Don McLeroy–no longer head of the SBOE

It’s a sad day in Texas.

No, wait…I’m sure it’s a sad day somewhere, but not in Texas.

On Thursday, the reappointment of Don McLeroy as head of the state board of education was blocked by Democrats of the state senate.  You may recall that McLeroy is one of the creationists on the board and has given science education a difficult time by supporting “strengths and weaknesses” and “academic freedom” movements. 

Now, don’t go crazy rejoicing just yet.  He is still a member of the board. 

It’s not often that I agree with Democrats (I realize that may shock some of you, being that at least on this one issue I do agree with them more often than the more conservative of the political arena), but I think Kirk Watson, a Democrat of Austin, summed it up nicely here:

“People have a right to be confident that the State Board of Education is putting the interests of our children above ideology, politics and everything else, including the so-called good fight.  Whether they agree with McLeroy or not, Texans simply cannot have faith in this board when it is led by a man who has so enthusiastically embraced his role in these endless culture wars.”

As a Christian, there are many things that I have a firm personal opinion on.  However, I don’t always think that those things are of the utmost importance in the political sphere, and I don’t always agree with people forcing such issues simply because they are Christian.

But I digress.  Governor Rick Perry now has the responsibility of naming someone else as chairman of the board.  Since he fully supported McLeroy, it won’t surprise me if he simply nominates another creationist on the board.  Only time will tell.

To read more about this, visit the Houston Chronicle’s article here.

Don McLeroy attempts to spin the issue

Today in the Austin American Statesman we have an editorial from none other than the state’s chair of the board of education–Don McLeroy!  Recall that McLeroy is himself anti-evolution, though he has continued to claim for years that he has no intention of promoting the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design in science classes (though his actions have always said otherwise).

According to McLeroy’s editorial today, the blame for this controversy lies at the feet of the proponents of evolution:

The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia’s far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom. Even Texas’ 20-year-old requirement to teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of hypotheses and theories has come under attack. Words that were uncontroversial and perfectly acceptable for nearly two decades are now considered “code words” for intelligent design and are deemed unscientific. The elite fear that “unscientific” weaknesses of evolution will be inserted into the textbooks, leaving students without a good science education and unprepared for the future, compelling businesses to shun “illiterate” Texas.

McLeroy makes several misleading statements here.  First, acceptance of the validity of evolution is not restricted to academia’s “far-left”.  Even if that were true, proponents of evolution are not against questioning of the theory, or any theory.  Questioning the world around us is part of the scientific method.  Furthermore, there are plenty of real controversies about the theory of evolution that are currently being questioned and examined by scientists around the globe. 

What educators and scientists ARE concerned about is the attempt to confuse students about the theory.  Anti-evolutionists are trying, as they have been for years, to make it appear as if evolution is a theory in crisis, when it certainly is not.  By making it appear thus, this opens the door for creationists and intelligent design proponents to say, “Look, students.  Here is the alternative.”  Such teachings may be acceptable at home, at church, or in a religion or philosophy class, but these ideas of origins are unscientific.  Being unscientific, they do not belong in a science class. 

Now, others might point out that having the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards does not mean that teachers will be tossing ideas about creationism around willy-nilly.  True.  However, having the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” in the science TEKS is dangerous regardless.  This phrase itself is unscientific and gives students false ideas about the very nature of science.  McLeroy points out that this phrase has been part of the standards for several years and was uncontroversial until recently.  That’s not really the case.  There have been many people who have wanted that phrase removed for YEARS.  (Recall that several months ago state board of education member Barbara Cargill wrote an editorial in which she stated that the phrase had served Texas students well for years.  When I emailed and asked her to explain this statement, she never replied.)

McLeroy points out that the new standards focus on contructing “testable explanations”–a phrase he says should be satisfactory to both sides of the issue.  He states that, “The debate can now shift from “Is it science?” to “Is it testable?””  Fair enough.  The issue of something being testable is, of course, very important to the scientific method.  McLeroy claims that one of the new controversial science standards is simply following through with this idea of “testability”:

A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question. It states: “The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.” It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.

The question I have for McLeroy and others on the board who support these changes is…why are you singling out evolution?  If you truly feel that the “strengths and weaknesses” of theories need to be addressed, why are you particularly singling out this one theory?  Why aren’t there any standards being drafted to address the strengths and weaknesses of the germ theory of disease, for example?

In his concluding paragraph, McLeroy states:

If we are to train our students, engage their minds and, frankly, be honest with them, why oppose these standards?

