News Reports, Editorials, and Analyses of the
Discovery Institute-Written and -Misnamed "Academic Freedom" Bills
and the New Science Education Act Passed in Louisianacompiled by
Texas Citizens for Science
June 2008Panel OKs bill on science texts
by Bill Barrow
The New Orleans Times-Picayune
Friday April 18, 2008
www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/panel_oks_bill_on_science_text.html
BATON ROUGE -- Louisiana public school science teachers could use certain supplemental materials under a bill that supporters cast as a measure to encourage robust debate on issues such as evolution, global warming and human cloning.
Detractors on Thursday blasted the proposed Louisiana Science Education Act as a back-door attempt to inject the biblical story of creation into the classroom.
Despite the nearly two-hour debate, Senate Bill 561 by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, passed the Senate Education Committee without opposition.
The bill would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon a local school board's request, to give teachers "support and guidance . . . regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories." Further, a teacher could use state-approved "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials."
Dominique Magee, a native of St. Tammany Parish who said she was educated in public schools and colleges in Louisiana, told senators the bill was needed because science teachers and professors often dismiss students who question the subject matter as presented. "Students want to be challenged," she said.
Nevers said, "This bill has nothing to do with creationism. This is about letting teachers teach good science." Nevers accepted an amendment that eliminated specific references to "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
Tested theory
A bank of witnesses argued against the revised bill anyway.
Patsye Peebles, a 23-year veteran of East Baton Rouge public schools and Louisiana State University classrooms, said good science teachers already reach beyond the textbook and are willing to engage students' questions.
Fred Enright, an LSU professor and head of the school's veterinary science division, said that "evolution has been tested and decided over the last 100 years." What is up for continued scientific debate, he said, is the causation of a specific evolutionary path.
Peebles echoed that argument, dismissing Magee's plea to bring in outside materials that challenge the accepted theory of evolution. "She was not a scientist. She did not know how to interpret these materials."
William Hansel, a researcher at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, said, "All scientists are against this bill," adding that the bill is "an invasion of state by religion."
Two senators with science backgrounds defended Nevers' idea.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge and a physician, said, "I like the fact that we have these young folks saying, 'Let's look under the hood.' . . . This is not a debate about evolution. This is a debate about debate."
Sen. Jack Donahue, R-Covington, said his academic training -- engineering -- is built on "making determination based on facts." He said, "I want my children to be exposed to all the arguments."
'Teachers are scared'
One supporter, meanwhile, disputed Nevers' characterization that the bill is not about creationism.
David Tate, a Livingston Parish School Board member, said after the meeting, "I believe that both sides -- the creationism side and the evolution side -- should be presented and let students decide what they believe." Tate said the bill is needed because "teachers are scared to talk about" creation, even when students bring it up.
Tate asked Nevers in the hallway about offering a class built around a debate between the two views of biological development. Nevers deferred to lawyers but said a science curriculum that includes the biblical account of creation would "violate the U.S. Constitution."
In a campaign debate last fall, Jindal, a biology and public policy double major at Brown University, said the state "should not be afraid" of public school discussions venturing beyond established theories about the origins of life.
Bill Barrow can be reached at bbarrow@timespicayune.com or (225) 342-5590.
=============
Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools
Pressure Hits States For Education Bills; A National Push
by Stephanie Simon
The Wall Street Journal
May 2, 2008
online.wsj.com/article/SB120967537476060561.html
richarddawkins.net/article,2526,n,n
They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators.
In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call "academic freedom" bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.
A handful of states have considered such bills in recent years, but backers are now organizing a national movement, with high-profile help from actor Ben Stein. His new documentary, "Expelled," argues that educators suffer reprisals if they dare question evolution; in an attempt to spur action, he has held private screenings for legislators, including a recent showing in the Missouri statehouse.
The academic-freedom bills now in circulation vary in detail. Some require teachers to critique evolution. Others let educators choose their approach -- but guarantee they won't be disciplined should they decide to build a case against Darwin.
