The latest on the Texas evolution v. creationism fiasco.
---
Neutrality that Isn't: The Case of the Texas Education Agency
By Barbara Forrest Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
There are times when ³neutrality² isnıt neutral, when a desire to appear
unbiased betrays a bias. The Texas Education Agencyıs reluctance to
appear biased in favor of evolution and against intelligent design (ID)
creationism is one of those times.
In November 2007, officials at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) forced
the resignation of TEA Director of Science Christina Castillo Comer, who
had held that position for nine years after having been a Texas science
teacher for twenty-seven years. The offense that prompted this turn of
events was Comerıs forwarding an e-mail about a November 2, 2007,
lecture that I was scheduled to give in Austin, TX. Entitled ³Inside
Creationismıs Trojan Horse: A Closer Look at Intelligent Design,² the
talk was sponsored by the Austin chapter of the Center for Inquiry. This
lecture, one of many such presentations I have given all over the
country, condensed into fifty minutes almost a decade of scholarly
research about the ID creationist movement. (A version of the lecture is
online. See also my July 2007 Center for Inquiry paper about the ID
movement.)
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), where I serve on the
board of directors, had sent an announcement of the lecture to
Austin-area NCSE members and a few others, including Comer. Adding
nothing more than an ³FYI,² Comer sent it along to a few people who
might be interested, as she had done with many prior announcements.
However, this time she was placed on leave and given an ultimatum:
resign or be fired. She resigned on November 7 after supervisor Monica
Martinez wrote a November 5 memo recommending her termination. (See my
statement in response to Comerıs termination here and a second statement
here.)
Ultimately, the TEAıs termination of its Director of Science is
traceable to the ID movementıs aggressive promotion of its brand of
creationism, which is again infecting Texas politics and the process of
educating children. ID creationistsı attacks on the teaching of
evolution disrupted the selection of Texas biology textbooks in 2003.
The ID movement has a strong contingent in Texas; some of its most
prominent proponents live there, although the movementıs activities are
coordinated from its Seattle headquarters, the Discovery Instituteıs
Center for Science and Culture.
The TEA feared that Comerıs forwarding the announcement of my lecture
³might compromise the integrity² of the 2008 revision of the state
science standards, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), and
the TEAıs ³neutrality² regarding this process: ³Ms. Comerıs email
implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the
speakerıs position on a subject on which the agency must remain
neutral.² But there is nothing neutral about TEAıs refusal to take a
stand in defense of teaching the foundational theory of the biological
sciences. And something is definitely being compromised: the education
of children who depend on the TEA to ensure that they are educated in
21st-century science, not medieval theology. (Even in the 19th century,
most scientists and educated people came to understand and accept the
significance of Darwinıs discoveries.)
Lizzette Reynolds, the TEA official and former George W. Bush appointee
who called for Comerıs termination (and, according to Comer, does not
even know her), worried about the political fallout of the science
directorıs email and called for her to be fired: ³This is something that
the State Board, the governorıs office and members of the Legislature
would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this is a subject the
agency supports.² The TEAıs subsequent compliance with Reynoldsıs call
for Comerıs termination sends a loud signal that itıs time for Texans
who care about educating children rather than appeasing politicians to
ask the TEA and maybe the state board, the governor, and the
legislature a few questions:
(1) Why should the TEA be ³neutral² between teaching real science and
preaching creationism?
(2) What is ³neutral² about making political loyalty a greater priority
than telling children the truth?
(Here is the truth: Evolution is a fact, a real natural phenomenon
documented by 150 years of rigorous scientific testing. Evolutionary
theory explains the natural processes by means of which evolution
occurs. Intelligent design is creationism, a scientific and educational
sham. Its proponents have contributed precisely nothing of any
scientific or pedagogical value concerning their claims about ID. They
therefore deserve no consideration in any process involving the
education of children.)
(3) What does Reynolds know that made her so confident that the highest
levels of Texas government would be ³extremely upset² about an FYI
merely announcing my lecture?
(4) Why should Reynoldsıs reluctance to upset creationists and
politicians be allowed to take precedence over upsetting young people
who graduate from Texas high schools only to realize that the ³adults²
in charge educated them for a pre-scientific world that no longer exists?
(5) Who is now going to do the former Director of Scienceıs job? Someone
hand-picked by Reynolds?
(³Debbie Ratcliffe, an agency spokeswoman, said Ms. Comerıs
replacement will probably be chosen by a panel of agency employees. The
agency hopes to fill the position in January, the same time review
groups are set to begin meeting and examining each aspect of the science
curriculum.² Dallas Morning News, December 13, 2007)
(6) Why, in the 21st century, in a state with world-class academic,
scientific and medical institutions, did Gov. Rick Perry put an admitted
creationist, Dr. Don McLeroy, in charge of the Texas Board of Education?
(See McLeroyıs 2005 pro-ID Sunday School lecture, ³Intelligent
Design Theory Primer.² He made a prominent point of his alliance with
the creationists at the Discovery Institute during their attack on the
biology textbook selection process in 2003. Now, however, he seems to
have read the Discovery Instituteıs memo about the importance of
communicating in ID doublespeak:
³In science class, there is no place for dogma and sacred cowsı [i.
e., evolution taught as dogmaı]; no subject [e. g., evolution] should
be untouchableı as to its scientific merits or shortcomings [i. e., the
³strengths and weaknesses of evolution,² the Texas creationist code
phrase du jour]. My motivation is good science and a well-trained,
scientifically literate student. What can stop science is an irrefutable
preconception [i. e., such as naturalism,ı which, as McLeroy charged in
his Sunday School ID lecture, has blinded all ye lambs from the
truthı]. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations [i. e., to
exclude an intelligent designer] in science, it is then that you get
your science stopper. In science class, it is important to remember that
the consensus of a conviction [i. e., the consensus of mainstream
science that evolution is a fact] does not determine whether it is true
or false.² Dallas Morning News, December 21, 2007) [my editorial
comments in brackets]
These are questions to which Texans who are concerned about their public
schools should demand answers. Even more, these questions point to a
situation that concerned Texans should not tolerate. I know the damage
that creationist politics does to the educational process and to our
fellow Americans who not only suffer the consequences in their
communities but must also repair the civic wreckage. (Creationists never
hang around for that part of their agenda.)
As an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the first legal case
involving ID creationism, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School
District (2005), which arose in 2004 in Dover, Pennsylvania, I learned
how even the simplest daily tasks of educating Dover children were
disrupted. Here is one example: while the teaching of evolution was
under attack, Dover High School biology teacher Jennifer Miller felt
compelled to stop using her traditional way of helping students
visualize the billions of years required for the development of life on
earth laying out a long piece of tape on the hall floor as a timeline.
Howıs that for intimidation?
I also know how parent and plaintiff Joel Leib was hurt by what the
Dover school boardıs promotion of ID did to his town, as he testified in
court:
Question: Do you believe that the Dover area school district board
of directorsı actions have affected you and the Dover community?
Leib: Well, itıs driven a wedge where there hasnıt been a wedge
before. People are afraid to talk to people for fear, and thatıs
happened to me. Theyıre afraid to talk to me because Iım on the wrong
side of the fence.
The political bullying of only two creationist school board members in
Dover, Pennsylvania, created a good deal of grief and discord in this
tiny community. Just imagine how much damage an entire education
bureaucracy can do (is doing?) in Texas!
Last question: Is the TEA trying to create a Texas-size Dover?
---
http://tinyurl.com/3bn4h9
--
John #1782
.
|
