The Revisionaries (2012) Movie Script

The Senate Committee on
Nominations will come to order.
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity
to question chairman McLeroy.
I think this is one of the most
important jobs in Texas.
There are 15 bills
floating around here
to strip your authority.
To make sure that you have
nothing to do with curriculum
and nothing to do
with selecting textbooks.
You've created a hornet's nest
like I've never seen here.
Now, the perception out there
is that you, as chair,
have done everything
conceivably possible
to make sure
that Intelligent Design
is what is taught
in the state's textbooks.
How would you respond
to that?
The question is:
did I try to put
Intelligent Design in the books?
I'd say that'd be false.
Absolutely false.
That you've done
everything possible
as chairman to push
that point of view.
Now, what would you say?
What would you respond to that?
I would say that's not true.
I would say I did everything
I did to bring up the...
.. some of the scientific
difficulties of evolution.
I would say that would be
absolutely true.
Yes, sir.
Hey, fellas,
It's March.
That means it's time
for the year's 'mote' exciting
television event.
Say it with me.
The Texas School Board hearings.
Why didn't you say it with me?
I want you to explain,
how can the Texas
Board of Education
have the power
to change textbooks,
really, all over the entire country?
Why does this matter
to the rest of us?
Typically, it's been Texas
and California,
the two biggest textbook
purchasers in the country,
that really dictate
the rest of the country.
Whatever textbooks they select
then affects
the rest of the country.
Because the publishers publish
those kinds of books,
and the rest of the country
You have been quoted
as saying
that the amount of power
you have,
at times, boggles your mind.
Well, I did say that.
I wished I hadn't have said that.
But I did say that,
because it is
pretty influential.
Each step of the way,
evolution deniers and opponents
on the board
have thumbed their nose
at science
and made clear
that their own personal
ideological beliefs
are more important
than giving Texas kids
the education they need
to succeed in college
and in the jobs
of the 21st century.
Okay, okay.
dd [soft music]
Wait. Keep your chin down.
Perfect, just like that.
[air hissing]
Open a little wider.
- Ah.
- Open a little wider.
- Ah, ah.
Hey, Michael, you ever
thought much about evolution,
the idea that we all share
a common ancestor
with that tree out front?
You ever thought much
about it?
You know, not really.
Yeah, most people haven't
thought much about it.
I think...
it's quite a big claim
that people make,
you know...
I'm a skeptic myself.
There's no way.
I think
what we've done in Texas
is unbelievably significant.
It has to do with the
definition of science.
[air hissing]
So now the debate
is over: "What's science?"
It's gonna be in every single text book.
The kids are gonna know
what science is.
And science is the use of
evidence to make testable...
explanations of natural phenomena.
Rinse out real good.
I'm gonna be asking you
some true-false questions
just to see what you know already.
before we even start that...
I want to know what you guys
know already about evolution.
What have you guys heard
about evolution?
What are your ideas
when you...
Yes, Joey.
Monkeys turn into humans.
Monkeys turn into humans.
You know,
everybody always says that.
I want to clear this up
right now.
doesn't necessarily say
That we evolved from monkeys,
Especially the monkeys
that we see now,
like an orangutan
or a gorilla, alright?
It doesn't say that.
What it does say
Is that a long, long time ago,
We may have had a common
ancestor with a monkey.
You guys know what I mean
by "common ancestor"?
like, your mom, maybe.
You and your cousin
have a common ancestor.
Alright who is your
common ancestor to your cousin
Your grandma.
Your grandmother, right?
Does that mean that
you came from your cousin?
This week, the Texas
State Board of Education
Was reviewing the Texas
Curriculum Standards
for science.
Grades kindergarten
through graduation
were being reviewed,
but all conversation,
all debate, and all eyes
were focused on two words:
"strengths and weaknesses".
And it was all about evolution.
Evolution is a theory,
so it's not really valid.
True or false?