The common goal: To expose more students to articles and videos that undercut evolution. Most of this material is produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism, the belief that God created man in his present form.
"The creationist legal strategy has gotten more and more sophisticated," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that promotes the teaching of evolution.
Both houses of the Florida legislature passed academic freedom bills this month, but it is unclear whether backers can reconcile the two versions before the spring session closes Friday. If not, they will have to try again next year. Prospects may be better in Louisiana, where the state Senate this week unanimously approved a bill ensuring that teachers can go beyond the biology textbook to raise criticisms of evolution. Similar bills have just been introduced in Alabama and Michigan and this week passed through a house committee in Missouri.
"It shouldn't be a crime for teachers to give the best evidence for evolutionary theory and then, if they want, spend a day saying, 'Some people are raising questions,'" said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
The nonprofit institute, based in Seattle, promotes the theory that life was created by an unknown designer, possibly divine. It recently launched a petition drive to spur more states to take up such bills.
The legislative push builds on an emerging strategy developed by conservative Christians who consider evolution ungodly and a small group of scientists who find it implausible.
Over the last decade, these skeptics tried repeatedly to push Darwin out of -- or wedge alternatives to evolution into -- public-school science curricula. Those efforts largely failed, rebuffed by the courts or rejected by voters.
So activists regrouped. Their new tactic: Embrace lessons on evolution. In fact, insist students deserve to learn more -- including classes that probe the theory for weakness. They believe -- and their opponents agree -- that this approach will prove more acceptable to the public and harder to challenge in court.
Those promoting the new bills emphasize that academic freedom doesn't mean biology teachers can read aloud from the Book of Genesis. "This doesn't bring religion into the classroom," said Florida state Rep. D. Alan Hays, a Republican.
The bills typically restrict lessons to "scientific" criticism of evolution, or require that critiques be presented "in an objective manner," or approved by a local school board.
Evolution's defenders respond that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution, any more than there are credible alternatives to the theory of gravity. The fossil record, DNA analysis and observations of natural selection confirm Darwin's hypothesis that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over four billion years.
In the scientific community, while there may be debate about the details, the grand sweep of evolution is unassailable. "There's no controversy," said Jay Labov, a senior adviser for education and communication with the National Academy of Sciences.
But Gallup polls consistently show that nearly half of American adults reject evolution. A third are upset that schools teach it, according to Gallup.
Several states, including South Carolina and Pennsylvania, have passed science standards requiring students to think critically about evolution.
Ms. Scott, of the science-education group, regards the academic-freedom bills as a more serious threat to evolution education because they give teachers so much latitude. "This is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for creationist teachers," she said.
So far, few teachers have come forward in favor of these bills. The Florida Education Association, which represents 140,000 teachers, opposes the concept.
Doug Cowan, a public-school biology teacher, said his colleagues are often afraid to speak out.
Mr. Cowan said he tells students: "I'm going to give you the evidence for evolution and the evidence against, and let you decide." For instance, he'll mention Darwin's observation that finches evolve different-shaped beaks to suit different ecosystems. Then he'll add that you don't see a finch changing into another species.
Asked what evidence he presents to bolster evolution, Mr. Cowan paused. "I don't have any," he said.
Mr. Cowan's principal said that teachers are not supposed to veer from the approved textbooks. That's why Mr. Cowan would like a legal guarantee he can teach as he sees fit.
"This is America," Mr. Cowan said. "My gosh. Why walk on eggshells?"
Write to Stephanie Simon at stephanie.simon@wsj.com
=============
Anti-science law threatens tech jobs of future
Alan Leshner
Op-Ed
New Orleans Times-Picayune
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1210051370253650.xml&coll=1
Re: "Religious instruction doesn't fit in science class," Your Opinions, April 30.
