May 19, 2008, For Immediate Release

To: Michigan’s legislative leaders and the media

From: Michigan Citizens for Science, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and improving science education in our public schools

HB 6027 is Trojan horse legislation that should be rejected

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Midland) has submitted legislation to the House Education Committee that would weaken public school science education. HB 6027 purports to be a bill supporting “academic freedom,” but in reality it is a Trojan horse to facilitate the smuggling in of Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) as an alternative to evolution.

First, Rep. Moolenaar has previously submitted legislation that would allow IDC into public school science classrooms. In September 2005 he submitted HB 5251, which would have rewritten the core curriculum standards to require that students be taught to “Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.” The current bill targets these as well. HB 5251 was later replaced by HB 5606, which used similar language but did not specify evolution and global warming as the targets. In a Detroit Free Press article, Rep. Moolenaar admitted that this bill would allow local school boards to put IDC into science classrooms, something Federal courts have already rejected as unconstitutional.

Second, the “academic freedom” language was concocted by the Discovery Institute, the most prominent IDC advocacy organization in the country. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the Discovery Institute either wrote this bill themselves or consulted with Rep. Moolenaar on how it should be worded. The Discovery Institute announced the bill’s number and content on their website two days before it was available on the Michigan legislature website and before it was referred to the Education Committee. On April 30, the Discovery Institute on their webpage quoted Rep. Moolenaar directly about his bill and noted that his bill, like the many other similar bills around the country, “have been adapted from sample legislation developed by Discovery Institute.”

Third, the “academic freedom” language of the bill is merely the latest rhetorical strategy advocated by the Discovery Institute to get IDC into science classrooms. For instance, in 2000, they urged the Ohio State Board of Education to adopt a policy explicitly allowing IDC to be taught. When it looked like that idea would fail, they changed gears and adopted a new strategy: rather than demanding that IDC be taught, they said that they only wanted the “arguments for and against evolution” to be taught. That language then was modified slightly into wanting to teach the “scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution” and thereafter into teaching “critical analysis of evolution” and sometimes expressed as “teaching the controversy.” We see that rhetorical history reflected in HB 6027 in its demand that teachers be allowed to teach the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”

Fourth, all of these rhetorical tactics amount to the same thing because ID, like other forms of creationism, is nothing more than a set of arguments against evolution. There is no theory of ID that can be tested; there are merely arguments taken from earlier creationist writings that have been discredited by the scientific community decades ago. So when they shift from wanting to teach IDC to wanting to teach the “arguments for and against” or the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, they are just aiming to get the long-discredited claims of IDC in the back door without mentioning them by name.

Fifth, the courts have already ruled against ID. In 2005, a Federal court regarding a pro-ID policy in Dover, Pennsylvania ruled that “Intelligent Design” was nothing more than a repackaging of the “creation science” that had already been ruled unconstitutional to teach in public schools by the Supreme Court in 1987. Judge John Jones, an appointee of President George W. Bush, noted in his ruling that this new tactic of “teaching the controversy” and advocating “critical thinking” about evolution was, in reality, just a new rhetorical label for the same old unconstitutional ideas:

“Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the [ID Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”

Moolenaar’s legislation does a disservice to teachers, school administrators and local school boards by urging them to incorporate material into science classes that is at odds with well-established science. The bill itself notes that “some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects,” yet it does nothing to clear up that uncertainty. It does not spell out what the “the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” are that teachers are supposed to discuss and that lack of definition is intentional. This is a recipe for disaster, ushering teachers and school boards into a Dover trap, by inviting them to include material that not only has no scientific basis, but has already been declared in Federal court to be unconstitutional to teach. HB 6027 ushers schools down a path that will inevitably lead to expensive and divisive court battles. This legislation should be rejected.

Ed Brayton
President, Michigan Citizens for Science
http://www.michigancitizensforscience.org
ebrayton@michigancitizensforscience.org

Dr. Pennock was also interviewed for a show that will air locally on WKAR-TV following NOVA at 10 pm. “After the Trial: A Second Look” focuses on how the trial has affected creationism activism in Michigan. The show also features Rep. Brian Palmer (R-Romeo) who has sponsored several of the Intelligent Design bills in the state that MCFS has had to deal with.

Pennock is recognized for distinguished service in voicing the philosophical deficits in the pro-intelligent design argument and defending against its inclusion in science teaching.

“I feel very humbled to be honored for just doing what I love to do – studying philosophically and experimentally how science and evolution work, and helping teach about that process of discovery,” Pennock said. “Science is such an important way of understanding ourselves and our world; it deserves to be protected from those who would try to extinguish its light.”

Pennock has published two books and many articles that critique the intelligent design creationist movement. His 1999 book, Tower of Babel: the Evidence Against the New Creationism, was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. He was an expert witness in the historic Kitzmiller v. Dover case that ruled it unconstitutional to teach ID creationism in public schools. His work has been discussed in newspapers and magazines such as Harpers and Discover. Pennock earned his doctorate in history and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh.

