By Barbara Forrest

November 27, 2008

Texas science education is currently in the crosshairs of the Discovery Institute (DI), the conservative Seattle think tank that serves as the headquarters of the intelligent design (ID) creationist movement. DI’s supporters in the Lone Star state are using the same code-language strategy that its Louisiana supporters used earlier this year, in spring 2008, when DI targeted the science education of Louisiana children. Working through the Louisiana Family Forum, an affiliate of Focus on the Family, DI helped to promote the “academic freedom” bill that the legislature passed and Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law on June 25 as the “Louisiana Science Education Act” (LSEA). Long-time DI fellow David K. DeWolf admitted helping to shape the legislation, which is designed to permit the use of creationist supplementary materials such as DI’s intelligent design textbook, the deceptively titled Explore Evolution, in public school science classes. When Gov. Jindal signed the LSEA into law on June 25, the Discovery Institute declared victory. Now, in fall 2008, DI has targeted Texas.

DI operatives are working through Texas Board of Education chair Don McLeroy, a self-described creationist, and other supporters on the board. ID-friendly board members nominated Stephen C. Meyer, director of DI’s creationist Center for Science and Culture, and two other ID supporters to serve on the six-member expert review panel that recently reviewed the draft of the Texas state science standards. The ID proponents’ goal is to have the “strengths and limitations” of evolution — code for ID creationist criticisms of evolution — included in the science standards. They are serving along with three nationally recognized Texas professors — David Hillis, Gerald Skoog, and Ronald Wetherington — who are legitimate experts in science and science education.

“Strengths and limitations” is the most recent evolution of  ID creationist code language. Until a few weeks ago, the code phrase used in the standards was “strengths and weaknesses,” which had been inserted by creationists two decades ago. Thanks to well-organized efforts by pro-science groups such as the Texas Freedom Network, “strengths and weaknesses” was exposed as merely a shopworn creationist code term, as can be seen, for example, in a 1983 Institute for Creation Research article:

Scientific creationists . . . think that evolution should be taught, but only when the strengths and weaknesses are discussed in comparison with the scientific merits of creation.  — Richard Bliss, 1983

As a result of the exposure of “strengths and weaknesses,” the code language has evolved yet again, this time to “strengths and limitations.” (See the letter to McLeroy and Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.)

In 2003, during the textbook selection process in Texas, DI operatives attempted to pressure the Texas Board of Education to include the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in state-approved biology textbooks. They failed when the board resisted pressure from DI to alter the textbooks. In the best interests of the schoolchildren of Texas, the slim majority of moderates on the Texas Board of Education should see to it that the Discovery Institute fails in its current effort as well.

• At Southern Methodist University on November 11, 2008, Barbara Forrest explained DI’s evolving strategy in a public lecture, “Why Texans Shouldn’t Let Creationists Mess with Texas Science Education.” The video of Forrest’s lecture is available here. The mp3 audio file is available here.

One of the clearest indications that the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) is intended to advance the religious agenda of the Discovery Institute (DI) and the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), the organizations that jointly promoted this legislation, is the law’s inclusion of a religion disclaimer that comes directly from DI’s doublespeak-titled “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution.”

Here is DI’s disclaimer:

Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Here is the disclaimer in the LSEA, now Louisiana Act 473 [pdf], which the Louisiana House and Senate passed as SB 733 and which Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law on June 25, 2008:

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

In addition to all of the other indications that the LSEA is a creationist law (see my analysis of the legislation), this disclaimer is a dead giveaway of the creationist (hence religious) agenda that the law advances. The truth is that the Discovery Institute’s disclaimer is included, both in DI’s model bill and in Act 473, precisely because the legislation is intended to advance religion. If the model bill and the LSEA were truly intended to improve science education in public schools, no religion disclaimer would be necessary. If DI and LFF were not trying to advance a religious agenda, they would not have included such a thinly disguised, pre-emptive effort at legal self-defense.

In recognition of the religious intent of the LSEA, Louisiana Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek has sent a letter [pdf] dated August 27, 2008, to all “City, Parish, and other Local School Superintendents; Recovery School District Superintendents; Special School District Directors; and, Presidents of School Boards.” After citing legal rulings against teaching creationism, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) and Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education v. Freiler, 530 U.S. 1251, 120 S. Ct. 2706 (2000), both of which originated in Louisiana, Pastorek issued a warning to the letter’s recipients:

Religious theories cannot be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking. Written materials or oral presentations that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind or that state that evolution is only a theory are prohibited. “Academic freedom” does not encompass the structuring of public school curriculum in order to promote religious beliefs.

