Beacon Broadside

by Glenn Branch

I send a lot of e-mail in the
course of the average day, and ordinarily nobody is fired as a result. But I’m
not always so lucky.

I work at the National
Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the
teaching of evolution in the public schools. Even eighty-two years after the
Scopes trial, that’s a job that keeps us busy. In a 2005 survey
conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, for example, 30% of the
science teachers responding indicated that they experienced pressure to omit or
downplay evolution and related topics, while 31% indicated that they
experienced pressure to include nonscientific alternatives to evolution, such
as “creation science” or “intelligent design,” in their science classrooms.

Sometimes the pressure isn’t so quiet, either. In 2004,
after efforts to have a creationist textbook adopted were stymied, a
creationist majority on the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, passed a
policy misleadingly describing evolution as “a theory … not a fact” and
recommending “intelligent design”—the latest incarnation of creationism—as a
scientifically credible alternative, and tried to force the science teachers to
read a disclaimer to that effect.

Eleven Dover parents filed a lawsuit, contending that the
policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. NCSE consulted
pro bono for the plaintiffs, and no fewer than three members of NCSE’s board of
directors served as expert witnesses. Among them was Barbara Forrest, a
professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and the coauthor,
with Paul R. Gross, of Creationism’s
Trojan Horse—the definitive exposé of the “Wedge strategy” of the
“intelligent design” movement.

The verdict
in the Kitzmiller case was devastating for the ambitions of “intelligent
design.” The judge in the case was scathing, both about the behavior of the
defendants (who were castigated for “breathtaking inanity” in adopting the
objectionable policy) and about the scientific credibility of "intelligent
design" (which, the judge wrote, “is not science and cannot be adjudged a
valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed
journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific
community”).

Forrest’s testimony was instrumental. In his decision, the
judge wrote, “Dr. Barbara Forrest … has thoroughly and exhaustively
chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony
in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits … admitted with it, provide a
wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID’s religious, philosophical,
and cultural content.”

In the wake of the Kitzmiller case, Forrest
continued to speak about the career of the “intelligent design” movement,
lecturing at institutions like Columbia University and Loyola University and to
groups like the American Society of Cell Biology and the American Association
for the Advancement of Science. (She also featured prominently in the recent PBS
documentary about the case, Judgment
Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.) So when she mentioned to me that she
was going to be giving a talk in Austin, Texas, entitled, “Inside
Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” I dropped a quick note
to people in the area, as is my usual procedure.

“Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,” it began. “I thought
that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking in Austin on
November 2, 2007.” After giving the details of the place, time, and sponsor, it
explained, “In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert
testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an
overview of the history of the ‘intelligent design’ movement. Forrest is a
Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at
Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE’s board of
directors.”

Among the people to receive the note was Chris Comer.
Apparently she didn’t have a good idea who Forrest was—she later told “Science Friday”
that she searched the web to find out–and was impressed with Forrest’s
credentials and accomplishments. Having satisfied herself that Forrest was a
worthwhile speaker, she promptly forwarded my e-mail to a few individuals and
mailing lists, adding, “FYI.”

Unfortunately, Comer works at the Texas Education Agency,
as its director of science curriculum—or, rather, she worked there. Less
than two hours after sending the e-mail, she was called on the carpet and
instructed to send a disclaimer. And then she was forced to resign. Although a memorandum
recommending her dismissal referred to various instances of alleged “misconduct
and insubordination” on her part, it was clear what her real offense was: “the
TEA requires, as agency policy, neutrality when talking about evolution and
creationism.”

It’s absurd, of course, to regard Comer’s forwarding of my
announcement of Forrest’s talk as endorsing Forrest’s view (ask a linguist).
But that absurdity pales in comparison to the absurdity of the Texas Education
Agency trying to adopt a position of “neutrality” on evolution, when (as the
National Academy of Sciences observes)
“The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.” As Forrest commented,
“Maybe the TEA can’t afford to take a position on what constitutes good science
education—maybe it must remain neutral on whether or not to lie to students
about evolution—but if so, that’s just sad.”

Both Comer and the TEA kept quiet about her resignation,
but eventually the Austin
American-Statesman got wind of it, and a spate
of reportage and editorials, even as high in the media’s pecking order as The
New York Times, followed. The interest was not only due to Comer’s plight,
however, but also due to what it foreshadows about the upcoming revision of Texas’s state science
standards—which is to be overseen by Don McLeroy, the chair of the state board
of education, and himself a creationist.

Texas isn’t the only state preparing to revise its state
science standards; Florida is, too. Trouble is on the horizon there as well: it
was recently revealed
that a state education official abused her position to rally public opposition
to the section of the draft standards that present evolution. (Was she forced
to resign? No: she was “counseled.”) And with a constant climate of ignorance
of, skepticism about, and hostility toward evolution across the country, it
looks as though my colleagues at NCSE and I won’t be out of a job any time
soon. So we’ll continue to defend the teaching of evolution in the public
schools, and to help concerned teachers, parents, and citizens in general to do
the same.

We’ll keep the e-mails coming, too.

Glenn Branch is deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, a
non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in the public
schools. With NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott, he edited Not in Our Classrooms:
Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools (Beacon Press, 2006).