Of course, I still think the bills rest on a huge misunderstanding, or bad assumption, on the part of the states enscting them. It seems as if the bill’s authors EXPECT that stating that states and teachers have more freedom will mean AUTOMATICALLY that they will choose to add ID-based criticisms of evolution to their curricula (and that states could not have done this already!).

There’s no misunderstanding, not really.

According to the public declarations of the law’s promoters, this “academic freedom” stuff was monumentally silly. No one ever doubted that if an interesting dinosaur fossil were discovered, and the news appeared in the papers, teachers were free to bring in the newspaper to discuss it.

Further, if the proverbial Precambrian rabbit fossil were found — which of course would be significant evidence against evolution — that news too could have been discussed in class. Indeed, it should be discussed in class.

The actual purpose of the law is covert, but well understood by all the creationists. Amid all the bureaucratic chaos, they can openly bring into class the recommended reading list promoted by the Discovery Institute.

What you say is very true here. We are all aware that this is quite a concerted effort on the part of the DI.

Of course, I still think the bills rest on a huge misunderstanding, or bad assumption, on the part of the states enscting them. It seems as if the bill’s authors EXPECT that stating that states and teachers have more freedom will mean AUTOMATICALLY that they will choose to add ID-based criticisms of evolution to their curricula (and that states could not have done this already!).

I suppose my point is that it is a bogus assumption to assume that the reason states did not add ID-based criticisms to their curricula is because they were powerless to do so. (It would be like assuming that the reason I don’t shout racial epithets is because I am unaware of my freedom of speech rights. Just because I don’t do a thing I have the freedom to do doesn’t mean that my restraint is because I am unaware of my freedom. It could simply be that I prefer not to do the thing.) Thus, reminding the states that they have the freedom to criticize evolution in their curricula ASSUMES that the reason they weren’t doing so is becuase they were unaware that they could.

Thus, they are based on what I think is a faulty assumption.

It almost seems like the bill’s proponents think that the state was not able to choose the direction of the curriculum before, and that this bill gives them the freedom to do so.

This points to a previously unconnected point. While it might look like these bills seek to enable the state, their actual purpose is to disable the state from controlling curriculum in its public schools.

These are not isolated initiatives of legislatures acting independently. They are all part of a nationwide campaign. In Florida, Ben Stein himself spoke at the press event announcing introduction of the bill. The Florida bill never made it through to final legislation in that session, but in one version it was perhaps the most explicit in depriving the state of power over the curriculum.

It almost seems like the bill’s proponents think that the state was not able to choose the direction of the curriculum before, and that this bill gives them the freedom to do so. As far as I know, the reason no states teach criticisms of evoluiton is not because of any lack of freedom on their parts, but because doing so would make that state’s science program a nonscience program and a running joke amongst anyone who knows anything about science. Suggesting that this bill ‘gives’ states any type of permission to create, change, or allow teachers to supplement their curricula is to misunderstand that states already HAVE that power and simply haev chosen to teach science in the science classroom. (Just because you have the freedom to radically change a curriculum doesn’t mean that this will be done.)

But what else can we expect from the co-author of Traipsing Into Evolution - a book that thoroughly misunderstands the Dover case on practically every page?

It’s possible that some carefully written ID book could slip through, but …

It’s understandable that people who’ve been enmeshed in this history could have trouble appreciating this, but the whole point of Exploring Evolution is that it’s supposed to not be an ID book.

Its advocates will insist on evaluation based on what is in the text itself, and that the text should stand on its own merits without imputing anything (e.g., based on its DI authorship) that’s not in the text.

They will argue that the text includes nothing but “scientific arguments” on strengths and weakness, based on “scientific evidence,” without any breath of a suggestion of Intelligent Design.

I agree that competent witnesses should be able to show that it’s not even bad science — it’s just not science. But that needs to be shown on the merits of what’s there, in the book. Trying to impeach the book based on the agenda of its authors (as Judge Jones could do so easily, with Forrest’s help, in the case of Pandas) would be playing into DI’s game plan. The text itself needs to be disqualified.

This is all in response to the DI gameplan. Unfortunately for them, when they open this Pandora’s box, they open the stage for all those fundy creationists whose support they need, but who really don’t have a clue as to the DI strategy (like the old Dover school board), so there will be all sorts of things proposed and used in classrooms that would easily be exposed as unconstitutional.

I’m aware that by banning all Discovery Institute material there will be some controversy. That’s why I suggested that the guidelines should (a) mention the Dover case (see my excerpt from it: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science?), and (b) the administrative hearing “remedy” with witnesses and such to decide contested materials.

It’s possible that some carefully written ID book could slip through, but the witnesses at the hearing should be able to handle it. Anyway, this seems to be a prudent course, and it should keep BESE out of trouble, personally, when it all hits the fan.

… BESE should promptly issue emergency “guidelines.”

The guidelines should be simple, and should make two points: (a) that materials already approved by recognized scientific or teaching organizations are okay to use (an impeccable list of several such organizations should be included), and (b) materials promoted or sold by creationist and ID organizations (with a representative list) are not approved. …

The case of Edwards v. Aguillard can be cited for the creationism material, and the Dover decision can be cited for ID material.

That makes sense, I think. However, although the Dover case would provide political cover for BESE doing this, I think the DI’s Exploring Evolution may be crafty enough that it’s not legally covered by Dover (even if it were in the same judicial district) clearly enough for, say, a Summary Judgment.

But whether intended or not, it does appear that BESE has the power to prohibit “supplementary materials.” Even if that grant of power is ambiguous, the responsible course (to avoid classroom chaos and litigation) is that they should act as if they had that power.

In that regard BESE should promptly issue emergency “guidelines.” Official regulations can come later, because they’re cumbersome and take too much time. The guidelines should be simple, and should make two points: (a) that materials already approved by recognized scientific or teaching organizations are okay to use (an impeccable list of several such organizations should be included), and (b) materials promoted or sold by creationist and ID organizations (with a representative list) are not approved. They can also provide for some kind of administrative appeal procedure for unapproved materials that some teacher really wants to use, with a hearing, witnesses, etc.

The case of Edwards v. Aguillard can be cited for the creationism material, and the Dover decision can be cited for ID material.

This wouldn’t be perfect, but it gives general guidance and creates a framework for working out disputes — before such material is used in class.