Mr. Pastorek’s warning should be taken to heart by all Louisiana school districts. If any Louisiana citizen has evidence that a school board or an individual teacher is using creationist materials in a Louisiana public school science class, please contact the LA Coalition for Science or the National Center for Science Education.

September 27, 2008

Scientist and writer John Timmer has reviewed the Discovery Institute’s stealth creationist textbook, Explore Evolution, in Ars Technica. Three of EE’s authors are well-known intelligent design (ID) creationists. Stephen C. Meyer is the director of the Discovery Institute’s ID creationist wing, the Center for Science and Culture (CSC). Two of his co-authors are his CSC associates Paul Nelson (a young-earth creationist) and Scott Minnich (a witness for the defense in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). The other two, Jonathan Moneymaker and Ralph Seelke, are lesser-known ID supporters.

In “A Biologist Reviews an Evolution Textbook from the ID Camp,” Timmer refers several times to the prospect that this book may be used in Louisiana science classrooms as a “supplement” of the kind intended by the “LA Science Education Act” (LSEA) [pdf], which was approved by the Louisiana legislature and signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal during the 2008 legislative session. Indeed, according to one Louisiana newspaper, Meyer’s colleague, CSC associate director John West, indicated that the Discovery Institute hopes to see EE adopted in Louisiana science classes as one of the supplements that the LSEA will permit teachers to use (Opelousas [LA] Daily World, 6/16/08). Contrary to its misleading title, Explore Evolution is a sustained, error-ridden attack on evolutionary theory. It also contains a section on Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity.” Both aspects of EE make it very much an intelligent design creationist textbook.

Timmer’s review comprises four web pages. Page 1, “The Politics of Exploration,” contains a reference to Louisiana:

In June, Louisiana became the first state to enact a law specifically enabling the use of supplemental materials for the critical evaluation of evolution; similar legislation has been introduced in several other states. EE appears to have been intelligently designed to be the sort of supplemental text that’s appropriate under the Louisiana legislation, and so it’s likely to be making an appearance in classrooms there. . . .

On page 2, “Shaking and Breaking the Tree of Life,” Timmer points out the scientific errors and underhanded tactics that permeate EE. With respect to the latter, he highlights the old creationist trick of finding “someone with a Ph.D. who’s willing to say anything.” He is referring to the EE authors’ citation of the work of Christian Schwabe, whose kooky views are far outside the scientific maintream:

Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. But every couple of years he publishes a paper in which he argues in favor of his belief that the genomes of all modern and extinct species originated during the formation of life billions of years ago. According to Schwabe, those genomes have continued to exist, hidden underground as stem cell-like entities. Whenever these cells sense a favorable environment above ground, they head for the surface and self-organize into a fully formed, multicellular animal. No, I am not making this up.

This isn’t simply evidence-free (although it is); it’s borderline deranged. And yet, in the hands of Discovery’s authors, it becomes a serious scientific controversy about the existence of the tree of life. . . .

On page 3, “Spurious Arguments and Logical Flaws,” Timmer exposes a tactic that mirrors Discovery Institute creationists’ dishonest attempts to win unearned legitimacy by getting themselves onto high-profile, public platforms with legitimate, mainstream scientists and scholars. In EE, the authors have placed a reference to Schwabe’s work in the same footnote with a reference to the work of Carl Woese. Woese is a “serious and significant scientist who has made contributions to our understanding of the history of life on earth,” which, Timmer points out, Schwabe is most certainly not. However, says Timmer, “By lumping them together in a single footnote, the authors attempt to illegitimately transfer some of Woese’s credibility to the evidence-free inanity that Schwabe publishes.” This kind of tactic is standard operating procedure for ID creationists at the Discovery Institute.

On page 4, “Not Fit for the Classroom,” Timmer points out that “The text of EE assiduously avoids any mention of intelligent design or creationism, but anyone familiar with the literature of these movements will recognize that their ideas pervade EE.” The scrubbing of the overt use of the term “intelligent design” in EE is clear evidence of the Discovery Institute’s recognition that using overtly creationist language — even their own brand name, “intelligent design” — is a legal liability. Their effort to sanitize their terminology began even before the Kitzmiller trial.

