B5A-Creation
Graham Kendall
Modified 5/7/2008
Email grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com
I am found on IRC Efnet, Undernet, Dalnet as glk
Files found at http://www.grahamkendall.net
http://snipurl.com/yt8o    my url
http://tinyurl.com/ydjvt3   my url
All are free to use any of this material without limit.
==============================================================================
====
THE FLORIDA ACADEMIC FREEDOM ACT
If passed, the Academic Freedom Act (Senate Bill 2692/House Bill
1483) would provide fundamentalist religionists the opportunity to
incorporate Bible-based religion into public school science curricula
to be taught on equal footing with a scientific understanding of the
biological, chemical and physical nature of the universe and their
interrelationships. It is an attempt to introduce an ancient, pre-
scientific era religious book  the bible  and, at least one
scientifically discredited text  Of Pandas and People, into science
classrooms for equal consideration along with modern scientific
texts, despite the fact that the basic science in the bible is
mathematically false and the science in Pandas is inaccurate and
misrepresents evolutionary theory. The mathematical symbol Pi does
not equal three as calculated in First Kings, 7: 23-24 and Second
Chronicles 4: 2-3. If such a travesty were to become law, the
consequences will be dire since it could impair students' critical
thinking skills and their ability to differentiate scientific from
non-scientific information, thus negatively impacting their chances
for success in the 21st century workplace.
Florida's Legislature is aware that national and state political and
economic survival depends on the ability of our scientists and
engineers to compete in a scientifically and technologically oriented
world by continuously developing new knowledge which can be
translated into technological growth. That is why Florida and Palm
Beach County spent time and money recruiting Scripps Institute as a
base around which to build a biotechnology industry.
The intellectual and creative minds required for such activities
depend on the early inculcation and cultivation of accurately
represented scientific knowledge in our public school classrooms. The
integrated knowledge gained from the biological, geological, and
cosmological sciences provides the best explanation( s) for the
history of the planet and the diversity of life found thereon.
Although scientists continue to engage in research on all aspects of
evolution and their myriad ramifications, there is near universal
agreement that evolution is a fact. Evolution is every bit a fact as
is gravity. Dozhansky stated, over 50 years ago: "Nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution." Unlike the Biblically
based science of Creationism or Intelligent design, the core elements
of evolution, as presented in textbooks today, have been repeatedly
tested and verified by scientists throughout the world.
Florida legislators should be proud that they passed new science
standards. These standards, if implemented properly, make Florida a
paradigm of what enlightened legislators should be doing and what an
enlightened public school science curriculum should consist of.
Floridians  citizens and legislators  should not permit the
dilution of these standards by pandering to ignorance. Science is
not about beliefs: in our democratic society people are free to
believe whatever they want to believe. However, belief is not
scientific knowledge: science is about knowing and how to know.
Students should be tested on their knowledge of well-understood
concepts as embodied in the recently passed state science standards.
Legislators should insist that teachers adhere to the new standards
and ensure that students spend their valuable classroom time
learning, through classwork and homework, the best knowledge that
centuries of scientific investigation have placed before them.
Citizens and legislators should not permit precious tax dollars to be
wasted in frivolous lawsuits that are bound to occur should the
Academic Freedom Act pass. That money could be better spent on
computers, science laboratories, science equipment, and library
resources.
Eric Hoffer wrote: "We have rudiments of reverence for the human body
but we consider as nothing the rape of the human mind." There is a
forty-plus-year history of Supreme Court and lower court decisions in
which it was pointed out time and again that Creationism is religion,
not science. In the latest case, Kitzmiller v Dover..., Intelligent
Design was shown to be biblically based and false. Intelligent Design
has no place in public school science curricula.
The time has come for the Florida legislators to protect Florida's
present and future: they must stop all attempts at deceiving the
minds of Florida's youth and to prevent unnecessary drainage of hard
earned tax dollars for lawyers. The Academic Freedom Act must not
pass.
==
Only a name, ID, and absolutely no theory whatsoever.
is amply presented by Behe and Dembski and No theory here, either.
Ah, the logic that lies in argument from incredulity. I can't see how
that could happen so it didn't. In the case of the bacterial flagellum,
Behe demonstrated at the Dover trial that he had made no real effort to
determine how a flagellum might evolve. He didn't want an explanation.
He just wanted to say it couldn't happen. According to a review of
his new book, Behe has backed off irreducible complexity completely.
Right. We will have a scientific theory of intelligent design when you
come up with a paper.
==
The only plans they seem to have is to intimidate teachers and confuse the
issue. 
==
Florida Senate Passes Evolution Challenge Bill
Two senators from Tampa Bay squared off on the floor of the Florida Senate
today in a fight over how evolution should be taught in public schools. Plant
City Senator Ronda Storms introduced the Evolution Academic Freedom Act, which
permits teachers to challenge the theory of evolution in science classes. This
comes months after a state panel voted to require teaching evolution in
Florida. Storms says her law would protect teachers who want to offer other
theories for mankind's existence besides evolution. Tampa Senator Arthenia
Joyner argued the law opens public school classrooms to debate on creationism,
intelligent design and God's role in mankind's existence. Joyner said that
debate belongs in church and at home, not in Florida's public schools.The bill
passed 21-17 and now goes to the House. That chamber is considering a version
of the bill that would not just permit, but require teachers to present
"critical analysis" of the theory of evolution. The Senate rejected that
version of the bill.
==
Excerpt from:
http://static. cbslocal. com/station/ ktvt/docs/ 2008/April/ creation. pdf

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Media Advisory
Austin, April 23, 2008

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's Academic Excellence
and Research (AER) Committee today voted to recommend to the full
Board that a proposal for a certificate of authority to offer a Master
of Science degree in Science Education by the Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) Graduate School not be approved. The Committee's
decision was based on a recommendation by Texas Commissioner of Higher
Education, Dr. Raymund Paredes.

Commissioner Paredes based the recommendation on two considerations:
1) that ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program
meets acceptable standards of science and science education; and 2)
that the proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules
which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs.
Standard 12, Chapter 7 of Board rules requires that proposed programs
"shall adequately cover the breadth of knowledge of the discipline
taught" and that "degree level, degree designation, and designation of
the major course of study should be appropriate to the curriculum
offered." Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key
areas of science, it cannot be properly designated either as "science"
or "science education."

In his recommendation, Commissioner Paredes stressed that he was "not
questioning the validity of religious belief as a means of
comprehending the world and universe around us." However, he further
stated that "Religious belief is not science. Science and religious
belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing."

The full Board is scheduled to vote on the recommendation of the AER
Committee at the April 24, 2008 Board meeting. If the proposal is not
approved, the ICR will have 45 days to file an appeal or 180 days to
reapply for another certificate of authority.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Commissioner' s Recommendation on the Request by the
Institute for Creation Research for a Certificate of Authority
to Offer a Master of Science Degree in Science Education

Dr. Raymund A. Paredes, Texas Commissioner of Higher Education

April 23, 2004

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) Graduate School first
contacted Coordinating Board (CB) staff in July, 2005 to gather
information regarding the application process for a Certificate of
Authority (COA) to offer degree programs. Two years later, ICR
formally submitted a request for a COA to offer an on-line Master of
Science degree in Science Education. CB staff soon thereafter began
the review process which typically includes the following: preliminary
staff evaluation of the proposal; a site visit to the applying
institution by CB staff and subject-matter experts; preparation of a
draft assessment of the proposed program; response to draft assessment
by the proposing institution; review of both the staff assessment and
the institutional response by the Certification Advisory Council
(CAC); and preparation of a final recommendation on approval by CB
staff based on the preceding steps. The CAC recommendation then comes
to me. I have three options: I can accept the recommendation and carry
it to the Coordinating Board for formal action; I can reject the
recommendation and make another to the Board; or I can send it back to
the staff for further review. It is not unprecedented for me to
exercise either option two or three: indeed, in the last several weeks
I rejected a staff recommendation on a doctoral program proposal.

I first learned of the ICR proposal after the CAC had voted to support
the staff recommendation that the ICR proposal be approved. It was
clear to me immediately that the review process had been flawed. The
site visit team had included no experts in science education; one such
expert had cancelled her participation at the last minute and the
decision was made to proceed with the site visit anyway. Furthermore,
the site visit team members were instructed to focus on questions of
process and infrastructure and to disregard the academic focus of the
proposed program. In its review, the CAC followed a similar tack and
recommended provisional approval of the proposed program pending the
correction of certain problems related to such issues as institutional
governance and library resources. It seemed clear to me upon reading
the various evaluation documents that the central issue of whether the
proposed program met appropriate standards of science education had
been insufficiently addressed. As a result, I directed staff to
conduct a fresh review.

I believe that the second-stage review was thorough and balanced. On
January 7, 2008, we brought in a group of nine scientists and science
educators to review the ICR proposal. They examined proposed admission
standards, course prerequisites for the proposed program, syllabi and
textbooks for the proposed ICR courses, and the mission statement of
ICR. On January 10, 2008, we met with representatives of ICR to
address questions raised earlier by the group of scientists and
science educators. Shortly after the January 10 meeting, ICR
representatives requested until March 26 to submit responses to the
questions raised and also asked that their request for a certificate
of authority be deferred until the April 24 CB meeting. ICR submitted
an updated file for review by the requested deadline. CB staff in turn
reconvened a group of science educators on April 7 to review the new
materials. I have now received a staff recommendation, with which I
concur. I recommend to members of the Coordinating Board that the
proposal by the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School to
receive a certificate of authority to offer a Master of Science
program in Science Education not be approved.

My recommendation to the Board is based on two considerations, the
first of which is that ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed
program meets acceptable standards of science and science education.
As indicated in a faculty job announcement, ICR requires that
applicants "be committed to young earth creation science and the
Bible;" in its current general catalog, ICR states that its mission
"is to study, teach and communicate the works of God's creation." Also
in the catalog appears this statement: "All things in the universe
were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation
Week described in Genesis...and confirmed in Exodus....The creation
record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of
origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false."
ICR's catalog also states "The phenomenon of biological life did not
develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially
and supernaturally created by the creator." This statement runs
counter to the conventions of science which hold that claims of
supernatural intervention are not testable and, therefore, outside the
realm of science.

A primary educational goal of Texas and the country as a whole is to
increase significantly the number of high school graduates who have
mastered basic science and are prepared to pursue careers in science
in our colleges and universities. The submitted ICR documents simply
do not provide persuasive evidence that the proposed program will move
us towards this goal. In Thousands... not Billions, a text used in ICR
courses and submitted by ICR for review, the author Don DeYoung
writes: "One principle agreed on... is that the earth is young, on the
order of 6000 years old. This is not a working hypothesis to be tested
as to whether it is true of false. Instead, it is a basic conclusion
drawn from the biblical record of creation as written by the only One
who was present, God himself." At another point, DeYoung writes: "It
is clear that the One who created all things can alter physical
constants and laws at His will. In fact, most biblical miracles
require a temporary suspension of basic natural laws." Whatever the
ultimate merit of such views, they clearly stand at odds with the most
basic tenets of scientific work such as observation, testing and analysis.

