By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STUDENT BATTLES CREATIONISTS

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

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

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

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gee, that comment rings a bell.

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

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

Let’s get going!

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

By Barbara Forrest

In keeping with the November 20 post highlighting Louisiana citizens who have stepped forward to protect science education in our public schools, this post will give a voice to a member of one of Louisiana’s most dedicated groups of citizens: public school science teachers. Our state is blessed with dedicated science teachers, one of whom has stepped forward as a voice of reason with a message to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on behalf of Louisiana students.

That voice belongs to Dr. Jason VanMetre, who teaches Biology II and Advanced Placement Biology II at A. M. Barbe High School in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Dr. VanMetre served on the Louisiana Life Sciences Textbook Adoption Committee, which met in late September and voted to approve the biology textbooks that had been submitted by publishers. Serving as a member of the specially appointed committee in addition to his duties as a teacher, Dr. VanMetre was required to spend a great deal of time reviewing the books, attending meetings, and considering public comments. The public comments, both written and oral, came almost exclusively from followers of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) in a coordinated campaign to attack the books because of the content about evolution (and, to a lesser extent, global warming).

The LFF also attacked biology textbooks in 2002. Fortunately, they failed when the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted 7-3 to reject the insertion of evolution disclaimers in the textbooks. (See “Louisiana Rejects Evolution Disclaimer,” National Center for Science Education, December 11, 2002.)

BESE’s Student/School Performance and Support Committee (SSPS) met on October 19, 2010, for what should have been a routine approval of the textbooks. Instead, SSPS deferred approving the textbooks in order to allow the Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council — which was hastily constituted and convened after not having met for almost a decade — to consider the textbooks. Contrary to the expectations of pro-science advocates, the advisory council approved the books by a vote of 8-4 on November 12. (See “Panel Approves Contested Textbooks,” Baton Rouge Advocate, November 13, 2010.)

However, on October 28, Dr. VanMetre had felt compelled to communicate to BESE his views as a member of the Life Sciences Textbook Adoption Committee after SSPS’s October 19 decision to defer the issue to the advisory council — despite the adoption committee’s previous approval of the books.

Nothing can add to the eloquence of his letter, so, with his kind permission, it is presented below without additional comment. Please add your voice to Dr. VanMetre’s before Tuesday, December 7. To identify your BESE representative, click on your parish on the BESE map. Note that there are three “at large” members who should be contacted regardless of where you live.

From: Jason VanMetre

Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Subject: Concerned Textbook Committee Member

To: sbese@la.gov

Dear BESE Board Members,

My name is Jason VanMetre and I am a biology teacher at A.M. Barbe High School in Calcasieu Parish. I recently served on the Life Sciences Textbook Adoption Committee. I was very concerned when I read that rather than approving the list of life science textbooks immediately, the BESE Board voted to send the textbooks to the Textbook Advisory Council accompanied by public comments.

The Life Science Textbook Committee was charged with evaluating whether or not the textbooks on the list were acceptable for adoption. The committee was comprised of life science teachers from all over the state. Teachers on the committee had anywhere from a few years to over thirty years experience in public education. All committee members spent an extensive amount of time before the fall meetings in an effort to properly prepare for the proceedings. The books voted acceptable by the committee were consistent with the Louisiana Department of Education Grade-Level Expectations (GLE’s). It is my belief that we did our jobs admirably and that our recommendations should be approved as voted on by the Life Science Textbook Committee.

One of the most unique experiences that I encountered at the textbook committee meetings was the opportunity for public comment.  These comments came in both written form and oral presentation. Most of the negative comments expressed were related to the coverage of evolution by the proposed textbooks. Many of these public comments expressed the view that evolution should be taught as a controversial theory filled with inconsistencies and problems. While I appreciate the fervor with which the written comments and oral presentations were delivered, I can assure you that the textbooks are completely in line with the current scientific view of evolution as well as our state GLE’s. Many of the public comments contained numerous factual inaccuracies, misunderstandings and a general lack of basic scientific knowledge concerning natural selection.