The Discovery Institute’s sanitizing of their terminology in EE repeats the tactic ID proponents used in an earlier creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, the first high school textbook that the ID movement produced. Pandas was written while Louisiana’s first creationism law, the 1981 “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,”  was being litigated. When the U. S. Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional in 1987,  the creationist terminology was hastily scrubbed from Pandas and replaced with the terminology of “intelligent design” prior to its initial publication in 1989. Continuing the creationist strategy of shifting their terminology in the wake of defeats in federal court, EE is the sanitized product of ID creationism’s resounding defeat in the Kitzmiller trial, a fact that Timmer clearly recognizes:

If it never mentions creationism or intelligent design, the decision to avoid doing so appears to be strategic, rather than intellectual. Presumably, it’s done for the same reason that many of the Discovery Fellows have chosen to downplay their personal beliefs about the identity of the designer: it would only get them in trouble when they try to get the book into the school system.

Timmer closes his review with a parting reference to Louisiana. Recalling the statement by Kevin Padian, a scientist and expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller trial, that intelligent design “makes people stupid . . . essentially makes them ignorant,” Timmer concludes on a note that should resonate strongly with all Louisiana citizens who value our public schools and want our children to be decently educated:

Sadly, thanks to the actions of the Louisiana state government, that state’s students are much more likely to be exposed to this sort of stupidity.

But the book doesn’t only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book, but its authors are expecting that legislators and the courts will be too stupid to notice that, or to remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion. As laws similar to Louisiana’s resurface in other states next year, we can only hope that legislators choose not to live down to the low expectations of EE’s authors.

Down here in Louisiana, we can only say “AMEN TO THAT.”

Anyone with knowledge that Explore Evolution or any other creationist material is being used in Louisiana public school science classes should contact the National Center for Science Education or the LA Coalition for Science.

Below Judgment Day, viewers can watch videos of the April 17, 2008, Louisiana Senate Education Committee meeting and the May 21, 2008, House Education Committee meeting, in which legislators ignored Louisiana educators and scientists who respectfully asked them to vote against SB 733, the LA Science Education Act. These committees, like the House and Senate as a whole, approved this creationist bill. Gov. Bobby Jindal ratified their decision by signing SB 733 into law on June 25. The legislature and the governor chose instead to support the LA Family Forum and their creationist allies, which included faculty from Louisiana College, a Southern Baptist school, and representatives of the Discovery Institute, an out-of-state creationist think tank in Seattle, WA. These people have contributed nothing to public education in Louisiana and have never produced any science to support their claims. The citizens who actually do the work of educating public school students and conducting real scientific research were ignored. This is what passes for government in Louisiana.

JUDGMENT DAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL

LA Senate Education Committee Meeting, April 17, 2008 (RealPlayer)

LA House Education Committee Meeting, May 21, 2008 (RealPlayer)

]]> http://lasciencecoalition.org/2008/07/21/the-%e2%80%9cdover-trial%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%94-this-should-have-been-required-viewing-in-louisiana/feed/ http://lasciencecoalition.org/2008/07/13/creationists-wink-nudge/ http://lasciencecoalition.org/2008/07/13/creationists-wink-nudge/#comments Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:57:57 +0000 admin http://lasciencecoalition.org/?p=27 SB 733, the “LA Science Education Act,” is now law in Louisiana. Prior to being passed in its current form, this bill was first introduced as SB 561, the “LA Academic Freedom Act.” It was one of six such bills, the introduction of which the Discovery Institute (DI), a creationist think tank in Seattle, coordinated in legislatures around the country. (Louisiana is the only state in which any of these bills has passed thus far.) During the LA Family Forum’s promotion of the bill, which was introduced on their behalf by Sen. Ben Nevers, the LFF’s partnership with the Discovery Institute became increasingly evident. This alliance emerged fully into public view with Casey Luskin’s presence at the May 21, 2008, meeting of the Louisiana House Education Committee. Luskin is DI’s program officer for public policy and legal affairs.

