Fast political action is needed to stop another anti-science bill in Louisiana. Below is a message from Barbara Forrest, who says it all better than I can.

Friends, fellow educators, and concerned citizens,

First, please accept my thanks to those of you who helped in the effort to stop SB 561, especially those who went to the Capitol to testify. Second, action is needed IMMEDIATELY to ask members of the House Education Committee to kill HB 1168, which is the House twin of SB 561. As far as I know, no newspapers have carried the story of its being filed on Monday, April 21. The bill could be heard in the House Education Committee as early as this week of April 28, so immediate action is crucial.

As you may know, SB 561 was amended to SB 733, the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” in which form it is less pernicious but still bad because it contains code language that creationists can exploit. However, the creationists were unhappy with the amendments, so Rep. Frank Hoffman of West Monroe has introduced HB 1168 in the House of Representatives. HB 1168 is identical to the original SB 561. (Mr. Hoffman was the Asst. Supt. of the Ouachita Parish school system in 2006. He helped persuade the the Ouachita Parish School Board to pass its creationist “science curriculum policy” that is the basis for both SB 561 and HB 1168.)

SB 733 will probably pass the Senate and be sent to the House, where it could be merged with HB 1168, which means that we are back where we started with SB 561. So HB 1168 must be killed in the House Education Committee, which means that we must generate as much opposition to the House Education Committee **NOW.** The bill could come up in the House Education Committee this week, but we are not sure. We need to act immediately to request that House Education Committee members kill HB 1168. And please also contact everyone else you know INSIDE LOUISIANA to do the same. We want opposition from inside the state, not outside. We want the House Education Committee members to hear from people who live here and vote here. We may need to generate outside opposition later, but not at this time.

I have written a revised backgrounder for HB 1168 based on the one I wrote for SB 561. You may download it here:

http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Backgrounder_HB_1168_4.27.08.pdf

There are talking points, contact information, and some instructions for you at the end of this document.

A shorter set of talking points, also with contact information, is here:

http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/HB_1168_Talking_Points.pdf

The contact information in these is for ten members of the House Education Committee who may be receptive to our contact based on what we have been able to learn. If you personally know another member who is approachable, please also contact that person.

I have talked personally to three committee members and found those three very nice and very interested. Some of the committee members have been teachers and served on their parish school boards. Some are attorneys. The three to whom I talked were aware of the Dover trial, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005), in which I served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs, a case that cost the Dover school board one million dollars. This seemed to resonate with them. You may wish to keep that in mind as you contact them. If I may make a suggestion: remember that this is a political problem, not a scientific one. Please try to avoid “science talk.” As Eugenie Scott, our executive director at the National Center for Science Education says, we will not solve this problem by throwing science at it. We must appeal to the legislators as fellow citizens, parents, and educators. No academic-speak! :)

The children and teachers of Louisiana are being used as pawns by the Louisiana Family Forum and, most likely, the Discovery Institute, about which I have written so extensively. These people will assuredly not be around to clean up the wreckage they will leave in their wake if we don’t stop them. We have to stop them.

Florida delivers some good news: their nasty little academic “freedom” bill is dead. Now we just have to worry about similar bills in Michigan, Missouri, Alabama, and Louisiana.

And it’s a classic!

It starts off with a little boy getting a lesson in “evolution” from his mother. This version of evolution has nothing to do with what biologists teach, of course — it’s bizarrely teleological, with everything striving towards becoming human.

After having evolution explained to him, the little boy turns into an “atheist” (one who’s planning to become a god — Chick isn’t quite clear on what the whole atheism thing means), and it all means you get to be as evil as you want.

There’s the usual stereotypical Chick interlude where a cute little girl tells the little boy all about Jesus. These stories go one of two ways: the boy can find Jesus and go to heaven, or he can reject the message and be horribly punished. Guess which way this tract ends?

This is so awfully, horribly bad that I must get my hands on a print copy.

This is actually somewhat interesting, and I’m not going to reject all of it out of hand. The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School is going to defend the use of Lennon’s song “Imagine” in the movie Expelled.

On the one hand, they are using a very short clip — and I am not a fan of the kind of draconian enforcement of every second of a song that the music industry seems to favor. There are reasonable grounds for fair use of short clips of music … the question is whether this is one of those cases.

On the other hand, I think Premise is horribly dishonest, and this press release is personally obnoxious to me (which is not actionable, of course … it merely diminishes the Fair Use Project’s credibility when they so readily buy into some of the phoniness Premise is pushing.)

The producers of “Expelled” spent two years interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers, and public leaders, including University of Minnesota biology professor P.Z. Myers, who does not support alternative theories of evolution. The clip of “Imagine,” which is audible for approximately 15 seconds, is used in a segment of the documentary in which the film’s narrator and author Ben Stein comments on statements made by Myers and others about the place of religion. In the documentary Stein says: “Dr. Myers would like you to think that he’s being original but he’s merely lifting a page out of John Lennon’s songbook.” This is followed by an audio clip of Lennon’s song “Imagine,” specifically, the lyrics “Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too.”

“We included the ‘Imagine’ clip not only to illuminate Ben Stein’s commentary but to criticize the ideas expressed in the song,” says Logan Craft, chairman and executive producer of Premise Media.

There’s a lot to object to there.

• It is not true that I do not support alternative theories of evolution. I do. However, I expect alternatives to be backed up by evidence; I reject the fact-free, useless nonsense of Intelligent Design, which is not the same as being close-minded, as this P.R. implies.

• Stein’s commentary is ludicrous. I did not claim originality, so accusing me of doing so is false. Lennon’s song is also not relevant to what I said; I had just said that science erodes religious belief, and that the atheist goal is not the elimination of religion, but a reduction of its impact in secular functions, like government (my infamous comment about ‘knitting’). Imagine says nothing about science, or knitting for that matter. The song actually doesn’t follow from what I was saying.

• The claim that they were commenting on the ideas in the song is false. This movie was not about how artists are excluding creationists from their discipline, but about scientists. The song doesn’t discuss science or creationism or the academy, any of the themes of the movie. It’s just a pretty and extremely recognizable popular melody; they are using it as background music to a series of images that they want to use to generate a negative emotional response to my argument. They could have used any music and still made the same point.

So, really, what I detest is that, as usual, Premise Media is lying. Their rationalizations are completely bogus.

If they’d been more honest, though, and were simply arguing that, hey, a quick 15 second clip of a popular song ought to be acceptable use, I’d be sympathetic (now maybe an artist with a more personal appreciation of the ownership of an artistic creation would differ…), but they just don’t seem to be able to do that. They’ve got a compulsion to lie and try to claim that they were directly addressing John Lennon’s work, which they most clearly were not doing.

Of course, if they were capable of honesty, their movie wouldn’t exist.