LFF hasn’t endorsed any supplemental materials, but Mills says when a Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) proposed a policy on the new act that stated creationist and intelligent design information weren’t permissible, LFF persuaded BESE to remove the prohibition. He says what happens to the law is up to the teachers.

—David Winkler-Schmit, “Monkey Business: The Louisiana Science Education Act,” Best of New Orleans, March 9, 2009 [emphasis added]

“LFF hasn’t endorsed any supplemental materials” — this is what Rev. Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, apparently said when he was being interviewed for this Best of New Orleans article. LFF is supposedly not endorsing any supplemental materials despite the fact that, according to the “Critical Thinking in the Classroom” page on its website, the LFF “drafted and promoted the Louisiana Science Education Act through the Legislature and State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.” According to Rev. Mills, whether or not creationist materials are used in the state’s public school science classes supposedly depends on what Louisiana’s teachers decide on their own to do. This is supposedly true despite the fact that, according to the LFF’s website, “LFF has long worked to promote critical thinking [read: 'creationism'] in the classroom.”

Let’s look at the facts as the LFF gives them to us on its “Critical Thinking in the Classroom” page.

1. The Louisiana Family Forum is promoting “biology textbook addenda” on this “critical thinking” page. What are these addenda? They are creationist textbook supplements written by Charles Voss, a long-time creationist who has had them posted for years at his “Textaddons.com” website. (Voss is vice-president of the young-earth creationist “Origins Resource Association.”) They are precisely the kind of “supplementary materials” that the LFF intends for use in public school science classes under the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). Voss has posted an addendum for each of the eleven state-approved biology textbooks listed on the page. All of his addenda are actually variations of the same basic document, and all are designed to undermine the teaching of evolution. One is adapted for use with the popular textbook Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller and Joe Levine (Prentice Hall). Among the references that Voss cites in this addendum are (1) The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library 1984), co-authored by Discovery Institute creationists Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley, along with Roger Olsen; and (2) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton (Adler & Adler 1986). In 1998, William Dembski, one of the founders of the intelligent design creationist movement in the U. S., wrote that “The Intelligent Design movement begins with the publication of The Mystery of Life’s Origin . . .  and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton . . . . These two books presented a powerful scientific critique of evolutionary theory.”
2. The LFF is also promoting “DVD teaching modules” on its “critical thinking” page. What are these modules? The link goes to a page at “Coldwater Media” on which a DVD entitled Investigating Evolution is available for purchase. IE is a DVD produced for the Discovery Institute that, according to DI’s online store, is “designed as a supplementary resource for general biology courses.” This DVD was one of the freebies given to attendees of a 2007 Discovery Institute symposium at Biola University (formerly the “Bible Institute of Los Angeles,” hence its current name). This symposium, according to evolutionary biologist Dr. Louise Mead, an employee of the National Center for Science Education who attended, “opened with an evening prayer to ‘Our Lord, Jesus Christ’.” The event was held in order to coach high school teachers in the use of the stealth creationist textbook, Explore Evolution, which the Discovery Institute hopes will be used in Louisiana under the LSEA. (See the LCFS 9/27/08 post about Explore Evolution here.) According to Dr. Mead, “As the symposium proceeded, the climate became overtly hostile toward people who accept evolution.” (See Dr. Mead’s article about the symposium here.)
3. The LFF concludes its “critical thinking” page by recommending, as a “practical first step for citizen-activists,” that these activists urge their local school boards to imitate Ouachita Parish by adopting “academic freedom resolutions.” In November 2006, the Ouachita Parish School Board adopted a “Science Curriculum Policy,” which is a “RESOLUTION ON TEACHER ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO TEACH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE REGARDING CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS.” This is a stealth creationism policy that laid the groundwork for the introduction and passage of the LSEA. It was written by LFF operative Darrell White, who has posted the template on his creationist “Origins Science” web page. (See “Board Gives Teachers Academic Freedom,” Ouachita Citizen, November 29, 2006.)

So these are the facts, as we have them from Rev. Mills’ own organization. Has the LFF endorsed any “supplemental materials”? Is what happens next under the Louisiana Science Education Act to be laid exclusively on the backs of the state’s science teachers?

The Louisiana Coalition for Science has laid out the facts. You decide.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fhashemi/

Green is the color they have chosen as the symbol of their fight for democracy. We are fortunate in the United States to have the freedom to defend science and the Constitution.

Let’s wish the Iranians luck.

Actually, we’re not having that much fun down here at the moment. Gov. Jindal wants to cut $219 million from higher education, dealing a devastating blow to the state’s public universities just when they have been recovering in recent years from similar cuts made in the 1980s. Four of the state’s former governors actually met with Jindal in person to urge him to reconsider (such a meeting is highly unusual). The fact that Jindal is even contemplating such drastic cuts to higher education is indicative of the misplaced priorities in the Pelican State. His appointees enjoy very high salaries (which he made sure to give them last year), and legislators continue the time-honored Louisiana tradition of maintaining a slush fund, despite the fact that higher education and health care for the poor must go begging. But back to the matter at hand . . .