During the advancement of the bill in the legislature, DI, the LFF, and Sen. Nevers strenuously objected to any suggestion that the bill would allow the teaching of intelligent design (ID) creationism. In numerous publications and in federal court, ID has been shown, using Discovery Institute ID proponents’s own words (pdf), to be creationism, thus making it a religious belief. DI, the LFF, and Nevers repeatedly denied that the bill has anything to do with promoting religion; it will, they insisted, enhance the “critical thinking” skills of Louisiana students. No one was ever fooled by such denials, however, and no one is fooled now. Everyone knew then, as everyone knows now, that SB 733 has one and only one purpose: to give Louisiana school boards and teachers cover for teaching ID creationism.

As always, the words of ID promoters themselves have given them away. In their pre-promotional planning, Luskin, the LFF, and Sen. Nevers were apparently not studying the right set of instructions. On March 13, 2008, when Luskin was promoting similar academic freedom legislation in Florida, he admitted that the Florida bill would permit teaching ID as “scientific information.” Marc Caputo reported Luskin’s momentary candor in the Miami Herald:

The religiously tinged evolution-questioning theory of Intelligent Design could more easily be brought up in public-school science classrooms under a proposed “academic freedom” legislation being pushed by conservative lawmakers.

And it’s not just the ACLU saying it anymore.

A leading voice for the Intelligent Design movement acknowledged as much Wednesday by saying that the theory constitutes “scientific information,” which the bill expressly and repeatedly says teachers should present in questioning and criticizing evolution without fear of persecution.

The remarks by Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, were made during a press conference. . . .

So does Intelligent Design constitute scientific information?

“In my personal opinion, I think it does. But the intent of this bill is not to settle that question,” said Luskin. “The intent of this bill is . . . it protects the ‘teaching of scientific information.’ It’s not trying to inject itself into the debate over Intelligent Design.”
(from “Intelligent Design Could Slip into Science Class,” Miami Herald, March 13, 2008)

On March 14, John West, Luskin’s superior at the Discovery Institute, tried to do some fast damage control to deflect attention away from Luskin’s tactical lapse. But given the kinship between the Florida bill and the five others that the Discovery Institute coordinated, including SB 733, it is reasonable to conclude that Luskin’s pre-spin assessment of the Florida bill applies to SB 733 as well. (See “Florida: Luskin Lets Cat Out of Bag,” March 13, 2008, by Dr. Wesley Elsberry.)

Sen. Nevers, the Louisiana bill’s sponsor, similarly goofed. He has repeatedly denied that SB 733 promoted religion, as he did on April 1, 2008:

Nevers said his bill should not be considered a creationism measure because it would pave the way for theories that also challenge opinions on global warming, human cloning and other topics.

“I think the bill perfectly explains that it deals with any scientific subject matter which is taught in our public school system,” he said. The bill says it should not be construed to promote any religious doctrine.

(Will Sentell, “Author Denies Bill Lets Creationism Slip into Schools,” Baton Rouge Advocate, April 1, 2008)

Yet less than a week later, on April 6, 2008, Never admitted that the bill was intended to promote creationism:

The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill, Nevers said.

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

(Sylvia Schon, “Bill Allows Teaching Creationism as Science,” Hammond Daily Star, April 6, 2008)

In a June 2008 YouTube video [at 1:40], LFF’s executive director, Rev. Gene Mills, likewise insisted that the LA Science Education Act does not promote religion:

“There are organizations like Barry Lynn’s Americans United for Separation of Church & State that are arguing that this [bill] is a formal establishment of religion, or a religious test for the classroom and science classroom. Those are bogus and overstated reports. It’s good science, and that’s the reason it passed both committees and both chambers [of the Louisiana legislature].”

However, in a July 9, 2008, interview with New Scientist, Mills admitted that the bill is an extension of the LFF’s religious agenda.

“We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue,” says Gene Mills, executive director of the LFF. When asked whether the new law fits with the organisation’s religious agenda, Mills told New Scientist: “Certainly it’s an extension of it.”

(Amanda Gefter, “New Legal Threat to Teaching Evolution in the US,” New Scientist, July 9, 2008)

The LFF’s mission, as affirmed on its website, is “To persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence,” those centers being “church, business/industry, government, media, arts, law, medicine and academia.” Retired Baton Rouge City Court judge and LFF co-founder Darrell White, the LFF’s likely point man with DI, has promoted DI’s agenda for a number of years. In a 2005 interview (pdf) with the Baton Rouge chapter of Christian International Business Network, White named the Discovery Institute as an organization through which citizens must become involved in order to promote “Balanced Origins Science” (a well-known creationist term). When asked “as a community, a state and a country where are we now and where do you see us in five years?,” White predicted that “In five years, ‘Saint’ Darwin’s humanistic views will be criticized in science textbooks. . . .”