The 21st-century economy will require a new generation of scientists and engineers, and signs point to trouble ahead for New Orleans and Louisiana. Employers already are struggling to fill science and tech jobs, and recent test scores show that 53 percent of the state's eighth-graders -- the workforce of tomorrow -- lack basic competence in science.
It is therefore alarming that the Louisiana Senate has passed a bill that directly threatens science education.
Proponents offer deceptive arguments about encouraging students to think critically. But Louisiana's education standards already do that.
The real intent is to introduce classroom materials that raise misleading objections to the well-documented science of evolution and offer a religious idea called intelligent design as a supposed alternative. That would unleash an assault against scientific integrity, leaving students confused about science and unprepared to excel in a modern workforce.
The intelligent design campaign has spent millions to invent a so-called scientific debate about evolution that does not exist in the scientific community. In fact, every major science and medical society in the world embraces evolution as the explanation for how life has developed on Earth.
Of course we all have a right to interpret the origins of life based on our faith. But there's no need to pit religion against science. The Catholic Church and thousands of U.S. religious leaders from many denominations say evolution and faith are compatible.
Can intelligent design be discussed in schools? Perhaps in humanities class. But courts repeatedly have ruled that creationism and intelligent design are religious arguments that can't be taught in science class.
Rather than provoke an expensive, divisive legal fight, we'd be better off doing everything we can to ensure the best possible science education for the next generation of problem-solvers.
Alan I. Leshner
Chief Executive Officer
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Washington
=============
EVOLUTION IN THE SCHOOLS:
States Push Academic Freedom Bills
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Science 9 May 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5877, p. 731
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5877/731a
If creationism is a mutating virus, as many educators believe, then its latest guise is legislation to protect "academic freedom."
Politicians in five U.S. states are pushing bills to enable educators to teach alternatives to evolution by protecting their "right" to discuss with students the idea of intelligent design (ID). Last week, scientists in Florida heaved a sigh of relief when the state legislature adjourned without reconciling differing versions of a bill seen as promoting ID. Similar legislation appears to have a good chance of passing in Louisiana, however, and is gathering steam in Missouri. Bills have also been introduced in Alabama and Michigan.
The language in the bills is modeled on a statute drafted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a prominent ID think tank. "They provide a permission slip for teachers to teach creationism--as long as it's called 'science,' " says Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. "If any one of them passes, it is going to be very encouraging to creationists in other states." Backers are hoping for a lift from a current movie with actor Ben Stein, called Expelled, that accuses scientists of silencing those who question evolutionary theory.
In Florida, ID supporters lobbied for a bill that would protect teachers from being "disciplined, denied tenure, terminated, or otherwise discriminated against for objectively presenting scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution." On 23 April, the state Senate passed it by a vote of 21 to 17. But the House sponsor, D. Alan Hays, replaced the Senate language with a single line that instead would require public schools to provide "a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." Hays's legislative assistant, Tiffany Rousseau, told Science that the change was made due to fears that conferring protection upon teachers "might be unconstitutional."
On 28 April, the House voted 71-43 in favor of Hays's legislation. But attempts at reconciliation failed. Senator Ronda Storms, who sponsored the bill, told the Florida Baptist Witness that "the House vehicle [had] veered off of the sure path to our destination."
In Louisiana, state senators voted unanimously that the state school board should promote "open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." A House committee was expected to take up the measure this week.
"It has been difficult to rally opposition," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. Forrest and other educators have formed the Louisiana Coalition for Science in a bid to block the legislation. Backers of the bill include the conservative Louisiana Family Forum.
Groups opposed to teaching creationism are likely to challenge any proposal that becomes law. But they would prefer to defeat the movement earlier. "One can reasonably conclude that the freedom [these bills] are trying to empower teachers with is to present the same material that was found unconstitutional in the Dover case, namely intelligent design," says Eric Rothschild, who represented the plaintiffs in their suit against the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board (Science, 6 January 2006, p. 34). But mounting a judicial challenge could be a costly and time-consuming process, Rothschild warns: "It's always better for bad laws to be avoided by legislators themselves."
