Tina Fey & Amy Poehler start the Palin dialogues

Hear the 1 minute show:

Tina Fey recently made a special guest appearance on SNL impersonating Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The real candidate who believes that both Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught in schools has had difficulty proving herself fit for national office. Comedic impersonators Fey and Poehler came back to satirize another actual interview between CBS anchor Katie Couric and Creationist Sarah Palin.

The Florida State Board of Education finally approves evolution - but only “in theory”

Transcript of today's show:

In a precedent-setting decision, Florida education officials voted to add evolution to required course work in public schools, but only after a last-minute change depicting Charles Darwin's seminal work as merely a theory. Bending to pressure from religious conservatives, the compromise would require teaching that Darwin's proposal has yet to be conclusively proven. [source: Miami Herald]

See the press release from the Florida State Board of Education here.

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Comments and opinions:

excerpt from a news report published by the National Center for Science Education:

The Florida state board of education voted 4-3 at its February 19, 2008, meeting to adopt a new set of state science standards in which evolution is presented as a "fundamental concept underlying all of biology." The adopted standards differ from those developed by the writing committee in adding the phrase "the scientific theory of" before mentions of plate tectonics, cell theory, atomic theory, electromagnetism, and evolution. According to the standards, "a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer."

The previous set of state science standards, adopted in 1999, received a failing grade in a national assessment by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in 2005, which observed, "The superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the grade 'F'." The word "evolution" itself was absent from the standards. In contrast, evolution is now featured as a "big idea" around which the standards are organized. [read complete article]

from a comment posted at NaplesNews.com:

Forcing a child to learn creationism, a biblical concept, in school is religious oppression ...not freedom.

Forcing a Muslim to deal with Christian concepts in verse and in print within government dealings, is not religious freedom.

Forcing a Jewish child to partake in Christmas (be it in celebration or in task ..such as a art project making wreaths) in a public school is not religious freedom.

Religious freedom is the right to choose your own beliefs, not have it forced upon you by others. Religious freedom does not come from imposing your beliefs on others or by coercing them to follow laws written in support of those beliefs.

from a post by Wesley R. Elsberry at the blog Panda's Thumb:

Florida adopted amended standards. We know from prior experience that when one agrees to language from the anti-science advocates, they have some angle for exploitation of that language. While Florida standards now do mandate the teaching of evolutionary science, they also have the antievolution back-door installed. There will be further years of dealing with antievolution efforts in Florida because of this action.

An anti-evolution film is secretly screened in Florida

Transcript of today's show:

While the state of Florida prepares to adopt evolution as the official new science standard, an anti-evolution film was secretly screened to
conservative Christian ministers at a conference in Orlando. Like Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is being privately previewed by the religious right before its general opening in April.

[source: Orlando Sentinel]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a blog post by Roger Moore, film critic of the Orlando Sentinel:

[The filmmakers are] showing the movie to what he and the producers hoped would be a friendly, receptive audience of conservative Christian ministers at a conference at the Northland mega-church next to the dog track up in Longwood. They're marking this movie, which they had said, earlier, they'd open in Feb. (now April) the same way they pitched The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, said Paul Lauer of Motive Entertainment, who introduced Stein.

In other words, a stealth campaign, out of the public eye, preaching to the choir to get the word out about the movie without anyone who isn't a true believer passing a discouraging judgment on it.

They postered the Orlando Sentinel with email invitations, then tried to withdraw the one they sent to me. No dice. They also passed out non-disclosure "statement of confidentiality" agreements for people to sign. [read full blog post]

Texas debates intelligent design

Transcript of today's show:

Last month's resignation of the Texas state science curriculum director has ignited a highly charged and politicized debate over the teaching evolution in the state's schools, which come up for state-wide review In January. Most members of the State Board of Education, including the chairman, have said publicly they don't want to introduce intelligent design into the curriculum, and many of them also have said they want to keep the current language on evolution. To some, this exercise could turn into a pivotal opportunity for change. Even small changes in the language could mean big changes in textbooks later on. "Emphatically, we are not trying to 'take evolution out of the schools,'" said Mark Ramsey of Texans for Better Science Education, which wants schools to teach about weaknesses in evolution. "All good educators know that when students are taught both sides of an issue such as biologic evolution, they understand each side better. What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

[source: The Dallas Morning News]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial published in the San Antonio Express-News:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released the results of a test that assesses science and math skills of students in 30 industrialized countries. The results showed American students scored in the bottom half — worse than their peers from 16 other countries, and better than only those from Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico.