The discrepancies in the public statements of the proponents of this year’s “academic freedom” legislation highlight once again the dishonesty that is inherent to the promotion of creationism as merely “good science” and “critical thinking.” Clearly, the bill’s promoters themselves need a crash course in critical thinking, not to mention ethics. They could start with Aristotle’s venerable Law of Non-Contradiction: “Opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” (Metaphysics IV 6 1011b13–20). They might then progress to a review of the ethical teachings of Jesus with respect to telling the truth: “Do not give false testimony, do not defraud.” (Mark 10:19)

NCSE is a national clearinghouse that provides assistance to citizens who seek to protect the teaching of science in their public schools:

• “The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education. We educate the press and public about the scientific, educational, and legal aspects of the creation and evolution controversy, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels.”

To subscribe free of charge to NCSE’s weekly e-newsletter, go here. The newsletter currently goes out to approximately 1,400 subscribers. Citizens who wish to support NCSE’s work through an annual membership can join online.

Below is an excerpt from the July 4, 2008, NCSE e-newsletter concerning Jindal’s signing of SB 733. Thanks to NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch and Public Information Project Director Josh Rosenau for this piece.

LOUISIANA'S GOVERNOR SIGNS ANTIEVOLUTION BILL

Over the protests of leading scientific organizations such as the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Institute of
Biological Sciences, Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill
733 into law, twenty-seven years after the state passed its Balanced
Treatment for Evolution-Science and Creation-Science Act, a law overturned
by the Supreme Court in 1987.  News of Jindal's approval of the bill was
buried in a press release issued on June 25, 2008, in which Jindal listed
seventy-five bills he recently signed.  SB 733 will, according to Houma
Today (June 27, 2008), "empower educators to pull religious beliefs into
topics like evolution, cloning and global warming by introducing
supplemental materials."

The New Orleans Times-Picayune broke the story on June 27, 2008, observing
that "Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about
how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act," and that he
"ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will
allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public
school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global
warming."  While Jindal did not return media calls for comment, the
newspaper quoted a statement of his that read in part, "I will continue to
consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE [the state board
of elementary and secondary education] to make the best decisions to ensure
a quality education for our children."

Local teachers are concerned that the bill could open the door to
creationism.  As the Lafayette Daily Advertiser reported (June 26, 2008),
"The possibility of the introduction of 'wacko' theories of the origins of
life Carencro High School science teacher Warren Sensat."  Sensat told the
newspaper, "When you open the door to bring in unapproved curriculum, you
can bring in some wacko stuff."  Other teachers were less worried.  After
interviewing Tim Tate, a science curriculum supervisor for the Lafayette
Parish schools, the Advertiser reported that "he's not worried about
teachers using inappropriate materials.  He expects teachers to only focus
on the state curriculum, but acknowledges that different ideas will always
be brought into the classroom."

Ars Technica's John Timmer points out (June 27, 2008), however, that "most
observers are expecting the passage of the LSEA by the state to unleash a
series of Dover-style cases, as various local boards attempt to discover
the edges of what's constitutionally allowable," citing a letter from Alan
I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
who told Jindal that the bill would "provoke an expensive, divisive legal
fight."  Timmer argues that, "In essence, Jindal is inviting local school
boards to partake in that explosion without committing the state to paying
the inevitable costs.  In the meantime, the students of the state will be
subjected to an 'anything goes' approach to science -- if it looks
scientific to a school board, it can appear in the classroom."

Conservative columnist John Derbyshire echoed these fears, writing (on The
Corner, the blog of National Review Online, June 20, 2008), "The entire
effect of this law will be that one cartload of Louisiana taxpayers'
money will go to the Discovery Institute for their mendacious 'textbooks,'
then another cartload will go into the pockets of lawyers to defend the
inevitable challenge to the law in federal courts, which will inevitably be
successful, as they always are, and should be."  Like Leshner as well as
The New York Times editorial board, Derbyshire called on Jindal to veto the
bill, writing, "Veto this bill, Gov. Jindal, or explain to Louisiana
taxpayers the pointless waste of public money that will inevitably ensue
from your signing it."

