Bible Courses To Be Offered in Texas Public Schools

The Dallas Morning News reported August 29 on a statement released by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott clarifying a Bible study bill approved by the Texas state legislature last year. Abbott's statement said the bill does require some instruction on the Christian Bible and its historical impact as a piece of literature, but that more intensive elective Bible courses will only be offered if the local school boards vote for them. From the News article:

"The legislation 'authorizes but does not require school districts and charter schools to offer elective courses on the Hebrew Scriptures and its impact, or on the New Testament and its impact,' the attorney general said."

The statement, released August 28, has apparently cleared up some confusion regarding among Texas lawmakers, teachers and education advocates.

"Lawmakers and various citizen groups had been waiting for the opinion to clear up confusion over what the 2007 law required. Most legislators, including the Republican chairman of the House Public Education Committee, said the Bible course was optional for school districts, but some of the original sponsors of the bill said it was mandatory."

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a Texas group advocating religious liberties and the separation of church and state, expressed agreement with the bill's clarification. The article quotes her as saying, "Local school boards can now breathe a sigh of relief." She went on to say:

"'The State Board of Education threw them under a bus last month by refusing to adopt the clear, specific standards schools need to give the Bible the respect it deserves and help them stay out of court. Now schools won't be required to maneuver through a legal minefield without a map.'"

The article also quotes Jonanthan Saenz of the Texas Free Market Foundation, whose mission statement reads:

"To protect freedoms and strengthen families throughout Texas by impacting our legislature, media, grassroots, and courts with the truth. To do this we are guided by the principles, which limit government and promote Judeo-Christian values."

Saenz expressed support for the bill and Abbott's clarification. The Foundation was apparently in support of a mandatory Bible course. Saenz went on to say:

"'For too long, Texas school districts have been threatened and oppressed by enemies of academic freedom for simply daring to offer instruction on the Bible,' said Jonathan Saenz of the foundation."

However, an article posted on the website of the San Antonio Express-News claims a bit of confusion still exists. From the Express story:

"Some legislative leaders insisted that schools 'may' offer the course if enough students request it, but others contended that schools are obligated to offer a class if at least 15 students want it. Lawmakers approved the Bible bill last year."

Whatever the exact truth may be, it appears this bill and the subsequent "clarification" have to the potential to cause quite a stir within the Texas educational community. If the bill does indeed require "some" course material on the Bible as a piece of literature, then the holy books of other religions, such as the Qu'ran, ought to be at least mentioned. Granted, the Bible has had the heaviest influence on American literature and culture of the all the major religions' holy books, but a comparative study could and should be offered. The biggest problem I could see arising is what version of the Bible school boards would decide to teach. The viewpoint of the Texas Education Agency toward evolution also make me wary of how they would handle such curricula.

However, if the bill merely offers the Bible as an elective course, I see absolutely no problem with it. No matter what stance one may have on religious faith, the Christian Bible has had a tremendous impact on American culture. Understanding its history can only help students who chose to take the class. But, the curricula used in such elective courses would need to be carefully monitored so that the religious beliefs of the teachers or school board members aren't injected.

Whatever the case, this is definitely a matter that needs to be handled delicately, so as not to incite costly lawsuits from either the secular or religious ends Texas' belief spectrum. As with all other similar education issues, the minds of the children in Texas schools need to be put first. Is the state up to the challenge? Only time will tell.

Alleged Chupacabra Caught on Video by Texas Police

A video originally posted on a San Antonio news station's website(KEN 5) has made it all the way to the CNN Video News site. The video of the alleged chupacabra was captured in the small town of Cuero, Texas, just southwest of San Antonio, by DeWitt County Sheriff's Deputy Brandon Riedel.

On August 8, Riedel and his partner were checking fence lines on a dirt road near Cuero when they saw a strange, coyote-sized creature running alongside the road. Riedel, who has been on the job for eight years, had the presence of mind to turn on his patrol car's dashboard camera, in order to capture video of the creature. From the approximately minute-long glimpse of the animal, Riedel said he noticed several unusual features, such as its short front legs and long back legs, hairless skin and long snout. A snout, the San Antonio reporter claims, is the, "type of feature that legends are made of." Riedel said he has never seen anything like this in his many years of patrolling Cuero's dusty back roads.