U.S. students do not reach "the baseline level of achievement ... at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to participate actively in life situations related to science and technology," the report says. The comparative results for math were even worse.

Many explanations exist for the lagging performance in science by American students. One that cannot be avoided is that some of the adults who are responsible for their science educations don't take science seriously enough.

Do Texans truly want their educators to be neutral on the teaching of religious faith versus science in schools? If so, then the State Board of Education and the Texas Education Agency are well on their way to making students in Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico feel proud. [read full editorial]

from Eric Berger of the SciGuy Blog:

The state's science curriculum director, Chris Comer, recently resigned from the Texas Education Agency as part of a flap surrounding her endorsement of a lecture by Barbara Forrest, a critic of the intelligent design movement. We peripherally discussed the issue here.

Now biologists from the state's leading universities have taken to the defense of Comer, saying it's ridiculous that she was essentially fired for not adhering to the TEA's policy of remaining neutral on the issue of evolution versus intelligent design.

There should be no neutrality on an issue that is scientifically and legally clear-cut, they write. Evolution should be taught at the K-12 as it is in universities, they say, and the TEA should work to bolster evolution education in Texas rather than undermining it. [read full blog post]



from a news report by Rod Rose, published in Texas' Mineral Wells Index:

The Texas Education Board has taken a significant action to protect the American public from the horrors of scientific knowledge..... Next year, the state of Texas will choose new science textbooks. With California and New York, Texas is the largest single buyer of public school textbooks. Because of their buying clout, those states can influence what is said in those texts.

If Texas tells a publisher it wants creationism in a biology textbook, it will probably get books that espouse creationism as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution — because publishing is a for-profit business.

The United States faces critical scientific challenges in the next few years. The solutions to those challenges cannot be based solely on the philosophy that “it’s in God’s hands.”

If any religion ever scientifically proves the existence of God, then science classes should include that proof. Until then, the existence of God is a matter of faith.

Faith may move mountains, but it can’t be grown in a petri dish.

[read full article]

Creationism and the candidates

Transcript of today's show:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee bristled when asked recently if creationism should be taught in public schools. Huckabee, one of 3 candidates who has confessed his disbelief in evolution, now asks why there is such fascination with his beliefs. He expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are. "That's an irrelevant question to ask me - I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
[source: Associated Press]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial by Daniel Finkelstein in the London Times:

Huckabee contends that it doesn't matter, because he is not intending to insist that schools stop teaching evolution. But that really isn't the point.

The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.

It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.

from the blog Uncommon Ground:

Huckabee wants to avoid the issue, because “I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” He seems to think that it's irrelevant that his personal beliefs contradict an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And don't think he can escape by arguing that he's a theistic evolutionist, a la Mitt Romney. He clearly doesn't accept the idea of common descent. He clearly doesn't understand that he shares a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas (and fruit flies and fungus and sunflowers, for that matter). It is dangerous to have someone so resistant to evidence and reason as President of the United States. [read full blog post]

related news story, Huckabee Declines Theology Discussion, published December 7, 2007 by the AP:

Republican presidential candidate and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee says he won't discuss "intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine," such as the role of women in the ministry, because the issues aren't relevant to the presidency.

The former Arkansas governor said that while he's open to discussing the basic pillars of his faith - and praised rival Mitt Romney for opening up in a speech Thursday about his - he won't voice his views on the often-discussed controversies in Southern Baptist denominations.

"I think (discussing faith) is an important part of helping people get to know the candidates," Huckabee said Friday morning after a breakfast fundraiser in Charlotte. "(But) sometimes the questions get a little laborious when they start asking you about intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine that's probably not all that relevant to being president."

