By Barbara Forrest

Let’s begin 2012 by looking back three years to January 13, 2009. That is when the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) persuaded the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to gut its policy for implementing the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). The gutted policy was inserted as §2304, “Science Education,” into Bulletin 741 [doc], the Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, which instructs local school administrators and school boards concerning laws passed by the legislature. How did the LFF accomplish this? Long story short: the LFF showed up at BESE’s January 13, 2009, meeting loaded for bear, bringing their Louisiana College creationist professors — and their attorneys — with them. As a result, BESE stripped from the policy an explicit prohibition against teaching creationism: “Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes.” The very next day, LFF executive director, Rev. Gene Mills, announced, “Louisiana is open for business.” But there is more to this story that has not yet been told.

The untold part of the story concerns the involvement of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) — a national Religious Right litigation group headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. The ADF describes itself as (1) “a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense of religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage  and the family” and (2) “a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.” (That’s a reference to religious Truth in case you’re wondering.) In short, when people such as creationists (in Louisiana, that would be the Louisiana Family Forum) can’t get their religious views incorporated into our public institutions, the ADF sues those institutions on their behalf. In the ADF’s view, keeping public institutions secular and free from sectarian advocacy is actually hostility rather than neutrality. The omission of religion from the functions of public entities — such as public school science classrooms, for example — is considered discrimination.

Based on the information below, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the ADF was threatening the state of Louisiana with a lawsuit if the LFF didn’t get what it wanted: the removal of the prohibition against teaching creationism from BESE’s policy for implementing the LSEA. Please keep reading. We will explain and provide documentation after some brief background and recapping.

Background on the Alliance Defense Fund

People for the American Way (PFAW) offers a useful profile of the ADF. In addition, in the June 2004 issue of Church & State, Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State points out that ADF “was formed [in 1994] by a band of television preachers [including James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association] and radio broadcasters to advance the Religious Right’s perspective in the courts.” ADF “has raised millions of dollars for Religious Right legal cases and been active in federal and state lawsuits that seek to blast holes in the wall of separation between church and state.” Boston also points out a more ominous aspect of ADF (hyperlinks added):

At least one ADF project, the Blackstone Fellowship for law students, has ties to the Christian Recon­structionist movement. Reconstruc­tionists are the most extreme manifestation of the Religious Right in America. They advocate a society anchored in ‘biblical law’ and would literally base U.S. law on the legal code of the Old Testament. In their ideal society, offenses like blasphemy, fornication, ‘witchcraft,’ homosexuality, worshipping ‘false gods’ and incorrigible juvenile delinquency would merit the death penalty. In other words, Reconstructionists long to replace America’s secular democracy with a harsh fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

(NOTE: One interesting little factoid is that some Reconstructionists favor stoning as a form of capital punishment.)

In his April 3, 2007, Wall of Separation post, Boston reveals that ADF is funded by “far-right fat cats writing big checks,” having received $21 million in donations in 2006 alone. Among its major donors are “the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, whose vice president, Erik Prince . . . founded the Blackwater USA military-security firm” (hyperlink added). And ADF wants to keep that money rolling in: “The ADF plays hardball. Its lawyers are not above engaging in wild distortions to raise money and whip fundamentalists into a frenzy.”

The organization has increased its annual total revenue despite the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Its 2008 IRS 990 form [pdf] shows a total revenue of more than $31 million, which increased to $34,702,917 million by 2010. (See the 2009 and 2010 990s [pdfs].) And get this:  ADF president and CEO Alan Sears is a one-percenter. His base pay — without benefits — ballooned from $300,271 in 2008, to $311,864 in 2009, to a whopping $354,016 in 2010. (His subordinates aren’t doing too badly either, according to the 990s.) Trying to turn the United States into a theocracy is clearly more lucrative than defending science education.

Closer to home, PFAW reports that ADF is behind Louisiana College’s planned establishment of the Judge Paul Pressler School of Law in Shreveport:

The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund is helping Louisiana College, a Southern Baptist institution, start the Paul Pressler School of Law, which will join Liberty University [established by Jerry Falwell], Regent University [established by Pat Robertson] and others in providing politicized training to the next generation of Religious Right lawyers.

We’ll get to the ADF’s involvement in the BESE policy in a moment. First, let’s recall a little more of the January 13, 2009, BESE meeting.

