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

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

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

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

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

Quote #1:

I think a real careful reading of the statute itself would show that religion is prohibited from being taught in any classroom in the state of Louisiana under the auspices of this law. . . . I think it enhances academic freedom and expands a student’s right to know . . . .

Quote #2:

This is strictly about teaching science in the classroom. . . . It has nothing to do with religion. . . . I have been criticized, but I had no meaning other than what the bill says. . . . I think this is certainly needed in Louisiana, and I think it will be a model across the nation.

Would anyone like to guess who made these statements?

If you guessed that both quotes come from Louisiana politicians, you get a gold star. Here they are again, with the names of the politicians — and the dates when the statements were made.

Quote #1:

I think a real careful reading of the statute itself would show that religion is prohibited from being taught in any classroom in the state of Louisiana under the auspices of this law. . . . I think it enhances academic freedom and expands a student’s right to know . . . .

— Louisiana Senator Bill Keith, defending his “Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,” ca. 1987

Quote #2:

This is strictly about teaching science in the classroom. . . . It has nothing to do with religion. . . . I have been criticized, but I had no meaning other than what the bill says. . . . I think this is certainly needed in Louisiana, and I think it will be a model across the nation.

— Louisiana Senator Ben Nevers, defending his “Louisiana Science Education Act” (erstwhile “Louisiana Academic Freedom Act”), April 2008

In 1981, the Louisiana legislature passed and Gov. Dave Treen signed the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” (See the YouTube video about this law at the end of this post.) This law required that “Commencing with the 1982-1983 school year, public schools within this state shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science.” It was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1987, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard.

In 2008, the Louisiana legislature passed and Gov. Bobby Jindal signed the “Louisiana Science Education Act“ (LSEA). The LSEA “requires [the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education], upon request of a local school board, to allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” Here is Jindal’s June 2008 response on Face the Nation when asked about his support for teaching creationism:

Both the 1981 and the 2008 laws were justified as defenses of “academic freedom.” Both were introduced specifically to promote creationism: the Balanced Treatment Act was designed to promote “creation science,” and the LSEA was introduced to promote intelligent design (ID) creationism. Senator Nevers revealed this to the Hammond (LA) Daily Star, using the word “creationism” right along with one of the Discovery Institute’s favorite euphemisms, “strengths and weaknesses”:

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.’  [4/6/2008; bold added]

However, in post-Edwards v. Aguillard Louisiana, the LSEA had to be disguised with code language. “Academic freedom” and “critical thinking” are two of the code phrases with which Nevers, the Louisiana Family Forum, and the Discovery Institute tried to disguise the LSEA (“strengths and weaknesses” had been used in SB 561, the initial version of the LSEA). So one could practically hear the conniption fit that Louisiana Family Forum director Rev. Gene Mills was having over in Baton Rouge after Nevers strayed off the terminological reservation. Mills had to try to repair the damage and get the “academic freedom” code language back into circulation fast, so he quickly wrote a letter to the Daily Star:

The Daily Star’s report regarding Sen. Ben Nevers’ Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill, which was drafted at the request of Louisiana Family Forum Action, unfortunately contained factual errors which we would like to correct. Neither the Academic Freedom Act nor its companion, the 2006 Ouachita Parish School Board’s Science Curriculum Policy Resolution, would protect the teaching of creationism. Senator Nevers himself has publicly stated that it ‘would be unfair to label his bill as one that would pave the way for the teaching of creationism.’ This bill is not about teaching creationism or religion. . . . Clearly, Senator Nevers’ legislative intent is to promote academic freedom to teach science. . . .  [Daily Star, 4/11/2008; bold added]

In doing this, Mills was simply re-enacting Sen. Bill Keith’s disingenuous defense of the teaching of “creation science” as a defense of academic freedom. In 1987, New York University law professor Arthur Miller hosted a TV program, Headlines on Trial, which devoted one show to the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act, which required Louisiana public school science teachers to teach creation science whenever they taught evolution. Making the case in favor of the legislation were Sen. Keith and well-known young-earth creationist Duane Gish. Making the case against it were Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, and attorney Jay Topkis, who argued — and won — the case for the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court. Playing devil’s advocate with Keith, Miller asked, “We normally rely on school boards and high school teachers to make decisions like this, not the big shots in the state capital. What are you worried about?” Here is Keith’s response:

I’m worried about academic freedom. I think that a great deal of scientific material that points to creation is being summarily censored out of the public school curriculum. And I think that’s wrong.