Furthermore, the proposed ICR program is inconsistent not only with
the conventions of science but with Coordinating Board rules. For
example, Standard 12, Chapter 7 of Board rules requires that proposed
programs "shall adequately cover the breadth of knowledge of the
discipline taught" and that "degree level, degree designation, and the
designation of the major course of study should be appropriate to the
curriculum offered...." As our consultants on science education
emphasized, the proposed ICR program, in insisting on a literal
interpretation of biblical creation, gives insufficient coverage to
conventional science and does not "adequately prepare students in the
field of science education." Program reviewers also noted the inherent
difficulty of providing adequate training in experimentation and
laboratory workhallmarks of effective science educationthrough an
on-line program. Thus, the proposed ICR program meets neither standard
cited above. The key point here is this: the proposed Master of
Science in Science Education program inadequately covers key areas of
science and their methodologies and rejects one of the foundational
theories of modern science; hence, the program cannot be properly
designated either as "science" or "science education."

In recommending against approval of the ICR program, I am not
questioning the validity of religious belief as a means of
comprehending the world and universe around us. As far as I know,
science has no answer to the question of how life on earth began or
how the Big Bang was initiated some 14 billion years ago. Believers of
many faiths might well attribute both these astonishing events to the
intervention of a great Creator. It is entirely possible that science
may never answer these fundamental questions and that, in these and
other instances, religious belief supersedes science. But religious
belief is not science. Science and religious belief are surely
reconcilable but they are not the same thing.
==
How can they be sure humans and other apes aren't all one kind?
==
"Virtually every discipline and endeavour is presently under a
naturalistic pall. To lift that pall will require a new generation of
scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and
consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the
world," 
~William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design, Downers Grove, Ilinois:
InterVarsity Press, 1999. pp. 120-121.
==
Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Paperback)
by Carl Wieland (Author) 
==
TX
Creation College to Defend Science Degrees at Upcoming Ruling
A Christian research institute, which is seeking to grant science degrees in
Texas, is asking for prayers and support as it faces the final hearing before
state education officials next week.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) will decide at its
regularly scheduled meeting next Thursday whether The Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) can grant an online master's degree in Science Education.
For the past few months, the school experienced several setbacks in getting
state approval for its program, mostly due to a heightened battle between
intelligent design and evolution playing out in the state and in Florida where
public schools were recently required to teach evolution in science classes.
The Dallas-based school has already cleared several hurdles, including an
on-site evaluation by THECB Advisory Committee and the submission of a
comparison study. Next Wednesday, ICR officials must also pass a
cross-examination hearing in Austin that will determine THECB Commissioner
Raymund Paredes's recommendation to the board.
A e-mail update sent Thursday by Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR, reported
that the April 23 hearing will also include an "unusual" half-hour session
which will be open to public comments.
Morris told The Christian Post that his contact, who has worked with THECB for
15 years, informed him that the Board never before authorized such a public
comment session.
Nevertheless, he said he was "confident" that the school's graduate program
meets all the state standards for private higher education in Texas.
"We think we have everything in order and then some," said Morris, who will be
among the ICR representatives participating in the hearing.
In his e-mail, which concluded with an endorsement of the film "Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed," the ICR CEO invited nearby supporters, particularly
educators who taught science or higher education in Texas, to consider signing
up for one of the 10 slots for public comment. He also appealed to supporters
to pray for an orderly and fair hearing.
The science degree in question has been offered by ICR, which teaches from a
literal biblical worldview, in California since 1981. The program has four
concentrations: Astro-Geophysics, Biology, Geology and General Science,
according to the institute's Web site.
Critics of the ICR program have mainly questioned the science label of the
degree.
Eugenie Scott, executive director of National Center for Science Education,
alleged the institute taught "distorted science," the Dallas Morning News
reported earlier.
Despite such criticism, Morris said the school will seek state approval for a
science degree.
"We have been told second-hand, through our contact, that their objection is
that we are using the word 'science.' If we would just drop the word science,"
the approval would go through, said Morris.
He argued that students exercise critical thinking skills when they are taught
how to compare an evolutionary mindset to a creationist mindset.
"How can you be a critical thinker if you don't know what the other side is?"
he asked. "We think it makes a better student."
After Wednesday's hearing, the Advisory Committee is expected to issue a
formal recommendation to Paredes who will in turn present his own take on the
ICR graduate program to the full Board on Thursday. The Board will then rule
on whether to approve the school's science degree offering.
The ICR has the option to appeal within 45 days and/or to reapply within 180
days if the Board rejects the application. In the case of approval, ICR will
begin its effort to obtain accreditation from the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools.
==
OK
HB 2200, by Kern, creates the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act,
directing a school district to treat the voluntary expression by a student of
a religious viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner
the district treats the expression by a student of a secular viewpoint. The
bill requires each school district to adopt a policy on voluntary student
expression of religious viewpoints, which must include the establishment of a
limited public forum for student speakers at all school events at which a
student is to publicly speak. The measure also permits students to express
their religious beliefs in homework, artwork and other written and oral
assignments free from discrimination based on the religious contents of their
submissions. The bill also permits students to organize prayer groups or
religious clubs before, during or after school to the same extent students are
permitted to organize other noncurricular student groups. The bill also creates
the Model Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Policy as a policy for school
districts to adopt; and
HB 2211, by Kern and Williamson, creates the Religious Viewpoints
Antidiscrimination Act, directing a school district to treat the voluntary
expression by a student of a religious viewpoint the same as it treats a
secular expression on an otherwise permissible subject and may not
discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint. The bill
directs school districts to adopt a policy, which shall include the
establishment of a limited public forum for student speakers at all school
events at which a student is to publicly speak. The measure contains a Model
Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Policy. The bill also authorizes
students to express their religious beliefs in homework, artwork or other
written and oral assignments. It allows students to organize prayer groups,
religious clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings or other religious
gatherings before, during and after school to the same extent that students
are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups.
HB 2200 was assigned to the House Education Committee but was not heard. HB
2211 was approved by the same committee and won approval on the House floor
March 13 on a vote of 71 to 25. It subsequently was assigned to the Senate
Rules Committee where it was not heard.
"We live in a country founded on religious freedom," Williamson said in a
press release. "This legislation is a step forward in protecting the rights
our students have in expressing their religious views at school. A student or
group of students can no longer be discriminated based upon the content of
their religious expression, which is the right our forefathers gave us all."
==
"Astronomy is not theology," said Copernicus. 
==
Although many may not realize it, we are in the midst of a struggle to
preserve sound science education. A recent survey by the National Science
Teachers Association found that 30 percent of responding members had felt
pressure to omit evolution and related topics from their teaching, while 31
percent had felt pressure to include nonscientific alternatives to evolution.
It is crucial to resist such pressure, whether it comes from parents,
community groups, administrators, or school board members.
==
According to a recent Gallup Poll, 45% of Americans believe that God create
human beings in their present form at some point in the last 10,000 years. 
==
2005 Creationism Trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Kitzmiller_ v._Dover_ Area_School_ District
[link may be line-wrapped]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (12/20/2005)
http://coop. www.uscourts. gov/pamd/ kitzmiller_ 342.pdf

1987 Creationism Trial (Edwards v. Aguillard)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://supreme. justia.com/ us/482/578/ case.html

1981 Creationism Trial (McLean v. Arkansas)
McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
http://www.antievol ution.org/ projects/ mclean/new_ site/
==
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District:
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

John E. PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

High school biology teacher brought action against school district, its board
of trustees, and various personnel at high school, challenging school
district's requirement that he teach evolutionism, as well as school district
order barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students. The
United States District Court, Central District of California, David W.
Williams, J., 782 F.Supp. 1412, dismissed and awarded attorney fees to school
district. Teacher appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) teacher failed
to state claim for violation of establishment clause of First Amendment in
connection with school district's requiring him to teach evolution, i.e., that
higher life forms evolved from lower ones; (2) school district's restriction on
teacher's right of free speech in prohibiting teacher from talking with
students about religion during school day, including times when he was not
actually teaching class, was justified by school district's interest in
avoiding establishment clause violation; (3) teacher's allegations of injury
to his reputation as result of allegedly defamatory statements made to and
about him were insufficient to support claim for deprivation of liberty
interest under  1983; but (4) teacher's complaint was not entirely frivolous,
precluding award of costs and attorney fees under Rule 11 and  1988.

John E. Peloza is a high school biology teacher. He sued the Capistrano
Unified School District and various individuals connected with the school
district under 42 U.S.C.  1983. He alleges in his complaint that the school
district requires him to teach "evolutionism" and that evolutionism is a
religious belief system. He alleges this requirement violates his rights under
the (1) Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; (2) Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment; (3) Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(4) Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(1)

He also alleges the defendants conspired to violate these constitutional
rights and attempted by harassment and intimidation to force him to teach
evolutionism. He alleges they did this because they have a class-based animus
against practicing Christians, a class of which he is a member, in violation
of 42 U.S.C.  1985(3).

He also alleges state law claims for violation of California's Tom Bane Civil
Rights Act, Cal.Civ.Code  52.1 (which provides a cause of action for
interference with an individual's enjoyment of rights secured by the United
States or California Constitution or by federal or state law), and for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court then
dismissed the state claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court also determined
that the action was frivolous. Relying on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 18 U.S.C.  1988, the court ordered Peloza and his attorney to pay
approximately $32,000 to the defendants for their attorney fees and costs.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

The following summarizes the allegations of Peloza's complaint:

Peloza is a biology teacher in a public high school, and is employed by the
Capistrano Unified School District. He is being forced by the defendants (the
school district, its trustees and individual teachers and others) to
proselytize his students to a belief in "evolutionism" "under the guise of
[its being] a valid scientific theory." Evolutionism is an historical,
philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory.
Evolutionism is one of "two world views on the subject of the origins of life
and of the universe." The other is "creationism" which also is a "religious
belief system." "The belief system of evolutionism is based on the assumption
that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator
involved in the process. The world view and belief system of creationism is
based on the assumption that a Creator created all life and the entire
universe." Peloza does not wish "to promote either philosophy or belief system
in teaching his biology class." "The general acceptance of ... evolutionism in
academic circles does not qualify it or validate it as a scientific theory."
Peloza believes that the defendants seek to dismiss him due to his refusal to
teach evolutionism. His first amendment rights have been abridged by
interference with his right "to teach his students to differentiate between a
philosophical, religious belief system on the one hand and a true scientific
theory on the other."

Peloza further alleges he has been forbidden to discuss religious matters with
students the entire time that he is on the school campus even if a conversation
is initiated by a student and the discussion is outside of class time.

He also alleges that the defendants have conspired to destroy and damage his
professional reputation, career and position as a public school teacher. He
has been reprimanded in writing for proselytizing students and teaching
religion in the classroom. His inquiries as to whether he is being required to
teach evolution as "fact" or "as the only valid scientific theory" have not
been answered directly. He has not taught creationism in his classroom. He has
been wrongly accused in the school newspaper and in the public press of
teaching religion in his science class. He has been harassed by the defendant
teachers and has received a formal written reprimand from defendant Thomas R.
Anthony, the school principal, wrongly accusing him of proselytizing his
students and teaching religion in the classroom, directing him to teach
evolution as the only valid scientific theory, and forbidding him from
teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory. Anthony further directed
him not to discuss religion or attempt to convert students to Christianity
while on campus. He has been criticized in a petition signed by faculty
members for threatening litigation over the rights of faculty members to speak
fully to the news media and each other.