Congratulations, Rob, on a well deserved honor.

Unlike the earlier confrontations on the issue before the House Education Commmittee, the state BOE operates fairly and allows both sides to have the time they need to testify on the subject. MCFS President Robert Pennock and board member Greg Forbes both got to testify against the changes, and MCFS was involved in the weeks leading up to this vote in educating the board on the misleading nature of the proposed changes. Not only did they vote unanimously to reject those changes, they also voted down yet another attempt to delay the final vote (which had already been delayed by a month so they pressure the board for the changes). A major victory for science and yet another defeat for its opponents.

Second, by associating a controversial issue such as intelligent design with the issue of local control, DeVos is speaking against his own position in improving state educational standards.

Earlier this year the legislature passed HB 5606, which attempted to standardize the curriculum requirements across the board for all of Michigan’s public schools and charter schools. Dick Devos was a staunch supporter of that bill. Yet on the issue of intelligent design, he suddenly changes positions and wants to have different things taught in different school districts without any consistency.

Why the change in position? Almost certainly because he wants intelligent design taught but knows that a state law requiring that is too controversial and would make the state the defendant in the inevitable court challenge to such a policy. By passing the buck to the local school districts and encouraging them to put intelligent design into the science curriculum on their own, he also passes the financial buck to them when, as in Dover last year, they have a Federal court rule against such a policy.

In an automated phone message that the DeVos campaign is sending out to voters all over the state, DeVos tries to couch his position in terms of giving parents control of education rather than the government. That message says, in part:

Now DeVos has the right idea. Let local parents make the choice of what’s taught in schools. Granholm thinks state government knows best - not parents.

But the reality is that local government is still the government, and when local school boards take him up on his invitation to put ID into science classes, it will be parents who will challenge those policies in court because they do not want their children taught religious beliefs dressed up in scientific-sounding language. What appears to be a plea for more parental control is really just an attempt to pass the legal and financial buck from the state government to cash-strapped local school districts. It’s the local school districts who take DeVos’ invitation seriously that will end up paying the price for his irresponsible political gamesmanship.

September 22,2006
Dr. Robert T. Pennock
President, Michigan Citizens for Science
http://www.michigancitizensforscience.org
president@michigancitizensforscience.org

As the views of gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos on teaching “intelligent design” in public schools have come to the public’s attention in the last few days, the DeVos campaign seems to be engaging in doubletalk on the issue. A Michigan Citizens for Science member wrote to the campaign inquiring about those views. Bizarrely, the DeVos camp is claiming he was misrepresented by the Detroit Free Press when in fact they quoted a statement the campaign put out almost verbatim. Here’s the full text of their email response. We’ve marked certain key phrases in different ways for comparison purposes:

Thank you for your email. It is unfortunate that Dick DeVos was misrepresented by a reporter in a recent news article regarding his position on the teaching of intelligent design.

The truth is Dick DeVos has always believed that our children should be provided with more knowledge, not less. Lots of intelligent people can disagree about the origins of life. In the end, Dick DeVos believes in our system of local control. He believes local school boards should have the opportunity to offer evolution and intelligent design in their curriculums.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and share your thoughts.

Sincerely,
The DeVos Team

Now let’s compare that to what Free Press reporters Chris Christoff and Lori Higgins actually said Compare the similarly marked sections to one another:

Controversy over evolution theory bounced into the race for governor Wednesday, as Republican candidate Dick DeVos said Michigan science classes should be allowed to present intelligent design as a possible explanation of diverse life on Earth.

“Lots of intelligent people can disagree about the origins of life. In the end, I believe in our system of local control,” DeVos said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Local school boards should have the opportunity to offer evolution and intelligent design in their curriculums.”…

In that interview on a range of education issues DeVos said: “I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design — that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory — that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less.”

One can only wonder on what possible basis DeVos can claim to have been misrepresented. What the Free Press quoted from him was taken directly from a statement that the DeVos campaign released to them and it is virtually word for word the same as what they cite in their email as his real, non-misrepresented position. This kind of campaign-speak doubletalk and false accusations of misrepresentation really should be brought to the public’s attention.

More importantly, the public needs to understand that what Dick DeVos is advocating could have devestating results for local school districts. By encouraging local school districts to incorporate intelligent design into their science curriculum, DeVos is inviting them into a Dover Trap. In a Federal court case last year, the Dover Area School District ended up with a legal bill in excess of $1 million dollars after going ahead with an ID policy against the advice of their own attorney. Every relevant court precedent is strongly against DeVos’ position and it is irresponsible for the state government to encourage local school districts to do what the Federal courts have already declared unconstitutional and risk their financial well being in the process.

Michigan Citizens for Science (MCFS) is a group of concerned citizens, businesspeople, parents and educators who are committed to maintaining excellence in public school science classrooms in the state of Michigan.