Barbara Forrest, a member of NCSE's board of directors and of the Louisiana
Coalition for Science, was quoted in a story from the Associated Press
(June 27, 2008) as expressing her concern that, now that SB 733 is law,
"Any school board can permit any teacher to put any type of creationist
supplement into a classroom and use it until they get caught."  Addressing
the supporters of the bill in a June 27, 2008, press release, Louisiana
Citizens for Science warned, "We intend to hold you to your public
assertions that no creationist materials will be used in our children's
science classes and that no religious concepts will be presented to our
children as science."  The group also offered its support for students,
teachers, and parents concerned with the integrity of science education.

The bill's opponents say that they are ready to take action should such
problems arise.  "We're known for suing school boards when we need to do so
and we won't shy away from doing that if that's what we need to do this
case," Marjorie Esman, the executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana,
told WWL-TV (June 24, 2008).  And the Reverend Barry Lynn, the executive
director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took a
firm stance in a press release (June 27, 2008):  "Let me state clearly and
upfront that any attempts to use this law to sneak religion into public
schools through the back door will not be tolerated. I call on all
concerned residents of Louisiana to help us make sure that public schools
educate, not indoctrinate."

For the text of SB 733 (PDF), visit:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=482728

For the press release from Governor Jindal, visit:
http://www.gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&catID=2&articleID=272

For the story in Houma Today, visit:
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20080627/ARTICLES/806270305/1211

For the story in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, visit:
http://www.nola.com/education/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1214544279127670.xml&coll=1

For the story in the Lafayette Advertiser, visit:
http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/NEWS01/806260311

For John Timmer's column at Ars Technica, visit:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html

For John Derbyshire's column at National Review Online, visit:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM2ODY1N2E1NGZkYTJiNDEyYWMyMWQzYTQzYWYxODU

For the Associated Press story (via the New Orleans Times-Picayune), visit:
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-40/121459256184230.xml&storylist=louisiana

For the WWL-TV story, visit:
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl062408tpscienceact.37767059.html

For Americans United's press release, visit:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=p677zibu94.app7b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9913&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Louisiana, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=LA

• Daily Kos, June 29, 2008: “They Can Never Take Away Our FREEDOM!!!”

The Louisiana legislature should be more wary than most of the Dover trap: It was there, way back in 1987, that the Supreme Court decided an earlier version of creationism was indeed a sham. But that didn’t keep Governor Bobby Jindal from signing SB 733, the mis-named Louisiana Science Education Act, last week. While the bill purports to encourage critical thinking and open discussion of various scientific topics, it perpetuates the same sham by singling out evolution (along with global warming and cloning) as topics deserving special criticism.This, in and of itself, undermines the claim to secular purpose. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than gravity, and Governor Jindal surely knows that — he graduated from Brown University with honors in biology. . . . [Read more.]

• Bad Astronomy, June 27, 2008, “Louisiana, Well that’s it then.”

. . . many other states are at risk (Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, and on and on). Never flag, never tire, and never assume you’re safe. Keep fighting, people. Because I guarantee this victory for the bad guys in Louisiana will embolden them. Keep fighting. [Read more.]

• Pharyngula, June 27, 2008, “The Bill from Bogalusa”

One bizarre item in that story is that the reporter contacted the Discovery Institute, who quickly disavowed any association with the bill, saying that they did not “directly” support it and that they certainly wouldn’t support any attempt to insert religion into the schools. Like everything that comes out of the DI, they are lying reflexively. Barbara Forrest has an excellent overview of the context and history of the bill — the bill has the DI’s frantic, fervid paws all over it. [Read more.]

• Huffington Post, June 27, 2008, “Joining GOP’s Bold March Backwards, Bobby Jindal and Louisiana Democrats Pass ‘Stealth Creationism’ Education Bill”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has just given a green light for a new, national “Stealth Creationism” initiative by signing into Louisiana state law a “stealth” Creationism bill, SB 733. [Read more.]

In keeping with our southern tradition of good manners, we would like to thank all of the organizations and individuals who helped the LA Coalition for Science in its effort to protect the teaching of science in Louisiana public schools. We appreciate the time you all took to write e-mails, send faxes, and make phone calls. We wish that the Louisiana legislature and the governor had appreciated the sincere concern you showed for Louisiana children. In fact, we wish that the legislature and the governor shared your concern.