A Brief Recap

Between December 2008 and January 13, 2009, the LFF had already succeeded in getting one statement eliminated from the December 2008 initial draft of BESE’s LSEA policy [pdf, p. 7]: “Religious beliefs shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking.” That statement, which the Louisiana Department of Education (LDoE) staff had included on the advice of the LSEA Advisory Committee [pdf, p. 14] was deleted after Rev. Mills paid the staff a visit. He told the Lafayette Daily Advertiser (1/8/09) that he had discussed the draft with them: “Mills said he’s been discussing the policy language with state education officials and the bill’s legislative sponsors to come up with possible changes.” He expressed to the Advocate (1/9/09) his optimism about getting the draft changed: “Mills said he is cautiously optimistic that talks among department officials, the state board and lawmakers involved in the issue will be productive.”

But getting one statement deleted wasn’t enough for Rev. Mills. He wanted a second statement stripped from the policy —  the first sentence in section D.4.d in the January 2009 revised draft [pdf, p. 3]: “Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes.” To get that second statement deleted, Mills had to go to BESE directly. (The LFF wanted BESE to retain the following sentence in D.4.d, which followed the one that Mills wanted deleted: “Evaluations of supplementary materials shall be made without regard to the religious or non-religious beliefs and affiliations of the authors of supplementary materials.” This sentence would have benefited the LFF by allowing the adoption of supplementary materials written by creationist authors. BESE ultimately decided to delete D.4.d in its entirety. The LFF understandably didn’t quibble about this.)

Mills’ getting legislators and BESE members involved in the discussions with LDoE strongly suggests that the LDoE staff were subjected to political pressure. Moreover, the fact that the LFF lawyered up for the January 13, 2009, BESE meeting in order to get the second statement deleted suggests further that the LDoE staff refused to do this, reflecting the professionalism for which the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS) has applauded them.

Geologist Al Melillo, LCFS member Patsye Peebles, and LSU biologist Eric Achberger — all members of the LSEA Advisory Committee that had provided LDoE with guidelines [pdf, pp. 8-13] for the December 2008 draft — testified at the January 13 meeting that D.4.d should remain in the January 2009 revised draft, as did Kevin Carman, Dean of the College of Science at LSU. But their testimony didn’t faze the board. The only people whom BESE members heeded were the creationists, and their heeding took the form of stripping the prohibition against teaching creationism out of the policy, just as Rev. Mills wanted.

The LFF’s lawyering up consisted partly of having attorney John B. Wells and Southern University law professor Michelle R. Ghetti testify at the meeting. Both wanted the D.4.d prohibition removed from the policy. Both are also affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). This is the part of the story that has not been told. The January 13, 2009, BESE meeting showed just how far the LFF would go to get what it wanted.

The ADF Connection

Both Wells and Ghetti proudly advertise their ADF affiliation. Wells, whose background is military law, not constitutional law, describes on his website the part of his practice relevant to the ADF:

Dedicated to reversing the persecution of Christians by the ACLU and other anti-American organizations, Mr. Wells has allied himself with the Alliance Defense Fund. He has pledged to dedicate hundreds of hours per year to defending religious freedom at no cost to the client. . . . He is prepared to assist in the following:
• Legal attacks on the rights of students and school employees . . . • Violations of the First Amendment rights by the ACLU and other organizations dedicated to religious persecution

(An aside: In a matter unrelated to the LSEA, John Oller, who has been the subject of LCFS posts here, here, and here, is being represented by the ADF, with Wells as his attorney, in Oller’s lawsuit against his employer, the University of Louisiana-Lafayette. The lawsuit concerns personnel issues and has no bearing on the merits [or lack thereof] of creationism, including intelligent design.)

Ghetti, who lists “Legislative Consultant, Louisiana Family Forum” and includes the ADF as a “Professional Membership”on her professional resumé, also includes her ADF affiliation on her (public) university faculty page:

Professor Ghetti is an avid advocate for freedom to practice one’s religion and wrote Louisiana’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act in 2010. She is an active ally of the Alliance Defense Fund. . . .

Ghetti’s faculty page at the Southern University Law Center lists “Law and Religion” as one of her teaching areas. Her biography page on her personal website says that she “specialize[s] in constitutional law, particularly in the criminal and religion areas.” However, on her resumé she lists no publications — either professional or otherwise — in constitutional law as it pertains to religion (she lists only an unpublished article about the Louisiana Preservation of Religious Freedom Act that is “About to Be Circulated for Publication”), nor do any show up in Lexis-Nexis (an academic database for legal publications). Yet both Ghetti and Wells inserted themselves into the BESE policy issue as experts.

