Recently in Education and Legal Category

The lawsuit filed by Texas science educator Chris Comer (see Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: ‘Neutrality’ is Endorsement of Religion) has been posted by the National Center for Science Education.

A juicy tidbit from the lawsuit:

… the Agency’s firing of its Director of Science for not remaining “neutral” on the subject violates the Establishment Clause, because it employs the symbolic and financial support of the State of Texas to achieve a religious purpose, and so has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. By professing “neutrality,” the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory. Finally, the Agency fired Director Comer without according her due process as required by the 14^th Amendment — a protection especially important here because Director Comer was fired for contravening and unconstitutional policy.

Oh yeah - Watch NCSE’s video about Chris Comer.

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: The topic of this thread is Chris Comer’s lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. Do not clutter this thread with unrelated topics like evidence of Christ’s resurrection, evidence for the Origin Of Life (OOL), etc. I won’t be as lenient as I was in the last thread on this topic.

Last fall, Texas science educator Christina Comer was fired for simply advising colleagues of an upcoming talk on Intelligent Design Creationism by professor Barbara Forrest. (See Expelled: Texas Education Agency Fires Staffer for Announcing Talk by Barbara Forrest for some of the details.)

Now, Comer is fighting back. USA Today reports on July 3^rd that

A former science curriculum director for the Texas Education Agency has filed a federal lawsuit alleging she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a speaker who was critical of teaching a controversial alternative to evolution.

Christina Comer, who lost her job at the TEA last year, said in the suit filed Wednesday against the TEA and Education Commissioner Robert Scott that she was terminated for defying an unconstitutional policy that required employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism — the biblical interpretation of the origin of human life.

The e-mail, which was intercepted by a state education leader, was about a speaker coming to Austin who had critical views of creationism and the teaching of intelligent design.

The federal courts have ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal under the U.S. Constitution’s provision preventing government establishment or endorsement of religious beliefs. “The agency’s ‘neutrality’ policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause,” the lawsuit said. … The lawsuit seeks a court order overturning the TEA’s neutrality policy on teaching of creationism and declaring that her dismissal was unconstitutional and her reinstatement to her old job.

Discuss. And, have a safe and happy 4^th of July!

The Columbus Dispatch reports that a much awaited report on the activities of John Freshwater, a Mount Vernon teacher, has finally been released.

The conclusions are straightforward and shocking

A Mount Vernon teacher undermined science instruction in the public school district by discrediting evolution in his classroom and focusing on creationism and intelligent design, a probe has found.

Worse, the teacher “burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December. Freshwater told investigators the marks were Xs, not crosses. But all of the students interviewed in the investigation reported being branded with crosses.”

While his defenders argued that the teacher merely used the device to draw ‘X’, the picture shows otherwise.

To me this clearly looks like a cross, not an ‘X’.

The Louisiana Coalition for Science has released a press release calling for the Senate to reject the creationist bill approved by the Louisiana House

New group stands up for sound science education in Louisiana

LA Coalition for Science decries House support for SB 733, calls for Senate to reject bill

Baton Rouge, LA, June 11, 2008 — In response to numerous attacks on science education in the Bayou State, concerned parents, teachers and scientists are getting organized. The new group — Louisiana Coalition for Science — calls upon the Senate to oppose SB 733, a bill which will open the door to creationism in public schools.

Spread the news.

Falls Church, VA – May 17, 2008. The non-profit Alliance for Science announced the results this week of its second annual National High School Essay Contest. Students were asked to write a 1,000 word essay on either “Agriculture and Evolution” or “Climate and Evolution”. Neal Desai, a 10^th grader at the Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, Missouri won the top prize. Neal’s insightful essay addressed the tradeoffs between the benefits obtained from genetically modified crops and the potential risks.…

For more information, please visit The Alliance for Science. From there you can find out more details about the winning essays, download the press release, learn about next year’s topic, and how to donate to the prize fund.

Chris Bell at Prometheus Retold has some interesting comments on Jana McCreary’s article in the Southwestern University Law Review as well as Peter Irons’ reply to it, both of which you can read here.

I’ve been having a very interesting exchange with a noted First Amendment scholar about the degree to which the amendment does or does not bar the state from requiring children to be taught things. The question boils down to this: may the state require that children be taught certain substantive things (evolution/sex-ed/disputed historical events—what have you) in private schools? Or does the Constitution put limits on the state’s power to do so?