As in his decision not to discuss his views on the creation of the earth, Huckabee passed on a chance Thursday night explain his views on whether women should be able to serve in pastoral leadership roles.

"It's so irrelevant to being president that I wouldn't even get into that," Huckabee said before meeting with about 350 supporters in Greensboro, N.C. "Churches have different views on that and my personal views are completely immaterial as it would relate to being president." [read complete article]

South African high schools may soon teach mandatory evolution theory

Transcript of today's show:

In 2008, public and private high schools throughout South Africa will begin teaching evolution. This recent decision has already ignited a tremendous uproar among parents, teachers and religious groups. Those responsible for these new standards say that evolution teaches students to think critically and analytically. Critics say, however, that it may be confusing to some students because of their religious beliefs.
[source: Thabo Mohlala/The Guardian]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Josef de Beer of the University of Johannesburg:

There is an urgent need to train teachers to deal with this complex issue in the classroom. My experience in teaching evolution in a foundation-year program at the University of Pretoria is that many students find evolution problematic because of their religious beliefs. I do not think that all teachers are ready for the challenge to teach evolution in grade 12 life sciences next year.

comment posted at RichardDawkins.net:

As an African, I can vouch for some of the sentiments expressed in the Guardian article. I was born and spent the first two decades of my life in Cameroon, a country with a fast growing Christian fundamentalist population. All my parents and siblings but one would describe themselves as biblical literalists, and thus creationists. I have relations and close Cameroonian friend, who although are in the most rational of professions (doctors, scientists and engineers) are totally unpersuaded by the evidence of evolution largely for religious reasons.

To the best of my memory, evolution was only given a cursory glance in our biology programme in high school. I have two reasons for that; the poor preparedness of the teachers and secondly the dissonance it would have caused to teach a subject that contradicts the basis of fundamentalist Christian ethos. When I last traveled to Cameroon 10 years ago, I was appalled at the rampaging inroads Christian literalism was making into the fabric of the society. My personal impression is that if this is left to continue unchecked, the intellectual fibre of the population may be irreparable damaged. I know these are strong sentiments, but we all know how long it takes to correct societal malaises (think of slavery, prejudices - racial, gender, sexual, etc).

This Christmas I have resolved to give as present to close friends and family the brilliant book by Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God. All I can hope for is that it gets read, since this is a book by a Christian scientist.



from the science blog of Chris Rowan, geologist at the University of Johannesburg:

I'm starting to think that South African schoolchildren would be better off if they weren't taught about evolution; they're about to be caught between the clashing rocks of creationist straw-men, and the treacherous whirlpool of post-modernist baloney, and the chances of them actually coming out the other side with any sort of understanding of science, or evidence-based reasoning, seem rather slim.... [more]



from Claidheamhmor's Blog:

I'm glad that it's being introduced (and a little surprised it isn't being taught already); I'm afraid that opponents are just going to have to deal with the fact that it's science, and the prime underpinning for most of biology. Countries in Europe have also recently been stopping any teaching of Creationism (which is really something that should be taught in Quackery or Philosophy classes).

This quote is daft: "No child would be compelled to “adopt” or “defend the viewpoint or any way subscribe to evolution”. So there could be no reason for parents to take legal action, Vinjevold said." People should not be compelled to adopt the viewpoint of evolution any more than they should adopt the viewpoint of gravity. It's there. Deal with it.... [more]

Florida educators mandate evolution education

Transcript of today's show:

Florida may soon adopt new teaching standards that will require public school students to learn about evolution. These standards will be a step toward improving the state's poorly rated science education. Officials fear that without changes Florida students will be ill-prepared for college and a technology-based workplace. Said one author of the new standards , "If we want to be competitive in the world, we have to do this." The draft standards require in-depth instruction on the subject and clearly state "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
[source: Orlando Sentinel]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the opinion page of Florida Today:

These standards -- written by a group of Florida professors and teachers, and based on recommendations of national science groups -- reflect volumes of undeniable evidence underpinning evolutionary concepts.

But it's a quantum leap from the state's abysmally inadequate current standards, which avoid use of the word evolution and which helped earn Florida an F for science teaching in 2005 from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonpartisan organization that researches educational issues.

