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.

Woman Forced to Resign Over Evolution in Texas Fights Back

I have been wanting to write about this story since it first came to my attention on July 3, but other posts which seemed more pressing at the time forced themselves to the front.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit organization that follows the evolution/intelligent design debate across the United States. Its website keeps those interested, such as myself, up to date on the actions of school boards across the country which seem to be pro-creationism/intelligent design.

The story in question started in November of 2007 when Chris Comer, director of Science at the Texas Education Agency (TEA), was forced to resign because she forwarded an e-mail to her colleagues at the TEA alerting them to a talk scheduled to be given in Austin, TX. The talk was to be given by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a member of NCSE's board of directors. The TEA cited the subject matter of the talk, the history of the intelligent design movement and Forrest's involvement in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, as a reason for Comer's requested resignation. The TEA said Comer's forwarding of the e-mail represented her endorsement of the speaker on a subject, the evolution/intelligent design debate, on which the TEA must remain neutral. Just to make that clear to everyone reading this, that's a state-run educational agency choosing to remain neutral on the subject of evolution through natural selection.

Eight months later, Comer has now, thankfully, filed suit against the TEA in Federal District Court for redress. From this NCSE article, Comer seeks:

• a declaratory judgment that the TEA policy of being "neutral" on the subject of creationism violates the Establishment Clause;
  
• a declaratory judgment that Comer's firing was unconstitutional;
  
• an offer from the TEA of reinstatement of Comer to her previous position as Director of Science;
  
• an injunction against TEA "having, expressing, or imposing through any means, a policy of 'neutrality' with respect to the teaching of creationism in the Texas public schools, or a policy that expressly or implicitly equates evolution and creationism, or that in any way credits creationism as a valid scientific theory"
  
• legal fees

It is my sincere hope that Miss Comer gets fully reinstated and once there, brings some much-needed common sense and rationality to a public agency clearly devoid of even the smallest shred of either. If this issue did not affect so many young people, it would truly be laughable. How can any member of the TEA, an elected board of 15 people, claim the agency must remain neutral on a subject as fundamental as evolution, and keep a straight face?