(Read the rest at Freespace…)

Let’s don’t and say we did. That’s what kids used to say when someone suggested doing something that the others didn’t want to do. And that is the point of special laws or standards that single out evolution for special treatment. Let’s find a way to say we are doing it, but still not require it, or fudge quite a bit.

At first glance the bill, as amended by the Florida House of Representatives yesterday, looks like a strong endorsement of teaching evolution. And state Representative Hays, the bill’s main sponsor in the House, says

Don’t try to read something in there that isn’t already there. It’s direct and to the point. Any good science theory that is a valid theory should be able to withstand a critical analysis.

Source

But it singles out evolution for odd special treatment, so a closer look is in order.

On April 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm CDT (GMT - April 5, 2008 at 12:00 midnight), Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, will give a talk entitled God, Darwin, and Design: Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial. Miller was a lead witness in the Dover, Pennsylvania “intelligent design” case that began in September 2005, and which has been front-page news since it started. The talk is sponsored by the The University of Texas at Austin, which is also web-casting the event, live.

The public is invited to participate in the Live Webcast of the lecture, April 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm CT (click here for times all over the world). The webcasts are very high quality, and viewers can submit questions to the speaker through our website, and hear the speaker answer several online questions in real time. The webcasting software we use requires viewers to download a small plugin, but it is very simple and quick to install.

A link to the details of the lecture and the webcast could be found at: http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/[…]tures/Miller

It is recommended that participants log in to the University of Texas at Austin link several minutes before 7 PM CDT, to have time to download the required plug-in before the Webcast begins.

What is the lecture about?

Given that today really is April 1^st, let me start by saying that although Behe is a fool, this post isn’t a joke. Everything you’re about to read is real. This is the third part of my post on the summary judgment decision in the California Creationist Case. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.

It would seem that Mike Behe has, once again, managed to shoot an own goal in the courtroom. The last time that he was an expert witness, during the Dover case, the judge quoted extensively from Behe’s testimony, but not in a way that he particularly liked. Ultimately, it seems that he scored more points for his opponents than he did for his friends. He’s also an expert witness in the California Creationism Case, and he seems to have once again managed to put the ball right through the wrong goal.

Behe’s contribution to the pro-science side of the case appears on page 40 of the written order:

Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left:

Law professor Jana R. McCreary recently published a just plain awful article in the Southwestern University Law Review, arguing that the teaching of evolution in public schools violates the Constitution. She proceeds via an intellectual shell-game by which she defines “religion” so broadly that she can contend that science is a religion and therefore that the government is barred from endorsing it. (“This Is The Trap The Courts Built,” 37 Sw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2008)). You can read her article here.

Our ally Peter Irons, a professor at UC San Diego, has a brief response to the article in the same issue. It’s simultaneously polite and utterly devastating. (“Darwin, Dogma, and Definitions,” 37 Sw. U.L. Rev. 69 (2008)). You can read it here.

Prof. McCreary was then given the opportunity to publish this remarkably lame rejoinder. (“Focusing Too Much on The Forest Might Hide The Evolving Trees,” 73 Sw. U. L. Rev. 83 (2008)).

One point I think worth emphasizing is that in her rejoinder, McCreary contends that “presenting all theories” of the origins of life—that is, religious as well as scientific ideas about the origins of life—would “provide neutrality.” 73 Sw. U. L. Rev. at 92. Of course, she acknowledges that in her view, teachers would be required to “present all known theories, highlighting none.” Id. In other words, teachers must present students with both rigorously tested, scientifically validated, evidence-based theories—as well as the crudest and most arbitrary mumbo-jumbo concocted by witch doctors. There are, of course, an infinite number of arbitrary “theories” of the origins of life, the universe, and everything, including the theory that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. These stories being utterly arbitrary and allegedly exempt from the demands of evidence, it is improper to describe them as theories at all. They are not theories, but arbitrary declarations. And the teacher, of course, being required to “highlight none” of them, students would be presented with sense and nonsense on an equal footing, and told to make up their own minds (while not being judgmental, of course).

McCreary attempts to avoid the fact that teachers would then be spending an infinite amount of time teaching about the Great Green Arkleseizure and its infinite number of arbitrary cousins, by saying that in her view, teachers would not be required to give students “an in-depth look at each belief system,” but only “a brief glimpse into the concept; after all, time would not permit further discussion of the many theories beyond presenting them as competing explanations regarding how life began. And this would achieve the courts’ goals: neutrality.” Id.