McLeroy himself is clearly being dishonest.  By singling out evolutionary theory for “strengths and weaknesses” and attempting to use a Stephen Jay Gould quote to discredit the theory (yes, you’ll have to read the editorial for that tid-bit) he shows that his actions are, in fact, religiously motivated. 

So, to answer McLeroy’s question…why should we oppose such standards?  Here are just a few reasons.

1. These standards give students a false idea that there is a scientific controversy over evolution.  There is not.
2. The phrase “strengths and weaknesses” gives a false idea about the very nature of science. 
3. This approach could potentially lead to costly lawsuits when teachers use the standards to promote alternative theories in class like creationism (or, vice versa, teachers could potentially be accused of not adequately covering the “weaknesses” part of the clause).
4. Potential damage to the educational system, reputation, and economic growth of our great state. 
5. Potential damage to the educational system, reputation, and economic growth of our COUNTRY (recall that Texas is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, so what Texas decides largely impacts the rest of the nation).

Creationists in Texas attack the Earth and Space Science standards

As if the foolishness surrounding the biology TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) wasn’t enough, the proposed standards for the Earth and Space Science course are under attack as well. 

Steven Schafersman has reported on this issue at his blog on the Houston Chronicle’s website here.

Victory in Texas for Science? Not quite…

Earlier this week the Texas state board of education agreed to strike the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” from the current science standards.  This move was cheered and celebrated by many scientists and teachers all over the state. 

However, on Friday, January 23, the state board looked at the issue again and decided that students should have to evaluate a variety of fossil types and assess the arguments against universal common descent.

On one hand, I feel like saying…ok!  Send me some fossils so I can teach that (hey, I’d love to have more fossils for free in my class).  But of course, it wouldn’t work like that if this proposal gets passed. 

This proposal is completely unscientific and is in the same spirit as the “strengths and weaknesses” clause that was struck down.  What is even more amazing to me, personally, is that at least before this creationists/intelligent designer proponents could make the argument that they weren’t singling out evolution–they wanted to teach the strengths and weaknesses of ALL theories (which of course for the most part wasn’t true, but they could still make that argument).  This new proposal is blatantly singling out evolution. 

Not surprisingly, chairman Don McLeroy, a self-proclaimed creationist, also added the following:

Also added to the proposed standards by board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, is an amendment that directs science teachers and students to “describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Board member Barbara Cargill had a lot to say as well.  Recall that I recently contacted Ms. Cargill asking her to explain some of her recent comments in an editorial from a Texas newspaper.  She has never responded.

One board member who pushed for the change said that fossil records create scientific evidence against universal common descent — and students should be allowed to study the possibility.

“There are many, many gaps that don’t link species changing and evolving into another species, so we want our students to get all of the science, and we want them to have great, open discussions and learning to respect each other’s opinions,” said Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, a former science teacher.

She scoffed at claims that social conservatives on the 15-member board were just trying to find another way to expose students to creationism — the belief that life, Earth and the universe were created by a supreme being.

“This isn’t about religion. I don’t know how many times we have to say it before people accept it,” she said. “It’s about science. We want to stick to the science.”

As usual, Ms. Cargill seems to assume that teachers who WANT  to teach evolution properly are trying to censor their students’ thoughts and opinions.  Of course a good teacher wants students to be able to ask questions and respect others’ opinions.  However, this move is certainly about religion.  It’s not about science, because what these board members are proposing to teach students isn’t backed by the scientific community.

There is still hope, however.  The board will not take a final vote on these newly proposed science standards until March. 

You can read more about the issue here.

Airtightnoodle–conspiracy theorist extraordinaire!

Recently I’ve been accused of being a conspiracy theorist and a member of some sort of special interest group.  I’m not really sure what group that would be, but nevertheless, Michael from “New Discoveries and Comments About Creationism” affirms it.  I hope Michael can let me know what group that is, because I probably owe them some membership dues…

Basically, Michael seems to feel that I am picking on Don McLeroy, chair of the Texas state board of education, for no good reason.  So…to find out why I am concerned over the state board…read on!

The first part of Michael’s post (linked to above)  relates to Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch, the NCSE, and Bobby Jindal.  Of Eugenie Scott, Michael states:

Eugenie Scott is the same woman who appeared in a movie where she advocates ruining careers if anyone dares to question Darwinism. She makes up stories, trying to demonize creationists and intelligent design proponents.