Peloza's complaint alleges that the school district has violated the
Establishment Clause "by pressuring and requiring him to teach evolutionism, a
religious belief system, as a valid scientific theory." Complaint at 19-20.
Evolutionism, according to Peloza, "postulates that the 'higher' life forms
... evolved from the 'lower' life forms ... and that life itself 'evolved'
from non-living matter." Id. at 2. It is therefore "based on the assumption
that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator
involved in the process." Id. at 1. Peloza claims that evolutionism is not a
valid scientific theory because it is based on events which "occurred in the
non-observable and non-recreatable past and hence are not subject to
scientific observation." Id. at 3. Finally, in his appellate brief he alleges
that the school district is requiring him to teach evolutionism not just as a
theory, but rather as a fact.

[2] Peloza's complaint is not entirely consistent. In some places he seems to
advance the patently frivolous claim that it is unconstitutional for the
school district to require him to teach, as a valid scientific theory, that
higher life forms evolved from lower ones. At other times he claims the
district is forcing him to teach evolution as fact. Although possibly dogmatic
or even wrong, such a requirement would not transgress the establishment clause
if "evolution" simply means that higher life forms evolved from lower ones.

Peloza uses the words "evolution" and "evolutionism" interchangeably in the
complaint. This is not wrong or imprecise for, indeed, they are synonyms.(3)
Adding "ism" does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose
"evolution" into a religion. "Evolution" and "evolutionism" define a
biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has
nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with
whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the
universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme).

[3] On a motion to dismiss we are required to read the complaint charitably,
to take all well-pleaded facts as true, and to assume that all general
allegations embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support
them. Lujan V. Nat'l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177,
3189, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Abmmson V. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th
Cir.1990). Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the
school district's actions establish a state-supported religion of
evolutionism, or more generally of "secular humanism." See Complaint at 24,
20. According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two
religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of the universe:"
evolutionism, or creationism. Id. at 2. Thus, the school district, in teaching
evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported "religion."

We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has
ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for
Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of
religion(4) and the clear weight of the case law(5) are to the contrary. The
Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator
of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms
of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards V. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578,
107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under
Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-science and
Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act").

Peloza would have us accept his definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism"
and impose his definition on the school district as its own, a definition that
cannot be found in the dictionary, in the Supreme Court cases, or anywhere in
the common understanding of the words. Only if we define "evolution" and
"evolutionism" as does Peloza as a concept that embraces the belief that the
universe came into existence without a Creator might he make out a claim. This
we need not do. To say red is green or black is white does not make it so. Nor
need we for the purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition of
"evolution." Nowhere does Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests
that the school district accepts anything other than the common definition of
"evolution" and "evolutionism." It simply required him as a biology teacher in
the public schools of California to teach "evolution." Peloza nowhere says it
required more.

The district court dismissed his claim, stating:

Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to
teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution
is a scientific theory based on the gathering and studying of data, and
modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used
as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and
become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory
to a more accurate explanation of life's origins. Plaintiffs assertions that
the teaching of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause is
unfounded.
Id. at 12-13. We agree.

B. Free Speech

[4] Peloza alleges the school district ordered him to refrain from discussing
his religious beliefs with students during "instructional time," and to tell
any students who attempted to initiate such conversations with him to consult
their parents or clergy. He claims the school district, in the following
official reprimand, defined "instructional time" as any time the students are
on campus, including lunch break and the time before, between, and after
classes:

You are hereby directed to refrain from any attempt to convert students to
Christianity or initiating conversations about your religious beliefs during
instructional time, which the District believes includes any time students are
required to be on campus as well as the time students immediately arrive for
the purposes of attending school for instruction, lunch time, and the time
immediately prior to students' departure after the instructional day.

Complaint at 16. Peloza seeks a declaration that this definition of
instructional time is too broad, and that he should be allowed to participate
in student-initiated discussions of religious matters when he is not actually
teaching class.(6)

The school district's restriction on Peloza's ability to talk with students
about religion during the school day is a restriction on his right of free
speech. Nevertheless, "the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for
allowing the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials,
consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and
control conduct in the schools

While at the high school, whether he is in the classroom or outside of it
during contract time, Peloza is not just any ordinary citizen. He is a
teacher. He is one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in
the high school's classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts
knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable
because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his
views with those of the school is substantial. To permit him to discuss his
religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would
violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such speech would not
have a secular purpose, would have the primary effect of advancing religion,
and would entangle the school with religion. In sum, it would flunk all three
parts of the test articulated in Lemon V. Kurtzman,-403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct.
21O5, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Roberts V. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1O56-58
(loth Cir.1990) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent
reading period, and from stocking two books on Christianity on shelves,
because these things could leave students with the impression that
Christianity was officially sanctioned), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 112 S.Ct.
3025,120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992).

C. Due Process

[5] Peloza alleges that some of the defendants made defamatory statements to
and about him, and that these statements damaged his reputation. He alleges
this was state action which violated his right to due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court did not err in dismissing the part of Peloza's section 1983
claim which was predicated on an alleged violation of his right to due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. The Section 1985(3) Claim

In support of his claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), Peloza alleges in his
complaint that the defendants conspired to deprive him of equal protection of
the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; free speech under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments; life, liberty or property without due process of law
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and the free exercise of his
religious beliefs under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, he
alleges the defendants violated his rights under the Establishment Clause of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He alleges that the defendants engaged in
this conspiracy pursuant to their class-based animus against practicing
Christians.(7)

Because Peloza failed to allege a conspiracy to do something that would
violate his free speech or due process rights, or his rights under the
Establishment Clause, his section 1985(3) claim predicated on a violation of
these rights falls. We do not decide whether free speech, due process rights,
or Establishment Clause rights, fall within the protection of section
1985(3).(8)

Schoolteacher John Peloza seeks a declaratory judgment permitting him to
"respond to student-initiated inquiries ... regarding religion" during
contract time. The majority opinion concludes that if Peloza's discussions
would constitute an establishment of religion, the District may permissibly
limit those discussions, even though such limitations restrict Peloza's free
speech. With this I have no quarrel. But the majority's premise is that any
discussions Peloza might have do constitute such an establishment, and I am
unpersuaded that we may reach such a conclusion in the case's present posture.

This is an appeal from the granting of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. As such, we are
not permitted to affirm dismissal of the complaint "unless it appears beyond
doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief." Love V. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th
Cir.1989). At this stage, we know almost nothing about what past or future
discussions might involve. I can imagine a wide range of circumstances and
questions "regarding religion" which Peloza could permissibly answer without
violating the Establishment Clause. For example, a student might come to a
teacher during lunch and ask about Malcolm X or Martin Luther King's religious
beliefs, and how and why they evolved, or about the origins of Islam, or what
the seven great religions of the world were. Such questions would certainly be
"regarding religion," student-initiated, and during contract time. As such,
they fall within the class of discussions Peloza seeks to be permitted, yet it
is hard to see how the descriptive role a teacher would have in responding to
these questions would work any violation of the Establishment Clause.

The majority holding only makes sense if we presume that we know what kinds of
questions are being asked and what kinds of answers Peloza would give. In the
posture of this case, where we must reverse if there are any facts Peloza
could conceivably prove which would entitle him to relief, this is a
presumption we are forbidden from making. As a result, the majority holding
means that any response to a student-initiated inquiry "regarding religion"
during contract time, other than "Ask someone else," works a violation of the
Establishment Clause. I cannot join in such a broad legal holding, and indeed
the case law forbids it:


Roberts V. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir.1990), upon which the majority
relies, is not to the contrary. There, the court had before it a host of
particulars: the conduct at issue involved a teacher displaying religious
books and a poster reading "You have only to open your eyes to see the hand of
God" in the classroom. Id. at 1049. That court also had the benefit of a
district court factual determination that the conduct "created the appearance
that [the teacher] was seeking to advance his religious views." Id. As this
case stands, we know far less.

The majority impermissibly attempts to narrow the scope of Peloza's complaint
by relying on a written warning from the school district which Peloza has
incorporated into the complaint. The letter forbids Peloza from "attempt[ing]
to convert students to Christianity or initiating conversations about your
religious beliefs." Complaint at  45. Were this all that the complaint said, I
would have little trouble joining the majority. But the complaint alleges more;
it contends that "the school district ... has directed Plaintiff not to discuss
any religious matters during any of this 'instructional time,' including
student-initiated conversations regarding religion during lunch, class breaks,
and before and after school hours." Complaint at  3. This allegation we must
take as true. If all that lies behind it is the far narrower warning the
majority cites, then Peloza's case will not be long for this world. But we may
not presume that this is so.

I believe that, in a broad range of cases, the majority and I could agree
about what would or would not constitute a violation of the Establishment
Clause. But the majority errs in presuming to know that what is at stake here
is Peloza's right to "discuss his religious beliefs" with students. In doing
so, it ignores the fact that this is a Rule 12(b)(6) case. More generally, it
gives short shrift to the possibility that we may well be limiting free speech
more broadly than the state's compelling interest in avoiding an establishment
of religion would warrant.
==
Creationist College Advances in Texas

Texas is fast becoming a key state not only in debates over evolution but over
what kind of government scrutiny is important and legitimate when reviewing
colleges with particular ideologies.
On Friday, an advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board recommended that the state allow the Institute for Creation Research to
start offering online masters degrees in science education. The institute,
which has been based in California, where it operates a museum and many
programs for people who dont believe in evolution, is relocating to Dallas,
where it hopes to expand its online education offerings.
In Texas, the institute needs either regional accreditation (for which is
applying, but which will take some time) or state approval to offer degrees.
Some science groups are aghast by the idea that Texas would authorize masters
degrees in science education that are based on complete opposition to
evolution and literal acceptance of the Bible. And these groups are
particularly concerned because the students in these programs would be people
who are or want to be school teachers.
Complicating matters, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will be
taking up the issue in the wake of an August ruling by the Texas Supreme Court
questioning the grounds on which the board had evaluated seminaries and warning
the board not to impose secular values on seminaries. The ruling was seen at
the time as making it harder for the state to deny licenses to religious
institutions.
Raymund A. Paredes, commissioner of higher education for Texas, stressed in an
interview Sunday that the advisory panels vote was just that: advisory. But he
noted that the boards decision next month would be sensitive and said he would
be asking the boards general counsel to study the impact of the August Supreme
Court decision on the issue.
Officials of the Institute for Creation Research could not be reached for
comment, but there is extensive information about the institutes programs on
its Web site. The list of courses required for the master of science education
includes a number that are fairly standard ("Advanced Educational Psychology
and Instructional Design, for example), but also some that are not.
Advanced Studies in Creationism features this description: Scientific study of
the creationist and evolutionist cosmologies; origin and history of the
universe, of the solar systems, of life, of the various forms of life, and of
man and his cultures. Critical analysis of both creation and evolutionary
theory using data from paleontology, astronomy, biochemistry, genetics,
thermodynamics, statistics, and other sciences. Study of geologic principles
and earth history in the light of Creation and the Flood; scientific
comparative studies of recent creation; application of principles of Biblical
creationism in various fields.
That language, and other comments made by institute officials, suggest that
students would be exposed to the science of evolution. But other material on
the institutes Web site suggests that one could not teach or study at the
institute while accepting the overwhelmingly broad scientific consensus about
evolution.
The statement of faith for everyone at the institute requires support for both
scientific creationism and Biblical creationism. The former includes the belief
that humans were created in fully human form from the start and that the
universe was created perfect by the creator. The latter includes the beliefs
that the Bible is literally true and free from error of any sort, scientific
and historical as well as moral and theological. Specifically, the statement
requires belief in the literal creation of the earth in six days, that Adam
and Eve were the first humans, and in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Paredes, the commissioner of higher education, said it was way too early to
get worked up about the prospect of creationism degrees being awarded. He said
he would be making a recommendation to the coordinating board based ultimately
on what is in the best interests of college students in Texas and that since
this program would train teachers, he would take an even broader perspective
of what is best for all students.
Asked for his views on evolution, Paredes said I accept the conventions of
science and I believe evolution has a legitimate place in the teaching of
science. But he declined to say that evolution should be taught as the science.
A lot of people believe creationism is a legitimate point of view. I respect
them, Paredes said. Im an advocate of the principle that when there is a
controversy and there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the conflict,
my pedagogical principle is teach the conflict. Maybe thats a possibility here.
In taking that view, Paredes is following the lead of many successful Texas
politicians, including one in the White House, who have argued that
anti-evolution theories that have been discredited should be taught alongside
evolution.
Paredes also raised the possibility that the board might approve the program
with a name other than science education. If there isnt sufficient
conventional content, he said, maybe its a matter of locating this program in
its proper disciplinary realm. For now, Paredes stressed that no final
decisions have been made.
Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself
as a mainstream voice to counter the religious right, said he was worried that
Texas statutes may not give the coordinating board enough power to block the
awarding of creationist science education degrees.
Quinn said that the issue should not be framed around religious freedom, but
protecting students and their parents. The state is going to end up licensing
degrees as science that arent science. What makes it worse is that the degrees
are advanced degrees to teach science, he said. We dont want anybody to be
fooled that someone is getting a degree in real science when its not what
would be happening.