So in other words, the cost of presenting students an enormous pile of nonsense would be to ensure that the presentation itself would be so superficial as to leave students as ignorant as they were to begin with. This, in McCreary’s view, is education.

(I also have a very brief response to McCreary in the footnotes of my new article in the Chapman Law Review.)

During the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2004 to 2005, Lauri Lebo covered the story for the York Daily Record. Lebo was one of the most consistent journalists writing on the topic anywhere; she certainly demonstrated a facility with the facts of the case and was not afraid to write about what they implied. She has a book to be released shortly, “The Devil in Dover”.

(Originally posted at the Austringer)

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has extensive lectures and resources for educators, in fact anyone can order their DVD’s for free. You can also subscribe to their podcasts.

Talks include Ken Miller’s Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps

Leading evolution educator Ken Miller discusses the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution, presents compelling evidence for evolution and reasons why “intelligent design” is not scientific. The presentation also features Dr. Miller’s responses to questions from a live audience of high school students.

Explore the site, it’s full of interesting information helping anyone appreciate the science of evolution and biology.

The Albuquerque Journal reported on March 17^th, 2008 that

The superintendent-designate of the Albuquerque Public Schools hails from Kansas, which triggered a national backlash when it opened the door to teaching creationism in its public schools. Winston Brooks, who will move from Wichita to take the helm of APS by July 1, has some thoughts on the evolution/creation debate­ but no plans to push for teaching creation theories here. And it’s doubtful he could do so, even if he wanted, given state control of district curricula, its policies on the subject, and opposition from the APS board. …

The Money Quote comes at the end of the article:

As a Christian, Brooks said he believes God created humans.

On the other hand, I believe there’s something to evolution,

he said.

Whether or not my original ancestor was an ape, I don’t have a clue.

At least, as the article points out in detail, he’ll have a hard time getting any Intelligent Design/Creationism into district science classes, contra the Discovery Institute’s oft-repeated lie that “New Mexico’s Science Standards embrace the Intelligent Design Movement’s ‘Teach the Controversy’ Approach”

The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), the alma mater of Discovery Institute’s spokesperson Casey Luskin, explores why “Evolution Matters”. In cooperation with UCSD-TV, they bring us a fascinating lecture series:

For 2007-08, the Division of Biological Sciences is launching Evolution Matters: The Diversity of Development. In this series of 5 lectures, held over the course of the year, leading cell and developmental scientists will explore the evolution of plants, animals and humans and will discuss how their research into this field holds promise for finding solutions to key health and environmental issues facing us today.

Educational Website: Grey Matters

Educational Website: Science Matters

Atoms to Xrays

By now regular readers of The Panda’s Thumb know that “academic Freedom” bills have been filed in the Florida legislature, and you know that the bills are Disco designed. You have also noticed Disco’s complaint that people get it. The complaint reads like disingenuous gibberish, but why that specific gibberish?

On Uncommon Descent William Dembski claims that Richard Dawkins has admitted that life could be designed and thus wonders: “Is ID therefore scientific?”. As I will show this is a logically flawed conclusion.

First of all lets point out Intelligent Design does not claim merely that life is designed but that such design can be detected via scientific methods. In this aspect if differs from science which admits that design always remains a logical possibility, however science also accepts that if such design is ‘supernatural’ no scientific method can detect such design.

First, the Discovery Institute didn’t seem to know about the anti-evolution bill introduced in Florida last week. Now, they don’t seem to actually understand what the bill does. Both of these things are quite strange, considering that the Discovery Institute folks actually wrote all of the substantive parts of the bill.

Rob Crowther just devoted most of an article over at the Discovery Institute’s Media Complaints Blog to scolding the media for their coverage of the Florida legislation. Apparently, most of the news coverage made the outrageous claim that the “Academic Freedom Act” would actually permit the teaching of “alternative theories” to evolution. Crowther is outraged, claiming that the bill does no such thing. He thinks that the various media outlets have “been fed some ‘smelly crap’” by pro-evolution groups such as Florida Citizens for science. I think it’s because the various media outlets have actually read the bill.

Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left.

Springerlink Journal “ Evolution: Education and Outreach” has its second edition online in the online first category.

The journal “promotes accurate understanding and comprehensive teaching of evolutionary theory for a wide audience. Targeting K-16 students, teachers and scientists alike, the journal presents articles to aid members of these communities in the teaching of evolutionary theory.”

The journal addresses the question of why we should care about evolution by exploring the practical applications of evolutionary principles in daily life and the impact of evolutionary theory on culture and society throughout history.

Evolution: Education and Outreach connects teachers with scientists by adapting cutting-edge, peer reviewed articles for classroom use on varied instructional levels. Teachers and scientists will collaborate on multi-authored papers and offer teaching tools such as unit and lesson plans and classroom activities, as well as additional online content such as podcasts and powerpoint presentations.

Enjoy.

Tomorrow is the last day to get your Alliance for Science Evolution Essay contest submissions done! You know you want a shot at some money for school books and some free, signed media materials. This year looks to be even better than last, so we look forward to reading what you have to say! Remember, the science teacher for the winning essay writer gets rewarded too, and deservedly so; our teachers work hard and deserve something back.

Yesterday the Discovery Institute held a press conference at the capitol building in Des Moines, to announce Guillermo Gonzalez’s plans to sue Iowa State University over their decision to deny him tenure. Supposedly the lawsuit will be filed pending the rejection of an appeal to the Board of Regents, which is virtually guaranteed simply for the fact that the Regents typically uphold tenure decisions. Joining Casey Luskin, Rob Crowther, Gonzalez’s attorneys, and a few other DI folk was state Senator David Hartsuch (R-District 41).

The core of the DI’s assertion is that there were “secret tenure deliberations” aka a plan to oust Dr. Gonzalez because of his ID views.

Continue reading at Neurotopia.

Casey Luskin, continues his “assaults” on Judge Jones’ devastating ruling for Intelligent Design while conveniently forgetting the Discovery Institute’s Amicus Curiae to the case.

Luskin argues that, based on an statements made by Judge Jones on the “Lehrer Newshour”, the ruling by Jones should be considered flawed:

Luskin Wrote:

First, Judge Jones admitted that a key question his ruling answered was whether intelligent design was “good science,” and he states that “after six weeks of largely expert testimony, I came to the conclusion that it simply was not good science” (emphasis added). This proves his judicial activism because it shows that, in his mind, a key question was not the constitutionality of Dover’s policy in particular, but rather a broad sweeping question about whether ID is “good science,” something that is totally inappropriate and unnecessary for the federal judiciary to answer in such a case over the constitutionality of a science curriculum.

Why is this claim so ironic? Well, if you read the submissions of the Discovery Institute to the judge, they argue that since ID is science, it cannot be ruled to be unconstitutional. In other words, they insist that the judge resolves the issue of ID being science. When he actually does this and he rules contrary to their expectations, the judge suddenly becomes an activist judge.

The Discovery Institute’s own website demonstrates that their amicus brief was submitted to argue “… about secular purposes for teaching about the scientific theory of intelligent design”” (October 31, 2005)

So what was the argument of the Discovery Institute which forced the judge to rule on the issue of ID being science?

NOVA has released a Press Release outlining the exciting new program. For more information visit NOVA Judgement Day Companion site or the Pressrooms at pbs.org/pressroom or Pressroom.wgbh.org The show will air on November 13, 2007 at 8pm ET/PT on PBS.

Check your local listings and spread the news

Those crazy folks over at the Alliance for Science are putting up the notice for their 2^nd Annual Evolution Essay contest!!! The first contest, while thrown together at the very last minute, turned out to be a success. Five high school students received cash prizes and a slew of autographed science books, plus a year’s subscription to Seed Magazine. The first place winner’s science teacher also received a cash prize to spend on classroom supplies, and additional teaching materials.

This year, they’re getting a jump on things early. The contest doesn’t happen until February, but start thinking about your essay now. Tell your teachers so they can get their classrooms involved. This year’s topics are rather timely: Climate, Agriculture, and Evolution.

The Alliance is also looking for a little help on the judging side of things, so please contact them if you’re interested. And as always, if you wish to donate a copy of a book or contribute financially to the prizes, all donations are tax-deductible.

The date is nearing when the PBS/NOVA program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on trial” will air and not surprisingly the Discovery Institute is not pleased. On EvolutionNews, Robert Crowther, director of media and public relations, complains that:

Robert Crowther Wrote:

The trailer for the program shows that PBS has turned to the usual suspects to advance their agenda.

Yes, such people as “Father of Intelligent Design” Philip Johnson or Steve Fuller did participate and what is even more ironic is that many more Discovery Institute people were asked to participate but they declined.

Yes, they declined!!!