Judy Jennings for State Board of Education District 10 Democratic Primary, March 2, 2010

Please vote for Judy Jennings, Cynthia Dunbar is trying to end public education in Texas.

Unlike incumbent Cynthia Dunbar, Sam Houston saw public education as a great boon. “No longer will the means of elementary learning be limited to those whose private resources are equal to the expense, but the road to distinction in every department of science and moral excellency, will be equally open to all,” he said. And the founders of Texas considered education so essential to “the rights and liberties of the people” that they charged our Legislature with establishing “an efficient system of public free schools” in our Constitution.

The Legislature, in turn, created the State Board of Education to set policy for public education in Texas. But lately, some board members have acted so irresponsibly that the Legislature actually considered stripping the board of many of its duties. The problem: too many members caught up in fighting “culture wars” at the expense of figuring out how to provide our children with an education that will prepare them for the challenges of this new century.

What would you do if your local school board trustee cared more about pursuing a personal agenda rather than seeing to the needs of your child's school? It's hard to imagine such a trustee getting re-elected in any school district in Texas, let alone the eighty-four ISDs that fall, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of SBOE District 10.

We need board members who will be guided by effective measures of what's working, not by ideology, pet peeves or partisanship. Dr. Judy Jennings will be just such a board member, well equipped to make important decisions about meeting the many needs of a diverse and growing state. Read more about Judy here.

“In effect, [Republican incumbent Cythina] Dunbar is on the board to sabotage public education. ... Dunbar should resign and leave the governing of this state's public schools to people who use them, serve them, care about them and understand that they are the future of Texas.”

Ninety-Nine Percent of Texas Science Professors Don't Believe in Intelligent Design

Texas Freedom Network posted to its Web site a study conducted by Dr. Raymond Eve, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Texas at Arlington, titled Evolution, Creationism & Public Schools: Surveying What Texas Scientists Think about Educating Our Kids in the 21st Century.
It reveals the results of a survey sent to biology and "biological anthropology" faculty members from "all 35 public universities plus the 15 largest private institutions in Texas," in which they were asked to take the following taste test: evolution or intelligent design?

The Discovery Institute vs Copyright

Tags: Discovery Institute copyright DMCA Dembski intellectually dishonest intelligent design creationism pepper Hamilton

---

TEA Director of Science Forced to Resign

A Report of Texas Citizens for Science
by Steven Schafersman

November 29, 2007

True Reason for the Forced Resignation
Thus, it is easy to conclude that Chris was forced to resign because someone wanted her out of the TEA--not because she violated a formal written policy, but because she DID violate the preposterous and unethical verbal policy of neutrality to Creationism. I doubt that this policy is written anywhere, but I hope another FOIA request will reveal its official existence. Reporters should interview Associate Commissioner Susan Barnes about her September address to TEA staff. She may still have her notes available (unless she has shredded them, which has been the official TEA policy since...September). A reporter should read back to her what Monica Martinez wrote, and ask Associate Commissioner Barnes to explain why violating a policy that the TEA "must remain neutral" on--not publicizing or seeming to "endorse" a group that "opposes teaching creationism"--is the same as "you are not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency in any way that might compromise the transparency and/or integrity of the upcoming TEKS development and revision process." I, for one, can't see that these are the same thing, but apparently Monica Martinez and Susan Barnes think they are.

Email from Don McLeroy

Could there be a worst qualified school board member? Read the email below. It just gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

October 30, 2003
The Glencoe Motion

My Personal Confession

Given all the time in the world, I don't think I could make a
spider out of a rock. However, most of the books we are considering
adopting, claim that Nothing made a spider out of a rock.

I don't think I share a common ancestor with a tree. However, most
of the books we are considering adopting, claim as a fact that we all
share a common ancestor with a tree.

Discussion

Has science made its case that Nothing made a spider out of a rock
and that we share a common ancestor with a tree? I say NO, there are
too many difficulties with their case, therefore, I am making these
motions.

Evolution science is predominantly historical science; it is not
observable or testable empirically, it must be inferred. For example,
even the empirical research on embryology and the sequences of
proteins and DNA only give rise to historical speculations. Thus, the
argument for evolution is not deductive, but inductive; in an
inductive argument, scientists weigh evidence to see what is most
probable to have occurred. On this basis, most scientists hypothesize
that Nothing made a spider out of a rock and that we share a common
ancestor with a tree. However, other scientists find serious flaws
with those hypotheses.

In most of the books we are considering adopting, our students are
not being presented both sides; the minority viewpoint is being
withheld. This means that these books do not conform to our
standards.

In fact, most of the books assert the majority view as a fait
accompli. While all the books contain some "qualifiers", Glencoe's
Biology, the Dynamics of Life comes the closest to meeting Texas'
high standards and is the most "qualified" book up for adoption.

The Motions

Therefore, I plan to make the following motions at our November
board meeting.

First, I will move that we separate out the regular biology books
from the commissioner's recommendation.

Second, I will move that we adopt Glencoe's Biology, the Dynamics
of Life as conforming and adopt the rest of the regular biology books
as non-conforming.

Last Thought

This action would approve all the books up for adoption, plus
reward the book that most closely follows our standards. It does not
negatively single out any book but fulfills our responsibility of
standards conformity.

Don McLeroy

Just wrong on so many levels.

Dr. McLeroy is apparently a dentist. My advice is to avoid him if you have dental problems. Anyone who does not believe in evolution is so incompetent in biology as to not be trusted in medicine.

Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief

Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief: "'If [Bush] meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science,' Spilhaus said in a statement. 'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory.'

Evolution states that plant, animals and lower life forms are all subject to change over time, and that changes can bring about new species with differing characteristics. Humans are said to have evolved from other primates.

Christian conservatives -- a substantial part of Bush's voting base -- have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

Untestable

Scientists have rejected intelligent design as an attempt to force religion into science education. They say the notion has no support from any observable evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is a well-documented theory that explains existing evidence, which draws from fossils, DNA analyses and investigations of living things.

Intelligent design proponents claim evolution theory has holes, so alternatives should be taught. Scientists counter that evolution is among the most solid theories of science.

The idea of intelligent design is entirely untestable, scientists further argue, and if an idea can't be tested, then it can't be proved one way or the other and so is not a theory."