Now let’s flash forward again to June 2008, when the Discovery Institute, too, was denying to high heaven that there was any intent to promote creationism in the LSEA that it helped write. DI staffer Robert Crowther protested, “Critics have smeared the LSEA by falsely claiming the law would allow the teaching of creationism or other religious beliefs.” John West, associate director of DI’s creationist wing, the Center for Science and Culture, was in a distinctly Bill-Keith-like state of high dudgeon — and he was using Keith’s own 1980s-era terminology of “academic freedom” and “censorship”:

‘This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,’ said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute. ‘Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on.’

In Louisiana, where French is still the second language, we know what this means: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The study of history reinforces this old truism, and it’s amazing what a little history reveals about the ancestry of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act: the LSEA is merely a resurrection — in drab, washed-out, and totally transparent terminological clothing — of the 1981 “Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.”

The National Center for Science Education — a treasure trove of pro-science assistance in more ways than one — has posted the Headlines on Trial segment on its YouTube page. We post it here for the historical information and viewing pleasure of our readers.

As the new decade begins in 2010, “Top Ten” lists  are a popular way to commemorate the events of 2009, and science is well-represented in the list-making. Wired Science lists the “Top Scientific Breakthroughs of 2009.” The Examiner lists the “Top 10 Science Stories of 2009.” Scientific American has posted a slideshow of “The Top 10 Science Stories of 2009.” ScienceNOW, a website by the American Association for the Advancement of Science for publishing breaking science news , has listed “The Top 10 ScienceNOWs of 2009.” National Geographic News lists the “Top Ten Videos of 2009: Nat Geo News’s Most Watched.” And Religion Dispatches lists its “Top Ten Religion & Science Stories.” Louisiana closes out 2009 by being on two “Top Ten” lists, but these are lists on which the citizens of Louisiana should be embarrassed to be included. Virtually all of the above lists include stories that highlight important discoveries related to evolution. Louisiana, however, made it onto these two lists for its attack on the teaching of evolution.

• The National Center for Science Education has posted its “Top Ten Evolution/Creationism Stories of the Year.” Louisiana is NCSE’s story #5, which highlights (using hyperlinks) the Louisiana Family Forum‘s commandeering of both the policy and the complaint process related to implementation of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act:

5. Louisiana faces “academic freedom” In 2008, the Louisiana Science Education Act was signed into law, which opened the door to teaching creationism in public school science classes. Since then, the state board of education has ignored the recommendations of its own science education professionals, turning instead to the Louisiana Family Forum for guidance. Under the board’s guidelines, supplementary classroom materials can’t be rejected just because they include creationism. And challenging the materials triggers a convoluted hearing process that the Louisiana Coalition for Science calls “seriously flawed.”

“A mixed result in Louisiana”

“More bad news from Louisiana”

Louisiana coverage

(See LCFS articles about this here and here.) (NOTE: Readers who value good science education can begin 2010 by joining NCSE, which is the only organization devoted solely to protecting the teaching of evolution from creationist attacks. Disclosure: I serve on the NCSE Board of Directors.)

• Lauri Lebo, a journalist who provided excellent coverage of the trial in the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005) and who published a book about the trial, has included Louisiana as #3 in the list she compiled for Religion Dispatches.

3. Just Say No . . . To Louisiana The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB), one of the nation’s leading scientific societies, took the unusual step in February to boycott Louisiana due to the state’s new anti-science law. In 2008, lawmakers voted to pass the Science Education Act, which was signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal. The law, based largely on wording from the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute’s sample academic freedom bill, explicitly says that teachers are permitted to use supplemental materials to teach critiques of evolution and opens the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design. In response, SICB chose to hold its annual conference in Utah, whose state Board of Education recently passed a resolution recognizing that “the Theory of Evolution is a major unifying concept in science.”

Looking at the bright side, Louisiana is blessed with dedicated public school science teachers and accomplished scientists. Readers around the state should (1) let your science teachers know that you support teaching evolution and thank them for their efforts to teach good science, and (2) inform your school board members that you will be watching them to make sure that they do not allow creationist materials into our public school science classes. As always, if you learn that such materials are being used, please contact the Louisiana Coalition for Science.

