By Barbara Forrest

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

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

The Florida Senate

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

The Florida House of Representatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BINGO!

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

Lagniappe

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Creationist Books and Other Print Material

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

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

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

Creationist Videos/DVDs

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

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

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

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

Tips for Identifying Creationist Materials  —  And What to Do Next

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeWolf misled readers

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

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

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

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

Let’s examine what DeWolf is peddling. DeWolf falsely stated DI “has never advocated mandating the teaching of intelligent design” but encourages students to learn “the strengths and weaknesses of … evolutionary theory.” However, in his 1999 booklet for school administrators, Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, he wrote otherwise while discussing a Supreme Court case that began in Louisiana: “In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards vs. Aguillard that ‘teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.’ As this guidebook will show, teachers and school boards who … tell students about the evidence and arguments for intelligent design actually fulfill this Supreme Court mandate.” In its strategy document, “The Wedge,” DI vows to “pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.”

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

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

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

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

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.”