Concerning the six “academic freedom” bills introduced in 2009, the creationists at the Discovery Institute are batting zero. Without the kind assistance of the Louisiana legislature and Bobby Jindal, they would have earned the same score in 2008. Here’s the scorecard for “academic freedom” bills introduced in 2009:

(1) Oklahoma SB 320: Died in committee

(2) Iowa House File 183: Died in committee

(3) Alabama HB 300: Died in committee

(4) New Mexico SB 433: Died in committee

(5) Missouri HB 656: Died without even being assigned to a committee

(6) Texas HB 4224: Died upon adjournment of the legislature on June 1. Texas (yes, Texas!) had the good sense to let both this bill and another one, HB 2800, die. HB 2800 would have allowed the Institute for Creation Research to offer a master’s degree in science education.

So there we have it. Louisiana is still number one in promoting the use of bogus teaching materials in our children’s science classes. We at the Louisiana Coalition for Science love our state, and we can take some comfort in knowing that our science teachers have better sense than our government. As for school boards and the very few teachers who may be inclined to make use of the new law, we’re watching.

Fifty-seven point five percent is not a happy figure in Louisiana.  We may as well round up and say 58%. That’s the percentage of Louisiana residents who indicated in a recent survey that they favor teaching creationism along with evolution in the state’s public schools. The creationists at the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute, who teamed up to promote the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008, are surely rejoicing to learn this.

The significance of the Louisiana legislature’s passage in 2008 of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act is reflected in the Public Policy Research Lab’s inclusion of questions about creationism in its Spring 2009 Louisiana Survey (April 1, 2009) [pdf]. The survey is sponsored by the Reilly Center for Media & Public Affairs in the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. It is ironic that the survey was released on April Fool’s Day — the results are no joking matter.

This figure, with its accompanying graphic, is also included in both the PPRL’s Newsletter Summary [pdf] and its April 1 press release (p. 3) [pdf]. Even when the 31% who oppose teaching creationism are combined with the 11.4% who “don’t know,” majority support still tilts heavily toward teaching creationism. The question measuring the public’s understanding of the relevant science explains this dismal figure. Only 38.8% of respondents agreed that evolution is well supported by scientific evidence. A greater number, 40.3% disagreed, and 20.9% didn’t know — for a combined total of 61.2% who do not understand basic science well enough to know that the theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported scientific explanations in the history of science. That is almost two-thirds of the people surveyed, which, given what such surveys mean, is meant to reflect the views of two-thirds of Louisiana citizens. These figures help to explain why Louisiana consistently lands at or near the bottom rankings of virtually every national survey of educational achievement.

There are other interesting statistics here, some of which are encouraging but which also contradict other findings by the PPRL. According to their survey, 61.9% agree and 31.1% strongly agree (a combined 93%) that “Regardless of family income, Louisiana high school students who are qualified should be able to attend Louisiana colleges or universities” (p. 28). In addition, 54.6% agree and 25.8% strongly agree (a combined 80.4%) that “Louisiana needs more college-educated workers to attract high tech jobs and businesses.” That’s encouraging. Yet, at the same time, 46.4%  agree and 6.3% strongly agree (a combined 52.7%) that “The state could make significant cuts to state colleges and universities without affecting the quality of existing academic programs” (p. 28).

In other words, the majority of Louisiana residents want access to Louisiana universities for all qualified Louisiana students, but they want it on the cheap.  Fewer than half, a combined 39.9%, agree that “State colleges and universities should be able to raise tuition and fees to offset any state budget cuts over the next fiscal year” (p. 28). This makes no sense. More contradictory still, a combined 75.1% agree that during the current economic downturn, funding for universities should be kept at current levels or increased (p. 29).

[Another finding is that 64.5% of respondents support changing the funding formula for higher education from enrollment-based to performance-based (p. 30). (Louisiana university funding is presently enrollment-based.) Translation: they believe that universities should be funded based on whether the adults who attend college pass their courses. It is doubtful that respondents have thought this question through to what it actually means. It means that professors — that's who this is really about — are to be held responsible for whether their adult students do what they are supposed to do: showing up for class, studying, etc. But that's another story for another day.]

