Attack on religious beliefs is what former TEA staffer circulated

Attack piece on religious beliefs, disguised as “science”
Is what the former TEA staffer responsible for science curriculum was circulating

What's all the ruckus at the Texas Education Agency? Let’s just say that the TEA former staffer was promoting the author of a “hit piece” cloaked as science which does does little more than attack people of faith and was written under the organization known as "Center for Inquiry": a group of atheists and “non believers”.

Background:
In a recent Austin American Statesman article, it was revealed that the Texas Education Agency’s science policy staffer had become an advocate for a position, not an advisor.

It all has to do with the teaching of evolution in science curriculum and with the elected State Board of Education, chaired by Don McLeroy.

Chris Comer, TEA’s former head of science curriculum, said her opinions “cost her a job” though she resigned, and was not fired. (Even the AAS article linked below points out that the staffer appeared to have circumvented agency policies on other matters, but she appears to blame her departure on this incident alone.)

It appears Comer forwarded an e-mail from a pro-evolution group announcing a speech by Barbara Forrest, a key witness in a court case in Pennsylvania that ruled against teaching intelligent design (ID) in schools. It was sent to several individuals and two e-mail discussion groups used by science educators.

This TEA staffer is a bureaucrat -- education policy is not made by bureaucrats but by elected officials.

Here's the rub. Some TEA staffers and educrats don't want elected officials in charge...particularly if they are conservatives...particularly if they express their religious convictions!

McLeroy said that although he is a creationist, he doesn't necessarily think creationism should be taught in schools. Rather, he said, he supports current curriculum standards that say students should "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses."

McLeroy said he would support changes that further spell out what evolution's strengths and weaknesses are.

Sounds reasonable.

But it appears the other side isn’t so reasonable: According to the AAS, Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said he plans to fight to get the "strengths and weaknesses" language removed from the state's curriculum standards.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/06/1206science.html


What was the material in question?
And what is in the paper Understanding the “Intelligent Design Creationist Movement, Its True Nature and Goals”? It is unclear if the paper wasforwarded by the then-TEA science curriculum advisor or a speaking engagement by its author is what was forwarded.

But the author of the paper clearly has an agenda.

The paper isn’t an intellectual, policy paper but is a political “hit piece” on anyone who supports intelligent design (ID) or who wants evolution to be taught as a theory. It is really an attack piece on the Discover Institute (which promotes ID). The paper name names, and among those individuals they attack are President Bush and former Sen. Rick Santorum,

And they bring in the Swift Boat Veterans, Microsoft, Time Warner, the John Birch Society, the Council for National Policy, and others.

The paper refers to we mere voters and taxpayers as “the scientifically uninformed American public.”

The paper expresses concern over any exploration of evolution, and opposes teaching evolution as a theory.

We are talking about Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement, Its True Nature and Goals” which recommends schools reject attempts to put intelligent design into the curriculum:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
It was published by the Center for Inquiry, Washington, D.C.

What is this group Center for Inquiry?
They are a self-proclaimed “Global Federation Committed to Science, Reason, Free Inquiry, Secularism, and Planetary Ethics”.

Center for Inquiry’s website states:
In the contemporary marketplace of ideas, one can find responsible, objective, and evidence-based information on everything from foreign policy to hormone replacement therapy. Yet when it comes to some of our most fundamental questions -- about human values, the transcendent, or the borderlands of science -- one often only hears from partisans of traditional religion, New Age practitioners, or anti-science movements.

With its network of scientists and other thinkers, its grassroots advocacy and public education organizations, and its popular and scholarly publications, the Center for Inquiry fills this gap, lending a credible voice to critical inquiry and the scientific outlook.
http://www.cfidc.org/membership.html

Their leading spokesman is CFI executive director Paul Kurtz. He is also on the board of The Council for Secular Humanism which proclaims to be “North America's leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.”

Note: Secular Humanists are usually atheist or agnostic.

Paul Kurtz, he leader of CFI is also a founding members of CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others.

Paul Kurtz is an athiest but doesn't like labels.

Paul Kurtz Responds to Sam Harris
Category: New AtheismPosted on: October 9, 2007 4:16 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
The identity politics wrapped up in author Sam Harris' statements at a recent atheist conference here in Washington, DC has sparked a ton of discussion and debate. Paul Kurtz, chair of the Center for Inquiry and Editor of Free Inquiry, has circulated an important response via various email lists. Nathan Bupp, media relations director at CFI, asked that I post it here at Framing Science.
Kurtz appears to agree with the proposal to drop the label "atheist" but argues strongly that other terms such as "secular humanist" are important and appropriate. These terms signal a philosophical tradition that goes beyond just negative attacks on religion and that promotes alternative values and institutions.

What Label for People Like Us?
A Message From Paul Kurtz
I note with interest that Margaret Downey organized a blockbuster atheist conference in the Washington, D.C. area to which she brought many of the "new atheists." We congratulate her on her energy. However, may I agree with Sam Harris who states that in accepting the label of "atheist" that "we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture... a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms."
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/10/paul_kurtz_responds_to_sam_har.php
All this controversy is really over the elected State Board of Education in Texas and their oversight of the state curriculum, something which many educrats don’t like.

(Heaven forbid mere elected representatives direct our children’s education, not education bureaucrats!)

To clarify the SBOE’s intent, Chairman Don McLeroy wrote this in a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News:

Re: Clarifying my motivation for questioning evolution
From: Don McLeroy, Chair of Texas State Board of Education

December 15, 2007

Dear Editor,

What do you teach in science class? You teach science. What do you teach in Sunday school class? You teach your faith. Thus, in your story “Teaching of evolution to go under microscope” (December 13, 2007), it is important to remember that some of my quoted comments were made in a 2005 Sunday school class and that the rest of my responses to the reporter were made in reference to those comments. The story does accurately represent that I am a Christian and that my faith in God is something that I take very seriously. My Christian convictions are shared by many people.

Given these religious convictions, I would like to clarify any mistaken impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows"; no subject should be “untouchable” as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.

What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations 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 does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science.

Sincerely,



Don McLeroy
Chair, State Board of Education

So what's the stink about? Some atheists are fighting our schoolchildren hearing that evolution is a theory. hum.....