Here's a still I made from one of the videos, where the snout in question is clearly visible:

Dewitt Count Sheriff Joe (or Jode, the two videos use different first names) Zavesky said the animal is most likely some sort of coyote hybrid, but expects many "experts" to be asking for the video. Despite his explanation, he also claimed, "We still don't what it is." It appears Zavesky might be more interested in the media attention sightings of similar creatures have recently brought to Cuero than finding out what the animal truly is. Quoted from both videos:

"I love this for DeWitt county." Zavesky said, "It has brought alot of attention to us,and I believe there's something to it."

Stories of the chupacabra first caused a stir in the small Texas town when a rancher named Phylis Canion found the carcass of a coyote-like animal on her property in July 2007. Canion's neighbors claimed the deceased creature was responsible for their missing cats and chickens in recent years. Some livestock carcasses were allegedly found with their blood drained. Riedel claims the animal in the video is identical to the creature found on Canion's ranch, or at least identical to the animal about which he has read in the newspapers.

In November of 2007, a story posted on KEN 5's website reported that a DNA test performed by biologists at Texas State University had revealed the true identity of the carcass: a coyote. From the article:

"'The DNA sequence is a virtually identical match to DNA from the coyote,' Mike Forstner, a Texas State University biologist, said in a news release Thursday night. 'This is probably the answer a lot of folks thought might be the outcome. I, myself, really thought it was a domestic dog, but the Cuero chupacabra is a Texas coyote.'"

Only the video on CNN's site mentions this information, while both reports refer to the creature as anything but what it really is. "Goatsucker" and "creature of the night" were terms used by the CNN reporter, with the San Antonio reporter calling it a "legend" more than once. Why did neither of these reports call it a coyote? It's also interesting to note that the San Antonio report misspells Riedel's name. The dashboard camera's time clock in the upper right hand corner spells it "Riedel," which would presumably be the correct spelling since it is Riedel's patrol car. However, the San Antonio report attributes the officer onscreen as "Corp. Brandon Reidel." Is this how journalism is done in Texas?

Forstner admitted the DNA test on the carcass found one year ago did not explain the coyote's hairless skin or other unusual features, but sees those unexplained traits as just more questions to be answered:

"'That is the best part about science. The first answers often lead to more questions and then better explanations of the world in which we live,' Forstner said. 'We've taken additional skin samples and we will try to determine the cause of the hair loss. Folks fear what they don't understand, and a big part of the goal in science is to explain the natural world,'"

I like the way this Forstner guy thinks. Science can still be filled with mystery without propagating tales of a hairless, bloodsucking beast. There are so many more interesting, if less sensational, stories here. Is this a new species of coyote? Has a particularly virile male coyote been knocking up family dogs over the last few years? Is there some unknown mutation making its way through the local coyote gene pool? Is it some combination of all three? All these would have made great news stories, and could prove to be legitimate scientific questions. But of course the local news team chose to go for the "chupacabra" angle. When did science become less interesting than mythology?

Human/Dinosaur Fossil Footprint Hardly Convincing

A recent story out of Mineral Wells, Texas (that's right, Texas again) is reporting that a former resident of the east Texas town just west of Forth Worth has recently re-discovered an alleged fossilized human footprint underneath that of a large, therapod (T-Rex-like) dinosaur. Alvis Delk, 72, found the slab of alleged limestone containing the commingled footprints in July of 2000 at a creek near the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, located about 53 miles south of Fort Worth.

"The limestone contains two distinct prints – one of a human footprint and one belonging to a dinosaur. The significance of the cement-hard fossil is that it shows the dinosaur print partially over and intersecting the human print."

Delk, a longtime amateur archaeologist (read: not a real archaeologist), was searching for Native-American artifacts near the river with two friends when he saw a pile of rocks along the bank. Further investigation of the pile revealed a fossilized dinosaur footprint embedded in a chunk of limestone. While Delk claimed he had seen dinosaur prints before, he has never found one he has been able to take home with him. So, with the help of his companions, Delk hauled the chunk of rock back home where he sat on the find for eight years. He kept it in his collection, which, Delk claims, contains over 100,000 Native American artifacts.