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Family Forum is making it easier for sympathetic teachers and  school boards to take advantage of the Louisiana Science Education Act by promoting creationist textbook addendums and the Discovery Institute’s creationist DVD, Investigating Evolution, on the LFF website, where it is also encouraging local schoolboards to adopt “Academic Freedom Resolutions.” The Discovery Institute, whose legal advisor, David K. DeWolf, helped write the LSEA, continues its long-time practice of holding “intelligent design seminars” in churches. John West, associate director of DI’s creationist Center for Science and Culture (CSC), recently held such a seminar at the First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma, WA. West told an Opelousas newspaper in 2008 that DI hopes to see its stealth-creationist textbook, Explore Evolution, adopted in Louisiana schools. Another seminar — with the blatantly creationist title, The Creation Conversation: Darwin or Intelligent Design?, featuring CSC executive director Stephen Meyer — begins tomorrow, April 19, at the Watermark Worship Center in Dallas, TX.

These are the people to whom the Louisiana legislature, Gov. Jindal, and the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education turned over the authority to craft policy concerning science education in Louisiana public schools. So those of us who work hard every day to make Louisiana a better place to live, work, and raise our children must keep this figure consciously before us: FIFTY-SEVEN POINT FIVE PERCENT. We have a lot of work to do. Boy, do we have a lot of work to do.

The National Center for Science Education is the national clearinghouse for assistance with fending off creationist attacks on the teaching of science. NCSE was incorporated in 1983 “to provide a central information and resource clearinghouse, helping to coordinate the efforts of people working at state and local levels to preserve the integrity of science education.” Headquartered in Oakland, California, it provides help at no cost to parents, teachers, school boards, educational administrators, and concerned citizens who need help in protecting public school science education.

Despite having been thoroughly discredited in the first intelligent design creationist legal case, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005), the Discovery Institute has redoubled its efforts at the state level by attacking both state science standards and by coordinating the introduction of creationist legislation as “academic freedom” bills. Working with the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute targeted Louisiana, and now our state is the first — and so far the only — state to adopt a version of DI’s perversely mislabeled “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution.”

You can join NCSE online. Please join today and help protect the teaching of science in our public schools. Your state could be next.

Louisiana is at or near the bottom of quite a few lists, a fact that is not news to anyone who lives here and cares about the future of the Pelican State. Gov. Bobby Jindal himself announces on his “Workforce Development” website that Louisiana is #49 —second from the bottom — with respect to schoolchildren’s educational success and economic prospects as adults:

Student achievement and preparation for the workforce:  In a 2007 national Chance-for-Success Index, Louisiana ranks #49 in the nation based on 13 indicators that highlight whether young children get off to a good start, succeed in elementary and secondary school, and hit crucial educational and economic benchmarks as adults.

But things are looking up — as of March 22, 2009, Louisiana is now actually at the top of a list. The only problem is that it is a list on which the Louisiana legislature and the governor should be ashamed to have placed us.

Among the states in which the out-of-state creationist think thank, the Discovery Institute (DI), has been hawking its “academic freedom” legislation for the last several years, Louisiana enjoys the distinction of so far being the first and only state in which one of these bills has become law.  On June 25, 2008, Bobby Jindal signed SB 733 into law as Act 473, the Louisiana “Science Education” Act (LSEA). So not only are we at the top of the list, we are presently the only state on it! As a result, Louisiana is now being boycotted by a national scientific society, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, which had held national meetings in New Orleans in 1976, 1987, and 2004. Why should a scientific society come to a state that attacks both its discipline and the way it is taught? Instead, SICB will hold its 2011 meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, where the State Board of Education issued a strong, unanimous statement in 2005 supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools when a Utah legislator threatened to introduce an “academic freedom” bill.

In 2009, the Discovery Institute, not content with having successfully targeted Louisiana, is again coordinating the introduction of their creationist “academic freedom” bills in legislatures around the country. So far this year, variations of DI’s “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution” have been introduced in seven states:  Oklahoma, Iowa, New Mexico, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, and Texas. However, the Oklahoma, Iowa, and New Mexico bills are now dead. Not only are they dead, they never even made it out of committee. Contrast that with the fact that both the Louisiana Senate and House Education Committees passed the LSEA out of committee without a single dissenting vote, and during the floor votes in both houses of the legislature, only three members of the House of Representatives voted against it. The measure passed by a vote of 94-3 in the House and 35-0 in the Senate.

Laissez bon temps rouler, indeed. The bon temps rolled right over the distinguished Louisiana scientists and dedicated science teachers who appealed to legislators last year to kill the LSEA and then to the governor to veto it. The Discovery Institute’s partner in this effort was the Louisiana Family Forum, a Focus on the Family affiliate whose mission is “to persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence” — the centers of influence being the Louisiana legislature, which does the LFF’s bidding with respect to a lengthening roster of cultural wedge issues, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, its most essential ally in implementing its regressive public policy agenda. (Watch LFF’s executive director, Rev. Gene Mills, explaining his agenda to a Focus on the Family interviewer.)