In his testimony before BESE on January 13, 2009, Wells stressed not only his own ADF affiliation, but the ADF’s interest in the content of the draft policy (transcript from audiotape by Barbara Forrest; “uh” deleted; bold added). It’s not hard to figure out what he was getting at:

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is John Wells. I’m an attorney here in Louisiana. I’m also an allied attorney with Alliance Defense Fund. The Alliance Defense Fund is an organization of constitutional lawyers who do a lot of the type of litigation cases that are potentially being talked about here today. I should tell you that the Alliance Defense Fund is monitoring the situation. We are of the belief that paragraph 4.d, as it is written, actually probably would not pass constitutional muster because the situation’s actually dampening free expression. That the regulations without paragraph 4.d would be fine. . . .

The rules as they appear without 4.d , this first sentence before 4.d appear to give adequate guidance and pass constitutional muster. Now, the Alliance Defense Fund, of course, you know, does provide pro bono services in the event of litigation. So, for example, in some cases, where entities are sued over religious issues, we would provide a defense. . . .

[W]e feel that . . . the first sentence of 4.d would not pass constitutional muster. We would urge you to delete it. . . .

The second issue, probably just as important, is that, as I think the chairman mentioned, Senator Nevers here passed an, an act [the LSEA] that grants certain powers to this organization. [A]s an attorney, I’m familiar with what’s called the ‘delegation doctrine.’ The legislature passes the laws, OK? And an administrative body such as yourself enforce and implement those laws. And if you have a situation where you are putting in a regulation that is not authorized by the law, that in itself could lead to litigation. And that in itself could make the regulations illegal, as well as potentially unconstitutional. . . .

Did you get that, folks? Wells told BESE members that if they left the prohibition against teaching creationism in the draft, they could be sued. Now, let’s stop and think for a moment about what Wells’ comments imply. Who would be interested in suing a state board of education for issuing a prohibition against teaching creationism — a completely legitimate prohibition that is mandated by a host of federal court decisions, including two U.S. Supreme Court rulings? (See here and here.)  You got it — the Alliance Defense Fund.

Wells was telling board members, in his oh-so-deferential-to-BESE way, two things: (1) If they left D.4.d in, the policy could be considered unconstitutional and they could be sued for “dampening” someone’s free expression. Whose free expression would supposedly be “dampened” if the prohibition against teaching creationism stayed in the draft? That’s right — teachers who want to express themselves by teaching creationism in public schools. So, by leaving D.4.d in the policy draft, not only could (make that would) BESE be sued, but the ADF would do the suing. (2) If, on the other hand, BESE took D.4.d. out as the LFF wanted and someone else sued BESE (apparently under the assumption that pro-science people would sue), the ADF would then consider providing pro bono legal defense to BESE. Wells’ comments were not made off-the-cuff. He had clearly entered the meeting prepared with what can reasonably be considered the threat of a lawsuit against the state of Louisiana.

Ghetti also testified at the January 13 meeting, citing to BESE members her supposed expertise in constitutional law concerning religion. She, too, brought up the ADF, as well as a new name: Mike Johnson (J. Michael Johnson), the Shreveport attorney who has been named founding dean of the Pressler Law School (if Louisiana College can ever get it off the ground). (Aside: Among members of Pressler’s “National Board of Reference” are . . . wait for it . . . ADF CEO Alan Sears, faux historian David Barton, Left Behind co-author Tim LaHaye, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, LFF operative Darrell White, and other such luminaries.) Prior to accepting this position, Johnson was “Senior Legal Counsel and a national media spokesman” for the ADF (see Johnson’s Pressler Law School bio [pdf]). Here is the relevant excerpt of Ghetti’s BESE testimony (Forrest transcript; “uh” deleted; bold added; probable wording in red):

My name is Michelle Ghetti, and I am a law professor at Southern University, where I’ve been now for, for nineteen years. . . . I am also an attorney, a litigator. I’m also a member of the Louisiana Law Institute and an expert on both ethics and constitutional law and religion. I’ve taught constitutional law courses now for nineteen years and have recently in the last few years taught the law and religion course. I think, to my knowledge, I was the only legal expert that testified before the legislature on this particular act. . . .