=============
'Academic Freedom' Used as Basis Of Bills to Question Evolution
By Sean Cavanagh
Education Week
Vol. 27, Issue 37, Pages 1,15v
Published Online: May 12, 2008
Published in Print: May 14, 2008
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/05/14/37evolution_ep.h27.html
In another twist in the decades-long battle over evolution's status in public school science classrooms, state legislators are arguing that teachers have a right to raise doubts about that essential scientific theory as a matter of free speech.
Similarly worded bills that attempt to protect the right of educators and students to present critiques of evolution on the basis of "academic freedom" have emerged in at least five states.
Those measures do not call for teaching "intelligent design" or biblically based creationism. Instead, they generally describe evolution as controversial and seek to bar school administrators from interfering with teachers who describe what they see as flaws in the theory.
"Science moves forward when students and researchers are allowed to critically examine theories and the evidence that supports or does not support them," said state Rep. John Moolenaar, a Michigan Republican and the sponsor of one such bill. His proposal, he said, "will encourage educators to promote a healthy scientific debate."
The overwhelming scientific consensus, however, is that there is no debate about the core principles of evolution, which scientists regard as the only credible, and thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development of human and other life on Earth, and for its diversity of species.
Opponents of the bills see them as repackaged attempts to introduce religious concepts into science lessons by falsely implying evolutionary theory is riddled with doubt.
"Teachers don't need this kind of protectionunless it's about teaching creationism," said Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif., organization that supports the teaching of evolution. "If teachers are teaching legitimate science, they're not going to get in trouble."
Model Language
The recent legislation has emerged after years of court decisions rejecting state and local attempts to promote, in public school science, what judges have deemed religiously based views of life's development.
The most recent came in late 2005, when a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued a landmark opinion declaring that intelligent designthe belief that humans and other living things show signs of having been created by an unnamed architectis not science, but rather a descendant of biblically based creationism. ("Possible Road Map Seen in Dover Case," Jan. 4, 2006.)
In that case, the judge ruled that a policy adopted by the rural Dover, Pa., district mandating that students be exposed to the design concept violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against government establishment of religion.
Recent state legislative proposals, introduced not just in Michigan, but also in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri, make no mention of creationism or intelligent design. In fact, each of them specifies that they are not promoting religious doctrine.
Instead, they describe evolution as controversial or subject to doubt. A number of them, including Rep. Moolenaar's bill, advocate allowing teachers to discuss "scientific strengths" and "scientific weaknesses" of scientific theories, though they do not define what constitutes a legitimate scientific analysis. The Michigan lawmaker's proposal also identifies humans' role in climate change and human cloning as science topics that "can cause controversy."
The theory of evolution, as put forth by the British naturalist Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century, holds that humans and other living things have evolved over time through natural selection and mutation.
[photo]
Sen. Ronda Storms, right, talks with Rep. Alan Hays during Senate debate on the evolution bill on April 23, in Tallahassee, Fla. The bill, which Storms sponsored in the Senate and Hays sponsored in the House died. Mr. Hays said he plans to introduce similar legislation next year.
Phil Coale/AP
Evolution is one of the most widely accepted theories in science, supported by evidence from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, geology, chemistry, and physics. While scientists acknowledge that questions remain about certain mechanisms of evolution, as they do in every area of science, they say there is no doubt about the core tenets of the theory.
Scientific inquiry today focuses on "how, not whether, evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur," says a report issued earlier this year by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, congressionally chartered research organizations.
State and local officials skeptical of evolution have previously maintained that they only seek to subject the theory to the same critical review that should be directed at any area of science. But many scientists have noted that such arguments, which also emerged during the Dover legal battle, mislead students by attempting to isolate evolution as worthy of skepticism and scrutiny.
In his ruling in the Pennsylvania case, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III indicated that he also found that the Dover school board, which had described evolution as "a theory" and "not a fact," seemed to be holding Darwin's theory to a different standard. That policy "single[d] out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else they are learning, is 'just a theory,' " wrote the judge.