In the wake of its success in getting the LSEA passed in 2008, the LFF continues to promote creationism in the guise of “critical thinking” on its new website. The organization is promoting textbook addendums written by long-time Baton Rouge creationist Charles Voss. It is also promoting a Discovery Institute DVD entitled Investigating Evolution, which is intended for teachers to use with one of DI’s creationist books, Icons of Evolution. (See the National Center for Science Education’s critique of Icons.)

Readers may wonder how Oklahoma, Iowa, and New Mexico have kept themselves off such an undistinguished list as the one Louisiana is on. Part of the answer is that their legislators and governors are (1) not as susceptible to pressure from the Religious Right as are public officials in Louisiana and (2) more respectful of the professional expertise of their own scientists and educators who have lobbied them to vote against creationist legislation. Public officials in Oklahoma, Iowa, and New Mexico apparently care more about the educational and economic well-being of their citizens than about the divisive social agenda of a well-organized minority of zealots whose aim is to enact their personal religious preferences as public policy. But the fundamentally most important reason is that concerned constituents in their states have mounted well-organized efforts to defend the teaching of science in their public schools. These citizens have spoken out collectively and persuasively both to the public and to elected officials, and they have sustained these efforts over a period of years.

Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE) launched a major effort to block passage of Senate Bill 320, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.” (See OESE’s distinguished board of governors.) OESE has also joined the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science in order to enhance their ability to carry out their mission.

In Iowa, over 200 university scientists signed a public statement calling on the Iowa legislature to  reject HF 183, “The Evolution Academic Freedom Act.” Their statement clearly helped: the bill died in the Iowa House of Representatives on March 13. It is notable — not to mention sad and embarrassing — that Louisiana was invoked as an example that Iowans should not follow:

Although the bill was given little chance of passing from the start, the petition helped to inform legislators and the public of the depth of resistance to such a bill within the academic and scientific community. Iowa faculty wanted to nip this bill in the bud before we had another Louisiana on our hands. (emphasis added) (Prof. Hector Avalos, Iowa State University, Panda’s Thumb, March 13, 2009)

New Mexico is fortunate to have a strong pro-science group, New Mexicans for Science and Reason, which has helped fight off multiple attacks on its science curriculum at both the state and local levels over the last decade. They fought off SB 433 this year and a similar bill in 2007.

Texas scientists have formed the “21st Century Science Coalition” to fend off the current attack on the state science standards; so far, 680 scientists in Texas universities, along with 870 other Texas scientists, have signed the “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools” statement. Along with Texas Citizens for Science and the Texas Freedom Network, these scientists are currently mounting a strong effort to protect their science standards, on which the Texas Board of Education will vote on March 25. (See the TFN page about this upcoming vote. ) Texans must now also combat the creationist HB 4224, which will permit the teaching of bogus “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in public schools. (See NCSE’s report on Texas.)

At this point, the prospects of the Texas, Missouri, Florida, and Alabama bills are uncertain. Let’s hope that the public officials in these states have better judgment than the ones whom Louisiana voters have trusted with our children’s future.

In the meantime, nothing is more sorely needed in Louisiana than a similarly well-organized, long-term effort launched from multiple directions: by the scientific community, the civil liberties community, the mainstream religious community, and the education community. If Louisiana citizens don’t take the initiative to rescue public school science education from the grip of the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute, we can count on remaining at the top of the list and the bottom of the ladder.  Laissez bon temps rouler.

Louisiana continues to receive quite a bit of attention because of the decision by the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology to stay out of Louisiana in the wake of the state’s passage of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act. The New York Times is only one of the out-of-state media outlets that have picked up the story. (The Louisiana Family Forum was apparently caught off guard by the story and issued a peevish response.)

The comment to the NYT from Bobby Jindal’s office is indicative of the level of (un)concern about the SICB’s decision: “That’s too bad,” a spokesman, Kyle Plotkin, said in an e-mail message. “New Orleans is a first-class city for a convention.” It’s ironic that the NYT even received an answer from Jindal’s office — Jindal never responded to the SICB letter [pdf].

The Salt Lake City Tribune naturally picked up the story: “Utah Policy on Evolution Helps Land Science Conference” (2/18/09). Utah has benefited from Louisiana’s folly — in 2005, the Utah State Board of Education adopted a position statement [pdf] announcing its support for teaching evolution: “The Theory of Evolution is a major unifying concept in science and appropriately included in Utah’s K-12 Science Core Curriculum.” The Utah BOE adopted this statement as a show of opposition to an attempt by a Utah legislator, Sen. Chris Buttars, to pass a creationist bill in that state. It is so incredibly sad — and embarrassing — to contrast the statement of the Utah State Board of Education with the creationist-appeasing action taken on January 13, 2009, by the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, as highlighted by the Baton Rouge Advocate:

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. It’s a sad thing. . . .