After suffering a fall from a ladder eight months ago, Delk decided to try to sell some of his collection to pay for his resulting medical bills. He dusted off the piece of limestone, hoping to sell it to the Creation ( as in biblical creation) Evidence Museum in Glen Rose. As Delk cleaned up the specimen, he discovered a human-looking footprint underneath the dinosaur track. From the article:

“'I seen the (human) track coming out and (saw) that it was a man,' Delk said. 'I thought to myself, ‘Lord, I’ve been shown man was here when the dinosaur was here.’”"

Delk took his find to Dr. Carl Baugh, founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum. Dr. Baugh claims doctorates in theology and philosophy in education in addition to a master’s degree in archeology. A little digging of my own found that "Dr." Baugh received every one of his degrees (except one in theology from Baptist Bible College in 1959) from unaccredited universities. Perhaps the most laughable of those is his master's in archeology from Pacific International University, an institution he started himself.

Anyway, back to the fossil human footprint farce. Baugh said he is confident about the authenticity of Delk's specimen, undoubtedly using his "expertise" in archeology winnowed from hard years at Pacific International. Baugh claims he took the chunk of rock to a medical lab at Glen Rose Medical Center, where he said 800 X-rays were performed in a CT scan procedure.

“'The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,' Baugh said. 'It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.'"

Baugh goes on to list other aspects of the print which he thinks prove its authenticity:

"He said the scans demonstrate the human footprint was made 'during locomotion. That’s very important. That distribution is shown here. Compression is in the right place under both prints. Density. Compression, distribution. The density factor is there. Weight distribution. Forward locomotion, rocking of the foot.'"

However, no where in the article is the most basic tenant of Baugh and Delk's claims questioned: is the piece of rock even limestone? There is not one credible geological or archaeological expert in the entire piece quoted to vouch for the limestone's authenticity. Fortunately, Baugh has offered to put his reputation (however already tarnished) on the line: he is willing to subject the specimen to any non-destructive tests. Now that I would like to see.

Baugh continues on with his fairytale by claiming the dinosaur track is from an Acrocanthosaurus, a carnivorous dinosaur that existed primarily in North America during the mid-Cretaceous Period, approximately 125 million to 100 million years ago. For comparison, let's look at an actual Acrocanthosaur track (which I found here) and Baugh's specimen:












In case anyone is having a hard time figuring it out, the real dinosaur track is on the left. How the hell can Baugh or Delk expect to have themselves taken seriously? And why is the big toe impression on the "human"track so deep? It looks like it was formed with a tent pole.

Although Baugh offers no evidence for this claim, he apparently believes both sets of prints were made “within minutes, or no more than hours of each other” about 4,500 years ago, around the time of Noah’s Flood. Based on what? Has the specimen been dated? The article doesn't say so.

Another telling quote revealing what the true intentions and beliefs of these men are is attributed to James Bishop, one of the friends who was with Delk when he first found the "footprint."

"A man of Christian beliefs who is a member of the First Assembly of God Church in Stephenville, Bishop said his hopes are that the stone will 'disprove Darwin’s theory. God made man. Man did not evolve from ape.'"

Ah yes, a faked fossil footprint disproving a scientific theory that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny for over 100 years. Tortured, creationist logic, how I missed you.

Another creationist the article digs up (no pun intended) to vouch for the specimen's authenticity is David Lines, a technical writer for Texas Instruments in Dallas. Lines photographed the rock for Baugh's website, creationevidence.org.

"'When I saw this, I said this is too good to be true,' said Lines. 'If someone found a way to fake that, they could also get a patent for concrete that would far surpass anything.'"

So, it's clear now that the chunk of rock in question must be a fake. Still have doubts? Think about this: why did Delk wait eight years to even closely examine this thing? He said himself he had never found any dinosaur track that he had been able to take home. That suggests that this footprint would have been the only one in his collection. You'd think even a 72-year-old who prides himself on being an amateur archaeologist would find some time to examine such a rare find, especially in a time span of eight freakin' years!

