Governor Rick Perry has chosen another creationist, Republican Gail Lowe, to chair the State Board of Education. (Perry had first reappointed current chair Don McLeroy, a well-known young earth creationist, but the state Senate voted him out.) Lowe will serve as chairman until February 2011, just after the Texas Legislature reconvenes.
As with McLeroy, many are concerned about Lowe's divisiveness and her past attempts to undermine the treatment of evolution in the state's science standards. She repeatedly voted for changes to the curriculum that would water down evolution instruction, including having kids discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory. (Keep in mind that evolution is not a point of controversy or debate in the scientific community.)
As Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, notes:

It's disappointing that instead of choosing a mainstream conservative who could heal the divisions on the board, the governor once again appointed someone who repeatedly has put political agenda ahead of the education of Texas schoolchildren. Ms. Lowe has marched in lockstop with a faction of board members who believe that their personal beliefs are more imporatant than the experience and expertise of teachers and academics who have dedicated their careers to educating our children and helping them succeed. We can only hope that she will rise above her history on the board and as chair keep fellow members from continuing to hold the education of our children hostage to divisive "culture war" battles.

—Heather Wax

The Creation Museum in Kentucky has drawn 720,000 visitors in its two years of existence and brought in 7 million dollars in receipts, according to the Courier-Journal. Organizers also say students make up about 20 to 30 percent of the museum's attendance, and they plan to increase the reach next year by sending representatives to meet with teachers at religious schools.

Michael Reiss has given his first interview since he was forced to resign as director of education of the United Kingdom's Royal Society back in September. The reason he was ousted? In a speech he made to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Reiss reportedly said that "creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a worldview," so students must be allowed to discuss it in class. Though creationism is "a nonscientific way of seeing the world," he had realized that "simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts—hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching—and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion." The comments led to an uproar and, according to an official statement, Reiss and the Royal Society agreed they he should step down immediately to prevent further "damage to the society's reputation."
Today, Reiss, an evolutionary biologist, ordained Church of England minister, and professor of science education at the University of London’s Institute of Education, stands by his comments. He says he had thought long and hard about the issue of dealing with creationism in science class—and "had taken a considerable amount of care to make sure I didn’t put my foot in it"—but given the chance to clarify his views, here's what he says:

My interest has always been what to do if a pupil brings up creationism as a reason for not accepting evolution or the cosmological account of the origins of the Universe. If a science teacher doesn’t want to discuss it, they shouldn’t have to, and that’s fine. But supposing a teacher does feel comfortable allowing other children to discuss it. Providing it’s a scientific discussion, about evidence, then I think its a great opportunity to get pupils to understand how scientific knowledge builds up. Too many 14 and 15-year-olds find school science uninteresting. So if anyone asks a genuine question, we should use that question as a vehicle for teaching good science.

In the same way that PE teachers spend time thinking about how to deal with children who are too embarrassed to do sports, or who think they can’t catch, or can’t swim, biology educators have to deal with pupils whose beliefs contradict the scientific viewpoint. That’s what teaching is all about. Anyone can teach the one child in 20 who loves science—the real challenge is to help the other pupils to understand it and perhaps come to love it.

Reiss is what you might call a theistic evolutionist: He separates himself from those who interpret Genesis literally—"good religion," he says, doesn't make scientific claims—yet he sees evolution as "God’s work" and science as the "outworking of God’s activity." And he fully believes it's possible to hold both a scientific and religious worldview at the same time.
As he tells The Times:

Our physiological perception of a sunset, using rods and cones, doesn’t take away from the beauty of a sunset. You can have beauty and science, in the same way you can have religion and science, or moral philosophy and science. There’s no clash between them, in my view. ...

But nor do I think I see sunsets any more beautifully than [Nobel Prize-winning chemist] Harry Kroto does, just because I have religious faith. One might see things differently, but religious belief doesn’t make you a morally better person, a nicer person, a wiser person or anything like that.