Religious groups that deny the validity of evolution and want to mix faith-based ideas such as creationism in with science are likely to protest the move.

But the board should approve the frank teaching rules, which are part of a broader revamp to strengthen science education in public schools.

Florida's children need strong science skills to compete for jobs in a global workforce, and evolution is a critical part of that package.

from Mickey Carter, pastor at the Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, FL:

These revisions are a disservice to students. There should be a balance between both intelligent design and evolution. We are denying freedom of ideas, speech and shutting down one side. The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it so we don't just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom. When it's all said and done, folks just don't give God enough credit. Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident. You've got to give some credit to some intelligence.

comment posted on the Florida Citizens for Science blog:

The new science standards will most certainly not denigrate religion, religion is quite capable of doing that to itself without any help from science. Many main stream religions (Jewish Catholic )readily accept evolution within their faith structure. It is mainly a small minority of religious zealots who wish to impose their narrow minded, out dated religious ideologies on the rest of the country. Saying ”God did it” is not science and does not belong in a science class room unless of course we can show scientific evidence that a God was responsible, and we can not.

Signs of the Controversy in Canada

Transcript of today's show:

The evolution-creationism controversy is beginning to brew in Canada. Reports indicate that a growing number of science teachers are bowing to pressure from parents who want creationism or intelligent design taught in public schools. Canadian advocates of evolution theory are considering an offensive to prevent alternative theories from being taught. Meanwhile, some teachers are avoiding the controversy by excluding all theories from their lessons. But as one educator noted, this approach is hardly a solution.
[source: Toronto Star]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Stuart Laidlaw in the Toronto Star:

The Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University has found that about one-third of teachers report pressure from parents to teach creationism or intelligent design, the theory that God directs the development of life, in the class as an alternative to evolution.

Most respond by teaching neither evolution nor creationism, leaving students with the impression that the two are of equal merit, he says. Others tiptoe around the issue, acknowledging that people of some faiths believe in creationism.

Either way, he says, scientific education in our schools is undermined.

Alters warns that the danger of creationist theories such as intelligent design is that whenever something can't be explained scientifically, it is credited to divine intervention – which he says effectively shuts down further inquiry, the underpinning of good science.

The situation has become such a concern to scientists that an international team of biologists has put together a new journal to help teachers prepare lesson plans on evolution.... [more]

from John Volmers, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Obviously any country that separates Church and State should not be teaching religious myths as being anything other than religious myths. Unfortunately, the flat-earthers who want to drag science back to the stone-age have developed a real skill for nailing themselves to a cross in front of the ever sympathetic "secular" media and making the ludicrous claim that they are being discriminated against.

from Terence Rooney, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Creationism does not belong in the school system as it has no scientific basis; it is merely an expression of religious belief by some Christians and others. The believers are free to expound their idea in a religious setting and in the media but not as a topic of education.


from Michael Henry, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Creationism is at best bad science, and at worst dishonest. People who believe in Young Earth Creationism show ignorance of science as well as biblical history. It should not be taught in schools except to discredit it.

A church-state controversy erupts in New Jersey

Transcript of today's show:

In New Jersey, high school student Matthew LaClair [pictured left] secretly tape-recorded a teacher to prove that he was preaching a pro-Christian, anti-science message to students. The recording affirms this allegation, but reaction to it has been mixed. Defenders of the teacher cite his First Amendment freedom of expression. Others argue that the First Amendment does not allow teachers to promote their private religious convictions in the classroom. [source: New York Times]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

from The New York Times Opinion Page:

The vast majority of Americans deplore such proselytizing in public classrooms. But the truly disturbing aspect of all this, described earlier this month by Times reporter Tina Kelley, is not that one teacher so blatantly crossed the church-state boundary but that so few school officials and community residents seemed bothered by his behavior.

One teacher, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Paszkiewicz “had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.” The school’s principal says action was taken against Mr. Paszkiewicz but won’t say what. At the same time, he describes Mr. Paszkiewicz as an “excellent teacher,” and says he remains in the classroom. And the town’s electronic bulletin board, KearnyOnTheWeb.com, contained many postings supporting the teacher.