Some scientists
do consider it... Evolution...
to be scientific fact.
And so the controversy is:
At what point can we call
evolution a fact?
And that's where people
get into that heated debate.
Is it a theory, or is it a fact?
Texas science teachers
Were called upon
to review
the curriculum standards.
and they recommended
that the words:
"strengths and weaknesses",
that had been in the curriculum
be removed.
Because they recognized
that those words:
"strengths and weaknesses"
no longer had the regular meaning.
They had been drafted
into the political arsenal
of creationists
to promote creationism
and undermine
the teaching of evolution.
As an organization that cares
about our fundamental liberties,
we wanna
make sure that the classroom
is one of the places where
those types of liberties
are still safe.
And the problem is
if you take out the
"strengths and weaknesses" language
you're gonna have an environment
of censorship in the classroom
on these science issues.
- Hey, Miss.
- Yes, Sir.
So that means, like,
that Charles Darwin dude
don't believe in God
or something?
The theory of evolution
does not necessarily say
that you cannot be religious.
And it should not conflict
with whatever religious
beliefs you have.
I know there are people that
are very fired up about it.
on both sides of the spectrum.
And, they've made a compromise.
And hopefully both groups are happy.
But maybe both groups are not
happy with it.
When you see a canyon,
you see all these layers, right?
Bottom line is, our students need to know
the science of evolution...
and they do need
to be able to ask questions.
OK, so you will keep me posted.
Initially, the Texas Freedom Network
was founded to counter
the efforts of the religious
right in Texas,
not in the hot button issues
that you typically see,
like abortion
and gay and lesbian rights.
but instead, the religious right
was promoting policies
far outside the mainstream
in a number of other areas.
Particularly public education.
I'm leaving to get Caroline
in about five minutes,
And then I think
I'm coming back here.
OK, thank you. See you later.
Yeah, I'm not out yet.
Every single issue
that we deal with
has some component
of the separation
of church and state
or religious freedom in it.
But our mission is to promote
religious freedom,
civil liberties,
and quality public education
in Texas.
So they're gonna be here
about 4:00.
We're gonna go back
to the office
Really quickly.
So how was your day?
Yeah? Tell me about it.
Governor Perry has found a way
to use the State Board
of Education
to keep his base
here in Texas happy.
And his base
is really the far right.
And Don McLeroy has,
since being appointed chair
of the State Board of Education,
really been a lightning rod.
dd [bluesy guitar]
When I first held my son
in my arms
and I realized the kind of
world he'd live in,
I started paying attention
to politics.
I was never very interested
in politics that much.
I always voted,
But when my kids
were very little,
I got really interested
in education.
I got interested in politics.
I've been elected
by my constituents,
And I've told them
what I'm for,
and I'm gonna do
the best I can to help,
you know, forward those ideas,
And frankly,
it's because these children
are precious little kids.
This is one place where
I will mention my religion.
My religion says that we're all
created in the image of God.
And because every little child
is created in the image of God,
I want to see that they have
the best opportunity possible.
If you want to control and shape
the politics of a state,
controlling and shaping
what students learn
in public schools
from age 5 through age 18
is a really, really smart strategy.
And we have witnessed
an intense focus
on gaining that control
by the far-right faction.
Good morning.
My name is Steven Schafersman.
I'm president
Of Texas Citizens for Science,
And I was a member
Of the Earth and Space Science
Standards Writing Panel.
I have been following
this organization
for 28 years,
and there has been an effort
over this entire time,
for three decades,
to oppose science,
specifically evolution
and the origin of life.
This is a healthy debate
that's going on.
If you look at
the hundreds of people
that came to this hearing,
a lot of people are interested
in this issue.
And there's clearly
big groups on both sides.
And what you're gonna hear
is teachers,
scientists, professors, parents,
concerned citizens
across the state of Texas
that have voiced their opinion
that they want the "strengths
and weaknesses" standard
to remain.