One thing I wanted to mention [indecipherable] so I don’t forget . . . Mike Johnson, who is an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund and has represented governmental committees as well as individuals throughout this state and the Fifth Circuit [Court of Appeals] on issues such as this, has given a legal [opinion] on this particular bill, and he asked that I and . . . Mr. Wells, who’s with the ADF, to give you a copy of that to [make part of the record].

If you’ve hung in this far, persistent readers, you will now be rewarded with a copy of Johnson’s legal opinion, which was communicated in a letter [pdf] that Wells handed out to state board members — written on ADF letterhead and signed “ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND, J. Michael Johnson, Senior Legal Counsel.” Note that Johnson refers to possible litigation in the very first paragraph:

This correspondence is being submitted to you by the Alliance Defense Fund (‘ADF’) to express our concerns over the legality of the proposed regulations that have been promulgated in accordance with  . . . the ‘Louisiana Science Education Act.’ The proposed regulations, ‘Science Education, §2304,’ contain some problematic language that could subject the state to unnecessary First Amendment litigation.

So there we have it: in the opening paragraph, Johnson hits BESE with the prospect of litigation that only the ADF, representing creationists, would have any interest in initiating. ADF’s message is that BESE could be sued for prohibiting something that the federal courts have already — unambiguously — declared unconstitutional, i.e., the teaching of creationism. By this time, you are surely curious as to what kind of contorted, Alice-through-the-looking-glass reasoning that Johnson and the ADF are using here. So here it is:

ADF’s “chief concern” with D.4.d is “the undue emphasis” that the prohibition against teaching creationism “places upon particular viewpoints that may be regarded as ‘religious’.” (Note the scare quotes around “religious.” Sounds like an attempt to deny that creationism is a religious viewpoint, doesn’t it?) Their rationale is that by explicitly prohibiting the teaching of creationism, BESE would be “improperly expand[ing] the lawful intent” of the LSEA. (Sounds like an attempt to deny that the LSEA is a creationist law, doesn’t it?) Leaving D.4.d in the policy would “likely subject the Board to a costly legal challenge” (read: a costly challenge if ADF sues BESE). Here is a clarification of what Johnson and the ADF were saying: “We don’t want a statement about creationism in this policy because the LSEA is not a creationist law!”

Someone should have sent that memo to LSEA sponsor Senator Ben Nevers before he explained the reason for the LSEA to a reporter when he introduced it in 2008 (emphasis added): “They [the Louisiana Family Forum] believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory. This [bill] would allow the discussion of scientific facts.” Nevers also testified at the January 13 meeting — staying on script this time (Forrest transcript):

I think that by inserting this language [into the policy], I think you circumvent the intent of the legislation, and I think it should be removed. If you notice, the legislation never mentions creationism or intelligent design, that it simply states that we want science taught in our classrooms and that we want our students to be able to critically think, observe, and ask questions about science-related items.

But let’s get back to the Johnson/ADF letter. Immediately after trying to deny the religious intent of the LSEA, Johnson, citing several U.S. Supreme Court rulings, warns board members about hostility towards religion (who said this was about religion?):

Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires neutrality and forbids hostility towards religion, even in the public school context. As the Supreme Court has often explained, the Establishment Clause ‘requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary.’ . . . (Establishment Clause forbids government action with an effect that ‘inhibits religion’). . . . (government is not permitted to show ‘hostility toward religion’). . . .

So, to clarify: ADF was telling BESE (when you threaten litigation, you’re telling, not asking) to remove the prohibition against teaching creationism from its LSEA implementation policy because (1) the LSEA is not about religion and (2) if it stayed in, the LSEA policy prohibiting the teaching of creationism would be hostile to religion. (In Logic 101 — which usually includes critical thinking skills — that is known as a contradiction.)

Having begun with a stick, Johnson closed with a carrot. Note the finely nuanced understatement in the first sentence (emphasis added):

ADF is keenly interested in the Louisiana Science Education Act and its goal of promoting critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories. If regulations are adopted that are more consistent with the intent of the Legislature as set forth in [the] Act, and as articulated in the testimony of its authors and supporters during the debates on the House and Senate floors [NOTE: there were no debates on the House and Senate floors], ADF would consider offering its pro bono assistance in defense of the law should it face any legal challenge.