The only reason anyone knows about Mr. Paskiewicz’s behavior is that one student, Matthew LaClair, 16, had the courage to speak up in September. Before doing so, he taped Mr. Paszkiewicz for eight classes because he feared officials would not believe him. He has since received one death threat, lost many friends, and says he can “feel the glares” when he goes to school.

Mathew’s father, Paul LaClair, a lawyer, says he is considering legal action unless the school corrects Mr. Paszkiewicz’ misstatements concerning science and straightens out the constitutional issues regarding separation of church and state for the entire student body.

In recent years, the divide between religion and the classroom has been narrowed as conservative courts have ruled in favor of tuition vouchers for religious schools, ruled that religion clubs can meet in public schools and allowed federal money to be spent on computers and other instructional equipment for parochial schools. But even groups like the Rutherford Institute, which provides legal help in religious freedom cases, says that Mr. Paszkiewicz appears to have crossed the line against outright preaching in the public schools.... [more]

from Blog from the Capital:

One of the reasons school boards have policies and the Department of Education has guidelines is to instruct teachers on how to conduct themselves properly and legally *without having to be prompted by a teenager.* If Paszkiewicz indeed said the things he's alleged to have said, they are inappropriate *even if no student in the class is discomforted.* Teachers may not simply do whatever they like so long as nobody complains. But when one does -- and especially as a minor -- he surely deserves the protection of the school and the school board in question from discrimination and harassment.... [more]

from The Lippard Blog:

The website KearnyontheWeb.com is an online forum for people in Kearny, New Jersey, where U.S. History teacher and Baptist youth pastor David Paszkiewicz has used his Kearny High School classroom (apparently for years) to evangelize students with his own brand of Christianity and conservative politics. I've already commented on how some Kearny High School students have made a poor case defending Paszkiewicz, now I'm afraid the adults of Kearny are no better.

The adults posting at KearnyontheWeb.com are noteworthy (just like the students) for a complete failure to address the issues raised by Paszkiewicz's actions--they ignore the content of what he's been teaching, they ignore the fact that he lied about what he had done until confronted with the recordings, and they ignore the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they accuse Matthew LaClair of having set the teacher up, invent new "crimes" like "premeditated entrapment" that they accuse LaClair of having committed by recording the class, and say that he should have been suspended, expelled, or jailed for creating this issue and "embarrassing the town." They say that LaClair, by protesting the Bush administration by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, "practically spits on our 'Pledge of Allegiance'" and "is free to leave this country if he does not agree with what we stand for!" They claim that Paszkiewicz is "the best teacher to hit town in years" and "A PROUD AMERICAN [who] IS 100% RIGHT!"... [more]

from the Crime & Federalism blog:

Matthew LeClair, a junior at the school, taped the classes, for fear no one would believe what he and his classmates were hearing. The school board is not saying what it has done in response to the teacher's proselytizing, but it does say it has "corrected" the teacher. The student has received at least one death threat. The boy's father is a lawyer, and some townspeople think that the teacher was baited into turning the lectern into a pulpit.

It is one thing to explain the role that religious belief has played in the behavior of the American people. The Great Awakening, for example, had vast social and political consequences. It is quite another thing to try to create an awakening of one's own in a high school history class.

The next time someone does a story about what's wrong with American education, I suggest the situation in Kearney be studied. When we start talking about dinosaurs in an advanced placement course on the Constitution, we're in deep, deep trouble.... [more]

In Texas, a surprising victory for science

Transcript of today's show:

Despite their pro-creation personal views, members of the Texas State Board of Education have voted to keep intelligent design out of public school science classes. Chairman Don McLeroy and three other socially conservative board members chose to set aside personal beliefs in favor of students' interests. Says McLeroy: "anything taught in science has to have consensus in the scientific community and intelligent design does not." [source: Dallas News]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Hearing this update on the shenanigans over at the Texas Board of Education gives me hope that democracy is still practiced in America, even in the hard core Bush Country of Texas. Board Chairman McLeroy realized he simply didn’t have the support from other state-wide elected officials to even begin the infamous 'Wedge' strategy (which authors Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross so eloquently outline in their book “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design”). Hopefully, the majority of clear-headed Texas School Board members won’t sway back and forth on this issue as Kansas has done. Whatever positive bearing this may have, the fact that Texas hosts the NASA Space Program helps to allay my worried mind. I also perceive that Chairman McLeroy is one who, in a consensus-driven process, can set his personal views aside, acknowledge the group perspectives, and take rational action. This is, indeed, a victory for science in Texas.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
In my view, Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy has compromised his faith under the pressure of political gamesmanship. I am deeply disappointed that he reversed his standing on the matter of introducing Intelligent Design in Texas schools. I shake my head in sorrow at this missed opportunity.

This being said, I do want to point out to all secularists who describe creationists as irrational religious fanatics, that even in Texas, that “hotbed of Bush religious fervor”, Creationists are sane, reasonable people capable of respecting a majority opinion. While I am not supportive with the outcome of this decision, I do respect McLeroy's respect for democracy and his willingness to lead with deference to his board members.

It deserves clarification to point out that that McLeroy’s support of Intelligent Design in public school curriculum was based on the fact of there being inadequate evidence to support evolution as the sole possible model for the origin of life. His belief is not that Intelligent Design is nor necessarily should be the scientifically accepted theory. He, like many who believe creation theory, is merely seeking an opportunity to find an opening through the secularist citadel of exclusivity and shine the light of God through it.

Conservative Christian takes the helm of the Texas school board

Transcript of today's show:

Don McLeroy, the new chair of the Texas state Board of Education, is threatening to throw out high school biology books because they don't list weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution. McLeroy’s opponents accuse him of harboring a shocking hostility both to sound science education and religious tolerance. Meanwhile, Texas parents and educators brace themselves for a new round of antievolution activity.
[source: National Center for Science Education]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
These accusations come from the Texas Freedom Network. If you think these folks are a bunch of left-wing atheist-non-believers giving believers a hard time, here is what they say about themselves right on the home page of their own website.

Founded in 1995, the Texas Freedom Network is “a nonpartisan, grassroots organization of more than 26,000 religious and community leaders. Based in Austin, the Texas Freedom Network acts as the state’s watchdog, monitoring far-right issues, organizations, money and leaders. The organization has been instrumental in defeating initiatives backed by the religious right in Texas, including private school vouchers, textbook censorship and faith-based deregulation.”

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This story needs to be seen in the context of Mr. McLeroy's remarks during a recent lecture about Intelligent Design. Following the ideology of Phillip Johnson (the father of Intelligent Design), McLeroy portrayed ID as a “big tent,” explaining, “It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design.”

McLeroy was referring to how Intelligent Design can encompass all creationist positions in way that is easy for even secularists on the Texas State School Board to understand. It should be clear to readers of this blog by now that my commentary comes from a place that welcomes anyone under McLeroy’s “Big Tent” of Scripture. I’ve even supported Muslim Creationism as portrayed in the Atlas of Creation because I find that even a faith very different from mine, a faith that historically is antithetical and violently opposed to mine, is still closer to the Word of God than secular naturalism.

The Bible meets biology in an Oregon classroom

Transcript of today's show:

After only eight days on the job, part-time teacher Kris Helphinstine was fired from Sisters High School in Oregon. In the biology class he taught, Helphinstine referred repeatedly to the Bible and gave a PowerPoint presentation that linked evolution, Nazi Germany, and Planned Parenthood. School officials were swift in his termination. In his defense, Helphinstine said, “My whole purpose was to give accurate information and get the students thinking.” [source: New West]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
The swift response of school officials at Sisters High School in Oregon reminds me of Judge Jones’ unequivocal response that intelligent design is indeed creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing. This tells us too, unfortunately, that classroom teachers need to be watched. The most unassuming new hire may have an agenda of zealotry lurking in their lesson plans. Our schools have by necessity become policed -- students are searched for drugs and hidden weapons; now it seems, teachers must be surveilled for surrepitious propaganda activities.

