Glenn Branch & Eugenie Scott, Scientific American, “The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom”: We all have our heroes, and Eugenie Scott is one of mine. As far as I know, she’s undefeated in battling creationism in the classroom, and a nice person to boot. With co-writer Branch, Scott tackles creationism’s latest mutation: its attempt to camouflage creationist criticisms of evolution as “academic freedom,” or an attempt to teach the non-existent controversy. An excerpt (but read the whole thing):
On June 26, 2008, the governor’s office announced that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Why all the fuss? On its face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state board of education to “allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” which includes providing “support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied.” What’s not to like? Aren’t critical thinking, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion exactly what science education aims to promote?
As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising—for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.
NY Times, “Early Test of Obama View on Power Over Detainees”: the Grey Lady finally caught up with our site, and it only took a month. Last December, I argued that, when Obama takes over the Bush administration’s legal liability as the defendant in Pucciarelli v. Al-Marri, the new administration should take the chance to settle the dispute before oral arguments, or use its briefs in the case to repudiate Bush’s favorable view of indefinite detention. In its article, the Times notes that Obama will have to decide by February 20th – and, hopefully, will err towards civil libertarianism.
Enjoy!