In “Why Science Standards Are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up,” Dr. Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates of the National Center for Science Education survey the science standards of 49 states and the District of Columbia. (Download the pdf here. Html text is here.) Mead and Mates point out that science standards are frequent targets of creationist attacks: “[T]here is no other arena in which the religious controversy surrounding evolution plays out to such a detrimental degree as in the generation of poor science standards.” Louisiana’s standards were given a grade of C in the well-known 2000 study conducted by Lawrence Lerner under the auspices of the Thomas Fordham Institute, Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. (Paul R. Gross led a 2005 update of the Lerner study; Gross’s survey, using a slightly different grading scale than Lerner’s, awarded Louisiana a “B.”)

Science standards are the most important safeguards of quality science education in each state. As Lerner said in his 2000 study, “They are meant to serve as the frame to which everything else is attached, the desired outcome that drives countless other decisions about how best to attain it. If a state’s standards are unsatisfactory, some of its other reform efforts are apt to be less likely to succeed, maybe even futile.” Louisiana’s standards, which both the Lerner and the Mead-Mates studies judged to be adequate, have now been undermined by the Louisiana Science Education Act, which permits teachers to introduce creationist critiques of evolution into public school science classes. Moreover, Mead and Mates point out, the policy that the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) adopted to implement the law made matters even worse.

In the case of Louisiana, there is certainly reason to think that . . . evolution will be invidiously singled out for attention and that creationist critiques of evolution will be used. When Louisiana’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy about what types of supplementary classroom materials will, and will not, be allowable under the new law, a draft provision that ‘materials that teach creationism or intelligent design… shall be prohibited from use in science class’ was deleted. [See the LCFS post here.]

As if that were not bad enough, the LSEA’s permitting the use of creationist “supplementary” textbooks in addition to state-approved textbooks effectively functions as a disclaimer of the reliability of the state-approved textbooks, which Mead and Mates also point out. Here is Mead and Mates’s summary of Louisiana’s situation:

The coverage of evolution in Louisiana’s state science standards is actually adequate and would have received a grade of C but for the Louisiana Science Education Act. Following the passing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) was ordered to establish science education guidelines consonant with this act. These guidelines, passed in January 2009, state that BESE is to provide ‘support and guidance of teachers regarding effective ways to understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review concepts, laws, principles, and scientific theories.’ To this end, teachers are permitted to use ‘supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials,’ save for those prohibited by BESE after a lengthy and onerous review process. The Louisiana Department of Education proposed that these guidelines forbid ‘materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind,’ but BESE removed this caveat after objections by creationist organizations and the sponsor of the LSEA [Senator Ben Nevers]. The brief but adequate treatment of evolution in the state science standards is completely undermined by the LSEA, and the standards now score an F.

Louisiana is not the only state to flunk this evaluation. We are in the company of Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. But we are the only state that flunked for passing legislation to give teachers the “academic freedom” to mislead children about evolution and the true nature of science.

Summer is two-thirds over, and nothing much is going on. (Exception: we can be sure that creationists are busy plotting — they never slack off. This is a significant factor in their success at causing trouble and catching pro-science advocates off guard. There’s a lesson here.) So it’s a good time to review some little-noted developments that occurred after the 2008 passage of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act. As it turns out, the Discovery Institute (DI), national headquarters of the intelligent design creationist movement, despite its declaration of victory when Gov. Jindal signed the LSEA, continues to stay abreast of what goes on down here. They even monitor our small town newspapers.

First, a little background: For the details of Louisiana’s adoption of this legislation, see this analysis of the bill’s creationist history and content. See direct evidence of the DI’s influence on the content of the bill here. Listen to DI creationist David DeWolf discuss his role in crafting the LSEA here. To hear DI staffer Casey Luskin’s podcasts concerning Louisiana, go here and here. Luskin accompanied creationist Caroline Crocker to Baton Rouge on May 21, 2008, where she testified (ram video) in favor of the LSEA. Crocker discusses her role in the LSEA here. She has a history of teaching creationism as a college instructor; slides that she used in her classes can be seen here. Her interview with Coral Ridge Ministries about that episode is here. (CRM also produced a truly vile piece of anti-evolution propaganda, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. Watch it here.)

Now let’s return to the review of developments so far this year. In January 2009, John West, the associate director of DI’s creationist Center for Science and Culture, divulged that DI has been giving legal advice to the Louisiana Family Forum, with whom it partnered to help write and promote the LSEA. DI also was involved in the LFF’s successful effort to persuade the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to guts its policy for implementing the LSEA.

