NCSE Update, 1/17/14

ANTISCIENCE BILL IN OKLAHOMA

Senate Bill 1765, styled the Oklahoma Science Education Act, is the second antiscience bill of the year. As is increasingly common with antiscience legislation, SB 1765 would, if enacted, in effect encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased—proponents of creationism and climate change denial are the usual intended beneficiaries of such bills—and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening. No scientific topics are specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 1765 is Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced similar legislation that directly targeted evolution in two previous legislative sessions, is suggestive.

SB 1765 would require state and local educational authorities to “assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies” and permit teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught”; it would prevent such authorities from “prohibit[ing] any teacher in a public school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.”

In late 2010, Brecheen announced his intention to file antievolution legislation in a column in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 19, 2010): “Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. … Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings[,] is incomplete and unacceptable.” In a subsequent column in the newspaper (December 24, 2010), he indicated that his intention was to have creationism presented as scientifically credible, writing, “I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin’s religion.”

What Brecheen in fact introduced in 2011, Senate Bill 554, combined a version of the now familiar “academic freedom” language—referring to “the scientific strengths [and] scientific weaknesses of controversial topics … [which] include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution”—with a directive for the state board of education to adopt “standards and curricula” that echo the flawed portions of the state science standards adopted in Texas in 2009 with respect to the nature of science and evolution. SB 554 died in committee. In 2012, Brecheen took a new tack with Senate Bill 1742, modeled in part on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; SB 1742 likewise died in committee.

In 2013, Brecheen modified his approach again. Senate Bill 758 followed the lead of Tennessee’s “monkey law” (as it was nicknamed by House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh), enacted (as Tenn. Code Ann.  49-6-1030) over the protests of the state’s scientific and educational communities in 2012. The major difference is that SB 758 omitted the monkey law’s statement of legislative findings, which cites “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” as among the topics that “can cause controversy” when taught in the science classroom of the public schools. SB 758 died in committee. Brecheen’s latest effort, SB 1765, is virtually identical.

For the text of SB 1765 (document), visit:

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1765

And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in Oklahoma, visit:

http://ncse.com/news/oklahoma

DARWIN DAY APPROACHES

It’s time to dust off your Darwin costume again: less than a month remains before Darwin Day 2014!Colleges and universities, schools, libraries, museums, churches, civic groups, and just plain folks across the country—and the world—are preparing to celebrate Darwin Day, on or around February 12, in honor of the life and work of Charles Darwin. These events provide a marvelous opportunity not only to celebrate Darwin’s birthday but also to engage in public outreach about science, evolution, and the importance of evolution education— which is especially needed with assaults on evolution education already under way in state legislatures. NCSE encourages its members and friends to attend, participate in, and even organize Darwin Day events in their own communities. To find a local event, check the websites of local universities and museums and the registry of Darwin Day events maintained by the Darwin Day Celebration website. (And don’t forget toregister your own event with the Darwin Day Celebration website!)

And with Darwin Day comes the return of Evolution Weekend! Hundreds of congregations all over the country and around the world are taking part in Evolution Weekend, February 7-9, 2014, by presenting sermons and discussion groups on the compatibility of faith and science.  Michael Zimmerman, the initiator of the project, writes, “Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic—to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith.  Finally, as with The Clergy Letter itself, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.” At last count, 425 congregations in forty-four states (and twelve foreign countries) were scheduled to hold Evolution Weekend events.

For the Darwin Day registry, visit:

http://darwinday.org/events/

http://darwinday.org/wp-login.php?action=register

For information about Evolution Weekend, visit:

http://www.evolutionweekend.org/

CONTINUED PROGRESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA?

At its January 8, 2014, meeting, the South Carolina state board of education voted to adopt a new set of science standards, rejecting two different proposals that would have compromised the treatment of evolution in the process. As NCSE previously reported, the standards under consideration are a revision of the standards adopted in 2005, which the Fordham Institute graded as A- in its 2012 evaluation of state science standards. According to the Fordham study, “at the high school level, evolution is treated excellently and the support documents are exemplary.”

At the board’s meeting in October 2013, there was resistance to adopting the standards, including from members of the board itself:

Michael Brenan enquired whether the concept of “irreducible complexity” was included in the standards, for example, and Danny Varat suggested that a standard about climate change was “leading toward a predetermined conclusion.” Nevertheless, the board gave its initial approval to the standards, which then went to the state’s Education Oversight Committee for its review.

On December 9, 2013, the EOC decided to return the standards to the state board of education with a list of recommended changes. Of particular interest in the EOC’s list: the standard (H.B.5A.2) calling for students to “[c]onstruct explanations of ways scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of the theory of biological evolution” would be revised—“to improve clarity”—to call for students to “[u]se data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of the theory of biological evolution.”

The South Carolina Department of Education responded by proposing that the standard instead be revised to call for students to “[e]xplain how scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of the theory of biological evolution.” Presumably reacting to the absence from the EOC’s proposed revision of any reference to scientific practice, the department commented, “As evolution is a scientific theory, it is critical that students learn a scientific approach to data analysis.”

The board sided with the department over the EOC, voting to adopt the standards with the department’s version of H.B.5A.2. The board also considered a proposal by its member Neil Willis, seconded by Rhonda Edwards, to include language about “creation by design” in the standards. Explaining that he was concerned about schools teaching material that contradicted what parents taught at home, Willis said that he wanted to allow teachers to tell students that there were other theories. His proposal was rejected.

There was also a suggestion from South Carolinians for Science Education’s Robert T. Dillon, a professor of biology at the College of Charleston, who took exception to the adverb “critically” in H.B.5A.2 and elsewhere. Dillon told a blogger for the Charleston Post and Courier (January 8, 2014) that the adverb is used only with reference to evolution and climate change: “They’re trying to make evolution appear controversial, they’re trying to make it somehow different.” Dillon thus proposed, unsuccessfully, that “critically” be added to the other 129 clauses containing “analyze.”

Dillon was nevertheless pleased by the board’s vote; the Post and Courier reported that he “said the standards are—adverbs aside— rather exemplary.” Following the board’s vote, the standards again return to the EOC. The EOC was supposed to vote yes or no on the standards, with today’s vote by the board final, but it is apparently claiming that it never took a vote. Accordingly, its Academic Standards and Assessment Subcommittee is expected to consider them again at its January 27, 2014, meeting, before the full EOC takes a vote in February 2014.

For the Fordham Institute’s assessment of South Carolina’s 2005 standards (PDF), visit:

http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012-State-of-State-Science-Standards/2012-State-Science-Standards-South-Carolina.pdf

For the South Carolina Department of Education’s response to the EOC’s suggestions (PDF), visit:

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/stateboard/documents/SB-02-Attachment3EOCrequestedchangesSCDErecommendations.pdf

For the Charleston Post and Courier’s blog post about the vote, visit:

http://blog.postandcourier.com/palmetto-politics/2014/01/08/adverb-professors-fight-alternative-theories-evolution/

And for NCSE’s previous coverage of events in South Carolina, visit:

http://ncse.com/news/south-carolina

WHAT’S NEW FROM THE SCIENCE LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Have you been visiting NCSE’s blog, The Science League of America, recently? If not, then you’ve missed:

* Eric Meikle presenting the AAPA’s Gabriel W. Lasker Service Award to Eugenie C. Scott:

http://ncse.com/blog/2014/01/genie-scott-anthropologist-0015294

* Glenn Branch complaining about references to “Bishop” Paley: http://ncse.com/blog/2014/01/not-bishop-paley-0015287

And much more besides!

For The Science League of America, visit:

http://ncse.com/blog

Thanks for reading. And don’t forget to visit NCSE’s website— http://ncse.com—where you can always find the latest news on evolution and climate education and threats to them.