Sen. Ben Nevers, who introduced the bill on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum because, as he told the Hammond Daily Star on April 6, 2008, “They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory,” is back on script. Having momentarily slipped when he gave the Daily Star an honest statement of the bill’s intent, he has since continued to lengthen his list of dishonest statements to the media, as he did to the Baton Rouge Advocate (February 17, 2009) in response to the SICB decision:

State Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa and a key sponsor of the bill, disputed criticism by officials of the group.

“If they read the legislation, which hopefully they have, they will understand that what we are trying to do is expand the opportunity to teach pure science in the classroom,” Nevers said.

Letters from New Orleans residents Frank Sassone and Nathan Ivey to the New Orleans Times-Picayune supported the SICB decision.

Louisiana does not need the type of publicity that its public officials keep churning out by their refusal to do what Oklahoma had the good sense to do to Senate Bill 320 (rtf), the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,” which was introduced there last month: kill the blooming thing in committee. Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry vetoed the similarly misguided 2008 “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act” last year.

It is clear that in Oklahoma, elected officials — at least so far — have more respect for the professional expertise of their teachers and scientists than either the Louisiana legislature or Gov. Jindal. It’s so incredibly sad.

The repercussions that were expected from the Louisiana legislature’s passage and Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signing of the creationist 2008 LA Science Education Act have begun. Louisiana taxpayers and schoolchildren are now reaping what the legislature and governor have sowed: the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, one of the nation’s leading scientific societies, is boycotting Louisiana. In a February 6, 2009, letter [pdf] to Gov. Bobby Jindal, SICB Executive Committee President Richard Satterlie told the governor that “The Executive Committee voted to hold the 2011 meeting in Salt Lake City in large part because of legislation SB 561, which you signed into law in June 2008…. Utah, in contrast [to Louisiana], passed a resolution that states that evolution is central to any science curriculum.” [See the resolution adopted by the Utah State Board of Education affirming that "The Theory of Evolution is a major unifying concept in science and appropriately included in Utah's K-12 Science Core Curriculum." Contrast this resolution with the recent decision by the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to strip the prohibition against teaching creationism from the policy implementing the LSEA.]

The LA Coalition for Science has issued a press release [pdf] announcing SICB’s decision. [Correction: Although the LA Science Education Act was first introduced as SB 561, it was renumbered during the legislative process and signed into law as SB 733.]

The legislature and the governor cannot say they weren’t warned. They were, but they ignored the warnings. Indeed, they ignored everyone except the creationists at the Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum. Before the Louisiana Family Forum and the Discovery Institute — and perhaps well-meaning critics — start squawking about how mean this is, let’s just consider a few things, shall we?

• In its letter [pdf] of June 9, 2008, to Louisiana state representatives, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) warned of the damage the legislature might do to the state by passing SB 733: “By promoting the discussion of patently non-scientific ideas in the science classroom, SB 733 threatens the quality of science education and risks setting the students of Louisiana well behind their national and international counterparts. At a time when national political and business leaders are calling for a reinvestment in our scientific research and education enterprise, passage of SB 733 would set Louisiana on a path counter to that of the rest of the nation.” The legislature did not listen.

• In its letter [pdf] of June 13, 2008, to Gov. Jindal, AIBS warned the governor of precisely the same thing: “By promoting the discussion of patently non-scientific ideas in the science classroom, SB 733 threatens the quality of science education and risks setting the students of Louisiana well behind their national and international counterparts. The future educational, employment, and economic growth of Louisiana and the United States depends upon a scientifically literate workforce and a population capable of making informed decisions. A strong foundation in science that includes an understanding of evolution is required to fuel the advances in research, development, and innovation that will help Louisiana increase economic growth from new jobs and opportunities arising from science and technology.” Jindal did not listen.

These pleas and warnings to the legislature and the governor to kill the LA Science Education Act were only two of many, all of which were ignored.

The following points summarize the fairest and most accurate way to assess this first fallout from what the legislature and the governor did by respectively passing and signing the creationist LA Science Education Act of 2008:

No doubt the creationists at the Discovery Institute and the LA Family Forum will try to make hay out of this boycott by blaming SICB. But it is not the SICB that has done the damage here; it is the legislature and the governor, egged on by the Discovery Institute and the LFF. The SICB held its 2004 meeting in New Orleans, and it was a huge event that contributed to the city’s tourism business.

The legislators and Gov. Jindal are the people who refused to consider the economic damage to the state that they were warned would result from their passing this bill. Other state agencies that have done stupid things like this, e.g., the Kansas Board of Education in 1999, when it stripped evolution out of the state science standards, were warned by their pro-science citizens that such decisions could damage their states’ economies. The public officials never seem to take such warnings seriously. We pro-science activists, scientists, and teachers who lobbied against the Louisiana bill last year — in other words, people who do real work for the state of Louisiana such as, say, educating students and searching for a cure for cancer — tried to warn public officials of repercussions like this. They ignored us.