So the question would be: why wait until now? I think it may have a little to do with the recent renewal of talks in the Texas State Board of Education about the "weaknesses" in evolution. To further support this hypothesis, I present to you the final quote attributed to Baugh:

“I don’t think it is going to displace the theory of evolution,” said Baugh. “My hope is that the scientific concepts of archeology and paleontology will be used under the guidelines of the Texas schoolbook committee. Any evidence supporting that should be presented, and hopefully this particular fossil will be presented, for the students to be able to see that there is evidence supporting an alternative concept as opposed to just evolution.”

But, I leave to final decision up to my readers. Either a fossil footprint was found that will turn all the science behind the theory of evolution on its head, or it is a forgery perpetrated by at least two men who would have their twisted dogma taught to school children as fact.

Family of Woman Affected By "Exorcism" Determined to Take the Case to Supreme Court

It seems religiously-motivated idiocy is not that hard to come by in Texas. An article in the Star-Telegram of Fort Worth, TX tells the story of a woman who was physically abused at the age of 17 by members of her church under the auspices of an exorcism. Laura Schubert Pearson, then Laura Schubert, was repeatedly pinned to the floor of her church by people she called friends in a two-day long incident in June of 1996. From the article:

"Repeatedly, over two days, the youth pastor, his wife and others held the girl down on the floor of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church in Colleyville, even as Pearson screamed, fought and begged to be released."

The physical restrained imposed upon Pearson, now 29, left her with bruises and carpet burns. But it was the emotional trauma that would prove to be the most damaging to Pearson.

"After the exorcism, she dropped out of high school her senior year, began to cut herself as many as 100 times over several years, and refused to leave the house. Pearson slit her wrists with a box cutter."

The case was dismissed June 27 by the Texas Supreme court in a majority decision claiming the courts could not get involved in a debate over religious doctrine. Understandably, Pearson's parents, Judy and Tom Schubert, see things a little differently.

"As the parents see it, Pleasant Glade members abused their daughter in the same way a husband or a boyfriend abuses a wife or a girlfriend — and all under the guise of serving the Lord. They are willing to go to the U.S. Supreme Court in their fight against a church they once loved"

Representatives for the church seemed to have little more than ad hominem attacks to offer in response to Pearson's allegations.

"David Pruessner, the church’s attorney, has repeatedly described Pearson as an out-of-control, attention-seeking teenager who he once said 'breathes in attention the same way we breathe in air.'"

Pruessner claims Pearson already suffered from psychological problems caused by witnessing acts of brutality during her family's 1992 missionary trip in Africa. The attorney cites a preexisting condition as if that makes what Pearson's fellow church members did to her acceptable. If her psychological condition was known beforehand, why was the "exorcism" even attempted?

The talk of demons in Pearson's church started when on June 7, a teenager helping set up for a church youth group yard sale claimed to see a demon in the darkened church building around midnight.

Pearson had been there helping the church group and working at her part-time job when Ron Linzay, the youth pastor, urged everyone to exorcism the alleged demon with holy water sprinkled around the sanctuary. The "cleansing" continued until early in the morning. After Pearson went home, she was unable to sleep. When she had returned to the church on Sunday evening, she had been up for 72 hours.

"It was then that people believed demons had possessed her and the first exorcism was performed. Pearson said she collapsed on the floor out of exhaustion. During the trial, doctors suggested she was hypoglycemic. She clenched her fists, gritted her teeth, made guttural sounds, cried and yelled."

"'I was moving my head back and forth, and I hear people saying things are wrong with me and the youth pastor’s wife saying it was the demons,' Pearson said. They held her down, but after the thrashing stopped, Pearson was allowed to get up after saying the name Jesus."

Pearson returned to the church on Wednesday of that week. After hearing a sermon about "putting on the whole armor of God to fight off the devil," she retired to a corner of the church, curled up in a fetal position and prayed.

"When another youth asked to pray for her, Pearson refused. Eventually, she was held spread-eagle on the floor. She fought those holding her and asked to be let go. They said 'it was the devil talking,' Pearson said.

"The Rev. Lloyd McCutchen, leader of Pearson's church, then entered the room. He tried to calm Pearson and told her to 'just say the word Jesus' Eventually, he called Pearson’s parents, who came and took their 'dazed' daughter home. Later they saw the bruises and carpet burns. Soon she began having nightmares about hands and faces coming out of her bedroom walls to grab her."

