Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This time in Louisiana. No one who has paid any attention to the ever-evolving strategies of the anti-evolution movement over the years can possibly be fooled by this, but still they persist. This is phase 4 of the anti-evolution movement. They still want exactly the same thing, to find a way to smuggle creationism into science classrooms, but now they're attempting to do so under the guise of "academic freedom."
It's just like the bill in Florida, which purports to support the teaching of "scientific criticisms" or "scientific evidence for and against evolution." But this is the same claim they've been making since the early 70s, when creationism magically became "creation science." Louisiana, of all states, should know better by now. Between them and Arkansas they've been smacked down by the courts half a dozen times on this issue.
Comments
Missouri has got one coming too. And the governor and his wife attended a screening of Expelled, which can't be a good sign.
Posted by: John Pieret | April 5, 2008 9:32 AM
Is anyone keeping a comprehensive list of which states are enacting these types of bills? So far I know of Louisiana, Missouri, Florida and Texas. Any others?
Posted by: Wes | April 5, 2008 10:18 AM
Oh, and Oklahoma, too. Can't believe I forgot my own home state.
Posted by: Wes | April 5, 2008 10:20 AM
Alabama too
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2037
This really is a new approach. Creationism, Scientific Creationism, Intelligent Design, and now... well the whole point of the 4th wave is that they don't call it anything in particular. They simply try to pepper textbooks and curricula with individual arguments (the same arguments as always) in science class, hoping to get kids to add them together later or in different contexts.
Don McLeroy in Texas is a great example of this sort of thing.
Posted by: Bad | April 5, 2008 12:09 PM
I predict that the next move will be to include these "scientific criticisms" on the exit tests. In the past we have been able to say to students (or to crackpot teachers)that we don't have time for that as it isn't on the test.
And no, these people in Louisiana never give up; they haven't given up about school prayers, they haven't given up about bible study, they haven't given up about abstinence only sex ed, they haven't given up about Christian nation history, they haven't given up on ostracizing homosexuals, and they certainly haven't given up promoting "creation science." It's a rather primitive culture with a worldview rooted in mysticism. They can use technology because to them it is just another kind of magic. A naturalistic worldview is beyond them at the present time, particularly since so many of their jobs/careers depend on the mysticism. ("You know Gawd put the oil there for us to use, don't you?")
I was born on Bayou Teche so I am allowed to remark on the appalling ignorance to be found there, but don't anybody else try it or I'll snap your head off. (grin)
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 5, 2008 1:55 PM
I emailed my state senator, but fat chance he'll care. He was named Outstanding Family Advocate or something like that from the "Louisiana Family Forum". They are the group who "asked Ben Nevers to introduce this bill".
It's too bad none of the biology professors here at LSU seem to give a damn. The LFF is basically pure evil. They're what you get when you combine fundy ultra-conservative christers with louisiana back room politics.
They even get a room rent free in the state capital to pray for legislators. Only christians are allowed. They are a shady group with all kinds of powerful friends and are not nice people at ALL, and just want to push their agenda. Read their fun website at http://lafamilyforum.org/
Posted by: faust | April 5, 2008 5:05 PM
I did a quick writeup on the tactical strengths and weaknesses of creationism's 4th wave.
Posted by: Bad | April 5, 2008 5:24 PM
Minnesota currently has an academic freedom bill in committee H.F. No.392
Posted by: Lorax | April 6, 2008 10:08 AM
Not sure I'm ready to add that to the list of sketchy 4th wave enablers. That bill actually looks a lot more reasonable than most of the others. And "serious scholarly opinion" is a lot better of a definition for an educational setting than just whatever anyone decides can be called science. Not 100% better, but nowhere near as shady, in legislative terms. The governing boards that would have to follow this bill could very easily interpret it in such a way to rule out "theories" that appeal to inexplicable magic or refuse to their causal reveal mechanisms.
Posted by: Bad | April 6, 2008 11:04 AM
Bad -
But what constitutes "serious scholarly opinion"? Who gets to say what is serious and scholarly and what is not? are the works of William Dembski or Michael Behe not serious and scholarly? Governing boards coulds also easily interpret it to rule in such theories on the basis that they are "scholarly' and "serious" and in the name of "critical analysis".
Posted by: Dave S. | April 6, 2008 11:41 AM
"Serious scholarly opinion" presumably means "GTFO with that 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' stuff, this is for serious creationism only."
Posted by: Martian Buddy | April 6, 2008 6:09 PM
I'm not saying it's perfect, but as legal language goes, it's far better, because it can be used by individual governing boards to cite reasons why they don't teach, say, astrology. That's definately an improvement over the standard of "whatever Casey Luskin is calling science this week." The bill also doesn't single out evolution as far as I can tell (maybe I was sloppy in my reading though) which is the primary problem with many of the other bills: only evolution/biology are given this special protection clause.
Posted by: Bad | April 6, 2008 7:31 PM
Louisiana is intent on keeping its kids stupid. It maintains our status quo.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | April 8, 2008 1:22 PM
At http://curricublog.org/2008/04/13/florida-house-bills/ I've posted a PDF of the FL House Staff's analysis of the bill (apparently prior to amendment), including:
Effect of Proposed Changes:
Teacher's Rights and Prescribed Curriculum:
The bill provides that every public school teacher in grades K through 12 has the "affirmative right and freedom" to "objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins." If a teacher determines that certain information is sufficiently "scientific" and "relevant," the teacher has a "right" to teach that material irrespective of whether such information is contrary to the curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education through the SSS or by the school district through its instructional materials. The principal, the district school superintendent, the district school board, or the State Board of Education may disagree that the information is "scientific," "relevant," or "objectively present[ed];" however, that fact does not affect that teacher's "right" to present the material. If the principal or other school district staff attempts to restrict a teacher's ability to teach such information, or govern the manner of presentation, it appears the bill grants the teacher a cause of action to enforce the "right" granted in the bill.
The bill, in effect, with regard only to biological or chemical evolution restricts the ability of the State Board of Education or the district school board to define and regulate curriculum content.
Posted by: Tony Whitson | April 14, 2008 1:10 AM