Now, I’m going to be honest.  I don’t know much about Eugenie Scott.  I don’t even regularly track what the NCSE is doing (sorry if that disappoints some of you).  I don’t know anything about her appearing in a movie advocating ruining the careers of those that question “Darwinism”.   (By the way, is this a reference to “Expelled”?  I have yet to see it, as I didn’t want to pay money at a theater to view it.)  Somehow, though, Michael seems to feel I am a lot like her, because later in his post he takes a few stabs at me:

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever in it’s 10 year history in Texas and I have even confronted a Texas science teacher over this issue. Granted she takes her teaching seriously, and wants the best for her students. But she is wrong on a number of issues including this one, because she believes in special interests like the NCSE.

First, I do thank Michael for recognizing the fact that I truly do want the best for my students.  However, I’m not a member of the NCSE, I don’t follow the NCSE much as stated above, I strongly disagree with several well-known members of the NCSE on several issues, I’ve never donated to the NCSE, and so on. 

Next Michael stated:

Her response or lack thereof wasn’t surprising concerning because she can’t even find a notion that she believes is a real example of her concerns to even agree or disagree with, but she will write mainly about personal beliefs like the blogger whom I quoted, undermine people’s character who are creationists or ID proponents in such places like the school board and about so-called errors by creationists. To me, she is just as bad as Eugenie Scott!

Apparently Michael was miffed that I didn’t respond to a comment he had made at one of my posts, as linked to in the above paragraph.  Other than that, there isn’t a lot about this paragraph of his that makes much sense to me.  As I told Michael at his own blog, I simply didn’t think there was anything in his post that required a response.  In fact, I even agreed with some of what he said.  I asked Michael at his own blog to please tell me what he wanted me to respond to.  There were a few posts back and forth between Michael and myself, but he clarified what he wanted me to answer, so here are my responses.

Michael stated:

Mr. Mcleroy from your home state of Texas has been a target for special interests including yourself. There has been nothing as far as solid evidence that he had pushed creationism or intelligent design in the public schools.

Though McLeroy has stated on occasion that he will not push for intelligent design to be taught in school, his actions often say otherwise.  For instance, back when McLeroy was first appointed as the chairman of the state board of education, an article from the Dallas News reported the following on McLeroy:

“One 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 2003, Dr. McLeroy was one of four board members who voted against proposed high school biology textbooks because he felt their coverage of evolution was “too dogmatic” and did not include possible flaws in Charles Darwin’s theory of how life on Earth evolved from lower forms.”

McLeroy has stated that he won’t push for creationism or intelligent design to be taught in schools, yet he told his home church congregation in College Station to “keep chipping away at the objective empirical evidence”.  He also seemed to encourage young people to “take on” evolutionists by stating the following: “But it’s the young people, talented young people, that be able to rise to the intellectual level it takes to take on the future talented naturalists that will be on the scene.”

Again, though he has said often that he doesn’t want intelligent design or creationism as part of the standards, the Texas Insider reported the following:

Mr. McLeroy and others say they’ll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

McLeroy believes there are weaknesses because he doesn’t “believe” in evolution.  He is a self-proclaimed creationist.  He can continue making the claim that this debate is about teaching “good science”, but the truth is that he is religiously motivated to have the “strengths and weaknesses” wording as part of the Texas science standards.  One only needs to look into what he has preached at his own home church and check out his own personal website to see that this is the case.

Furthermore, it is not surprising that McLeroy continues to state that he does not support teaching creationism or intelligent design.  He is following the wedge strategy and has basically even stated so (again, from the address to his church in College Station):

So what do we do about our Bible in the intelligent design movement? According to Johnson [reference to Phillip Johnson, author of “Darwin on Trial”], the first thing to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion.

Michael asked:

“Why are you concerned about the survey anyway? What has he done on the job to prompt you to track what he believes in?”

McLeroy, along with other board members, have pushed for textbooks to be adopted that are critical of evolutionary theory.  That’s a red flag that deserves “tracking”, to use Michael’s own wording.  Regardless of whether there were any evidence of McLeroy wanting creationism taught in schools, his personal beliefs DO matter.  The personal beliefs of ANY person involved in politics matter.  Isn’t this largely what we base our votes on for any position?  (By personal beliefs, I am referring to the ones that are related in some way to his job.  It’s not as if I’m interested in his personal beliefs about taking milk or honey in his tea.)  McLeroy’s beliefs do matter because they have the potential to affect how he does his job, and thus the education of the students of our great state.   

Speaking of which, the duties of the state board include the following:

• As part of its efforts to provide the best possible education to public school students, the Board designates and mandates instruction in the knowledge and skills that are essential to a well-balanced curriculum. The Board approves and determines passing scores for the state-mandated assessment program.