The legislature and Gov. Jindal — and no one else — bear the responsibility. The scientific organizations, not to mention all the other organizations that have come to New Orleans, as well as to other Louisiana convention centers, to do business, deserve credit for wanting to help the city and our state. Indeed, they already have helped the city and the state as a whole many times in the past by coming here for their meetings. Any negative reactions against SICB about the fallout from their decision not to hold future meetings in Louisiana while this law is on the books should be turned around and properly directed toward the people who actually did the damage to Louisiana: the legislature, Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Family Forum, and the Discovery Institute — not the SICB.

It is important to highlight where the real responsibility for this decision lies. It is not with the scientific organizations who have every right to stand up to defend both their disciplines and the way science is taught in public schools.

“Louisiana Open for Business — Creationists Welcome”

That is the message that Louisiana public officials are sending to the rest of the country since the creationist LA Science Education Act (LSEA) was enacted into law in 2008. They are taking their instructions from, among others, the creationist Rev. Gene Mills, the executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), the Focus on the Family affiliate that engineered passage of the bill in the Louisiana legislature. Rev. Mills, whose own children are homeschooled and attend private Christian schools, actually made his victory announcement using those exact words: “Louisiana is open for business. . . . And academic freedom and inquiry are welcomed here in the state of Louisiana.” Of course, in referring to “academic freedom and inquiry” he was speaking in the well-documented creationist code language in which his friends at the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design creationist think tank, have coached him. Last year —2008— was a good year for creationists in Louisiana. So far in 2009, they are still batting a thousand.

In spring 2008, the Louisiana legislature voted to approve the “LA Science Education Act,” SB 733, by a vote of 35-0 in the Senate and a vote of 94-3 in the House of Representatives. On June 25, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed the LSEA into law as Act 473 despite widespread requests, including from prestigious national scientific societies and his former Brown University biology professor Dr. Arthur Landy, that he veto it.  On January 13, 2009, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) adopted the policy by which it will administer Act 473.

The policy is a revised version of the initial one that the LA Dept. of Education had recommended at the December 2, 2008, meeting of BESE’s Student/School Performance Support Committee (S/SPS). This committee is a subset of three BESE members: committee chair Dale Bayard, who is the LA Family Forum’s point man on the state board; John Bennett; and Chas Roemer. However, the committee deferred action on the policy in order, as is now clear from Rev. Mills’s statements to the media, to give the LA Family Forum time to exert pressure for changes at the LA Dept. of Education. Shortly before the January 13 meeting, Mills was confident that the pressure would secure the results he wanted:

Mills said he is cautiously optimistic that talks among department officials [LA Dept. of Education], the state board and lawmakers involved in the issue will be productive.

(Baton Rouge Advocate, January 9, 2009)

The initial version [pdf] of the policy contained two crucial statements that would have prohibited school districts from doing what the legislative sponsors and creationist authors of the LA Science Education Act designed the law to allow them to do: (1) “Religious beliefs shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking”; and (2) “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.”

Mills referred to these statements as expressing “religious hostility” and “a cheap shot.” In doing so, he revealed his true intent concerning both the LSEA and the BESE policy: to promote and protect the religious agenda of the LA Family Forum and its Discovery Institute accomplices. If, as Mills keeps insisting, the LSEA were only intended to promote good science education and not to promote creationism, there would be no reason for him to object to the initial policy’s prohibition against teaching “creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.”

In the revised policy [pdf] introduced at the S/SPS Committee meeting on January 13, 2009, the first statement had been deleted prior to the meeting. To the second statement, another had been added: “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 new sentence was clearly added to prohibit any supplemental material from being challenged based on its having been authored by creationists. A prime example is the Discovery Institute’s new textbook, Explore Evolution, which was written by intelligent design creationists at the Discovery Institute, one of whom (Paul Nelson) is actually a young-earth creationist. (Most ID proponents at the Discovery Institute are “old-earth” creationists. See “The Creation-Evolution Continuum” by Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.)

In addition, the sentence bears all the marks of Discovery Institute craftsmanship. First, John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute’s creationist Center for Science and Culture, told a Louisiana newspaper last year that DI hopes to see Explore Evolution adopted as a supplement in Louisiana school districts as the result of the LSEA’s passage:

John West, the Discovery Institute’s vice president of public policy and legal affairs, said the group has supported the bill and hopes passage of the bill would allow supplemental materials such as Discover [Explore] Evolution, a book written by Discovery Institute staff that disputes some Darwinian findings. (Opelousas [LA] Daily World, June 16 2008; *Note: the story misreported the book’s title.) (*See LCFS post on Explore Evolution.)