Science and religion
The USA already is consider by many both within and without the nation as a
wasteland of educationthe advent and push toward making faith a legitimate
science will destroy what little credibility exists in online education. To
ignore hundreds of years of scientific research and writing is tantamount to
the Flat Earth Society and places Galileo and others in the role of hacks. For
the Texas Board of Education or any accrediting agency to consider the
absurdity of a Master of Science Education in the myth of creationism is
tantamount to backsliding into the Middle Ages where emotions ruled over
reason and logic.
Theme parks already exist showing mortal beings walking beside dinosaursan
fantasy not even considered by Disney but backed by millions. If this
continues, biblical literalists can ultimate return to biblical dietary laws
forbidding the eating of shellfish, the wearing of synthetic fibers, and
devolve to the insanity of fundamentalist theocracies such as those today
expounding shariah (law, seen as deriving from the Koran, hadith, ijma , and
qiyasnot just the Koran), and ultimately TV, computers, and all science as we
know it will be erased in a manner similar to the Taliban (theological
students) tossing TVs out of the windows in Pakistan, and blowing up the
ancient Buddhas along the Silk Trail.
It is time that thinking individuals stand up against this insanity, and
demand that state boards judge on provable realities not personal beliefs.
Who would hire these graduates
Im surprised by the Chicken Little reaction from opponents of creation
science. Do you really think this degree program is going to create a deluge
of secondary teachers who denounce evolution in public school classrooms
across the nation ?
The graduates of this program will be hired by Christian schools. Putting
aside the creation science debate, this online degree program will likely
improve the overall level of education in thousands of Christian schools
across the country.

teach the controversy
The success of the Discovery Institutes persistent message of teach the
controversy is reflected in the Commissioners apparent support of this
seductive approach. Americans want to be fair and, as a result, if there is a
controversy, the reaction that it is only fair to teach both sides. However,
its not fair to teach as science, material that is not supported by evidence
and misconstrues the history and nature of the natural world. The fairness
concept was put to test in California during R. Reagans time as Governor when
there was a concerted effort to give equal time to creationism and evolution.
A group of satanists then argued for equal time as well. The use of fairness
in determining what should be included in the science curriculum gets messy!
In considering the place of creationism in the science curriculum, the first
consideration must be given to the evidence that supports its conceptual
framework. Evidence that the earth was created in 6 days and is very young is
lacking. Its not fair to teach that it is.

Not just Christian Schools
It is untrue that only Christian schools will hire these potential graduates
of science". There is already a majority unbelievably of Americans who dont
believe in evolution.
There are many public school teachers who, either lacking science degrees and
teaching science because the district cannot attract qualified applicants
often in rural or poor urban districts or science teachers who have drunk the
Kool Aid and teach the controversy despite the fact that Creationism cannot be
tested according to the scientific method.
Ray Paredes is a smooth politician, as one with any influence in Texas has to
be to survive. Whats clear is that he is slicing and dicing and very evasive
in his comments. He mentions giving them accreditation but maybe in another
discipline, not science. What is not clear is whether the Commissioners as a
whole will either fold to the Christian Taliban in Texas or stand up for
legitimacy and sanity

Absurdity
Call it a degree in religion or philosophy but you cannot call this a degree
in science. Im not an academic(barely graduating with a degree in psychology)
but my understanding of science is that it is the pursuit of understanding
that relies on a very disciplined approach to problem solving an approach
that has and is serving the betterment of mankind. To contend that certain
gaps that are unexplained by science proves the existence of a benevolent
creator, or that the Bible a book written by men 2000 years ago is the
definitive guide to life is just absurd. If we had pursued such a line of
thinking we would still be living in the dark ages. That we are even having
this debate in 2007 is a greater absurdity. What makes this course so
different than that of the Islamist radicals who believe women represent too
great a temptation to men and should be covered when in public....You may say
that it is different but it isnt really it is suggesting that our intellect is
too small to grasp the workings of universe or in the case of Islamists we
cannot be expected to control our primal urges....
Wake up Texas!

Educational Freedom
As an American citizen who has worked overseas among people with very
different world views, I find the concern over ICRs educational program to be
unnecessary. People around the world do use education to teach everything from
atheism to creationism. Many public schools outside of the USA also teach their
local religion in the classroom. What it ultimately comes down to is the right
of free citizens to teach and to study at institutions whose world view or
philosophy of education they accept. It is faulty to compare belief in a flat
earth with belief in God or creation. Technology readily verifies the earths
current situation. What happened in ancient history, on the other hand, is
based on various assumptions and on what sources of information one views as
reliable.

PISA Rankings America Tanking
Results released today from the 2006 Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) show that the average science achievement of American
15-year-olds was significantly below the OECD average, comparable to
performance in the Slovak Republic and non-OECD countries like Latvia and
Lithuania. In mathematics, students in the U.S. also performed below the
international average, comparable to non-OECD countries like Croatia and
Azerbaijan.The same holds true when examining the data for student groups. In
science, Americas best and brightest are at the middle of the pack when
compared to the top performers elsewhere, while the percentage of our students
performing at the lowest achievement levels is significantly higher than the
international average. When considering students socioeconomic status (SES),
both our high SES and low SES students perform below the international average
in science for each group, respectively.

By any other name
It sounds as if this institute is mis-named. May I recommend The Institute of
Biblical Inerrancy as an alternative? May I also suggest a course be added on
Science-Verified Miracles? I trust that somewhere among the course syllabi one
will find as a required text Jacobs most informative book entitled The Year of
Living Biblically".

Creation science college in Texas
So many times the debates over creation vs evolution appear in the light most
of the writers here cast them in: either/or. Either you are a real scientist,
and have NOT ONE QUESTION about evolutionary mechanisms (because, even in grad
school, one can be run out on a rail for asking any) or you are characterized
as an idiot. Why do non-beleivers insist that any belief, even based on tons
of personal experience of answer prayers, etc., makes one stupid?
To most thoghtful Christians, a belief without understanding is useless. And,
too often, whats really going on in evolutionary biology classes is a form of
rote memorization of what phylogenetic tree leads to what. If a student says
Well, where did the 28 enzymes needed for glycolysis come from? they are
derided
as if an ignoramous instead of encouraged to go and try to find out!
Lets try a different track-back in the 70s we used to say Question authority.
Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on International science tests is
we simply will not encourage them to question-especiallly the details of
evolutionary mechanisms. Dont throw out the theory, just start getting kids
used to saying I wonder how that happened? again instead of saying life HAD to
evolve from a chemical soup, because theres no other way it could have gotten
here. God works better for me than panspermia-and no lab experiment since the
famous 1957 work of Stanley Miller has yet succeeded in making life from
non-life. Why not encourage kids to question why that is so, instead of
demanding they accept it happened because we said so?
Dr. Tony Husemanns comments are excellent. It sounds like his approach would
stop the arguements and put discovery back into education. Discoveries happen
two opposing ideas are allowed to test the other persons positions. Nothing is
discovered when when one side says this is the answer and there will be no
discussion.

Belief vs Fact
The quotes in this story highlight several of the issues that some proponents
of creationism like the Institute deliberately seek to obscure when they argue
for the inclusion of intelligent design and other creationist viewpoints in
science classrooms.
First, they correctly identify that creationism is a belief system. The tenets
of this belief system are built on faith, not on the rigorous scrutiny and
development of the system through methods of scientific inquiry.
Second, they incorrectly insinuate that science is a belief system. Science
deals with fact rooted in the natural, observable universe, not with beliefs.
To say that one believes in science reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of
how science functions and its place in society. Science is a tool that humans
use to explore and describe the principles that govern the operation of the
natural, observable world. One can accept or reject facts as they are
determined by science, but expressing a belief or disbelief in science itself
is tantamount to expressing belief or disbelief in a hammer, lawnmower,
computer program or any other tool. It doesnt make any sense.
Finally, the quotes clearly illustrate that some actors in this movement hold
to the principle that popular opinion should determine the content of material
covered in academic disciplines. The more one thinks about this contention, the
more ludicrous it seems. The content of academic disciplines is determined by
the practitioners of the discipline in the same way that the rules of a sport
are determined by the governing body of that sport. Neither the courts nor the
court of popular opinion are ever going to define the scope of scientific
knowledge. That is for scientists alone to decide.

Creationists dont even believe their own slogans
Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on International science tests is
we simply will not encourage them to question-especiallly the details of
evolutionary mechanisms.
Dr. Husemann, what an offensive comment. My professors and research mentors
have always encouraged me to question not just evolution, but EVERYTHING. How,
exactly, do you propose to raise questioning graduate students if you dont
teach them the basic, foundational facts of evolution, physics, immunology,
whatever, when they are children?
Its funny you chose to make this particular statement, because at a recent
presentation at OU, Creationist William Dembski degraded college and graduate
students who dared to question him by proclaiming they were only speaking up
so they could suck up to their professors.
So elementary school children should be able to read and understand primary
research literature, but graduate students grilling Creationists are sucking
up?
Creationists speaking out both sides of their mouths is unattractive and
pathetic.

