an extensive critique of this book. Biologist John Timmer of Ars Technica also reviewed it. See also our LCFS post about this book. In 2008, CSC associate director John West told an Opelousas newspaper that the Discovery Institute hopes that Louisiana schools will use this book.
• Icons of Evolution —  This stealth creationist book was written by Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute. NCSE offers links to an extensive list of critiques of Icons, along with NCSE director Eugenie Scott’s review of the book for Science. In 2008, when LFF operative Darrell White (see above) was interviewed on WRKF’s Jim Engster Show in Baton Rouge, LA, during the legislative session in which the LSEA was passed, White identified Icons as the book that he thought should be used in Louisiana public schools. See White’s article, “A Tale of Two Flies,” at the creationist Answers in Genesis website, where he references the “false ‘icons’ of evolution.” In the February 13, 2009, story by National Public Radio featuring Danny Pennington, former biology teacher at West Monroe (LA) High School, a copy of Icons is visible on Pennington’s desk. Pennington helped promote Ouachita Parish’s creationist “Science Curriculum Policy” [pdf], which was adopted on November 29, 2006.
• The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators [pdf](at http://www.discovery.org/a/4299)  —  DI produced this booklet for teachers in response to Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, the PBS NOVA Peabody Award-winning documentary about the first intelligent design legal case, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).

• For a complete catalog of ID creationist books to help you identify a questionable book, consult the website of Access Research Network. ARN is a de facto arm of the Discovery Institute that serves as a clearinghouse for ID creationist materials.

====================================================================================================

Creationist Videos/DVDs

(*Intelligent design creationist videos are slickly produced with professional-looking graphics, etc. People who are unfamiliar with mainstream science can easily be deceived into thinking that they are legitimate science documentaries.)

• Unlocking the Mystery of Life —  This is a Discovery Institute video that DI has promoted aggressively for use in public schools. A critique of the video is available at NCSE, along with analyses by scientists. This video is heavily promoted by fundamentalist Christian organizations and young-earth creationist organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research. Focus on the Family, a national religious ministry (the LFF is the Louisiana affiliate), partners with Christianbook.com to promote this video packaged with Icons of Evolution (see below).
• The Privileged Planet —  This DVD is based on the book with the same title written by two Discovery Institute creationists. The authors have written a study guide [pdf] for teachers and students to use with the book and DVD in which they say that these materials “can be used as a supplement for an introductory astronomy or general science course.” A critique of the book by Prof. Hector Avalos of Iowa State University is available at Talkreason.org, which is an excellent source of articles that critique intelligent design.
• Icons of Evolution —  This video is based on Jonathan Wells’s book of the same title above. There is also a study guide that DI describes as a”curricular supplement for use in conjunction with any high school biology textbook.” Access Research Network features an Icons of Evolution Video Study Kit. The above critiques of the book would apply to the video as well.
• Investigating Evolution —  This Discovery Institute DVD contains teaching modules that were adapted from the Icons of Evolution video. The LA Family Forum is promoting this DVD from its “Critical Thinking” web page.

• For the complete catalog of ID creationist videos, consult the website of Access Research Network.

====================================================================================================

Tips for Identifying Creationist Materials  —  And What to Do Next

1. Be alert to the code language that creationists are using in their effort to disguise their intentions.

• “Critical thinking,” “logical analysis,” and “open and objective discussion” as applied to “evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” (these are the code terms and subjects enumerated in the LA Science Education Act).  —  These are the code words of choice in the LA Science Education Act. For the background on these code terms as used in the LSEA, see “Analysis of SB 733: ‘LA Science Education Act‘” on our website. See specifically the “Updated June 5″ pdf document linked at the bottom of that page. For a more comprehensive discussion of the code language being used by the ID movement, see “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals,” pp. 19-22, here [pdf].
• “Academic freedom” —  This is the code language under which the LA Science Education Act was initially introduced as SB 561. Since 2007, the Discovery Institute has been promoting its deceptively named “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution” in state legislatures. None of these code terms are new. Creationists have used them for decades, as, for example, young-earth creationist Henry Morris used “academic freedom” in 1975.
• “Strengths and weaknesses of evolution,” “arguments for and against evolution,” and “evidence against evolution” —  ID creationists are using these code phrases to fool people into accepting the false premise that there actually is evidence that weakens or undermines evolution. The fact is that ALL the scientific evidence that has been amassed since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859 confirms the fact of evolution. There is no evidence against evolution. The use of these terms in material that is being taught in a public school science class is a red flag. Here is an example of ID creationist Jonathan Wells arguing for teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. The New York Times published an article about this strategy. The book Explore Evolution uses the “arguments for and against” tactic: “This book is one of the first textbooks ever to use the inquiry-based approach to teach modern evolutionary theory. It does so by examining the current evidence and arguments for and against the key ideas of modern Darwinian theory.” The Discovery Institute commissions flawed polls based on these false premises in order to support their contention that most Americans support teaching “evidence against” evolution.
• “Teach the controversy” —  The Discovery Institute uses this sound bite to promote the false idea that the mainstream scientific community considers the theory of evolution to be controversial. The only controversy about the status of evolutionary theory is the cultural controversy stirred up by the Discovery Institute and their supporters.
• “Naturalism” —  Creationists reject the naturalistic methodology of modern science, which is nothing more than the “scientific method” about which we learned as children in elementary school. Phillip Johnson, the central strategist of the ID movement, has made the rejection of scientific naturalism the centerpiece of the movement’s attack on the teaching of evolution. A very good discussion of the ID movement’s rejection of naturalism is available at Talkdesign.org. Complaints about the teaching of “naturalistic” evolution are one of the warning signs that evolution is being attacked.