A Discovery Institute representative is trying to travel to Baton Rouge for today’s hearing, West said. He also confirmed that his group has continued advising the Louisiana Family Forum on the law. The Baton Rouge-based organization often pushes for more religious expressions in the public sphere.

(Bill Barrow, “Science Lesson Content Debate Expected Today,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 13, 2009)

DI continues to monitor Louisiana, right down to our small-town newspapers. On January 25, 2009, Dr. Holly Wilson, a philosophy professor at the *University of Louisiana-Monroe (*identification only), had a very good letter in the Monroe News Star in which she pointed out, as a Catholic, that intelligent design creationism is not consistent with Catholic theology. (She’s right. The Catholic Church endorses the scientific theory of evolution. Read Pope John Paul II’s comment on evolution here. See the roster of speakers at the Vatican’s Pontifical Gregorian University “International Conference on Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories,” March 3-7, 2009. Note that only distinguished scientists — and no creationists — were invited.) Here is her letter (keep reading below for more of today’s post and analysis).

January 25, 2009
It’s not a Catholic theory of creation

[By Dr. Holly Wilson]

The newest strategy of the Discovery Institute to promote its agenda of creationism and intelligent design is to work for and promote “Academic Freedom” legislation for science education in K-12 schools.

If you go to the Discovery Institute Web site you will find them reporting on and praising state-level efforts to change laws. Not only are they committed to promoting their religion of Christianity, they are promoting only their Protestant version.

As a Catholic, I would be worried about my children or my students having to be exposed to their vision of a Creationist God in the public school system rather than the Catholic vision of the Creationist God who has been creating in and through evolution. I would not want my children or students to think that God only created once back about 10,000 years ago and created the species as they are now or just slightly evolved to this point. If creationism and intelligent design are going to be taught in science classrooms, I would want the Catholic version taught.

I don’t want my children or my students being exposed to the Protestant idea that the Bible has to be interpreted literally. I want my children and my students exposed to Catholic interpretation of the Bible, namely that the Bible needs to be interpreted in its own historical context and hence the words used then don’t mean the same things they mean now in the 20th century.

I would want my children and students to have a historical consciousness and know our understanding of how God created and is still creating can be known through modern science as modern scientists understand it. I don’t want my children or students exposed to the Protestant belief that science and religion are in conflict.

Further, I don’t want my children and students being taught to believe that science and metaphysics are the same thing. I want my children and students to be able to think critically about the distinction between metaphysics and science.

Medieval fathers of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas taught the difference between metaphysics and science, and I would want my children and students exposed to that distinction and not have them exposed to ideas that gloss over this essential distinction.

Frankly, I don’t want my children or students exposed to the Protestant version of creationism. Intelligent design is nothing by the Protestant version of creationism. All the talk of irreducible complexity is just their way of arguing that species had to be created by God as they are because they could not have evolved from other species the way evolution tells us they did. And that metaphysical argument is precisely against my beliefs as a Catholic about how God created the species.

If the BESE board is going to let metaphysics be taught in a science curriculum, I want them to include the Catholic version of creationism, too. Thirty percent of Louisianians are Catholic. So at least 30 percent of the metaphysics education in science classrooms should be Catholic.

If my children and students have to be exposed to Protestant metaphysics, then they should also equally hear, and this is on account of academic freedom, Catholic metaphysics.

The Rev. George Coyne, the directory of the Vatican Observatory, in a 2006 talk said, “Intelligent design reduces and belittles God’s power and might.” He went on to say that science should be seen as a “completely neutral” endeavor and that science and religion should be totally separate pursuits.

John Paul II in his “Message to the Vatican Observatory Conference on Evolutionary and Molecular Biology” declared that today evolutionary theory is no longer a hypothesis. He also went on to say that evolutionary theory is increasingly accepted by scientists and supported by a convergence of research from many different fields.

The pope referred to “the need for a correct interpretation of the inspired word, of a rigorous hermeneutics. It is fitting to set forth well the limits of the meaning proper to Scripture, rejecting undue interpretations which make it say what it does not have the intention of saying.”

He also acknowledges that natural philosophy plays a legitimate role in the explanation and mechanism of evolution, but it does not necessitate a reductionist metaphysics. Intelligent design proponents, like Philip Johnson, believe that evolutionary theory is necessarily materialist and reductionist, but the pope understands that science and religion are separate entities with separate magisteria and thus it is not necessary to hold that the spirit of a human being arose out of matter. Human nature is still in the image of God even if human beings evolved from other animal species.