Reiss will appear tonight at The Times Cheltenham Science Festival, where he'll participate in a discussion about "faith in evolution." —Heather Wax

Encouraging news out of Texas this morning: The state Senate has voted Don McLeroy out as chair of the State Board of Education. Gov. Rick Perry had reappointed McLeroy for another two-year term, and while the vote to confirm him was 19–11 (all Republicans v. Democrats), a two-thirds majority is needed.
McLeroy, a dentist who has been chairman of the board for almost two years, is well-known as a young earth creationist, and it seems a number of board members were deeply concerned with his divisiveness and continuous attempts to undermine the treatment of evolution in the state's science standards. During the most recent debate in March—while pushing an amendment that would require students to "describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record"—he famously (and shockingly!) told board members, "Somebody's got to stand up to experts!" and "Science doesn't operate on consensus."



McLeroy will remain a board member, and the governor will now have to pick a new nominee. —Heather Wax

Republican Senator Michael Fair has introduced a new bill into the South Carolina Senate that would require the State Board of Education to look at the curriculum that "purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism. Related to non-religion, the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs." Any "offending" curriculum, the bill says, will then be revised or replaced as soon as is feasible.
Keep in mind two things: There are many scientists who assert that evolution is not an atheistic principle; you can both accept evolution and believe in God. And Fair has previously pushed for teaching alternatives to evolution (like the religious ides of "intelligent design") in the state's public school science classrooms.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Education, likely for review next year. —Heather Wax

Florida's "critical analysis" bill is dead.

Texas has new science standards, approved on Friday by a vote of 13 to 2. Students will no longer discuss both the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories—including evolution—in science class, making the standards "better than the old ones, but those old standards really did suck," says Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education. However, the new standards aren't that much better—they allow "all sides" of scientific theories to be taught—and "are deeply compromised at every level from the decent standards offered by the writing committees," he says.
The old standard for high school biology read:

"The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."

A committee of scientific and education experts changed the requirement to read:

"The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing."

And the final version approved by the board reads:

"in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments so as to encourage critical thinking by students."

The board then added a number of confusing amendments that "crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks," says Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network. "We appreciate that the politicians on the board seek compromise, but don't agree that compromises can be made on established mainstream science or on honest education policy."
One amendment, for example, requires students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record," while another requires students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanation concerning the complexity of the cell." ("Sudden appearance" and "irreducible complexity" are favorite creationist and "intelligent-design" concepts.)
Keep in mind, as well, that an "academic freedom" bill introduced into the Texas House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago could require the Texas Board of Education to put the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase back into the science standards. If the bill passes, students would be "expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information," and no student or school could "be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses." —Heather Wax

The Texas State Board of Education will make its final decision on new science curriculum standards today. You can listen live to the audio of the board's meeting, follow the live blogging of Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (who's at the meeting), or keep track through the Texas Education Agency's Twitter. Stay tuned as the board works through different amendments to the proposed changes regarding the teaching of evolution.

The Texas State Board of Education heard testimony from the public yesterday regarding proposed curriculum changes related to the teaching of evolution. The proposed changes would drop language requiring students to analyze "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories like evolution and instead require them to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing."
More than 50 scientific groups—representing hundreds of thousands of American scientists—have publicly called for Texas to adopt the changes without any of a number of proposed amendments, such as board chair (and young earth creationist) Don McLeroy's amendment that would require students to "describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." In other words, they're calling on the board to promote "accurate science education."
The state board of education is set to hold initial votes today and final votes on Friday. And the results could have ramifications beyond the state: Texas is one of the largest textbook markets, so publishers often design textbooks to Texas' standards, then market the textbooks across the country. —Dan Messier

A new bill in Florida would amend the law to require that teachers provide a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."
Regular readers of this blog might remember this language from an earlier bill in Florida that died during the last legislative session. The Senate passed a bill that would have protected science teachers who "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution," but the House added language that required teachers to present a "thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution"—language that was strongly and repeatedly rejected by the Senate. No compromise between the two versions of the bill could be reached before the spring session closed in May.
To many, the new bill—like the others—is a stealth attempt to sneak religious ideas like "intelligent design" into the science classroom and weaken the state's science standards, which were changed last March to include the word "evolution" for the first time. —Heather Wax