Those who think they can bring religious belief and dogma into the scientific climate of a biology classroom do know better. They know they're crossing a line, and they know where that line lies. Their intent and purpose are to push that line, and push and push, budging it ever more to their benefit. Their goal is nothing less than to confuse our understanding of science and, in the cacophony, infuse their Bible-based notions as equal or superior.

It would have been interesting to see the faces of Mr. Helphinstine's students when he presented slides of the Nazi cross dissolving into the Planned Parenthood logo. Are high school students sophisticated enough to know when propaganda is being thrust upon them? Let this event be a lesson to all about 1) the growing reach of religious zealotry into academia, 2) how innocuous it can appear to the unwary eye, and 3) how these educational hi jinx should be quickly and permanently dealt with. I wonder what Dembski and his friends at the Discovery Institute think when some lunatic claiming to be on “their side” stirs up a negative news story like this.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Although the appropriateness of his subject matter is questionable, Mr. Helphinstine is being quite obviously scape-goated. The information he presented -- albeit not suitable for such a young audience -- has basis in real events. Evolution theory has been an ideological cornerstone of those who favor eugenics. The nefarious Nazi philosophy was in fact based on Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest. This theory in and of itself is not villainous, but when applied by hateful atheists and those who do not believe in Christian love for one's neighbor, the theory can be twisted to diabolical ends. The Nazis erronneously believed that only they were the fittest, declaring themselves the UberMensch – the Super Race of Super Men. And did the Nazi’s control every aspect of the birthing process, killing thousands of innocent retarded and defective children? Yes, they did and they kept accurate records.

Just as critics of Mr. Helphinstine can claim him as a bizarre example of Bibilical creationism gone wild, the Nazi agenda of the Holocaust could be seen as evolutionary ideas taken to an ultimate perverted extreme. Let us be careful, in our outrage at Mr. Helphinstine, that we not gloss over the horrible history from which his ideas emerged. There are centuries of unjust, unloving, inhumane historical events that deserve our outrage. Let's put our criticism and anger where they rightly belong.

South Carolina questions the theory of evolution

Transcript of today's show:

New teaching standards in South Carolina public high schools encourage science teachers to criticize evolution theory. Opponents of this policy argue that this throws the door wide open to inclusion—and perhaps emphasis—on creationism and intelligent design in science classes. Proponents insist that questioning Darwin theory will improve the students’ education by expanding their viewpoints of the origin of life. source: American Institute of Biological Sciences

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
It is the duty of education and educators to present students with a wide variety of viewpoints, especially those students with young and developing minds. This would include introducing students to alternatives to evolution theory. Yes, let them learn about and discuss creation theory and intelligent design. However, such discussions belong in a philosophy or religion class, NOT science. Unless a theory is empirically accepted by the scientific community as science, it does not belong in a science class. It especially should not be offered in a science class as a scientific theory, different from but equal to actual scientific theory.

The Brits have given this very issue some careful thought, and have chosen a wise solution. They allow open debate of creation theory, atheism, intelligent design, and Darwin. These debates are held in high school religion classes – banned altogether from science courses. Here, in American, this debate is stirring, like it or not. It will rage in our schools, in our churches, at home, in shopping mall parking lots, whether 'supervised' or not. In the schools, administrators and teachers can provide healthy containers for this debate, in any number of contexts: debate class, religion class, government, philosophy, sociology, ….. But please, keep this debate out of the science class. It will confuse the developing minds of our children.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The scientist or teacher who oppose an open criticism of evolution theory not only betray their integrity, they are dancing to the Double Standard two-step. It is a matter of integrity (or lack thereof) to abide (or not) by one's professional code. In the science community, that code is based on open-minded investigation and hypothetical inquiry. One is willing not just to question anything and everything, but to be questioned, with a willingness to be proven wrong and let the light of truth prevail.

It is a tremendous act of double standard when one chooses to selectively ignore or reject their own ethical code. The bottom line: scientists are afraid of truths they cannot explain. They relegate such truths to ignorance, immature thinking, religious blather, or the gibberish of foolish idealists. Secular scientists have claimed for themselves a holy ground of atheistic, materialist predetermination. They have drawn a neat and tidy circle around a realm of what is possible. They carefully guard its perimeter, lest any stray and questionable ideas enter and taint the purity of science.