The proposal to offer Masters degrees in creation science is indicative of the
fact that we have become a nation of idiots. As someone pointed out the teach
the controversy approach is a ploy developed by the Discovery Institute to
push their nonsensical religious agenda. It is particularly sad that they are
targeting the children of our country. So rather than actually teach science
we have individuals like Tony Housemann suggesting that classes in
evolutionary biology taught by actual scientists are simply rote memorization
of phylogenies. This is absolute rubbish. In fact my students learn to
question anything that is not based upon emipirical evidence as well as the
important concept of falsifiability (see Karl Popper). I teach them (among
other things) that phylogenies are hypotheses of evolutionary relationships
that are based upon empirical data and also that all hypotheses are subject to
additional data collection and interpretation. In all cases they are encouraged
to disagree and discuss anything I teach them. After all science is based upon
challenging new hypotheses that are advanced in light of how well they are
supported by experimental evidence. To date there is no empirical evidence
that God even exists let alone actually created anything. If anyone has any, I
and the rest of the world are waiting. The little voice in your head or the
feeling you get when you see the sunset or read the scripture are subjective
evidence and do not count in matters of science. For thousands of years we
have begun to understand the universe in terms of natural phenomena. As we
have learned more we have banished most religious nonsense to the scrapheap of
superstition where it belongs. I agree with Garry Yeager and Tony Housemann in
that when a genuine controversy exists we should teach it but to accord
creationism, intelligent design, or so called creation science as valid
alternatives to evolution is like saying I should teach reproduction along
with the alternative- the spontaneous generation of life. I wonder if I would
be shouted down if I enrolled at the Institute for creation science and
started to question their belief in the inerrant truth of the Bible. Get with
it folks its the 21st century not the 14th.
Jim Bonacum, Assistant professor of Genetics at University of Illinois at
Springfield,

Believing in God does not mean a person is ignorant. This is my whole issue
with intellectuals". If someone doesnt agree with you, they are obviously
ignorant. I think the fact that you cant even possibly try to understand
another persons point of view shows who is truly ignorant. Are you afraid of a
paradigm shift? I think it would be great to have a creationist point of view
thrown back into the mix. Science is not the end all be all that you imply.
Its simply science.

Asking questions about evolutionary mechanisms, enzyme evolution and all the
rest is just what one does in science education, especially biology graduate
school. Contrary to Dr. Husemann, *not* asking questions would get you nowhere
in science. But giving up and saying Never mind. The Designer did it is
scientifically useless. Go forth and find evidence of a Designer doing things,
then come back and tell us about it.

Thin edge of the wedge
What it ultimately comes down to is the right of free citizens to teach and to
study at institutions whose world view or philosophy of education they accept.
Sounds great but is simply a dodge, as are the other Oh, lets just be fair to
the other side or lets question the scientific dogma comments.
Biblical fundamentalists should be and are indeed free to study and teach
whatever they want. They can and do set up their own schools and publish their
own scientific textbooks. And so it goes.
The difference here is that these so-called scientists (and their ideological
think tank colleagues) now want the state to certify their dogma as science,
even though it is in no way testable or vaguely scientific.
Having failed (so far) in Kansas and Pennsylvania, the inerrantists are
heading to Texas, where they believe they will have a better chance of getting
the thin edge of the wedge inserted into the discussion over legitmate science
education.
Teach creationism where it belongs, in a comparative religion or philosophy
class. Just dont pretend its science. Its not the other side to evolution. Its
a non-scientific, religious worldview that has no place in public science
classrooms.

Martianism
There are those interested in teaching the controversy. They believe so long
as there is a controversy, the only fair thing to do is to teach both sides
and allow the students to decide. Therefore, in addition to creationism, I
submit Martianism the belief that all Earth creatures, including humans, flew
from Mars in a wooden Ark, exactly 19,625 years and 2 days ago. Make that 15
days, allowing for leap years.There is exactly the same amount of scientific
evidence for Martianism as there is for creationism, so I respectfully request
that Martianism be included in all science courses, and that students be taught
the controversy.
Tony Husemanns argument is disingenuous. This should have nothing to do with
ones attitude, positive or negative, towards religious beliefs. Thats a matter
for comparative religion class. We are concerned about what gets taught in
science class. It actually doesnt have much to do with whether you think life
originated by Divine Providence, panspermia, or chemical reactions in a
primordial sea either. Evolution, the theory, also describes what happens
after life originates how species change and new ones arise. Creationism has
a different view. Its one thing to hold it as a belief, but not acceptable to
pass it off as content worthy of a science class.
If somebody told you that their religious beliefs dictated that steel is three
times stronger than aluminum because of Divine Providence rather than because
of its atomic and crystalline structure, and that they wanted to teach their
metallurgy class that way, would you allow it to count for a degree in
structural engineering and send the students off to build bridges?
If I were faced with that person, Id say you can believe what you want but you
better _teach_ the students the crystalline structure. And if your beliefs wont
let you teach the crystalline structure, you need to think about whether you
are qualified to teach this material. Even though you accept that steel is in
fact three times stronger than aluminum. Its not enough to teach the facts
right, you have to teach the generally accepted theory right as well.

How intelligently was I designed?
I am a reasonably religious person. I am not sure of an after-life, but I like
to keep my options open. Suppose there is. As I have grown closer to that time
when I might know for sure, I realize I have a fake hip, a few stents in my
heart, and my prostate has been zapped. Was the first me more intelligently
designed, or is this revised one better? Which one will enter heaven? (I do
believe the other location will be overcrowded with those darned atheists, so
housing will be available to me.) I just read that we are getting closer to
replacing genes that might be the cause of breast cancer, so what about all
the women who undergo this little improvement? Wait a sec, am I discussing how
our species might be evolving? Impossible, remember we were intelligently
designed. Hmm, I do have a couple of friends who resemble cro-mangens.

Disingenuous arguments
Okay, so all graduate programs encourage debate on evolutionary theory? Well,
maybe they have started to since I went to grad school, but, long before
having any creationist leanings, I recall asking about one of Fishers
arguments on the evolution of social behavior. Fisher was a kind of guru for
that field in the late 70s, and my two Ph.D. professors literally knocked over
their chairs, leaping up on the edge of our big, respectable conference table
and yelling simulataneously You mean you dont believe in the theory of
evolution!?!
It was then I discovered I had, indeed, touched on a belief system", not a
scientific argument, at all. I dont believe in gravity, was my response. I can
test it and verify it, and I dont need complex sounding thought experiments as
justification. I can actually point out the processes. Heres all I am
challenging the rest of the biological community with-what can we teach in
evolution that kids in HS, for example (15 year olds were the subject of the
PISA test) can actually test and verify for themselves? Let them try Millers
apparatus. Let them explain how the fossil record does support biological
evolution, and then dont dodge the anachronistic fossils or the fact that some
proposed ancestoral forms of birds (Microraptor) come eons AFTER their own
descendents.
And, may I submit this one for evolutionary consideration: get back to a green
version of BSCS. WHAT good comes of explaining how species come and go, if we
forget to emphasize extinction? Biologists, I suggest, were put here
(evolved?) to teach the rest of humanity what will happen to the human race if
we keep ruining the planet were on! THAT is something worth doing as
biologists, and especially as biological educators. All the rest of the
evolutionary debate, while interesting, might just ultimately prove moot-if we
die out before evolving past the need for a livable biosphere. (Oh, and as a
lefty", I hope youll indulge my obvious letter-reversals. No two letters cant
be reversed, I always say!)

Let them explain how the fossil record does support biological evolution, and
then dont dodge the anachronistic fossils or the fact that some proposed
ancestoral [sic] forms of birds (Microraptor) come eons AFTER their own
descendents.
Perhaps Dr Husemann can support the above statement, especially in the light
of the paper by Chatterjee and Templin in PNAS, which clearly discusses the
hypotheses for how Microraptor falls in the evolution of avian flight:
Chatterjee S and RJ Templin (2007). Biplane wing planform and flight
performanceof the feathered dinosaur Microraptor. PNAS 104(5): 1576-1580

Tony, graduate programs dont encourage _debate_ on evolutionary theory,
because it is too well established to debate. They ought to explain it, but
they dont have an obligation to devote lots of class time to things that are
wrong or have no explanatory power (ID being one such). The same goes for my
example about the metallurgy of steel and aluminum. Now, if you want to say
that your professors did not engage you in a polite explanation of why
evolution is well supported by the observations, maybe you have a valid
complaint. But that does not mean that you get to teach your _beliefs_ about
evolution and call it science.
Im an astrophysicist, not an evolutionary biologist. I frequently encounter
people who have misconceptions about astronomy, or even think theres some kind
of grand conspiracy to cover up that the Big Bang didnt happen. I figure I have
an obligation to try to educate them. But frankly, they are wrong and their
theories usually cant withstand even modest scrutiny. While Im happy to answer
questions, Im not going to present their views in class as an acceptable
alternative. Just because somebody believes some idea does not make it a valid
deduction about the natural world.

Not all science can be done in high school labs
Tony Husemann asks, (W)hat can we teach in evolution that kids in HS... can
actually test and verify for themselves? Coming up with such exercises is a
worthy goal, but if teaching was limited by what could be done in a high
school lab, huge chunks of science would be removed. Atomic physics, geology,
and astronomy all come to mind.

Dr. Husemann writes: Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on
International science tests is we simply will not encourage them to question.
My university did not require a statement of faith in order for me to gain
admission. I notice that your K-12 school requires a statement of faith of
both your prospective students and your prospective teachers. Your employment
application also specifically asks prospective teachers to state their
position on evolution vs. creationism before you will hire them. Interestingly
enough, so does the Institute for Creation Research.
Your words are pretty. Maybe your actions should mirror them.

Dr. Husemann tells of professors leaping up and shouting You mean you dont
believe in the theory of evolution? as evidence that he had stumbled upon a
belief system. How laughable! Imagine a student who declared that he did not
believe in gravity, or the seriality of numbers, or the heliocentric model of
the solar system. Such nonsense would induce many of us to leap up and shout
out in incredulity not because the student had offended a belief system, but
because the students own belief system had led him/her into willful ignorance
of empirical reality. The worst of it is, as the intelligent design cabal
demonstrates regularly, such people are impervious to rational argument. One
is always tempted to shout, if only in the fond hope of awakening them.
Lets make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious
historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which
it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the
writer of the theory.
No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted that even after capitalism
succumbed to Communism, society would still be imbued with the class artifacts
and cultural values of the system that preceded it. Much smarter analysts than
I have noted that the whole system of Marxism, especially its sharp attacks on
capitalists as a class, was motivated by Karl Marxs envy of the much wealthier
industrialist/capitalist members of the Marx family.
In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from
the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and
background of the writer. (In law, this theory is known as legal realism.
Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then
rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One
might call what happens with ideologies political realism. Persons make up
their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the
survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they
are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age
from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received
wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world.
This could have been rationalized as greedi.e., Europeans simply taking the
resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could
have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place
for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called
Imperialism outdoor relief for the upper classes?)
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both
sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of
Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was owned
(literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that
rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level
of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation,
the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out,
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was
neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of
nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance
with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system
that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do
not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes.
They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous historyof repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the
fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct
species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media.
Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic
life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism,
perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so
vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of
many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how
long Darwinisms life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true
Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on
university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism
will be different. Maybe it will last. But its difficult to believe it will.
Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.
Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely
last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful,
bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off
without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is
unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit
of input we can get. Lets be humble about what we know and what we dont know,
and maybe in time, some answers will come.