Tom Hutton, a senior staff lawyer for the National School Boards Association, in Alexandria, Va., said that as a general rule, state legislators have a legal right to craft laws that affect districts' policies; he believes some decisions are better left to local officials.
But he also suggested that the recent academic-freedom proposals, if enacted, could face difficult legal tests in the courts. Despite language in the measures stating that they are not promoting religious views, and wording that promotes "scientific" rather than religious critiques, a judge is likely to question the motives behind the proposals, and the special scrutiny they seem to apply to evolution, he added.
"A court might say, 'Look, we know what's going on here,' " Mr. Hutton said.
The courts have generally not afforded significant free-speech protections to teachers for remarks made in classroom settings, said Michael Simpson, a lawyer for the National Education Association.
The legality of academic-freedom measures would depend on several unknowns, he added, such as how individual teachers presented their critical views of evolution in their classes, and possibly whether the legislation is in accordance with other state policies, such as state science curriculum.
Lobbying Via the Big Screen
The state proposals include language similar or virtually identical to model academic-freedom legislation supported by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent-design organization based in Seattle. A Web site, www.academicfreedompetition.com, presents the legislation and an online petition in support of those efforts.
That site also promotes a pro-intelligent-design film now playing in theaters, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," narrated by the actor Ben Stein. ("Coming Soon: Movie Backs 'Intelligent Design'," Feb. 27, 2008.)
Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, said the academic-freedom model legislation served as a blueprint for several state proposals over the past few years. He dismissed the idea that the bills would allow the insertion of religious doctrine. Such criticism "is refuted by the clear language of the bills," he wrote in an e-mail.
"College is usually the place [where you hear discussions of] academic freedom," Mr. Rosenau said. "In high school, what you want taught is good science."
Rep. Alan D. Hays, a Florida Republican who introduced one of the two "academic freedom" bills debated in that state this year, said he introduced the bill partly because he had heard from science teachers who were afraid to raise questions about evolution because they might draw the scorn of school administrators and others.
"I want our teachers teaching students how to think," Mr. Hays said, "not what to think."
Reaction to the bill was mixed, and strong, he added. "I've had some people who think I'm a hero and others who think I'm a bloomin' idiot," the lawmaker said.
Both Mr. Hays' bill and a separate measure, sponsored by Sen. Ronda Storms, also a Republican, died at the end of the Florida legislative session early this month, when House and Senate lawmakers could not resolve differences between them. Mr. Hays said he plans to introduce similar legislation next year.
Florida was among the stops made by Mr. Stein in a tour promoting his film. The actor staged a private showing of the documentary in Tallahassee, which was attended by several state lawmakers, including Rep. Hays.
In the film, Mr. Stein says that scholars who have questioned various aspects of evolution or supported intelligent design have seen their opinions stifled by the academic community. The movie earned $6.6 million in box-office receipts through mid-April, according to boxofficemojo.com, a Web site on the movie industry. The film's site, www.expelledthemovie.com, touts several promotions and resources for students.
Mr. Rosenau, of the National Center for Science Education, said the filmmakers and lawmakers were attempting to draw a link between the academic-freedom arguments common to higher education, and K-12, with regard to criticism of evolution. He hoped the public would not buy into that connection. His organization has set up a Web site disputing the film's claims, www.expelledexposed.com.
Coverage of mathematics, science, and technology education is supported by a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, at www.kauffman.org.
=============
Creationism's Latest Mutation
Red-herring arguments about 'academic freedom' can't be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution.
Editorial
Washington Post
Tuesday, May 20, 2008; Page A12
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902616.html
No one would think it acceptable for a teacher to question the existence of gravity or to suggest that two plus two equals anything but four. It's mystifying, then, that a movement to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology is attracting some support. Equally perverse is that this misguided effort is being advanced under the false guise of academic freedom.