2. Find out what materials your children are using in their science classes and read them carefully.

3. If you encounter literature or hear proposals to school boards that use any of the above the terms, you should be suspicious. Attend your parish and local school board meetings and take notes. Please be cordial and respectful to everyone with whom you interact, including teachers, school board members, etc. The National Center for Science Education has a list of helpful tips for citizens who want to get involved in protecting science education.

4. If you find out that your child’s school or your parish school board is using creationist supplementary material, REPORT IT to the LA Coalition for Science.

As promised in the July 23 post featuring Dr. Holly Wilson’s 1/25/09 letter to the Monroe News Star, in response to which DeWolf wrote a February 3 op-ed, below is my response (without commentary) to DeWolf’s op-ed. Monroe [LA] News-Star

DeWolf misled readers

Barbara Forrest February 8, 2009 In his Feb. 3 News-Star op-ed, David DeWolf misled readers, who should know the truth about him. I wrote about him and his creationist colleagues in my book, Creationism’s Trojan Horse, which was a resource in the first legal case involving intelligent design creationism, Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover [Pennsylvania] School District 2005. I was an expert witness for the plaintiffs.

Holly Wilson is correct that ID creationism is inconsistent with Catholic theology. It is essentially a Protestant evangelical movement that includes a few Catholics who are at odds with their church regarding evolution. DeWolf, a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank in Seattle, is an example. His op-ed and the online comments of DI’s president, Bruce Chapman, responding to Wilson’s Jan. 25 letter, proves that they are monitoring Louisiana closely.

Working on behalf of “academic freedom” with the Louisiana Family Forum, which wrote Ouachita Parish’s creationist “Science Curriculum Policy,” [pdf] DeWolf helped write the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act. DeWolf’s portrayal of ID as scientific is falsified by his defining it as involving the “actions of an intelligent agent as the cause of phenomena that natural processes are unlikely to produce.” If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative. His DI colleague William Dembski admits that “the Designer of intelligent design is … the Christian God.”

ID is religion, as I demonstrated in the Kitzmiller case (from which lawyer DeWolf was conspicuously absent, although two of his DI colleagues testified for the creationist school board, which lost the case). DeWolf’s op-ed talking points have been repeatedly debunked. He pretends to be concerned that Louisiana students cannot “question the materialist dogma … peddled in the guise of science instruction.”

Let’s examine what DeWolf is peddling. DeWolf falsely stated DI “has never advocated mandating the teaching of intelligent design” but encourages students to learn “the strengths and weaknesses of … evolutionary theory.” However, in his 1999 booklet for school administrators, Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, he wrote otherwise while discussing a Supreme Court case that began in Louisiana: “In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards vs. 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 … tell students about the evidence and arguments for intelligent design actually fulfill this Supreme Court mandate.” In its strategy document, “The Wedge,” DI vows to “pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.”

DeWolf’s op-ed also mentioned “irreducible complexity,” the creationist concept of Michael Behe, a “distinguished Catholic scholar from Lehigh University.” However, the Web site of Behe’s own biology department at Lehigh features a disclaimer saying that his views are “in no way endorsed by the department” because “intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.” Behe admitted under oath in the Kitzmiller trial that under his definition of science, which he loosens to include ID, astrology is a scientific theory. So much for distinguished scholar status.

Ouachita children are being used as potential legal guinea pigs by DeWolf and his creationist friends, not to mention the LFF. If anyone doubts this, consider that in 2002, when DI attacked Ohio’s science standards, its spokesman announced, “All we need is one state to stand up and say we are going to permit academic freedom on this issue, a test case.” But I guarantee the people of Ouachita Parish that these folks will not be around when your children get to college and realize that their elders permitted them to be wrongly educated about a subject as vital as science.

Barbara Forrest of the Louisiana Coalition for Science is on the board of directors for the National Center for Science Education.

Copyright © 2010. Louisiana Coalition for Science. All rights reserved.