Second, the Discovery Institute whines and complains on a regular basis about its operatives’ creationist beliefs and religious motivations being spotlighted by their critics. In fact, in a September 8, 2008, column entitled “Any larger philosophical implications of intelligent design, or any religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations of ID proponents, do not disqualify ID from having scientific merit,” DI staffer Casey Luskin, who attended the May 21, 2008, Louisiana House Education Committee hearing on the LSEA, used language that is virtually identical to the sentence added to the January 13 version of the BESE policy:

Many critics of intelligent design (ID) have argued that ID is not science due to the alleged religious motives, beliefs, and affiliations of its proponents. Critics may trot out quotes from ID proponents discussing their own personal religious beliefs, motives, and affiliations, or discussing the larger philosophical implications they draw from ID, to allege that ID is not science, but religion. These common attacks against ID are both logically fallacious and highly hypocritical. (emphasis added)

(Here, once again, for comparison with Luskin’s words above, is the statement that had been added to the policy prior to the January 13 meeting: “Evaluations of supplementary materials shall be made without regard to the religious or non-religious beliefs and affiliations of the authors of supplementary materials.” The added statement’s likeness with Luskin’s Discovery Institute language was no coincidence.)

The final item that the LA Family Forum and its supporters wanted stricken from the policy was the prohibition against teaching creationism. In order to get that sentence removed, they had to give up the Discovery Institute-friendly statement that had been added. But they were happy to do that in order to have the two statements referring to religion and creationism, respectively, removed. And removed they were, by a state board of education that caved in completely to their demands.

As the Louisiana legislature and Bobby Jindal did in spring 2008, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education listened only to creationists rather than to the scientists and teachers who actually do the work of conducting scientific research and teaching science to children in the universities and public schools of Louisiana.

Two letters to BESE members from Barbara Forrest, co-founder of the LA Coalition for Science and veteran Louisiana educator, requesting that they (1) adopt the initial policy [pdf] as written by the LA Dept. of Education and (2) reject the changes [pdf] made by creationists in the revised January 13 policy, produced no responses from any of the board members.

Ten of the eleven members were present at the January 13, 2009, committee meeting, and all ten voted for the revised policy, which, as Mills indicated, had been refashioned to the satisfaction of the LA Family Forum (and, by extension, of the Discovery Institute) during negotiations with state officials prior to the January 13 meeting. Rev. Mills expressed his happiness with the policy to OneNewsNow.com, a Religious Right website, announcing that “The BESE board . . . is to be commended, and Louisiana is open for business. . . . And academic freedom and inquiry are welcomed here in the state of Louisiana.” The Discovery Institute, which colluded in crafting the language of the LSEA and is providing legal advice to the LFF, applauded BESE’s adoption of the policy: “Louisiana Passes Rules Implementing Historic Academic Freedom Act.”

According to Discovery Institute education policy analyst Casey Luskin, “This is another victory for Louisiana students and teachers to have a climate of academic freedom to learn about scientific controversies over evolution and other topics in the curriculum.”

The Discovery Institute, signing off this column by reminding readers to “Stay tuned to Evolution News & Views for more as the story develops,” will remain actively involved in manipulating science education policy in Louisiana, which has the dubious distinction of being the first and —so far— the only state to adopt a version of the Discovery Institute’s model creationist legislation. If Louisiana public officials were looking for a category in which they can finally lead the rest of the country, they may have picked a winner with the creationist LA Science Education Act.

The lead editorial, “Creationists Show Clout” in the Sunday, January 18, 2009, Baton Rouge Advocate was blunt:

BESE joins the ranks of the wimps who have rolled over on the issue of creationism. It’s a sad thing. Not because faith is a bad thing in its proper place. Not because the Family Forum doesn’t have a right to its views. But because the state is siding with the backward against not only science but the rule of law in this country.  (emphasis added)

State officials who facilitated this handoff of public school science education policy to creationists had better hope that potential economic investors and families with school-age children who are thinking of moving to Louisiana haven’t been paying attention.  Because according to Rev. Mills, “LOUISIANA IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.” And for creationists, the business climate in Louisiana could not be better.

Today, December 20, 2008, marks the third anniversary of the landmark decision in the first intelligent design (ID) creationism legal case, Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District (2005). Ever since that ruling, the plaintiffs and those of us who served on their legal team in the now-famous “Dover trial” observe the anniversary by wishing each other an affectionate “Merry Kitzmas!” On December 20, 2005, in a Memorandum Opinion that a former Ohio judge described as “judicial poetry,” Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the 2004 ID creationist policy statement adopted by the Dover, PA, school board “violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and . . . the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

As an expert witness for the plaintiffs, I would like to thank Judge Jones for helping to preserve both the integrity of public school science education and the constitutional separation of church and state through his decision. I was honored to serve in his courtroom and in this case. But this year, the anniversary of the plaintiffs’ success in the Kitzmiller case has been turned bittersweet by my state’s refusal to learn the lessons of Dover and of our own history. Despite Louisiana’s passage of a 1981 creationist law and the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), which outlawed the teaching of creationism, the Louisiana legislature and Gov. Bobby Jindal, by respectively passing and signing the LA Science Education Act (LSEA), ensured that our state will remain tethered to the bottom of every national quality-of-life survey.