It looks like microbiologist and immunologist Richard Colling will again be teaching the general biology class at Olivet Nazarene University. Back in October, we told you about a rally in support of Colling, who in 2007 was barred from teaching the course after his book Random Designer attracted national media attention. The book tries to reconcile evolution with Christian faith by promoting "theistic evolution" (and challenging the belief in biblical creation). Colling, who has tenure and had been teaching at the school for more than 25 years, was stripped of his regular teaching duties (he could only teach small courses that didn't involve his book), and other professors were barred from using his book in their classes—decisions that raised questions of academic freedom at Christian and other religious institutions of higher learning. (The school's professors, however, were allowed to teach the same views that Colling promoted in his book and teach other books with similar content; implying that the actions against Colling were the result of pressure from financial supporters who had been reading about his views on evolution in newspapers and magazines, and mistakenly believed he was the only one teaching them.)
But last month, the American Association of University Professors found that the school had violated Colling's academic freedom with their actions. "President Bowling made the decision not to allow Professor Colling to teach Biology 201 and to ban Random Designer from the curriculum for the express purpose of appeasing off-campus critics, including key members of the board of trustees, evidently hoping that these critics would believe that he had done something to suppress the teaching of evolution at Olivet Nazarene when in fact he had not," its report reads. "The investigating committee finds, however, that in doing so he disregarded the faculty’s primacy in matters of curriculum, abrogated his responsibility to defend faculty freedoms from 'outside influences,' and, most importantly, weakened academic freedom at Olivet Nazarene University." The report concludes that the "administration of Olivet Nazarene University curtailed the academic freedom of Professor Colling in order to dampen controversy that had arisen among anti-evolutionist elements of the university’s church constituency. In thus acting, the administration placed a higher value on what the president called 'constituent relations' than on the principles of academic freedom to which the university itself claims to subscribe." Now, Colling and the university are meeting to try to resolve their differences, according to Insider Higher Ed. He has been told he can go back to teaching and his book can be used, an outcome that he says is "a successful and positive resolution of the academic freedom concerns originally raised." —Heather Wax

Out of Missouri comes news of another "academic freedom" bill, and regular readers of this blog will notice something new.
Like others of its kind, the bill, which was introduced into the House of Representatives, requires school officials and administrators to create an environment that encourages students to "respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution." (Keep in mind that evolution is not a point of controversy or debate in the scientific community.) It also requires teachers to be "permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution."
But unlike other "academic freedom" bills, which just generally claim not to be promoting any religious doctrine, this bill claims that it does not "promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
An earlier "academic freedom" act in Missouri died last May. —Heather Wax

Oklahoma's "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act" is dead.

There's news of two more "academic freedom" bills, this time introduced in the Iowa and Alabama House of Representatives. Iowa's "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" is sponsored by Representative Rod Roberts, an ordained minister in the Church of Christ, and it will allow teachers in the state's public schools, community colleges, and universities to "objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution." (The bill copies Florida's definition of "scientific information," describing it as "germane, current facts, data and peer-reviewed research.") The act also prevents students from being "penalized for subscribing to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution."
Alabama's "Academic Freedom Act," sponsored by Representative David Grimes (a deacon at Trinity Presbyterian Church), would give teachers "the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning" and also prevents a student from being "penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views."
Regular readers of this blog will notice the clear similarities between these bills and those that have been filed in a number of other states (most recently New Mexico and Oklahoma)—and will recognize them as part of the latest strategy to undercut the teaching of evolution and sneak religious ideas like creationism and "intelligent design" into the science classroom (even though the bills themselves claim not to promote any religious beliefs). The Alabama bill, for example, says that "the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world." This would still seem to bar ID from being discussed in the classroom, but it's important to keep in mind that a very small number of peer-reviewed ID papers do exist, and the Web-based Answers Research Journal calls itself a "peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework." —Heather Wax

Mississippi's "textbook disclaimer" act is dead.