No One Can Teach Creationism Without Proper Training
The world of current creationism does not understand the Genesis text, and is
fragmented into various factions which teach misinformation, with doctrines
which vary from the false to the foolish. However, creationism cant be taught,
without the teachers first being trained with the facts. Otherwise they would
be teaching propaganda", and misrepresenting the Genesis text, and nothing of
value would be gained.
The world of science is mostly atheistic, which has been misled by the
falsehoods and foolishness of current creationism, and has blindly decided
upon unrealistic theories of our origins and history of life, in an attempt
to explain our beginnings and continued existence.
Yet the Word of God has always been true, even though those whom we thought
could correctly explain it, actually did not understand the text themselves.
Using correct literal interpretation, the biblical truth of Genesis reveals
far more about our ancient prehistoric past, than modernscience has ever known.
The book of Genesis does not contain any creation accounts". Chapter two tells
us about the origins of modern mankind, starting in about 7200 BC. The chapter
ends in about 7000 BC, with the addition of Eve, the helpmate for Adam.
Chapter one is the rendition of the Observations of Moses", which were six
visions given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, during a six day period in 1598 BC.
Chapter one covers a period of time that spans about 4.5 billion years, but
each 24-hr day was taken from the first week of each geologic area, in
biblical order.
The correct reading of chapter one of Genesis gives undeniable proof of the
existence of the Living God. The proof is Gods revelation to Moses, defining
seven geologic eras of the past, which Moses could not have known about on his
own. Secular science would not discover geologic time until 3000 years later.
Merely reading the first day through the seventh day has little meaning, and
has been called a constructed creation myth". However, in the Gospels, the
Lord Jesus reveals the chronological order of the days of Moses, to where
their true meaning is uncovered. Consider the following:
A. The Fourth Day of Moses, from Creation Week 1. Covers the period 4.6
Billion BC to 245 Million BCa) Depicts the creation of the (other) celestial
bodies
B. The fifth day of Moses, from Restoration Week 1 1. Covers the period 245
Million BC to 65 Million BC a) Depicts the creation of sea monsters and birds
b) Discovered life forms i. ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, pliosaurs,
plesiosaurs,and archaeopteryx
C. The sixth day of Moses, from Restoration Week 2 1. Covers the period 65
Million BC to 42 Million BC a) Depicts the creation of herbivores, large
animals, and the remaking of mankind into Gods image b) Discovered life forms
i. eohippus, indricotheriumii. mankind of the period not yet discovered
These, and the remaining eras of geologic time, are given in the book Moses
Didnt Write About Creation!", published by PublishAmerica. Starting with the
Fourth Day, the book puts the seven days in chronological order, as revealed
by the Living Word.
The secular world of science may call this a convenient coincidence". But it
is extremely difficult to explain away the fact that the Observations of Moses
follow the order of the discovered geologic record of Earth, with visions of
the ancient life forms shown to Moses, that lived during those time periods.
Herman Cummings PO Box 1745 Fortson GA,
If the religious fundamentalists are so keen on teaching the controversy in
our public schools, surely they wont mind if I demand the opportunity to teach
the controversy at their churches. Fair is fair!
The State of Texas should not be involved in religion, religious doctrine or
accrediting religious school. The Institute for Creation Research should NOT
be accredited for science education. Theyre wasting my tax money with their
accreditation applications, hearings and all the staff time that state
employees must put into processing that absurdity.
=======


Forwarded from NCSE:

The Institute for Creation Research is seeking to grant graduate degrees in
Texas. Meanwhile, Glenn Branch offers his take on the Comer controversy,
the Alliance for Science is holding its second annual essay contest, and new
content from Reports of the NCSE is available on the NCSE website.

ICR SEEKS TO GRANT DEGREES IN TEXAS

The Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth creationist organization,
has cleared the first hurdle in its quest for authorization to issue
master's degrees in science education in Texas. The Dallas Morning News
(December 15, 2007) reported, "The nonprofit Institute for Creation Research
in Dallas wants to train future science teachers in Texas and elsewhere
using an online curriculum. A state advisory group gave its approval
Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board, which will consider the request next month." According to a December
17, 2007, report by Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science, THECB
will meet on January 24, 2008, to consider the ICR's application. If
approved, the ICR will have two years to obtain accreditation for its
graduate school from an independent accreditation agency.

ICR recently moved its headquarters from the San Diego, California, area to
Dallas. In the October issue of ICR's publication Acts & Facts, its
president John Morris explained, "The possibility of moving to Dallas
surfaced when my brother, Dr. Henry Morris III, discerned that a central
location would be beneficial for ICR, with several possibilities for student
services at nearby affiliated colleges. The many good churches and large
numbers of ICR supporters living in North Texas made it a natural fit for
the ministry. When my father [Henry Morris] was still alive he approved the
move to Dallas, especially as a way to strengthen the graduate school. In
2006, ICR opened a distance education effort in Dallas, as well as the hub
of ICR's internet ministries. ... As additional operational functions were
assigned to the new Dallas office, the Board concluded that it was in ICR's
best interests to move the entire ministry."

The ICR's graduate school was previously accredited by the Transnational
Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), a group founded by
Henry Morris; Henry Morris III presently serves on its commission. Texas
does not recognize accreditation by TRACS, forcing the ICR to seek temporary
state certification while it applies for accreditation from the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). As a first step toward
certification, a committee of Texas educators visited the ICR's facilities
in Dallas to evaluate whether the ICR meets the legal requirements for state
certification. The report described the educational program as "plausible,"
adding, "The proposed degree would be generally comparable to an initial
master's degree in science education from one of the smaller, regional
universities in the state."

NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott disagreed, telling the Dallas Morning News, "It
sounds like the committee may have just taken at face value what the ICR
claims ... There's a huge gulf between what the ICR is doing and what
they're doing at legitimate institutions like ... [the University of Texas]
or Baylor." (The committee members were a librarian, an educational
administrator, and a mathematician; none was professionally trained in
biology, geology, or physics.) Inside Higher Ed reported (December 17,
2007), "Some science groups are aghast by the idea that Texas would
authorize master's degrees in science education that are based on complete
opposition to evolution and literal acceptance of the Bible. And these
groups are particularly concerned because the students in these programs
would be people who are or want to be school teachers."

Although Patricia Nason, chair of the ICR's science education department,
told the Dallas Morning News, "Our students are given both sides. They need
to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion," the ICR's
statement of faith includes the tenet, "All things in the universe were
created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week
described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation
record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins
or development which involve evolution in any form are false." Similarly,
applicants to the ICR's graduate school are explicitly told that their
answers to the essay questions on the application help to determine "your
dedication to the Lord, the Word, and teaching creation science."

According to the Dallas Morning News's article, the ICR's graduate program
"offers typical education classes, teaching such fundamentals as how to use
lab equipment, the Internet and PowerPoint in the classroom. But it also
offers a class called 'Advanced studies in creationism. ' And the course Web
page for 'Curriculum design in science' gives this scenario: 'The school
board has asked you to serve on a committee that is examining grades 6-12
science goals. ... Both evolutionist and creationist teachers serve on the
curriculum committee. How will you convince them to include creation science
as well as evolution in the new scope and sequence?'" The ICR's graduate
school's website repeatedly declares, "ICR maintains that scientific
creationism should be taught along with the scientific aspects of
evolutionism in tax-supported institutions. "

The Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, Raymund Paredes, is to study the
ICR's application and offer his opinion to THECB. He told the San Antonio
Express-News (December 19, 2007), "Because this controversy is so
potentially hot, we owe it to both sides to be absolutely fair in evaluating
it. ... Maybe the real issue here is to put this proposal in the right
category. Maybe it's not a program in science education. Maybe it's a
program in creation studies. Then we have to decide whether that is a
legitimate field or not." The New York Times (December 19, 2007) reported,
"Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr.
Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University
of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at
the University of California, said, 'I don't know. I'm not a scientist.'"

For the Dallas Morning News's article, visit:
http://www.dallasne ws.com/sharedcon tent/dws/ news/healthscien ce/stories/
12150
7dnmetcreation. 2b0d011.html

For Texas Citizens for Science's report, visit:
http://www.texscien ce.org/reviews/ icr-thecb- certification. htm

For the THECB committee's report (PDF), visit:
http://www.texscien ce.org/reviews/ ICR-Site- Visit-Report- and-ICR-Response
.pdf

For Inside Higher Ed's article, visit:
http://www.insidehi ghered.com/ news/2007/ 12/17/texas

For the San Antonio Express-News' s article, visit:
http://www.mysanant onio.com/ news/metro/ stories/MYSA1219 07.01A.Creationi
sm.29
51a43.html

For The New York Times's article, visit:
http://www.nytimes. com/2007/ 12/19/education/ 19texas.html