Just yesterday, December 19, the Michigan legislature ended its 2008 session without passing a similar bill that had languished in committee for months. The Louisiana and Michigan bills were two of six creationist bills introduced in state legislatures in 2008; all of them were coordinated by the Discovery Institute, the ID creationist think tank in Seattle. Five of these states — Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, and now Michigan — had the good sense not to pass the bills. But despite the kick in the teeth they suffered in Dover, the Discovery Institute creationists are hell-bent on doing as much damage as possible. Next year, when state legislative sessions reopen in those five states and elsewhere, they will be back.

Although their always paper-thin credibility has been totally in tatters since Dover, ID creationists simply keep evolving, as creationists always do after court defeats. This year, working through the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute creationists took aim at Louisiana, and the legislature and Gov. Bobby Jindal were only too happy to help them. And this was after Discovery Institute staffer Casey Luskin publicly criticized a Louisiana State University scientist, Dr. Bryan Carstens, who has chosen to live and work in Louisiana, and who testified against the LSEA before the Louisiana House Education Committee on May 21, 2008. Gov. Jindal quietly signed the LSEA on June 25, 2008, and the news hit the papers two days later. The Discovery Institute announced its victory at 7:18 a.m. on June 27.

Victory in Louisiana: Governor Jindal Signs Historic Science Education Act On Evolution and Education

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution. The bill enjoyed surprisingly overwhelming support from lawmakers. It was passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate, and passed the state House by a vote of 93-4.

This week, as 2008 draws to a close, the news from Gov. Jindal’s office is that the budgets of our public universities must take a huge hit because of declining state revenues. This is not a new phenomenon in Louisiana. In the mid-1980s, universities endured a similar crisis. Only in recent years, during which university funding was given a high priority, has most of that damage been undone. However, because of their distrust of the very politicians whom they keep electing, Louisiana voters have either constitutionally or statutorily protected every area of the state budget except education and health care. So when the state falls on hard times, the young and the sick are the politicians’ first targets.

On top of that, our best-educated young people are leaving the state by the thousands, and Gov. Jindal has voiced his concern about this outward migration and the deficiencies in the Louisiana work force: “The reason people are leaving, Jindal says, is because of the lack of educational and economic opportunities in Louisiana. And Jindal says his administration is seeking to address the problem.” Well, you sure could have fooled us, Governor. Signing creationist bills into law is not what one does if one is concerned about the loss of the state’s best young minds.

Our fellow Americans around the country observe us with a combination of amusement and incredulity. Some have taken special notice of Louisiana’s politically self-inflicted injury to state science education. Dr. Gregory Petsko, president of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which represents two of the most important areas of current scientific research, has called for a boycott of Louisiana by scientific societies not only in the United States but around the world.

As scientists we need to join such protests with our feet and wallets. The ASBMB Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place in New Orleans in April 2009. We have longstanding contractual obligations that require us to meet in Louisiana next spring. But I think we need to see to it that no future meeting of our society will take place in Louisiana as long as that law stands, nor should we hold it in any other state (are you listening, Michigan and Texas?) that passes a similar law. And I call upon the presidents of the American Chemical Society, the American Association of Immunologists, the Society for Neuroscience, and all the other scientific societies around the U.S. and the world, to join me in this action and make clear to the state legislators in Louisiana, the governor of the state, and the mayor and business bureau of New Orleans that this will be the consequence. You can do the same. Governor Jindal can be reached through his website (www.bobbyjindal.com/) and so can Mayor Ray Nagin (www.cityofno.com/Portals/Portal35/portal.aspx).  — Gregory Petsko, “It Is Alive,” President’s Message, ASBMB Today, August 2008 (emphasis added)

These are strong words, but, unfortunately, they are totally justified. Until the constituencies in Louisiana for scientific research and science education — and, one might add, for sheer common sense — develop an effective way to speak more loudly to the legislature and Gov. Jindal than do the Louisiana Family Forum and an out-of-state creationist think tank, this is the image that our beloved state will continue to have. We must find some way to repair the state’s image and earn the respect of our fellow Americans, who may then take seriously the proposition that Louisiana is a good place to live, work, and do business. There is one way to begin the process of earning this respect.

In Louisiana, “respect” must now be spelled “R-E-P-E-A-L.”