A new bill introduced in the New Mexico Senate by Republican Senator Kent Cravens would allow teachers in the state to inform students "about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses pertaining to biological evolution or chemical evolution."
Regular readers of this blog will notice that the bill contains language similar to the "academic freedom" bills that have popped up in about half a dozen states (most recently in Oklahoma). Much like these other bills, the New Mexico act states that it "does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief." It also states that "'scientific information' means information derived from observation, experimentation and analyses regarding various aspects of the natural world conducted to determine the nature of or principles behind the aspects being studied. 'Scientific information' does not include information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines; provided, however, that 'scientific information' may have religious or philosophical implications and still be scientific in nature."
The bill has been referred to the Senate Education Committee. —Heather Wax

The Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is expected to adopt new policy today that will determine how public schools implement the state's "academic freedom" bill, known officially as the Louisiana Science Education Act. The act lets teachers supplement state-approved science textbooks with other materials about evolution, human cloning, and global warming, and many people see it as an attempt to undercut the teaching of evolution and sneak religious ideas like creationism and "intelligent design" into public school science classrooms (even though supporters claim the bill hopes only to promote an environment of "critical thinking").
That the bill itself claims not to promote any religious doctrine turned out to be a problem for those hoping for a stricture that would specifically exclude material that promotes "creationism or intelligent design or that advances the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind." During a Tuesday hearing in which proponents and opponents of the bill shared their views with a committee of the BESE, State Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek said the language of the bill makes such a ban unnecessary and is enough to leave him "satisfied that you cannot teach creationism or intelligent design." (In August, Pastorek wrote a letter to local school boards and superintendents stating: "Religious theories cannot be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking.") Barbara Forrest, on the other hand, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and the leading member of a group advocating for sound science education, has said the disclaimer is a "dead giveaway of the creationist (hence religious) agenda that the law advances." The disclaimer is included "precisely because the legislation is intended to advance religion," she says, and if "the LSEA were truly intended to improve science education in public schools, no religion disclaimer would be necessary." The board agreed with Pastorek, however, and deleted the stricture.
According to Steve Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, no teacher in the organization has complained about science materials, and the issue, he told TV channel WAFB, has created "a stage for what unfortunately seems to be an embedded political movement. We're going to find ourselves getting tied into knots over issues people are invested in by faith, emotion, and miss the big picture."
Even though the BESE is allowed to veto any supplemental material it feels is inappropriate, many worry that religious material will still find its way into the science classroom—and believe it is only a matter of time before legal action results. —Heather Wax

A new bill introduced in the Mississippi House of Representatives by Republican Representative Gary Chism would require the state board of education to include a disclaimer saying that evolution is a "theory" on the inside front cover of every public school textbook that discusses evolution. The proposed disclaimer reads:

The word "theory" has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.
Study hard and keep an open mind.

Keep in mind that that evolution is not a point of controversy or debate in the scientific community, and according to the National Center for Science Education, Alabama is the only state that currently requires a disclaimer (adopted in 2005) on textbooks that include information about evolution. That disclaimer reads: "The theory of evolution by natural selection, a theory included in this document, states that natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific explanation for the diversity of living things."
The disclaimer, which previously called evolution a "controversial theory" was watered down after a legal challenge was brought against a similar disclaimer used in the Cobb County School District in Georgia. A sticker placed on the inside front cover of science textbooks there stated: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The sticker was found to be unconstitutional, a decision that was later vacated by a court of appeals, and the parties settled out of court, with Cobb County school officials agreeing to remove the stickers and to not seek the inclusion of similar disclaimers or undermine the teaching of evolution in the future. —Heather Wax

Out of Oklahoma comes news of another "academic freedom" bill, which has been pre-filed in the Senate. Like the bills that have popped up in half a dozen other states (and died in all but Louisiana), the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act" labels "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" as subjects that "can cause controversy" and would require that state educational authorities help teachers "find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." (Keep in mind that evolution is not a point of controversy or debate in the scientific community.) The act would also prevent students from being penalized in any way because they "subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories." Last month, two representatives from Oklahoma City filed the "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act," which they said was meant to protect students who express religious viewpoints in the classroom or assignments from such penalizations.
Obviously, many people see the new act for what it is: part of the latest strategy to undercut the teaching of evolution and sneak religious theories like creationism and "intelligent design" into the science classroom (even though the bill itself claims not to promote any religious doctrine). As Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education write in the December issue of Scientific American, "academic freedom"—which on the surface seems innocuous, desirable even—replaced "teach the controversy" and "critical analysis" as the "creationist catchphrase of choice in 2008."
The new bill is scheduled for a first reading on February 2. —Heather Wax

Michigan's "academic freedom" bills are dead.