The game plan here is pretty clear:  having sanitized the language of the LSEA itself — thereby implementing the Discovery Institute’s post-Kitzmiller strategy, the LFF — and, needless to say, the Discovery Institute — did not want BESE screwing things up by adopting a policy that bluntly exposed the LSEA as the creationist law that it is. If the LSEA implementation policy contained a prohibition against creationism, the policy would indict the law. Couldn’t let that happen, now could they? So the best way to prevent that was to let BESE know that the ADF was ready to sue if the LFF didn’t get what it wanted. And if board members cooperated by removing D.4.d, — which, as it turned out, they unanimously did — ADF might, just might, represent the state in court for free if it got sued by angry science defenders. Or, if ADF just didn’t feel like showing up in court, the taxpayers could pick up the tab.

Having hung in this far, persistent readers, here again — for your information and edification — is the link to the Johnson/ADF letter. You can savor it at your leisure, now knowing— as the late Paul Harvey used to say — “the rest of the story” of how the LFF managed to get the LSEA policy gutted. Happy New Year.

 By Barbara Forrest

Readers may remember this quote in which Rev. Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) described the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA).

This bill is not about teaching creationism or religion. If one reads the language of his bill, it is clear that it simply permits teachers ‘to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.’   [emphasis added]

Mills wrote this in an April 11, 2008, letter to the Hammond Daily Star, in which he had to do some very quick damage control after Senator Ben Nevers, who sponsored the bill for him, forgot to follow the script in his remarks in the April 6, 2008, Daily Star, in which he explained why he was sponsoring the LSEA on behalf of the LFF:

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

You could just about hear the kittens over at the LFF headquarters in Baton Rouge.

And that was just the first screw-up. In December 2009, Mills attributed the LFF’s success in getting the LSEA enacted into law to Jesus Christ:

Because of Him, LFF’s accomplishments are many in 2009:

. . . Advanced classroom-ready Louisiana Science Education Rules through the perilous State Board of Education process!

And then there was the LFF’s concerted — and successful — effort to have the prohibition against teaching creationism deleted from the Board of Elementary and Secondary’s LSEA implementation policy. The LFF must have forgotten their talking point that the LSEA is really about teaching good science. Since the LFF has repeatedly affirmed that the LSEA is not about teaching creationism, they should have had no objection to the policy’s inclusion of that prohibition. But it seems they just keep forgetting to follow the script.

The most recent slip-up was in Gene Mills’s April 29 End of Week newsletter, in which he addressed the filing of SB 70, Senator Karen Carter Peterson’s bill to repeal the LSEA. See if you can spot it in this clip:

Rev. Gene Mills' End of Week Newsletter, April 29, 2011

Did you find it? If not, here’s your hint:  everyone knows that when you’re looking on the Internet for a picture related to a law that was passed strictly and solely in order to enhance the teaching of science by promoting “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories,” you want it to include certain things. Microscope? Check. Bible? Check. Oh, wait a second. A Bible? If Rev. Mills is not preparing this newsletter himself, perhaps he should speak to whoever is doing it. The newsletter writer surely must not have realized that the LSEA is only about teaching good science and protecting “academic freedom.”

Actually, there is a perfectly rational explanation for these recurring slips of the tongue — or, in the above case, slips of the webmaster. The “mistakes” are completely intentional. The LFF’s support base comprises people who actually want their religious views taught in public schools. If LFF were to scrub the script too clean — that is, if they were to sound like they really support teaching evolution — they might lose the donors to whom Mills sends out his frantic appeals for money. (See Lamar White’s excellent piece on the LFF’s financial dealings.)

They have to keep the dollars coming in, so they have to signal their donors that they are still keeping the faith. They periodically have to actually tell the truth about the true purpose of the LSEA. It’s as simple as that.

So this is not a memory problem. It’s an honesty problem.

By Barbara Forrest

The Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS) is pleased to announce the demise of HB 580, which is official with the adjournment of the Louisiana legislature today, June 23, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. This legislation was, by every indication, nothing more than an attempt to reverse the Louisiana Family Forum’s defeat in its effort to block the approval of new biology textbooks for Louisiana public schools in fall 2010. However, even though HB 580 was another stealth creationism bill, no subject of instruction in public schools would have been safe from its effects.