It is clear that the Catholic Church’s position is inconsistent with intelligent design. Catholics are not opposed to academic freedom, but we would like to have our perspectives included in that if there is going to be a violation of the separation of church and state in the science classrooms of Louisiana.

Of course, better yet, would be that there be no violation of the separation of church and state in the science classrooms of Louisiana and that our children and students be exposed only to the neutral theories of science. Let our children also learn that science is a methodology, not a dogma. And I will be happy.

---

Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, quickly posted an online comment at the News Star taking issue with Dr. Wilson. Soon afterwards, an op-ed from Discovery Institute fellow David DeWolf, who had helped craft the LSEA, appeared in the newspaper. Here is a relevant excerpt from that op-ed (with creationist code talk in red and LCFS commentary in blue):

What is at stake in Louisiana is not a divide between Catholic and Protestant — or even a divide between religious and non-religious — but a question of whether Louisiana students can question the materialist dogma that is frequently peddled in the guise of science instruction. [emphasis added]

Students should be free to question whether materialist explanations for the origin of biological complexity [more code talk] are plausible; and they should be free to study both the evidence that supports a materialist explanation (such as random mutation and natural selection) as well as the evidence that leads to skepticism. [Yet more code talk that attempts to create the impression that there is scientific evidence against evolution. There isn't.] . . .

. . . Wilson badly mischaracterizes the Discovery Institute, which is blamed for foisting a ‘Protestant version’ of science on Louisiana. [See Pope John Paul II's comment on evolution linked above.]

For openers, the Discovery Institute *has never advocated mandating the teaching of intelligent design*, but rather has promoted science education policies that encourage students to learn about the strengths and weaknesses in mainstream evolutionary theory (Darwinism) [more code talk for undermining evolution].

[*Note: From the foreword of Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, co-authored by DeWolf:

Happily, the law is not on the side of an enforced Darwinian orthodoxy. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. 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 choose to tell students about the evidence and arguments for intelligent design actually fulfill this Supreme Court mandate. [emphasis added]

Referring to the Supreme Court case that originated in Louisiana, the foreword interprets the Court’s recognition of the constitutionality of teaching genuine scientific theories to school children as a mandate to teach intelligent design (which is creationism and therefore unconstitutional under Edwards). While the foreword was written by fellow creationist Jon Buell, co-authors DeWolf and Stephen C. Meyer are long-time fellows of the Discovery Institute’s creationist Center for Science and Culture. Meyer is the director of the CSC. They obviously did not object to Buell’s reference to the teaching of ID as the fulfillment of a Supreme Court mandate.]

Second, the Discovery Institute is headed by a Roman Catholic, Bruce Chapman.

[Actually, Chapman established the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute long before his conversion to Catholicism in 2002, prior to which he was an Episcopalian, thus a Protestant.]

The man responsible for the argument from ‘irreducible complexity,’ [another creationist term] which Wilson attributes to this same Protestant narrowmindedness, is Michael Behe, a distinguished Catholic scholar from Lehigh University.

[Being Catholic, which is an entirely personal matter to be respected under the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, means nothing with respect to intelligent design creationism except that its Catholic proponents are out of step with their own Church. But as for Prof. Behe, not only is he out of step with his Church in being an ID proponent, he is also out of step with his own Lehigh University Department of Biology, which has posted a disclaimer of his creationism on the departmental website, which reads in part, "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."]

As it happens, in addition to being a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, I am also a Roman Catholic.

[Again, see above. If this is not convincing, please see Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, July 2004, a report by the Vatican's International Theological Commission, approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/aka/Pope Benedict XVI, when he was President of the Commission and also head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.]

Based on an analysis of nothing more than this short excerpt from DeWolf’s Monroe News Star op-ed, it is clear that the facts are on Dr. Wilson’s side. (The next post will feature Barbara Forrest’s response to DeWolf’s op-ed, which the News Star was very kind to print.)

Finally, the fact that DeWolf and Chapman saw and responded to Wilson’s letter in the newspaper of a small Louisiana town like Monroe indicates how closely they continue to monitor events down here. Their continued monitoring of Louisiana shows how deeply invested they are in manipulating the only state that has so far been foolish enough to buy what they were selling last year.

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.

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.

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.

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/ 0