It’s been nearly seven months since I last posted. For much of that time I was busy as one of the authors of The State of State Science Standards 2012. While I was away, my review of Wiker and Witt’s A Meaningful World appeared in Reports of the National Center for Science Education [pdf]. As you can imagine, I din’t like it very much. Here’s the final paragraph:
A Meaningful World is certainly a work that would not have survived review by a mainstream press. In fact, I would say that it would not have survived as an undergraduate thesis. The very fact that it has appeared in print is symptomatic of the ID movement’s ability to find sympathetic pulpits from which to preach to the choir. No one without preconceived sympathy is going to be convinced by the arguments presented by Wiker and Witt and, like much ID literature, it serves as a justification of belief rather than a scientific or philosophical investigation. It is notable that the publisher chose not to classify the work as science but as discussing religious aspects of nature and meaning
Predictably our creationist friends have been busy and four states have already introduced creationist legislation for consideration, namely:
Last year you may remember that bills in Florida, Missouri, Texas, Tennessee, New Mexico, Kentucky and Oklahoma all died. It’s nice to see that Missouri and Oklahoma are willing to step up to the plate again.
I’m traveling for another few weeks but I just stopped in to note that the Texas anti-evolution bill has died. This means a total of nine defeats for the anti-evolutionists.
The Missouri anti-evolution bill (HB 195) is now dead. That only leaves Texas still in play. Another fantastically successful year for the DI and their minions.
Update (5/10): Florida is dead as well.
NCSE is reporting that the two anti-evolution bills in Tennessee are effectively “on hold” until next year.
To summarize so far:
In 2008 Louisiana passed the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” marking the only legislative success that creationists have had in recent times. The bill claimed that “the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects,” and extends permission to teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.” As such, it was boiler-plate DI dreck and was signed into law by Republican darling, Bobby Jindal.
Now a bill (SB 70) has been introduced by Karen Carter Peterson (D-District 5) which aims to repeal the 2008 act. NCSE has more.
Apparently a fifth grade teacher in Alabama is in trouble for refusing to teach evolution in science class.
[Jody] Brown recently refused to continue an evolution lesson in a science class, saying, “some of us believe in God” and “some of us believe that the world was made in seven days and that God created man and the trees,”
More worrying is the claim made by Michael Sibley, the Director of Communications for the state Board of Education:
“The Alabama Course of Study deals with Theories of Evolution … Creationism is one of those theories. The Alabama Course of Study presents each of these so that students can draw their own conclusion for themselves.”
(source)
Update: NCSE has a post up on this.
Texas has joined the ranks of ID-friendly states. HB 2454 was introduced earlier this month and plays off the tired old Expelled theme:
“An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.”
NCSE is reporting that Kentucky HB 169 has died in committee.
To summarize so far:
It’s like playing Whac-a-Mole. Florida Senate Bill 1854 would require “[a] thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution” in the state’s public schools. NCSE has more.
NCSE is reporting that SB 554 appears to have died in committee, joining its little buddy HB 1551 in the Bryan Memorial Home for Anti-Evolutionist Legislation. The state of play thusfar in 2011 is:
Oh look! A second anti-evolution bill in Tennessee. They’re taking a belt and braces approach to this apparently. This one (SB 893 PDF) would require authorities to “assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies” such as “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” It would permit teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” Haven’t we seen this before?
Over at PT, Dave Thomas is reporting that New Mexico HB 302 was tabled on a 5-to-4 vote in the House Education committee. The tabling was despite – or maybe because of – vocal support (and a full page ad [pdf]) by a local creationist group, IDNet-NM.
The Foundation for Thought & Ethics – publishers of the creationist cdesign proponentsist textbook Of Pandas and People – recently decided not to seek state approval from the Texas Board of Education for supplemental materials which they were developing. Which is just as well. As the Texas Freedom Network reports, the materials would have been little more than standard creationist talking points:
“FTE’s product will be electronic written material satisfying the new and expanded Biology 1 TEKS [curriculum standards] for Texas schools, with components for both teachers and students. It will include irenic yet candid discussions of what an educated person in the 21st century must know in regard to neo-Darwinian theory of life’s diversity and origin of life studies. Discussions will cover fair and accurate portrayals of the major explanations, as well as analysis and critiques of each, as advanced in scientific literature. The goal will be to equip students to see beyond the uncritical acceptance of majority viewpoints when warranted by scientific data, as well as to consider possible alternatives. Such alternatives will include intelligent design perspectives but not creationism or creation science. The major components are: (1) review of evolutionary theory; (2) critique of conventional evolutionary theory; (3) examination of origin-of-life studies and enumeration of problems with chemical scenarios for life’s origin; (4) presentation of intelligent design alternative.”
NSCE has announced that Tennessee has joined the four states that are considering anti-evolution legislation. HB 368 [PDF] aims to permit teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” The “controversial” theories are the usual suspects – “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
Recent Comments