Bills that would protect teachers critical of the findings of Charles Darwin appeared in five states this year, and legislators in others are said to be considering similar moves. Florida came perilously close to inviting creationism back into the classroom, but its legislative session ended before different versions of its bill could be reconciled. Supporters say they will be back. It's all part of a national movement emboldened by a new film from writer and actor Ben Stein that purports to speak out for free expression by educators.
What's insidious about these measures is that at first blush they appear so harmless. Isn't everyone in favor of academic freedom? What's so wrong about allowing all sides of an issue to be heard? Why should teachers be punished for speaking their minds? Those arguments might have standing if there were any doubt about the reality of evolution, but, as an official with the National Academy of Sciences told the Wall Street Journal, "There's no controversy." Consider, also, that there really is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary education. A teacher can't deviate from the accepted curriculum to present alternative lesson plans or to offer his or her own notions. The Florida teachers association opposed the bills, though ostensibly they are meant to benefit educators. Clearly, the strategy is to devise an end run around legal decisions -- going all the way to the Supreme Court -- that restrict the teaching of creationism in public classrooms.
=============
Louisiana advances bills on evolution
Senator abandons attempt to outlaw 'therapeutic cloning'
The Associated Press
May 21, 2008
www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/NEWS01/80521030
BATON ROUGE -- Legislation proponents say will promote "critical analysis" of scientific issues, including evolution, in public schools today won easy passage in a state House of Representatives committee.
Science teachers called Senate Bill 733 a veiled attempt to add religion to science classes.
Sen. Ben Nevers' proposal would require the state education board to, upon request from any local school board in the state, "allow and assist" schools to promote "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories" including, but not limited to, evolution, global warming, and human cloning.
It also would allow teachers to present science classes with materials in addition to state-approved textbooks -- a provision opponents said would allow teachers with religious agendas to slip religion into science classes.
An amendment added by Rep. Don Trahan, R-Lafayette and the committee's chairman, would give the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education the ability to prohibit introduction of materials. But that didn't mollify the bill's opponents.
"Anything could get into the classroom," said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and a member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science.
Forrest, author of the book "Creationism's Trojan Horse," said BESE would not have the ability to review and block all nonscientific materials. She joined other opponents of Nevers' bill in labeling it as an attempt to introduce religion into science classes following earlier setbacks.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law promoting "scientific creationism." In 2005, a federal court ruled the Dover, Pa., public school district could not teach the concept of "intelligent design" as part of its science class.
Nevers, D-Bogalusa, denied any ulterior motive and noted language in the bill stating it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine."
"I plainly state in this bill that no religion will be taught," Nevers said.
Today's committee hearing on the bill lasted close to three hours.
Caroline Crocker, a biologist and backer of the "intelligent design" concept -- the universe's order and complexity are so great evolution cannot explain it -- said Darwinian evolution is outdated and doesn't explain new findings in science. She also said she had been persecuted in the academic world because of her views.
But Frederick Enright, a professor in LSU AgCenter's veterinary science department, said while evolution may be controversial in some circles, "biological evolution really is not scientifically controversial."
Nevers' bill, already approved by the Senate, goes next to the House of Representatives. If approved there, the issue could wind up before BESE. That board is charged in the bill with developing rules and regulations on the issue and, which, because of Trahan's amendment, could prohibit teachers from introducing certain materials into science classes.
Nevers' bill is one of two before lawmakers that deal with controversies involving science and religion. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee today advanced a House-passed bill outlawing government funding for what is sometimes called "therapeutic cloning."
The process, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves removing the 23 chromosomes from an egg cell and replacing them with a full set of 46 chromosomes from a skin or some other nonreproductive cell. Theoretically, the newly created cell could be stimulated so that it begins dividing, developing to the stage where it would produce human embryonic stem cells. Those cells could be induced to grow into a variety of tissues that might yield treatments and cures for diabetes and other ailments.