We would also like for the nation to know that in Louisiana there are good, decent, hardworking, well-educated people who did their best to fight this bill. Louisiana is indeed “a blessed state,” as Gov. Jindal likes to say. But our blessings lie in the fact that we have dedicated public school teachers, world-class scientists, and concerned citizens who saw SB 733 for what it is — an attempt to keep Louisiana children from enjoying the same right to a 21st-century education as children in the rest of the country — and refused to be silent about it.

We are sad and embarrassed that not a single Louisiana public official, elected or appointed, stood up and opposed SB 733 vocally and publicly. (Three House members did vote against the bill during the floor vote.) Not a single Louisiana public official, elected or appointed, spoke out publicly in defense of teaching good science in our schools. Legislators did, however, vote to give themselves an increase in pay — another legislative decision that the governor refused to veto.

To the supporters of this bill: We will be watching you. We intend to hold you to your public assertions that no creationist materials will be used in our children’s science classes and that no religious concepts will be presented to our children as science.

To Louisiana elementary and secondary science teachers: Please consult the website of the LA Coalition for Science for information about quality teaching resources that are available to you. Please contact us for any assistance you need to do your job properly.

To parents who don’t support this scheme to use your children for the sake of a political and religious agenda: Support your children’s science teachers. Let them know that you want your children to learn about the most powerful biological explanation ever constructed — the theory of evolution — so that they will be as well-educated and properly informed as children in states with lawmakers and governors who support the teaching of science. Let them know that you don’t want your children handicapped by ignorance. Make sure you know what materials are being used in your children’s science classes. If you suspect that creationist materials are being used, please contact the LA Coalition for Science or the National Center for Science Education.

To the students of Louisiana: You can count on the LA Coalition for Science to stand up for you. Those of us who are teachers ourselves will continue to work as hard for you as we always have. Insist on being as well-educated in science — and everything else — as students in other states and other countries that understand the importance of a 21st-century education. If anyone introduces creationist “supplements” into your science classes, let your parents know about it. You can count on the support of people who will be here to help. Don’t be afraid to stand up for your right to a proper education.

Finally, thanks again to our friends who tried to help us. We invite you to visit our beautiful state and enjoy our wonderful food and hospitality, which are way better than our politics.

(1) New York Times editorial and major scientific societies call for Jindal’s veto of SB 733

(2) Escalating Discovery Institute involvement in promoting SB 733

Baton Rouge, LA, June 22, 2008 — The New York Times has noticed the Louisiana legislature’s passage of SB 733, the “LA Science Education Act.” In its Saturday, June 21, 2008, editorial, “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin,” the Times urges Gov. Jindal to veto the bill: “The state . . . has a sorry history as a hotbed of creationists’ efforts to inject religious views into science courses. All that stands in the way of this retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal.” With one of the nation’s most prestigious newspapers highlighting the legislature’s support for this misguided legislation, the eyes of the nation will now be turned toward our state even more attentively.

Louisiana’s passage of SB 733 has also come to the attention of well-known National Review columnist John Derbyshire, who calls upon Gov. Jindal to either veto the bill or “explain to Louisiana taxpayers the pointless waste of public money that will inevitably ensue from your signing it.”

In addition, nine of the nation’s most prestigious scientific societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), have sent letters to Gov. Jindal asking him to veto the bill.

As the calls for Gov. Jindal to veto SB 733 grow louder, evidence of the escalating involvement in Louisiana of the Discovery Institute (DI), the out-of-state creationist think tank whose religious agenda was declared unconstitutional in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005), continues to accumulate. Given DI’s emergence as a major player and partner with the LA Family Forum in promoting SB 733, Gov. Jindal’s allowing the bill to become law is likely to attract even more unflattering national attention. The LA Coalition for Science repeats its request that Gov. Jindal veto the bill in order to spare Louisiana this embarrassment.

Download the entire press release here (pdf).

American Institute of Biological Sciences (pdf), co-signed by seven major scientific societies, June 13, 2008:

1. American Ornithologists Union
2. American Society of Mammalogists
3. Botanical Society of America
4. Natural Science Collections Alliance
5. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
6. Society of Systematic Biologists
7. Society for the Study of Evolution

American Association for the Advancement of Science (pdf), “the world’s largest general scientific society,” June 20, 2008

• See other letters concerning SB 733.