And, some of the duties of the chair of the state board (for those that are curious) are as follows:

• The chair shall preside at all meetings and perform all other duties prescribed by law, by board rule, or by board direction.
• The Committee of the Full Board shall be composed of all members of the board, and the chair of the board shall be the chair of the Committee of the Full Board.
• Ad hoc committees. Ad hoc committees (i.e., task forces) shall be constituted from time to time as directed by the board or by the chair to perform such duties as the board or chair may assign. The personnel and length of service of ad hoc committees shall be designated by the chair unless otherwise directed by the board. No action taken by any ad hoc committee shall be final or binding upon the board unless otherwise directed by the board.
• Special meetings of the board may be held at times and places as ordered by the chair during a regular meeting, or special meetings may be called by the chair of the board to be held at a time and place the chair shall designate.

Michael then stated:

“Isn’t it true that what you are engaging in which I think is trivial, is all about your concern over how evolution will be taught?”

Yes, of course I’m concerned over how evolution will be taught.  I’m a science teacher.  Why should this come as a surprise?

“The 1990s was suppose to be a break through decade. Genomes from diverse organisms would be collected, sequenced and compared. Through this research up until now, this data was suppose to reveal answers to a lot of questions concerning the Phylogenetic tree. It hasn’t.”

It has, but in true scientific fashion, it has also opened the door to new questions and new roads of discovery.  That’s not a flaw of the scientific method; that’s one of the things that makes it great.

“But when teaching stuff like this, you make sound like there is so much evidence. You certainly wouldn’t teach it as a weakness in evolution, now would you?”

I’m assuming by “it” Michael is referring to genomic research, which he spoke of just prior to this question.  No, I probably would not teach it as a weakness.  I probably wouldn’t teach it as a strength.  I would just teach it (because technically, there are no such things as weaknesses in scientific theories).  Regarding strengths and weaknesses, Michael (and others) might be interested in reading my post directed to Barbara Cargill asking how one is supposed to cover “strengths and weaknesses” of theories.

“One can get an idea of what you believe in considering you have public writings on the internet and the writings of others. I thank you for your reply.”

Yes, indeed, one can learn a lot about someone through their writing.  Yet Michael’s arrogant assumption that he knows what I believe is amusing to me.  What I find hysterical, honestly, is that other than evolution, I probably have much in common with many of the people I debate over intelligent design/creationism/evolution.  My beliefs and opinions don’t categorize me very neatly into any one “box”…hmm, or maybe I’m just one very confused individual.  😉

Controversy over at TFN and a brief conversation with Don McLeroy

As mentioned previously, the Texas Freedom Network and Tony Whitson of Curricublog have pointed out the seemingly contradictory statements of certain board members regarding their views on teaching evolution.  Anyone following the conversation at the Texas Freedom Network over the Texas board of education’s views on teaching creationism and intelligent design has surely noted the controversy in the comments.  One of the more pertinent questions raised by Larry Farfarman was basically thus:

How did the voter’s guide phrase the questions to candidates?

For instance, as Larry Farfarman stated over at TFN:

How do you know that the term “CREATIONISM” was included in the questionnaire that was sent to the candidates? How do you know that “CREATIONISM” was not just a title that was added afterwards to the question when the responses were published in the voter guide? You don’t know.

So…after much back and forth, I decided to ask the Free Market Foundation, who publishes the voter’s guides in question, myself.  I sent them the following email on December 7, 2008:

Hello.  I browsed through your voter’s guide for 2008 before the election this year and had a question about how the voter’s guide is created.  At the top of the voter’s guide there are summaries of the questions that were asked to candidates.  For example, for Sexual Orientation it said: Add a law protecting students from sexual orientation discrimination.
 
Is this exactly how the question was phrased to the candidates, or did the questions they received look or sound different in any way?  This would be helpful to know in the future.  Thank you!

Tonya Peterson from the Free Market Foundation responded quickly and concisely stating:

Hi,
 
These are the exact wording the candidates received. They answered on the scale from strongly for to strongly against.
 
I hope this answered your question.

Many thanks to Tonya for a speedy reply.

Now, I could have stopped there, but since I was already online at the time (which is rare at home these days), I decided to investigate just a wee bit further.  I emailed Don McLeroy, the head of our state board of education.

Here is the text of my email to Mr. McLeroy (also sent on December 7, 2008):

Mr. Mcleroy,
 
As a Texas citizen, I am concerned about the future of science education in our great state.  Recently you made the statement that you are unaware of any board member (referring to the state board of education) that advocates or has ever advocated teaching creationism, intelligent design, or supernatural explanations in the science classroom. 
 
Yet when perusing old news articles and more, it seems that you do support, or have supported creationism and intelligent design.
 