But withdrawing stem cells kills the original mass of cells, which opponents of the process say is a human life due full protection of the law. Those who want to keep the process legal say the embryo created could not become a true human being and should not be treated as a human life.
Sen. Dan Morrish, R-Jennings, today abandoned an attempt to outlaw the practice altogether. Putting aside his House Bill 370 that would have included a 10-year prison sentence for anyone found guilty of human cloning, he instead supported a bill by Rep. Cameron Henry, R-New Orleans, that would ban government funding for the practice.
===========
Louisiana House Education Committee Unanimously Passes Academic Freedom Bill
Posted by Casey Luskin
Discovery Institute, Evolution News and Views
May 22, 2008
www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/louisiana_house_education_comm.html
Baton Rouge, LA Yesterday the Louisiana House Education Committee unanimously passed SB 733, an academic freedom bill. The bill requires that Louisiana schools shall "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, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The passage followed testimony from four Ph.D. scientists, including three biologists, who testified in favor of the bill.
One biology professor from Louisiana College, Dr. Wade Warren, testified about how during his graduate studies at Texas A & M, the dean ordered him cease discussing scientific problems with students. Another biochemist, Dr. Brenda Peirson, testified about how random mutation and natural selection cannot produce many of the complex biological systems we see in the cell.
One of those scientists, Dr. Caroline Crocker, testified about her experience losing her job at George Mason University after she taught students about scientific arguments against neo-Darwinism. Southern University law professor and constitutional law expert Michelle Ghetti also testified that the bill was "perfectly constitutional." After the scientists and other educators testified about the scientific problems with neo-Darwinism and the need to protect academic freedom, one LSU Darwinist biologist, Dr. Bryan Carstens, who opposed the bill had the temerity to claim: "let us be clear that there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution." The glaring weakness in his false argument was not lost upon members of the legislature: he was immediately pressed by one legislator on the committee who asked the following:
In the document you just read and gave to us, in bold print it says, 'let us be clear there is no controversy among biologists about the fact of evolution.' Did you hear the testimony of the other professors we had here that were speaking before this committee?
Dr. Carstens then showed his intolerance towards professional biologists who were Darwin-skeptics. Carstens refused to admit their existence and in fact only admitted that faculty who testified against evolution had Ph.D.'s in "chemistry." Of course only one of the Ph.D.'s was a chemist, and three of them were professional biologists. The truth of the matter is that Dr. Carstens' entire statement shows the intolerance towards Darwin-skeptics in the scientific community: Not only was he unable and unwilling to admit, under oath, the existence of the three professional biologists who had just testified against evolution before the committee, but his statement asserted the blatantly false claim that "there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution." It's tough to convince people of that claim when three professional biologists testified otherwise.
Of course Dr. Carstens has every right to testify in favor of evolution. But to testify that there is "no controversy" among "professional biologists" implies that scientists who doubt Darwinism do not exist. Imagine you are an LSU biologist with fundamental doubts about Darwinism and you see your colleagues signing a statement asserting that your views don't exist. Would the declaration of the LSU biologists that there is "no controversy" over evolution make you confident that you have the academic freedom to express such dissenting views in the laboratory or the classroom? Of course not. In fact, Dr. Carstens' testimony, and his intolerant behavior, validate the need for this academic freedom bill.
It was clear from the hearing that Louisiana Darwinists are growing more and more desperate. Like their dogmatic compatriots in Florida who still proudly proclaim that academic freedom is "smelly crap" Darwinists are making absurd claims in their desperation to keep anyone from questioning Darwinian evolution as taught in public schools. American's United for Separation of Church & State is now attacking home-schoolers:
Yesterday's hearing was packed with home-schoolers wearing stickers in support of the bill. Home schoolers won't be affected by the measure, of course, so it doesn't take much analysis to see what's going on here. (Kids, you may have learned something about politics, but you flunked science. Be sure to tell your momma when you get home so she can change your report cards.)