They fear the loss of their science as they determine it to be. They fear it so much that they have turned their back on the very founding principles of scientific inquiry. It is an act of grave double standard and an unconscionable disservice to our children, who deserve to explore and discover the truth for themselves.

Arkansas science students wonder: how old is really really old?

Transcript of today's show:

Evolution is not officially banned in Arkansas schools, but it has been unofficially banished for fear of upsetting fundamentalists. Arkansas school teachers are forbidden to use the word ‘evolution’ and the term ‘natural selection’ in the classroom. They are also required to be vague. As one teacher described, “I am instructed NOT to use numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. Instead, I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD.” [source: The Arkansas Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
A subtle yet dangerous prejudice has been creeping into our society, oh, I’d say, since 2001 – the year that among other things endowed us with the presidency of George W. Bush. The creepy crawly prejudice began about then, marked by a despotic intolerance of all things progressive, non-traditional, and discordant with Biblical values. Severe and unyielding positions were indoctrinated throughout the new administration on meaningful issues, each of which touch our daily lives. The creepy crawly prejudice slithered out of Washington and into communities all over America, especially ones with Christian mega-churches and evangelical study groups.

Suddenly, the issues of right to life, stem cell research, gay marriage, and the fate of Terry Schaivo -- to name a few -- became pet political themes around which the emerging conservative Christian voice could find and feel its power. The sciences, too, have become targets of these righteous Christian soldiers and their war of ideas, particularly in the fields of genetics, the environment, and evolution. Evolution itself is nearly a dirty word in some places, Arkansas among them. But wait, have we forgotten that this war of ideas, of religion vs. science, was conclusively addressed in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as well as in the First Amendment, guaranteeing separation of church and state? Are these inconvenient truths being pushed aside?

The scientific community has no interest in changing nor obliterating the various religious beliefs that we are free to express in this country. We ask that religion offer science the same courtesy. We can all agree to disagree, respect one another’s differences, and teach evolution in science classes and creationism in religion classes. This, I believe, is a practical and honorable truce in the culture wars of ideas and ideology.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
I believe it is our duty as adults, parents, and teachers, to shape an education that will open young minds to the immense vastness of creativity, spirit, and Creation. We must show them the world in its wonder, and enthusiastically celebrate the miracle that it is. At the same time, we will do well to refrain from excessive emphasis on geological details, that may be nothing more than scientific conjecture. Giving young minds specific and incomprehensible numbers with regard to the planet’s age may confuse them (particularly if their family are Bible-reading Christians), and (if they are not Christian) may fixate their thinking in such a way as to close their mind to the truths contained in Genesis. This is a benign legislation that does no harm to any student, but rather, may prevent harm from befalling them.

Time-sharing in Mississippi

Transcript of today's show:

Another state capitol is under attack by the anti-Darwin revolution. Mississippi legislator Mike Lott wants state schools to give equal time to creationism, Intelligent Design, and evolution theory. His new bill, House Bill 625, will require science teachers to include all three in their curriculum. Critics are concerned that this bill will provoke disastrous political fallout, in light of the fiascos suffered in Kansas and Pennsylvania last year. What Representative Lott may lack in pragmatism, he makes up for in conviction. [source: National Center for Science Education]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Folks wonder why scientists are getting defensive and testy about preserving evolution theory in science curriculum. This inane proposal from Mr. Lott is the very reason. Creation theory and its cousin ID do not belong in SCIENCE classes. If we wish our schoolkids debate the three, let’s do it in a debate or religion class. Frankly, I think that’s a good idea.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Representative Lott is a brave soul willing to stand up for truth and decency. Equal time for Darwin and God’s word? Scientist for too long have had a strangle hold on biblical authority, seeking to supplant it with materialism and fallible human intelligence. Yes, I say, it’s about time there be equal time! Science should dare not hold up the scriptures to their critical scrutiny and arrogant doubt. To those of us who believe in God’s word and the story of Genesis, “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” I seem to recall that phrase from an important American document that even scientists support.