Texas State Board of Education- trouble ahead?

[ca3799]

The Texas SBOE (State Board of Education) is due for elections in November.

The board has asked the state Attorney General to turn over the 1995 law that limits the boards authority over textbooks and to return the selection of textbook content back to the SBOE. Far right members are attempting to take over the board and want to censor textbooks on issues such as evolution, civil rights, sex education and environmental issues.

Currently 6 of the 15 board members are considered fundamentalists (Miller, Cargill, Bradley, Leo, Lowe, and McLeroy). Other fundamentalists running will be Dunbar and Mercer. Dunbar and Mercer support the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in public schools. If the board can get two more fundamentalists, they will hold an 8-7 majority. The science textbooks are due for review in 2007.

There has been much funding of campaigns by a guy named James Leninger- a San Antonio millionaire conservative republican who is pro-voucher, and very political. He personally has contributed 10 million dollars in 2005-2006 to two PAC's he's created to further his pro-voucher goals, and nearly 3 million during 2005-2006 to help unseat moderate republicans from various offices in other elections in favor of more conservative candidates. I'm not clear on his other goals or why this is so important to him- I suspect religious or financial reasons.

Texans who are interested in public education- please pay attention the the SBOE elections coming soon.

 

[CP489]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths religious people will go to to hinder the progress of mankind.

 

[ca3799]

Leninger is not the only big contributor with an agenda for the school board, but he is an interesting one.

Here is some info about him:
from here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_R._Leininger

Organizations Founded by Leninger:
Committee for Governmental Integrity, a PAC
Entertainment PAC
Texans for Governmental Integrity, a PAC
Texans for Judicial Integrity, a PAC
Texans for Justice, "a political action committee (PAC) that advocates for tort reform (with limits on the awards consumers may receive from companies in liability suits)."
Texas Justice Foundation, "a Texas Public Policy Foundation spin-off, advances a conservative agenda through the courts."
Texas Public Policy Foundation, in 1989, "using the Heritage Foundation as a model for a conservative 'think tank'."


Organizations Funded by Leininger:
American Family Association
Christian Pro-Life Foundation
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
FreePAC
Heidi Group
Institute for Basic Life Principles
Republican National Coalition for Life PAC
San Antonio Christian Pro Life
The Justice Foundation


Business Affiliations:
The Beginner's Bible, "holds the trademark license" and to "its supplemental coloring books for children."
Focus Direct, Owner; "a direct mail company hired by conservative Republican candidates statewide – often with money Leininger has donated to them"; "Clients include Delta Airlines, Ralston-Purina, the Texas Republican Party, Oregon Public Radio, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)/Klan Watch, an Alabama-based nonprofit that monitors far-right, potentially violent groups."
Home Court America, Part owner; "San Antonio basketball and gymnasium facility located in the northwest suburbs."
Kinetic Concepts International (KCI), Third owner; "medical bed and supply company" sold and no longer publicly-held.
Mission City Food Co., Co-owner; "a parent company of Promised Land Dairy and other food-processing groups such as Sunday House smoked turkey."
Mission City Properties, Owner; "a San Antonio-based commercial real estate company. He houses many of his political action committees and other groups in these properties."
Mission City Television, "San Antonio company produces videotapes for commercials and other TV formats."
The Spurs, "Leininger holds an estimated 10% interest in the San Antonio basketball team."
Sunday House, Co-owner; "Fredericksburg company that makes and markets smoked turkeys."
TXN, started and/or financed "the failed 'The News of Texas', a 24-hour Texas news cable network."
Whole Foods private label milk.
Winning Strategies, controlling interest; "a political consulting company with a client list that includes the Christian Coalition."

There is another married couple who is similarly interested in Texas schools

 

[Lamuella]

Obviously, some of the lessons of Dover were not learned.

However, with the precedent set in Dover, this would be a walk at trial for a plaintiff.

 

[hammegk]

The only prededent set in Dover was that the current Behe-Dembski approach to support ID was not found to be defensible.

At some point, neo-Darwinism supporters may get an opportunity to explain in a court of law why it is not just another religion with a different priesthood.

 

[Lamuella]

I can answer that one:

Because it makes no claims about the spiritual whatsoever.

Did I get it right?

 

[strathmeyer]

I believe it only claims to make no claim.

 

[aerosolben]

At some point, neo-Darwinism supporters may get an opportunity to explain in a court of law why it is not just another religion with a different priesthood.

They may also get a chance to explain why gremlins are stealing socks out of my dryer. There was definitely a pair of them when they went in.

 

[Polaris]

I'll be registered to vote by November - I'll do my part to help kill this.

In the meantime, may Fred Phelps die of colo-rectal cancer.

 

[ca3799]

Thanks, Polaris.

My, what a squabbly group!!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The only prededent set in Dover was that the current Behe-Dembski approach to support ID was not found to be defensible.

Possibly so, but the Behe-Dembski approach was the only thing about ID that even pretended to be science. So now the IDers have either to say "We think it should be taught in science class ... just because," or they have to conjure up some new pseudoscience to support it. I don't think Dembski has another pseudoscientific approach in him, so they new a new guy.