AUSCS then concludes:
SB 733 is a step backward, dragging science education in Louisiana toward the medieval swamp of theocracy.
Theocracy? We shouldn't be too surprised, by their own admission their testimony to the Louisiana State House Committee on Education was "frantic." Yet ironically, Barbara Forrest's testimony was especially conspiratorial when she warned legislators that "Discovery Institute is watching your every move"! What Darwinists always fail to point out is that the testimony legislators heard supporting the evolution academic freedom view was from scientists, including professional biologists, not-home schoolers.
===========
Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill Advances to House Floor
Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Friday, May 23, 2008
www.christianpost.com/article/20080523/32513_Louisiana_%27Academic_Freedom%27_Bill_Advances_to_House_Floor.htm
The Louisiana House Education Committee unanimously agreed on Wednesday to submit a bill for review in the legislature that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.
The "Science Education Act" is the latest measure in a series of "Academic Freedom" bills that have swept across Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida before stalling in the state's legislature.
Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.
Although legislators emphasize that the bill would "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," detractors claim the bill is part of an agenda to install religion in schools.
"This bill isn't about improving education in Louisiana; it's about sneaking religion into the science classroom," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United (AU) in a statement.
"If this passes, Louisiana legislators will be harming children's education, undercutting the Constitution and holding the state up to national ridicule. People will be asking whether Flintstones cartoons are going to be introduced as documentaries in Louisiana science classes," he added.
Democratic Sen. Ben Nevers, a sponsor of the bill, however, denied the allegation.
"There is no language in here submitted by some secret agent trying to teach religion in public schools," he said according to The Times Picayune.
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based pro-intelligent design think-tank which has monitored the bill's progress, said that the bill's opponents were wrongly trying to silence discussion on the merits of the bill's protection of freedoms.
The group pointed out that numerous chemists and biologists had testified at the bill's hearing that they were denied tenure, fired, or subject to "academic bullying" because they had submitted evidence that contradicted aspects of Darwinism.
"It was clear from the hearing that Louisiana Darwinists are growing more and more desperate," the group said in statement. "Like their dogmatic compatriots in Florida who still proudly proclaim that academic freedom is 'smelly cr**' Darwinists are making absurd claims in their desperation to keep anyone from questioning Darwinian evolution as taught in public schools."
In order for the bill to become law, the bill will have to be voted on by the Louisiana House before being confirmed by the Senate.
===========
'Academic freedom' bill dangerous distraction
Alan Leshner
Op-Ed
Shreveport Times
May 28, 2008
www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080528/OPINION0106/805280303/1007/OPINION
Louisiana, like many states, is looking to information-based industries as engines of 21st century economic growth, but signs point to trouble ahead: statewide, employment in the information sector is at its lowest level since 1998.
Employers are having trouble finding top-flight computer programming staff. And recent national test scores show more than half of the state's eighth-graders -- 53 percent -- lack basic competence in science.
Given such serious challenges, it is alarming that the Louisiana Senate and a key House committee have passed a bill that would undermine science instruction in public schools, despite strong opposition from scientists, teachers and others. Sponsored by Sen. Ben Nevers, the "academic freedom" bill would give educators license to question, on nonscientific grounds, core scientific facts like evolution.
But the bill isn't truly about academic freedom. It is designed to introduce a religious idea called intelligent design into science classrooms. If it becomes law, the bill would unleash an assault against scientific integrity, leaving students confused about the fundamental nature of science and unprepared to excel in a work force that increasingly requires science-related skills.
That creates risk for all of Louisiana -- not just educational risk, but economic and legal risk, too. And the bills pit religion against science when, as many religious and scientific leaders agree, they can comfortably co-exist.
Louisiana has been here before. In the 1980s, lawmakers required equal time for creationism in science classes where evolution was taught. That was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, after considerable legal costs and damage to Louisiana's global reputation.
More recently, creationists and the intelligent design campaign have invested heavily in manufacturing a scientific debate ovgipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible
for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.