The 2006 Voter’s Guide from the Free Market Foundation stated that you support teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.  You were not the only board member to respond in such a manner.
The 2002 Voter’s Guide also showed that you supported teaching intelligent design and not just evolution.  Again, you were not the only board member to respond this way.
 
Can you please clarify?  Do you, or do you not, support teaching intelligent design and/or creationism alongside evolution in Texas science classrooms?
 
Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. McLeroy also replied promptly stating the following:

Airtight: Good question. I had forgotten about those voter guides when I made my statement. My mistake. It is true, however, that I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to. Voter guides leave little wiggle room sometimes; they will put you in a box and you have to choose which box in which best represents your views.

While I am unsure how Mr. Mcleroy can claim that he has never wanted to teach creationism or intelligent design despite what he acknowledges answering in the voter’s guides, I do thank him for a speedy reply.  I am not sure what position Mr. McLeroy does have that prompted him to answer in such a manner, even if he does not really feel that way.  Plus, as one can tell by viewing old voter’s guides from the Free Market Foundation, candidates do have the opportunity to expand on their views or to decline answering certain questions.  They can also explain why they are declining to answer certain questions. 

Related links you may be interested in:

Don McLeroy Jenkins

Creationist Evolution in Texas from The Panda’s Thumb

Texas SBOE–no one wants to teach creationism/intelligent design

Don McLeroy is on the record as saying recently during testimony at the state board of education that he knows of no one on the board that has ever wanted to teach these ideas as part of science curriculum.  Yet McLeroy HIMSELF has advocated teaching creationism in the past! 

Sigh.

I recommend reading the following two blog posts from Tony Whitson and the Texas Freedom Network for more information.

Barbara Forrest at SMU

Barbara Forrest recently spoke at Southern Methodist University in Dallas about creationism and intelligent design.  Ed Darrell from Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub was in attendance and has given us a rundown of the highlights from her talk.

Go here to read what Forrest had to say.

Creationism (a.k.a. zombie science)

Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education recently wrote an article entitled “Zombie Jamboree in Texas” in which he compares the creationist movement to such zombie flicks as “Dawn of the Dead”.

As humorous as this might seem, Branch’s article clearly points out why this issue is so important–and why the outcome in Texas is important for the nation as a whole.

Three creationists were just appointed to a six-member committee to review a draft set of Texas state biology standards, which determine what is taught in Texas’s public school science classrooms and the content of the biology textbooks approved for use in the state. And since Texas is one of the largest textbook markets in the country, what happens to textbooks there is relevant to the content of textbooks everywhere.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Don McLeroy defends Texas creationists

Today’s issue of the Waco Tribune-Herald features a guest column from Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas State Board of Education.  McLeroy, as mentioned previously on this blog, is a creationist.

Texas is adopting new science standards. Scientists representing evolutionists and calling themselves the 21st Century Science Coalition say that creationists on the State Board of Education will inject religion into the science classroom. Should they be concerned? No. This will not happen.

They also say that the board will require supernatural explanations to be placed in the curriculum. This will not happen.

First of all, this is the first I’ve ever heard of the 21st Century Science Coalition.  Googling reveals their website, located here.  In any case, I find it interesting that McLeroy singles this one organization out.  This seems to give the appearance that this is one of the only groups out there concerned about this issue, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.  But let’s be fair.  Perhaps they had an editorial in the same paper recently that I missed and McLeroy is simply responding to it.  In any case, let’s be clear: these are not the only people making a fuss.

Regardless, how can McLeroy repeat that “this will not happen”?  What other reasons would creationists have for wanting to have a say in the science TEKS?  And how can he definitively dictate what may or may not happen? 

McLeroy then makes a statement to stun all Biology teachers and evolution supporters across the world:

First, is understanding of evolution “vital” to the understanding of biology? No.

I guess McLeroy isn’t familiar with the famous Dobzhansky article that really sums it all up: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”.

Next, has evolution been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt? No.

Is evolution’s support from the peer-reviewed literature unassailable? No.

If these are the criteria by which evolution has come under assault, then much of science should be suffering under the same scrutiny.  No scientific theory is ever going to be proven to be 100% true.  No theory is safe from criticism and peer review.  That’s the beauty of the scientific method–which, many scientists will agree, HAS shown evolution to be true beyond “reasonable doubt”.

Does evolution have scientific “weaknesses”?

The 21st Century Coalition not only says no but insists that we must strike the weaknesses language from our standards because leaving it in threatens our children’s scientific reasoning.

If we’re not going to apply the same “weaknesses” technique to all other scientific theories, then yes, it certainly does threaten our children’s scientific reasoning.  Our students deserve a 21st century science education, not watered-down science, whether it is biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc.