Kansas: supporting documents for Dumbth

It turns out that Ken Willard does indeed have supporters for his latest effort to slip pro-creationist language into the NGSS debate, but they consist of the usual predictable suspects:

The Associated Press (June 13, 2012) reports that Ken Willard, a member of the board, described the draft as "flawed" and "distributed a nine-page letter criticizing the draft multistate standards from the group Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc., which lists officers in Florida and Kansas. The letter suggested that the draft standards ignore evidence against evolution, don't respect religious diversity, and promote secular humanism, which precludes God or another supreme being in considering how the universe works." Willard said of the letter, "I hope that it will be taken seriously and not as just information from a bunch of crackpots."

But Citizens for Objective Public Education is not exactly a well-known or a well-established group; its vice president Anne Lassey told the Associated Press that it was founded only in March 2012. Lassey is the wife of Greg Lassey, who was one of the authors of the so-called minority report of the committee that revised Kansas's state science standards in 2005; the report systematically deprecated the scientific status of evolution. The group's president, Jorge Fernandez, is a self-proclaimed young-earth creationist, with publications to his credit in Journal of Creation and on the True.Origin Archive website. The letter claimed that Citizens for Objective Public Education represents "children, parents and taxpayers who share our views"; Lassey told the Associated Press that the group has members across the nation.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Kansas: here we go again

You'd think that certain individuals on the state Board of Ed would've learned their lesson by now. No such luck:

Kansas is among the twenty-six "lead state partners" of the NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards) development process, officially assisting in the development, adoption, and implementation of the standards; although the lead state partners are not required to adopt the standards, they have agreed to give them "serious consideration" for adoption when they emerge in their final form — which may be as soon as the end of 2012. But Kansas state board of education member Ken Willard told the Associated Press that the draft embraces naturalism and secular humanism, which he described as "very problematic" and as "preferring one religious position over another"; he intends to raise the issue on June 12, 2012, when the board is scheduled to hear a presentation on the present status of the NGSS.

"In the past," the Associated Press noted, "Willard has supported standards for Kansas with material that questions evolution; guidelines that he and other conservatives approved in 2005 were supplanted by the current ones." As NCSE reported, in November 2005, the Kansas state board of education voted 6-4 to adopt the draft set of state science standards that were rewritten, under the tutelage of local "intelligent design" activists, to impugn the scientific status of evolution — a decision roundly condemned by state and national scientific and education groups. After the antievolution faction on the board, which included Willard, lost its majority in the 2006 elections, the board reversed the decision in February 2007; the antievolution version of the standards was not in place long enough to be felt in the classrooms.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Good riddance times three

Good news out of Oklahoma for once:

When the Oklahoma legislature adjourned sine die on May 25, 2012, no fewer than three legislative attempts to attack the teaching of evolution and of climate change (i.e., Senate Bill 1742, House Bill 1551 and an amendment to House Bill 2341) were finally laid to rest. All three would have encouraged teachers in the public schools of the Sooner State to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming."

One of these days, I'm going to have to sift through the NCSE's archives and see exactly how many of these bills floated in state legislatures contain the usual weasel words concerning the supposed "controversies" concerning "biological evolution" and "global warming". I'm not going to be able to get around to it now, but my guess is that the over-under is around 15 bills in total since January 2011. Place your no-prize wagers and we'll see. 

(Also on WTTFTG)

Cretin of the moment

Representative Jeff Flake (R-Wingnut), for a self-serving (but futile, apparently) attack on the NSF's 2013 budget that puts him in the running for "politician with the most appropriate surname".

Oppose CISPA - before CISPA opposes you

This is a bit of a departure from the science-themed nature of this blog, but it's still a highly important issue for anyone using the Internet, much less writing on it:

Congress is currently considering CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act) – a bill that purports to protect the United States from “cyber threats” but would in fact create a gaping loophole in all existing privacy laws. If CISPA passes, companies could vacuum up huge swaths of data on all Internet users and share it with the government without requiring a court order. CISPA is an exceedingly bad piece of legislation that should be opposed on constitutional grounds, and Congress would be wise to reject it and any other legislation that:

*  Uses dangerously vague language to define the breadth of data that can be shared with the government.

*  Hands the reins of America’s cybersecurity defenses to the NSA, an agency with no transparency and little accountability.

*  Allows data shared with the government to be used for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.

Please join me in opposing this bill by posting this statement on your own page and using the online form available at the link below to send a letter to Congress against CISPA:

(Form available here)

Tennessee: things get worse - far worse

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam did the gutless (but entirely predictable) thing concerning the "monkey bill" (translation: Tennessee Senate Bill 893 and House Bill 368) and decided to let the bills become law without actually bothering to sign it in the face of a potential legislative override. Feel free to read Haslam's statement and decide for yourself whether he's waffling about supporting the bill without actually "supporting" it:

“I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools. The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”

Ah, political doublespeak.

What that statement reads like to me is something along the lines of this: "I'm going to say that I agree with these bills even though they do change scientific standards in state education, and on a very obvious ideological basis; however, I deny that they do. I also deem that 'acceptable' even though I just said that these bills change nothing. However, I need to not take a stand while seeming to do so, which I why I now bring up 'strong bipartisan support' despite the fact that such bipartisan support doesn't seem to have cleared up the 'confusion' the bills cause. So, in other words, I won't veto them - that might actually call for a level of courage on this issue that I'm unwilling to show even though my veto could be easily overidden in both houses of the legislature - but I won't sign them either."

Anyone who feels like whining about how courts have usurped the power of legislatures to make law should feel free to keep their traps shut. With legislation like this, passed in a state that should know better since it was the site of the Scopes trial in 1925, this entire issue was practically tailor-made to end up in Federal court - which might be the dirty little secret of promoters of this sort of legislation in the first place. It's not really about "states' rights" in choosing educational curricula or any other similar claptrap - it's about overturning rulings like Kitzmiller v. Dover and ultimately Edwards v. Aguillard by finding a sympathetic ear in Federal court - and it always has been.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Recycling drivel doesn't make it wisdom

Here's no real surprise: in Oklahoma, yet another attempt at introducing  previously recycled evolution and global warming denial language in an education bill is being undertaken by a state legislator (Steve Russell [R-45th] is the crackpot panderer you should blame), and this time the method was genuinely underhanded:

As introduced, House Bill 2341 would, if enacted, have extended by two years a deadline by which local school districts are required to meet certain standards for media, equipment, and textbooks. The bill passed the House on a 81-8 vote on March 7, 2012, and proceeded to the Senate Education Committee, where it passed on March 26, 2012.

But on March 28, 2012, Steve Russell (R-District 45) proposed to amend HB 2341 with the addition of a new section containing the language of HB 1551, encouraging teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution" and "global warming." The proposal will be considered when the bill comes to a floor vote in the Senate; it is currently on the Senate calendar, but not on the Senate agenda, for April 3, 2012.

No one should really surprised that this continues to go on in Oklahoma ad nauseum. State rep Sally Kern has pretty much made a career out of flogging this dead horse; she did it in 2006 and 2011 (and doesn't that bill look familiar?), although she's also making a career for herself as an all-around champion wingnut on a whole truckload of other "issues" as well (evidence for which can be found here and here). Still, the language of this attempted amendment of HB 2341 belongs to her even if she didn't introduce it, meaning that she still can claim her dunce cap right after Russell picks up his.

(Also on WTTFTG)    

Cretin(s) of the moment

The 72 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives who were dumb enough to vote for House Bill 368. On the other hand, this happened before in the state Senate, so why shouldn't the other chamber drive their car over the cliff despite being warned of the possible consequences by scientists who work and reside there?

Cretin(s) of the moment

The 24 intellectual lightweights in the Tennessee Senate who passed Senate Bill 893, known as one of the "monkey bills" (the other being House Bill 368) for entirely good reasons. As you could guess, informed  opinion hasn't quite been on their side on the issue if the opinions of either the National Association of Biology Teachers or the Nashville Tennessean are anything to go by.

(Also on WTTFTG)

Tennessee: sometimes, The Stupid makes an unexpected early return

In the latest news concerning state legislatures and attempts to attack scientific theories via political fiat, Bo Watson's (R-11th Senate) "monkey bill" (aka Senate Bill 893) has returned from the dead and continues to smell just as bad as before. The state House has already gotten on the "teach the controversy where there isn't one" bandwagon by passing House Bill 368, which the Knoxville News Sentinel discussed in less than glowing terms:  

There is evidence the bill in reality is a vehicle for sneaking intelligent design into science classes.State Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville and the bill's House sponsor, insists there's no religious intent, and the bill contains a disclaimer that it isn't promoting religion.

However, a report in Knoxville's Metro Pulse outlines how the bill originated at the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design. Biology, like all sciences, attempts to discover how the natural world works. It does not look for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. 

There is no controversy in the scientific community about evolution, which is the only purely scientific theory supported by evidence found in the natural world that explains how species adapt and change over time.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a concept better suited for a philosophy or religion class than a biology lab. It is predicated on the existence of an intelligent designer - most, if not all, proponents would say the God of Christianity. Because it introduces a supernatural element into the discussion, intelligent design can't be considered science. It's doubtful even its supporters would claim God can be seen through a microscope.

The House has approved the bill. The Senate Education Committee takes it up this week. The origin of the bill with the Discovery Institute should give senators pause, and not only because other states have rejected similar bills from the think tank.

(Also on WTTFTG)

New repeal effort under way in Louisiana

Senate Bill 374 (a bill designed to repeal the abysmal "Louisiana Science Education Act", an Orwellian name if there ever was one) has been introduced by Karen Carter Peterson (D-5th) in the state Senate. It's about time.

(Also on WTTFTG)