__._,_.___

==
The thing that strikes me the most about religious fundamentalists is their
profound LACK of any real faith or spirituality. That is precisely why they
feel so threatened by science. To them, religion is not a spiritual
experience, but set a of supposed facts. Such a view strikes me as tragically
limited and provincial.
==
The biggest problem for them is that chimps and humans
are so very close genetically. Nearly any definition
of "kind" that is larger than "species" means that
chimps and humans are the same "kind". That, of
course, cannot be allowed. So creationists simply
take the cowardly path of not providing a definition.
==
Creationists don't have to worry about that, they have one theory that
explains everything and they don't need any more than that. For them it
makes sense to hold to one theory (truth) that doesn't require thought or
the difficulty of learning facts. It is probably human nature to take the
easiest route and gladly grasp something that is simple, quick and
acceptable to those around you. Most of the creationist/ID protesters
have grasped the simple explanation of everything but cannot bring
themselves to consider alternatives that require more effort and more
learning. Facts are merely inconvenient and temporary distractions when you
know the Absolute Truth About Everything.
==
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...
living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every
day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he
doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will
send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture
and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream
until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.
==
http://www.trueorigin.org/  creationist
==
Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by
 Lee M. Spetner (Paperback - Jun 1, 1997)
==
Biblical literalists are not allowed to think about
the Bible. That's because thinking often means
asking questions. If you ask questions, you may
get an answer that disagrees with your preconceptions.
==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw  Hovind  defends creation.
===
Intelligent design is anything but scientific theory. Leading
ID proponent Dr. Michael Behe has conceded that "there are no peer
reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design
supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological
system occurred." He also agreed that that definition of "theory" as
he applied it to ID was so loose that astrology would also qualify.
===
Fundie's advice to his son.
You see son, we believe in an inerrant Bible. Anyone who has such a belief
is not supposed to actually ask questions or really even think about what we
believe that the Bible says. Nor should we consider the implications of such
things. God didn't give us brains to think about the Bible!
Instead He wants us only to provide pitiful and silly arguments against things
like evolution. For example, providing out-of-context quotes about evolution
is a part of God's purpose for us. You don't really need a brain to do that.
==
If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then the earth is the oldest 
object in the universe (Gen 1:1), snakes can talk (Gen 3:1-5), and Man 
had dominion over the dinosaurs (Gen 1:26, 28).
==
Fundie books
The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John C. Whitcomb
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Dr. Michael Denton
On Two Wings -Faith & Common Sense at the American Founding by M. Novak
Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe
Many Infallible Proofs by Dr. Henry Morris
The Privileged Planet by Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez and Dr. Jay W. Richards
America's God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations by William Federer
Rare Earth by Brownlee and Ward
Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Ph. D.
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Dr. Henry Morris
Evolution the Fossils Say No! by Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Men of Science - Men of God by Dr. Henry Morris
===
Vitter earmarked federal money for creationist group
WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill
for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian
evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.
The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for
fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a
plan to promote better science education."
The earmark appears to be the latest salvo in a decades-long battle over
science education in Louisiana, in which some Christian groups have opposed
the teaching of evolution and, more recently, have pushed to have it
prominently labeled as a theory with other alternatives presented. Educators
and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious
teachings into the classroom.
The nonprofit Louisiana Family Forum, launched in Baton Rouge in 1999 by
former state Rep. Tony Perkins, has in recent years taken the lead in
promoting "origins science," which includes the possibility of divine
intervention in the creation of the universe.
The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in
the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research,
communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a
"battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous"
concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a
reporter's inquiry.
Vitter, Forum have ties
The group's tax-exempt status prohibits the Louisiana Family Forum from
political activity, but Vitter has close ties to the group. Dan Richey, the
group's grass-roots coordinator, was paid $17,250 as a consultant in Vitter's
2004 Senate race. Records also show that Vitter's campaign employed Beryl
Amedee, the education resource council chairwoman for the Louisiana Family
Forum.
The group has been an advocate for the senator, who was elected as a strong
supporter of conservative social issues. When Vitter's use of a Washington,
D.C., call-girl service drew comparisons last month to the arrest of Sen.
Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in what an undercover officer said was a solicitation
for sex in an airport men's room, Family Forum Executive Director Gene Mills
came to Vitter's defense.
In a video clip the group posted on the Internet site YouTube, Mills said the
two senators' situations are far different. "Craig is denying the
allegations," he said. "Vitter has repented of the allegations. He sought
forgiveness, reconciliation and counseling."
Vitter's office said it is not surprising that people he employed would also
do work for Louisiana Family Forum, which shares his philosophical outlook. He
said the education earmark was meant to offer a broad array of views in the
public schools.
"This program helps supplement and support educators and school systems that
would like to offer all of the explanations in the study of controversial
science topics such as global warming and the life sciences," Vitter said in a
written statement.
The money in the earmark will pay for a report suggesting "improvements" in
science education in Louisiana, the development and distribution of
educational materials and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Ouachita
Parish School Board's 2006 policy that opened the door to biblically inspired
teachings in science classes.
"I believe it is an important program," Vitter said.
Critics said taxpayer money should not go to support a religion-based program.
"This is a misappropriation of public funds," said Charles Kincade, a civil
rights lawyer in Monroe who has been involved in church-state cases. "It's a
backdoor attempt to push a religious agenda in the public school system."
Group has history
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a Christian conservative defeated for
re-election in 2004, attempted to open the door for such money when he
inserted language into a report accompanying the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act
enabling teachers to offer "the full range of scientific views" when "topics
that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution)" are taught.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a Louisiana law that would have
required schools to teach creationist theories, which hold that God created
the universe, whenever evolution was taught. In 2002, the Louisiana Family
Forum unsuccessfully sought to persuade the state Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education to insert a five-paragraph disclaimer in all of its
science texts challenging the natural science view that life came about by
accident and has evolved through the process of natural selection.
The group notched a victory last year when the Ouachita School Board adopted a
policy that, without mentioning the Bible or creationism, gave teachers leeway
to introduce other views besides those contained in traditional science texts.
"Many of our educators feel inadequate to address the controversies," said
Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum.
Mills said that his group didn't request the money in the 2008 appropriations
bill, and that Vitter's proposal "was a bit of a surprise."
Mills said his group is not attempting to push the teaching of evolution out
of the schools, but wants to supplement it. Yet, some of the material posted
on the Louisiana Family Forum's Web site suggests a more radical view.
Among other things, a "Louisiana Family Forum Fact Sheet" at one point
included "A Battle Plan -- Practical Steps to Combat Evolution" by Kent
Hovind, a controversial evangelist who is serving a 10-year prison sentence
for tax offenses and obstruction of justice.
Hovind's paper stated, "Evolution is not a harmless theory but a dangerous
religious belief" that underpinned the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler,
Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
Looking deeper urged
"I've got so much stuff on the Web site I don't know what's there," Mills
said. "We think that in order to teach controversial topics successfully, you
have to teach both sides."
The group's "Evolution Addendum for Public Schools," also posted on the Web
site, offers a flavor of its concerns. The document rejects the evolutionary
connection between apes and humans, questions the standard explanation of
fossil formation and seeks to undercut the prevailing scientific view that
life emerged from a series of chemical reactions.
"Under ideal conditions, the odds of that many amino acids coming together in
the right order are approximately the same as winning the Power Ball Lotto
every week for the next 640 years," it states. "How could this have happened
accidentally?"
Kincade, the Monroe lawyer, said Vitter's and Louisiana Family Forum's motives
are not benign.
"What you have to do is look below the surface," said Kincade, who holds an
undergraduate degree in physics and has been active in legal cases in which
religious groups challenge science instruction. "It frames the issue in a way
that appeals to America's sense of fair play. The problem is, except for
fringe people, evolution is an accepted fact of science. It is not a hotly
contested issue. The general concept of natural selection and evolution is
settled and beyond dispute. To suggest otherwise is misleading. They are
trying to backdoor creationism."
Vitter's appropriation was contained in a database compiled by Taxpayers for
Common Sense, a nonprofit group seeking to reduce the number of earmarks in
federal legislation. Earlier this year, Congress agreed for the first time to
begin linking specially requested earmarks to the names of their sponsors.
Taxpayers for Common Sense has compiled thousands of them into searchable
databases.
Vitter said the financing request was submitted earlier this year and "was
evaluated on its merit." But Steve Ellis, of the taxpayers' group, said most
earmarks are not vetted by anyone except the member requesting it.
"Using an earmark to dictate that the Louisiana Family Forum receive the
funding to develop a science education program ironically ignores a hallmark
of scientific research, making decisions on the basis of competitive,
empirical research," Ellis said.
The appropriations bill is awaiting Senate action.
--
Most religions - including the American Jewish Congress, the General
Convention of the Episcopal Church, United Presbyterian Church, the United
Methodist Church, the World Lutheran Church, the Unitarian-Universalist
Association and the Roman Catholic Church - support evolution.
--
Because according to Wendy Cortez in her WDSU interview Wednesday night,
married Senator Vitter used a condom during their sex sessions--and took the
used condom with him so as not to leave his DNA material behind in the French
Quarter apartment they used.
--
Now we know why that clerical fraud Gene Mills made all those excuses for
Vitter immediately we learned he broke the law with the 'D.C. Madam.' Vitter
was making arrangements to send $100,000 to the Rev. Gene Mills'
religious-political organization.
==
Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This is a living reef resting on an
extinct volcano cone which comes up about three kilometers (two miles) from
the ocean floor. Drilling revealed about 1,400 meters (4,600 feet) of reef
material.
==
Fundie mother
She indicated that evolution could not be true because that would make the
bible false and therefore there would be no moral standards from which
to live life under.
===
TORNADO IN A JUNKYARD by James Perloff bad science
====
Fundies
--
"Dr." Henry Morris
Dr. Duane Gish

"John Woodmorappe" - supposed fundy geologist (although known to
be a pseudonym, apt for a pseudoscientist), "author" of "The Ark -
A Feasibility Study"; which is neither feasible nor a study.

Steve Austin
Bliss, "Dr." Richard,
Cumming, Kenneth B.
Deckard, Stephen W.
DeYoung, Donald B.
Franks, Robert H.
Morris, John D.
Vardiman, Larry
Baumgardner, John R.
Carothers, Linn E.
Chaffin, Eugene F.
Chittick, Donald E.
Englin, Dennis L.
Faulkner, Danny R.
Fliermans, Carl B.
Humphreys, D. Russell
Lindsey, George D.
Meyer, John R.
Osborne, Chris D.
Parker, Gary E.
Snelling, Andrew A.
Dr A A Snelling
Stark, James

"Dr., Dr., Dr." Carl Baugh
Claims to have a Ph.D. in anthropology from the College of
Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds
of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He also claims to have
another Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology, an
unaccredited diploma-mill in California.
===
Fundie beliefs
(1) The Bible is the Written Word of God, and because it is
inspired thruout [sic], all its assertions are historically and
scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the student
of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a
factual presentation of simple historical truths [even sic-er].

(2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation
Week have accomplished only changes within the original created
kinds [whatever or whoever that or they may be - ed.].

(3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as
the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent
and effect [odd that there's no evidence for this event
though...-ed.].

(4) We are an organization of Christian men of science who accept
Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The
account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and
woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our
belief [there's that word again...] in the necessity of a Savior
for all mankind . Therefore, salvation can come
only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
Above: the oath to which "Creation Scientists" must affirm.
==
It turns out that Senator Larry Craig,
R-Idaho, has been up to more than just allegedly soliciting men in adjacent
bathroom stalls.
Then theres U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, who as a House member 16 years ago
co-sponsored a constitutional amendment, the Community Life Amendment, to
authorize teaching the creation of the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian
tradition.
And indeed, right there in the 101st Congress, 1989, there is (then
Representative) Larry Craig co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 297:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to
the right of the people to allow voluntary prayer and the teaching of the
Judeo-Christian ethic in public schools.
SECTION 2. For the purpose of section 1, the term teaching of the
Judeo-Christian ethic shall include the Ten Commandments and the creation of
the earth as accepted in Judeo-Christian tradition.
===
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/answers_in_gene.html

Museum fight bites bureau
Scientist calls Creation Museum plug 'inflammatory'

PETERSBURG - The head of the Kentucky Paleontological Society is criticizing
local tourism officials for promoting the Creation Museum using inflammatory
language from the museum's Web site.
The Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau on its Web site says of the
controversial museum: "This 'walk through history' museum will counter
evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ
and Scripture."
Natural history museums don't turn people against religion, counters Daniel
Phelps, paleontology society president. If they did, there would be regular
protests outside those museums.
"There's many people who are very religious, and they don't have a problem
with evolution," Phelps said.
"If the creationists want to say things like that on their own Web site,
that's their business," he said.
"I was pretty shocked that a tax-supported entity would do anything like
that," Phelps said.
The 60,000-square-foot, $27 million museum has sparked national controversy
with assertions that go against the grain of scientific consensus.
The museum declares that Earth is 6,000 years old, rather than about 4.5
billion. It also depicts humans as living at the same time as dinosaurs, which
scientists say never happened.
"We do list attractions on our Web site, and the attractions provide the
content, because they know the venues best," said Pat Frew, spokesman for the
bureau. "We simply provide a listing and description on the Web site as a
service to them."
Given the content's controversy, might the bureau consider changing the
wording, which was lifted from the Creation Museum's Web site?
"I think I'm going to stick with what I've told you so far," Frew said,
declining to comment further on that question.
Frew said he did not know how much of his organization's $2.7 million budget,
which comes largely from taxpayer money, has been spent promoting the museum,
because "we have a contractual agreement with the Regional Tourism Network,
and they promote the attractions to the leisure visitor. Therefore, we don't
have a figure in terms of how much is spent on promoting the museum, as it is
promoted in toto, not singularly, like all the other attractions."
Phelps, who has toured the place he calls the "Anti-Museum," and written a
negative online review of it, says he has no problem with the bureau listing
the Answers in Genesis museum on its Web site.
"It's a local attraction, and they should be listed on their Web site," he
said. "But they don't need to say anything negative about a regular
natural-history museum, and I just was amazed."
"Whenever you leave the state of Kentucky, people make jokes about Kentucky,
and this would reinforce the stereotype," said Phelps, an environmental
geologist and a part-time instructor for Bluegrass Community College in
Lexington.
He also is president of the Kentucky section of the American Institute of
Professional Geologists.
Creation Museum spokesman Mark Looy defended the visitors bureau's use of his
museum's language, saying their use of the same wording "doesn't necessarily"
mean the bureau "believes that. ... They're just using our language."
Natural history museums do turn countless minds against the Bible "when they
present an evolutionary view that's in contrast with what the Bible says,"
Looy said.
==
It should of course be pointed out that Phillip Johnson, the godfather of the Intelligent Design
movement, has himself long been a proud and loud HIV denier.
===
George McCready Price first developed the primacy of
flood geology in creationism, publishing the "New Geology" in 1923
==
Any first year philosophy students knows any two ideas can be made compatible with sufficient effort.
===
Young-earthism can't be defeated by science, since its adherents reject science out of hand.
===
Stanley Jaki "Genesis 1 Through the Ages"

Davis Young's "The Biblical Flood."