Natural selection is the most important theory in all of biology. It has been empirically tested and subject to peer-review for over 150 years. To tell the students of Louisiana that natural selection is a controversial idea is ludicrous. Natural selection is supported by every major scientific and educational association. Taking a very strong stand on this issue are the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Science Teachers Association, National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Louisiana Academy of Sciences, just to name a few. For a more complete list of scientific, religious, educational and civil liberties organizations who fully support the teaching of natural selection in public schools, I encourage you [to] consult the National Center for Science Education website at http://ncse.com/voices. Statements from state, national and international scientific organizations can be accessed directly at http://ncse.com/media/voices/science. With a small amount of research, I am sure that you will find natural selection to be neither controversial nor hotly debated by the scientific community. It is an idea grounded in scientific fact and is essential for a complete understanding of the biological sciences.

Please don’t make your decision based solely on my comments or the comments of the public. I suggest that you contact a scientist with a PhD in Biology to get their expert opinion on this issue.

I appreciate your time and encourage you to swiftly approve the textbooks recommended by the Life Sciences Textbook Committee.

Thank you,

Jason VanMetre, Ed.D.

Teacher – Biology II and Advanced Placement Biology II

A.M. Barbe High School

By Barbara Forrest

Readers will have to pardon the mixed metaphors in this post, but something happened today in Louisiana that is about as common here as snowflakes at Christmas: the voice of reason prevailed at a meeting of public officials.

The Louisiana Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council met today, Friday, November 12, at 9 a.m. at the Claiborne Building in downtown Baton Rouge. The council voted 8-4 to recommend approval of the biology books that had already been approved by the Textbook Review Committee. Teachers, scientists, and students showed up at this meeting to support the earlier decision of the Textbook Review Committee and to protest the attempt by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) to commandeer yet another aspect of Louisiana science education policy.

The meeting was prompted by the October 19 decision by the Student/School Performance and Support Committee of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to defer its decision on the biology textbooks that had been slated for approval. (See “Textbook Attack in Louisiana,” November 11, 2010, for details.) Past experience — which has been utterly and entirely consistent since the introduction and passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) in 2008 — suggested that this meeting would be just another railroad job. After all, no amount of reasoned appeal could sway the Senate Education Committee on April 17 2008, or the House Education Committee on May 21, 2008, — when the Louisiana Science Education Act was being rammed through the legislature — or BESE on January 13, 2009 or September 16, 2009 — when the LFF sent its creationist contingent in to take control of the policy that implemented the LSEA and the review procedure for handling complaints about the supplementary materials used under the LSEA.

The committee’s demographics require that two legislators and an appointee of the governor sit on the council. Those of us who have closely watched the events that have unfolded since the passage of the LSEA knew little or nothing about most of the council members — except for Senator Ben Nevers and Representative Frank Hoffman. They are well known as the legislators chiefly responsible for passage of the LSEA. The rest of the council was mostly a mystery with respect to how they would vote. Well, now we know. Eight of them voted to respect the voices of reason in the Arkansas Room of the Claiborne Building, while four — three guesses as to who two of them were — voted to allow the LFF’s shenanigans to continue. The Baton Rouge Advocate has a story up on its blog:

A state advisory panel Friday voted 8-4 to endorse a variety of high school science textbooks that have come under fire for how they describe evolution. The vote was followed more than three hours of discussion. Two of the “no” votes were cast by Senate Education Committee Chairman Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, and House Education Committee Vice-Chairman Frank Hoffmann, R-West Monroe. The decision likely paves the way for the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve the textbooks when it meets Dec. 7-9.

Well, gosh, let’s hope this decision paves the way for BESE’s approval of the textbooks. Regardless of what happens next month, all of us owe a big “thank you” to the good citizens who showed up at that meeting today. We will try to get a complete list of their names to thank them properly. There will also soon be a first-hand report of the meeting posted here, as well as some of the testimony.

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LFF’s First Attack on Biology Textbooks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LFF’s 2010 Attack on Biology Textbooks

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

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

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

The Florida Senate

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

The Florida House of Representatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BINGO!

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

Lagniappe

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Rev. Gene Mills, Louisiana Family Forum

Hammond Daily Star, 4/11/08

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

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

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

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leuck & Butcher Figure 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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