Pearson's senior year of high school proved to be even more difficult. After a severe anxiety attack that allowed her to attend school for only one day, she attempted to take her own life through cutting her wrists and later overdosing on her medications.

Pearson, now married with two children, (her first marriage ended in divorce), works in her new home near Atlanta, GA with children from broken homes who have been in abusive relationships. She has an associate degree in criminal justice and is working toward a degree in social work.

"'I wanted to understand why good people do bad things or why bad things happen to good people,' Pearson said. 'I had a lot of questions I needed legitimate, honest answers to.'"

I hope the case of Pearson and her parents makes it to the Supreme Court. The issue here is not simply a state supreme court being constitutionally unable to deal with matters of religious doctrine. When that doctrine endangers the lives of anyone, especially young people, those affected need to be able to rely on their government. Religious zealots abusing a 17-year-old girl under the guise of exorcising imaginary demons should not go unpunished. Perhaps no one summed up the situation better than Pearson herself:

"You can’t use your religious beliefs to get away with harming a child."

Texas State Board of Education Starts Hearings On Evolution

According to a recent editorial in The Austin Chronicle, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has begun hearings to decide whether or not Texas public school curricula should include material balancing the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. SBOE chairman Dr. Don McLeroy D.D.S. (that means he's a dentist) believes that there is not enough evidence to support evolution. The self-proclaimed creationist is quoted in the editorial:

"this year's 'battle is to bring in some of the weaknesses of evolution,"'to ninth- and 10th-grade biology classrooms, retaining language requiring that teachers instruct students in the 'strengths and weaknesses' of scientific theories."

While McLeroy speaks of "scientific theories" in the plural, Dan Quinn, communication director for the Texas Freedom Network, a statewide organization that works to mitigate the influence of fundamentalism on state policy, claims the only theory of which McLeroy and the six other conservative members of the Texas SBOE remain unconvinced is evolution.

McLeroy claims there are three major weaknesses of evolutionary theory about which Texas students should be taught: "gaps" in the fossil record, there not being enough time for evolution to happen and the complexity of life. The author of the editorial Andrea Grimes asked University of Texas integrative biology professor David Hillis, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, about McLeroy's list of "weaknesses." His response was as follows:

"Hillis said McLeroy was simply denying facts. 'There is indeed a vast record of transitional fossils,' wrote Hillis, saying McLeroy's fossil record claims are 'completely at odds with the experts in the entire field of paleontology.'"

As for McLeroy's second assertion regarding length of time required for evolution to have taken place, Hillis wrote that the position 'demonstrates an extraordinary ignorance of biology,' since rates of evolution observed in laboratory tests have been 'more than sufficient' to prove natural rates of genetic change that coincide with the fossil record."

Finally, McLeroy's cell-complexity argument does not even belong in a scientific discussion, wrote Hillis: 'The argument that 'It is too complicated, so God must have done it' is not a scientific argument.'"

These three perceived "weaknesses" should sound familiar to anyone even remotely interested in the evolution/intelligent design creationism debate. I.D. proponents have been bringing up these same issues for decades.

Grimes cites the case of Chris Comer I wrote about here as evidence that anti-science conservatives have more than enough power to affect Texas SBOE policy. Grimes comments on the effect the anti-evolution school board could have on education in Texas:

"It's worth noting that part of the TEA and SBOE's duty statement includes a goal to "prepare today's schoolchildren for a successful future." If the weak-evolution curricula passes, Texas schoolchildren will be able to achieve that success in one of two ways: fly out of state for biology class and be back in time for lunch or set their sights on excelling at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University."

In addition to the detrimental effect weak-evolution curricula will have on students in Texas, there is another aspect of this issue the editorial did not mention. Since Texas is the second largest U.S. state, it is also one of the country's biggest buyer of textbooks. If the Texas SBOE purchases textbooks teaching the "weaknesses" of evolution as McLeroy understands them, the textbook manufacturer will most likely opt out of producing books for the rest of the nation different from those sold to its largest customer.

Quoting the New York Times article cited above, "The ideas that work their way into education [in Texas] will surface in classrooms throughout the country."

I really don't have any snarky, sarcastic comments about this story. Issues dealing with the education of this country's young people are too serious to joke around about. This sort of thing makes me truly ashamed to be a native-born Texan.