Finding Darwin's God, Kenneth R. Miller

Dick Fisher The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate

Foundation, Fall, and Flood , by Glenn Morton

Creation in God, Man and History Eliezer Berkovitz

Good Genes: Emerging Values for Science, Religion, and Society (Paperback)
by D. Ames

Genesis and God   Holmes Rolston III.

David Stove _Darwinian Fairytales_

A Handy Guide To Rebutting Creationist Objections To Valid Mainstream Science,
August 4, 2007 ByJohn Kwok (New York, NY)
==
According to creationists, evidently God has been creating every few years new
species out of thin air, but stopped well short of the historical period, as
there is no historical record of an animal or plant appearing in a flash of magic.
==
There is a very simple argument showing how the absence of the
20-plus persistent nuclides with a half-life less than 80 million years shows
that Earth must be at least 1.6 billion years old.
==
More Americans believe in the rapture than in evolution. This will prepare us
quite well to live in the shadow of Europe, China and India in decades to come.
Preachers will have more problems to pray about as factories close and people starve.

Prof Richard Dawkins
"There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition,
or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason. Yet
today reason has a battle on its hands.
Reason and a respect for evidence are the source of our progress, our
safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the
truth. We live in dangerous times when superstition is gaining ground and
rational science is under attack."
====
Behe's hypothesis that the original first 'Designed' cell had all its future
complexity coded genetically but turned off was doomed to failure because
of the accumulation of errors in unexpressed genes.
The thrust of Behe's argument was that at the earliest stages of life, i.e.
at the biochemical or molecular level, there was no evidence of a natural
selection process such that scientists could infer that the most basic of
life forms, the cell and its components, developed in an evolutionary manner.
To the contrary, Behe and others argued that the basic building blocks of
life (the "black box") appeared to have been structured as irreducible
components finely tuned to make possible the ultimate development of the
greater complexity of life as we know it today.
===
Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo deny that evolution has validity.

In an opinion piece Brownback wrote in The New York Times to clarify his
position, he stated that while it is possible for evolutionary theory to add to
human knowledge, any aspect of it incompatible with the truth of creation must
be automatically rejected.
===
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting refutes flood geology
==
"What I have said, and that still remains, the Bible is true and cannot
be verified by science."

This statement, of course, is irrational. If the Bible is unverifiable, i.e.
untestable, then all this is is a subjective feeling, such as, 'I believe the
Bible is true, because I believe the Bible is true."
The problem, which already raised its ugly head during the
geocentrism controversy centuries ago, is that if the Bible is
subjective, then it's like poetry. You either like it or you don't.
It has nothing to do with being real. People claim that the Bible
is "God's Word." But of course, whenever it is found to say things
that are wrong in terms of reality (man was created around 6,000
years ago [Genesis 5, Genesis 11]; all mankind except for 8 people
were wiped out by a worldwide flood that covered the highest
mountains; the earth doesn't move, it's the sun that moves around the
earth; etc.), then they say, 'Well, it's God's Word, so it must be
true, so it's not really saying that because that's wrong." And
that's nothing more than a circular argument. So on the one hand we
have the literalists saying 'The Bible is God's Word, so it cannot be
wrong, therefore science is wrong,' - a circular argument - and on
the other hand we have the allegoricists saying 'The Bible is God's
Word, so it cannot be wrong, so we'll just change how we interpret it
so that it never contradicts what we learn about reality' - another
circular argument.
Both approaches are epistemologically flawed.
==
(1) Wexler, "Intelligent Design and the First Amendment: A Response," 83
Washington University Law Quarterly (forthcoming).
(2) Wexler, "Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution
Controversy in Public Schools," 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 749 (2003).
(3) Wexler, "Of Pandas, People, and the First Amendment: The Constitutionality
of Teaching Intelligent Design in the Public Schools," 49 Stanford Law Review
439 (1997).
(4) Brauer, Forrest, and Gey, "Is it science yet? Intelligent design
creationism and the Constitution," 83:1 Washington University Law Quarterly
(2005). (1Mb PDF.)
======
This is the same kind of silly, frivolous response that creationists always
make. Funny how they question the "authority" of scientists but not of
priests, of carbon-dating tests but not ancient texts. The difference between
"faith" and scientific observation is that you can CHECK on scientific claims
and methods, but there is no possible check you can perform on religious
claims. Scientists do not "believe" things blindly; in fact, they love to
critique and debunk each other. What is really sad is that religionists spend
so much time "believing"--and depend on it so thoroughly--that they assume
everyone and everything works the same way, on "blind faith."
In attempting to call into question the validity of science by claiming it
shares common features with supernatural religion, he's at the same time
undermining his own position. After all, if scientists are merely basing their
views on "faith", then they're not to be believed. This equally undermines the
supernaturalist (or magical causation) position.
==
David Ray Griffin's book Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific
Naturalism and Christian Faith

The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Paperback)
by Mark Isaak (Author)

Niles Eldredge The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Evolution Under the Microscope (Paperback)
by David W. Swift (Author)
===
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology expressed its concern about the
misrepresentation of science in Answers in Genesis's creation "museum" in a
press release issued on July 17, 2007. "The Creation Museum's fossil
exhibitions, though artistically impressive, include a vast number of
scientific errors, large and small," the SVP explained. "These errors
range from implying that the Earth's sedimentary rocks were deposited by a
single biblical Flood, to claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived
alongside one another, to denouncing the reality of transitional fossils."
Kevin Padian, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley,
and president of NCSE's board of directors, said, with reference to Answers
in Genesis's president, "Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or
educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his
views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to
his 'museum' may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will
leave misled and intellectually deceived." Kristi Curry Rogers of the Science
Museum of Minnesota added, "the Creation Museum is using the disguise of
science museums and centers without including an iota of science inside."
Catherine Badgley, a professor at the University of Michigan and president
of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, further lamented the
misinformation presented at AiG's museum, commenting, "according to the
Creation Museum, the history of life is short, sin-ridden, and laden with
moralizing imperatives. In contrast, the real fossil record shows that
this long history is brimming with discoveries of new kinds of animals,
plants, and environments, inviting people to use their unusual minds to
question, to reason, and to wonder at life's remarkable variety."
Founded in 1940, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology is the leading
North American scientific and educational organization concerned with
vertebrate paleontology. According to its position statement on evolution
education, "Evolution is fundamental to the teaching of good biology and
geology, and the vertebrate fossil record is an excellent set of examples
of the patterns and processes of evolution through time. ... The record of
vertebrate evolution is exciting, inspirational, instructive, and
enjoyable, and it is our view that everyone should have the opportunity and
the privilege to understand it as paleontologists do."
==
When Science magazine conducted a survey of 34 countries last
August(2006), Turkey had the second-lowest acceptance rate of the theory of
evolution (the United States had the lowest).
====
"If the Bible is the Word of God and it is and if Jesus Christ is
the infallible and omniscient Creator and He is then it must be
firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in
six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary
history never really took place at all."
[Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, San
Diego 1974, p. 251]

"It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to
interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework."
[Henry Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, Creation-Life Publishers,
San Diego, 1974, p. 184]
=====
"I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was
willed into being and made for a purpose. While no stone should be left
unturned in seeking to discover the nature of mans origins, we can say with
conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was
not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created
order."

Brownback does NOT believe in Evolution.
Would-be president Sam Brownback recently wrote in the New York Times that any
scientific findings conflicting with his faith should be firmly rejected. In
the same vein, Jonathan Wells a senior fellow of the ID advocacy group Center
for Science and Culture at the Discovery Instituterecently wrote, The vast
majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: it doesnt fit the
scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central tenet of Christianity.
==
Antievolutionist appointed to head Texas state board of education
(National Center for Science Education, 7/26/2007)

On July 17, 2007, Don McLeroy was appointed by Texas governor Rick
Perry (R) to chair the state board of education, succeeding Geraldine
Miller. A member of the board for the last eight years, McLeroy was
described by the Dallas Morning News (July 18, 2007) as "aligned with
social conservative groups known for their strong stands on
evolution, sexual abstinence and other heated topics covered in
textbooks" and as "[o]ne of four board members who voted against
current high school biology books because of their failure to list
weaknesses in the theory of evolution."
In a statement issued on July 17, 2007, Texas Freedom Network's
president Kathy Miller chided Governor Perry for his choice,
writing, "Texas parents should be troubled that the governor has
appointed as head of the state board a clear ideologue who has
repeatedly put his own personal and political agendas ahead of sound
science, good health and solid textbooks for students. Even worse,
Mr. McLeroy will now be in charge of the board's scheduled revision
of the state's science curriculum standards, an area where he has
already cast his lot with extremists who want to censor what our
schoolchildren learn."
The state's newspapers also expressed concern about McLeroy.
Referring to previous ideological struggles in which the board was
involved, the Dallas Morning News (July 19, 2007) worried, "The
elevation of veteran board member Don McLeroy to the chairman's post
raises concerns that the board is headed back in that direction," and
urged McLeroy to steer clear of "the bitterness of past culture
wars." Similarly, the Austin American-Statesman (July 22, 2007)
commented, "McLeroy's elevation to chairman comes as the board begins
a revision of science standards for public schools. That could prove
embarrassing for Texas if McLeroy pushes for standards that push
theology over science."
A document on McLeroy's personal website entitled "Historical
Reality" and dated September 8, 2003, offers a glimpse of McLeroy's
understanding of evolutionary science. Relying on discredited sources
as Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Jonathan Wells's Icons of
Evolution and Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon's Of Pandas and People
as well as on tendentious misreadings of legitimate science and on
long-ago-debunked creationist claims, McLeroy argued that common
descent is "only a hypothesis, and a shaky one at that." He then
urged his colleagues on the board to reject the books then under
consideration -- a plea that was ignored.
The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for the sciences are
scheduled to be reviewed and revised shortly, with a final vote by
the Texas board of education presently expected in November 2008.
Textbooks submitted for adoption in Texas are required to conform to
the TEKS, so although the next round of biology textbook adoption
proceedings is not expected to begin until 2009 at the earliest, it
is likely that antievolutionists will try to undermine the treatment
of evolution in the TEKS in order to provide a platform to campaign
against the treatment of evolution in the biology textbooks.

The governor of Texas has appointed an ultra conservative creationist to the
head of the Texas state school board. The fact that a devout creationist has
been appointed to this position is not only a catastrophe for the educational
system of Texas but also will more than likely have a huge negative impact on
the rest of the school systems in America. The Texas school board orders all
text books in mass for all school districts in the state which enables this
board to dictate the content of all text books used in Texas and thus in the
rest of the United States. Text book manufactures are more concerned with
profits than good science. Educators have been complaining about this problem
for years, but nobody listened. Now we have the beginings of a national
science melt down if something is not done.
---
Heres part of a letter written to Miller concerning McLe