HB 580, sponsored by Rep. Frank Hoffmann (West Monroe) was moving along under the radar, eclipsed by the publicity surrounding the effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), until Dr. Ian Binns, our LCFS colleague, alerted us to it. If the bill had passed, the purview of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) would have been diluted from being able to “prescribe and adopt” a list of state-approved textbooks to being able merely to “recommend” them. Local school boards would have been given carte blanche to purchase textbooks and other materials that were not even on the list of “recommended” textbooks, and they could have used an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to buy them. Moreover, the professional staff of the Department of Education (DoE) would have been written out of their role under current law as participants in the process of reviewing textbooks, overseeing textbook adoption committees, etc. (See the LCFS press release [pdf] and analysis of HB 580 [pdf].)

That prospect has fortunately been averted — for now.

LCFS would like to thank the people who played a role in this outcome. Our greatest gratitude must go to Senator Karen Carter Peterson (New Orleans) and her staff. Working with Zack Kopplin, she sponsored the unsuccessful SB 70, which would have repealed the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act. But she then went above and beyond the call of duty by spearheading the opposition to HB 580 — marshaling “nay” votes from other senators through not one but two Senate votes. So, Senator Peterson, please accept our most sincere thanks. You were wonderful.

The other senators who joined Senator Peterson in voting to protect public school science education by opposing HB 580 also deserve our thanks (in alphabetical order):

• Sen. Norby Chabert, Houma
• Sen. Joel T. Chaisson, Destrehan
• Sen. Dan Claitor, Baton Rouge
• Sen. Yvonne Dorsey, Baton Rouge
• Sen. D. A. “Butch” Gautreaux, Morgan City
• Sen. David Heitmeier, New Orleans
• Sen. Lydia Jackson, Shreveport
• Sen. Joe McPherson, Woodworth
• Sen. Edwin R. Murray, New Orleans
• Sen. Cynthia Willard-Lewis, New Orleans

In addition, LCFS owes much to one of our own members, Dr. Ian Binns, who not only alerted us to the HB 580 but testified against it — twice — on behalf of LCFS before both the House and Senate Education Committees. Dr. Binns has offered a statement about the successful defeat of the bill:

This is a great moment for science education and education in general for the state of Louisiana. Rep. Hoffmann’s bill would have been another step in the wrong direction for science education in Louisiana. I am thankful for the work of Senator Peterson and the other senators who were brave enough to stand up to Rep. Hoffmann and the Louisiana Family Forum. These senators did the right thing in protecting science education. I hope that this is also the beginning of the end for the Louisiana Science Education Act. I am happy to have played a part in the defeat of HB 580.

We also thank Zack Kopplin — yet again — for being at the Capitol and helping Sen. Peterson and her staff. After doing yeoman’s work, working with Sen. Peterson, to repeal the LSEA, Zack also stepped up to the plate to help defeat HB 580. We offer a statement from Zack as well:

Special thanks to all the legislators who prevented this bill from passing not once, but twice. This has been a good year for our state. We’ve gotten new biology books approved, despite creationists attempts to block them. We’ve stopped an attempt to pass another stealth creationism law. Lastly, we made substantial progress in our attempt to repeal Louisiana’s ‘job-killing’ creationism law and we’ll come back with an even stronger repeal next session.

Last, we thank the local media for paying attention to this bill and informing the public. The Baton Rouge Advocate provided thorough coverage and a powerful editorial in opposition to HB 580. James Gill at the Times-Picayune outdid himself yet again, awarding the legislature an “F in science.” The Daily Comet and Houma Today ran articles, as did Gambit. Walter Pierce at the Independent Weekly in Lafayette also provided coverage, helpfully getting the word out by linking to the LCFS analysis of the bill.

We conclude by pointing out that the Louisiana Coalition for Science has gone 2 for 3 against the LFF’s creationist agenda in the last 6 months. Although we failed to repeal the LSEA (don’t worry — Zack vows to try again next year), we successfully persuaded BESE to do the right thing and approve new biology textbooks for our public school students. And now we have prevented Hoffmann’s and the LFF’s end run around that decision. And we did it without paid lobbyists and deep-pocketed donors.

Just knowing that we helped to protect the education of Louisiana children is reward enough for us.

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TEXTBOOK SELECTION PROCESS ATTACKED BY YET ANOTHER STEALTH CREATIONISM BILL

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

Baton Rouge, LA, June 13, 2011

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

HB 580 contains the following provisions:

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

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

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

An analysis of the bill is available at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Barbara Forrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STUDENT BATTLES CREATIONISTS

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

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

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

By Barbara Forrest

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.

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.