~~ Paul

 

[blutoski]

The only prededent set in Dover was that the current Behe-Dembski approach to support ID was not found to be defensible.

At some point, neo-Darwinism supporters may get an opportunity to explain in a court of law why it is not just another religion with a different priesthood.

I think that's exactly what was demonstrated in several trials. Specifically: the 'equal time' trials where Creationism was put forward as evolution's equal. Or, more to the point, evolution was characterized as a pseudoreligion.

These cases all lost, because there is a set of tests that law in the US applies to theories in order to classify them as religious. Scientific theories sometimes conform to this test, and are described as religious: for example, Scientology passes the test, and can apply for tax breaks.

The Creationists were unable to convince the courts that evolutionary theory has sufficient religious elements to be considered a type of religion.



It should be pointed out that the Dover trial did not come to its ruling so much because ID was characterized as a religion, but because ID failed to demonstrate that it had any scientific validity. That is was obviously a religious scheme was informative and embarassing, but not pivotal.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Scientology isn't a scientific theory at all.

 

[Chaos]

Scientology isn't a scientific theory at all.

I don´t think that was the point.

The point - as I see it - is, the procedure for defining religions has made Scientology a religion, which it really isn´t - it´s a scam -, so it is apparently biased towards generating false positives. However, despite the propensity towards fals positives, evolution *still* didn´t pass, which, I think blutoski is trying to say, shows again that evolution is not a religion, claims to the contrary be damned.

 

[hammegk]

I think that's exactly what was demonstrated in several trials. Specifically: the 'equal time' trials where Creationism was put forward as evolution's equal.

You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.

Or, more to the point, evolution was characterized as a pseudoreligion.

I admit that is not what I understand from history including Dover.


Before the rude interruption:

Originally Posted by drkitten :
They got that opportunity already at Dover.

And in Epperson.

And McLean.

And Segraves.

And Edwards.

And Freiler.

And LeVake.

And....

So so far, the court has considered this argument seven times and found in favor of evolutionary theory seven times.

The Court has been known to change its mind, and iirc those cases all deemed creationism=Id=Religion. Do you think no other methods of attack exist?

POTUS refused to hear LeVake; I posit the question posed -- can teachers even mention weakpoints in neo-Darwinism -- will again be put to them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

ID is Creationism, Hammy. You may now STFU.

 

[wollery]

You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.

It's a weasel move to try to say that ID is not the same as creationism. ID necessitates a designer of some kind. ID proponents may claim that they aren't speculating on what form that designer may have, but if it isn't God then it must be some being(s) equally as complex as humans, which must also have a designer, and so on ad nauseum. Either the Universe must be infinitely old, with an infinite series of designers, or Goddidit. Guess which IDers prefer. Ergo ID is creationism in a very thin disguise.

 

[hammegk]

Today, the courts agree with you. The Behe-Dembski approach doesn't convince me either.

You are of the opinion US courts will never be presented a viable alternative. I suggest future challenges will occur, and courts are increasingly willing to split hairs more and more finely.

This remains the cutting edge of two absolutely antithetical philosophies, although few seem to understand that, yet. The Texas School board's rehash of a stale approach is also doomed to fail, imo.

 

[drkitten]

You are of the opinion US courts will never be presented a viable alternative.

In the same sense that the US courts will never be presented with a viable alternative to the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease, yes.

I suggest future challenges will occur, and courts are increasingly willing to split hairs more and more finely.

Courts are willing to split hairs-- but only on the basis of reason and evidence.

There is no evidence against the theory of evolution, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There is no expectation of evidence against the theory of evolution, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There are not even any substantive weaknesses in the theory of evolution beyond those inherent in the scientific enterprise itself.

And if your expectations are that the courts will abandon the principles of reason and evidence in order to take a position hostile to science per se, I am comfortable dismising your expectations out of hand. Recent court decisions (see, in particular, Daubert and Kumho Tire) have shown the courts being more willing, not less, to recognize scientific epistemology as a preferred method of inquiry.

This remains the cutting edge of two absolutely antithetical philosophies

I understand that entirely. What you fail to understand that only one of those two "antithetical philosophies" has any evidentiary support whatsoever. There is no reason for the court to decide in any other way than in favor of the theory of evolution, nor do I expect such a reason to develop.

 

[Lamuella]

You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.

I think that the Dover case showed quite clearly that intelligent design was a cloaking device for creationism. Look at the book "Of Pandas And People". All it took to change it from a "creationism" textbook to an "intelligent design" textbook was a find-and-replace on a couple of key terms. Barbara Forrest showed that this was exactly what they had done. At times, they didn't even do this very well, as is shown by the infamous "cdesign proponentsists" draft of the book. The authors of Of Pandas And People and their financial backers clearly meant to change the name of their movement to "intelligent design" while doing nothing about what the movement actually stood for.

It's not a coincidence that "intelligent design" as a phrase was coined so quickly after Edwards v Aguillard. It was a rebranding of a movement, not a repositioning of its aims.