Texas is really the first place
where that new political strategy
of promoting
the weaknesses of evolution
is having a test.
You're actually saying that
students have no business
critiquing scientific theories
or even scientific hypotheses?
Mr Mercer high school students don't have
the expertise or the ability to do that
in a scientific context.
So when you say: 'critique
the strengths and weaknesses'
I don't know what that means.
That is not scientific language
In science we investigate, analyze
do research, test hypotheses and
critiques are done in the
literature and among scientists
It's been requirement the last 20 years.
How many items of litigation
have you involved with the state
with the current requirement?
I'm aware of the requirement
for the last 20 years
it's been a problem
for the last 20 years.
The rule has been used by
like the Discovery Institute
to come into Texas
and try to get bogus weaknesses
put in biology textbooks
They're trying to intimidate
and make teachers afraid
of teaching evolution
That's what the main goal
of this process is.
Science education
and evolution education
particularly is very politicised
in the Texas Board of Education
And the creationist majority
wanted to have the TEKS reviewed by experts in
science (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills)
The moderates selected three
competent well known Texas scientists.
Local guys.
The conservatives chose two
Intelligent Design supporters
and it seems odd that
they weren't able to find
3 experts in Texas for this.
They had to
go to a national organization
The Discovery Institute
for Stephen Meyer.
He's not really a scientist,
he's a historian of science
But he's an expert on Intelligent
Design, that's for sure
I'd like to present 4 binders
containin over 100 articles
from mainstream science journals
most of them peer reviewed.
Each of which presents either a weakness
in contemporary evolutionary theory
or a weakness in what is one of
the sandard aguments that are
commonly made in its favour
I chose Stephen C. Meyer and his
credentials are very impressive to me
because he brings the aspect of it
not just being strictly scientific
But the history of science
and the philosophy
and how it plays into it
and I think that's really
what we're dealing with
more than
just black and white science
There is a lot of concern,
if teaching weaknesses
is the same thing as bringing religion
or creationism into the classroom.
That's not what we want
and it's a very different thing
that would be bringing in
a religious alternative.
But there's an irony in this.
If you exempt a theory
from critical evaluation,
if you teach it as dogma
that can't be questioned,
then you're doing
the very thing that people fear
of bringing religion
into a discussion of science
They are masters
of deceit.
They are masters at the using rhetoric
to say one thing
while they mean something quite different
As in saying we have no intention of...
introducing creationism into the classroom
They first start out by saying
Intelligent Design has
nothing to do with creationism.
It has nothing to do with religion.
It is science.
All we say is, the evidence shows
there was an intelligent designer
but we do not claim to know
what or who that intelligent designer is
But it's of course
obviously transparent
that the intelligent designer
has to be the Creator.
I think we should be
teaching evolution
The way we teach it
at the university level.
We should be teaching the
scientific consensus on this.
The high school classroom
is no place to fight
the culture wars.
If the criticisms of evolution
become established science,
That's great!
It'll trickle down
into high school.
Are you aware that,
In the last 20 years,
there has not...
we have not had a section
on intelligent design
or creationism?
That's correct.
What you are discussing now
is whether you will teach
the denigration of evolution,
which is a longtime
creationist strategy.
To promote creationism
through the back door.
Had there ever been any
evidence of evolutionary fraud?
Of course.
Should we be allowed to teach that
as examples of bad science?
Just like you can teach examples
of political chicanery.
Thank you.
dd [soft music]
There are a lot of issues
that I care about,
But I don't wake up
in the morning and think,
I can't wait to go to T.F.N.
because I love to lobby
or, I wanna craft public policy.
I wake up in the morning
because I have two daughters,
and they go to public school,
and they deserve absolutely
everything I can do to ensure
that they
and every other student
attending public schools
gets the best possible education.
And the curriculum
is the building blocks.
The schoolhouse is the place
where that incredible benefit accrues.
And the State Board
of Education, these days,
seems to be doing everything
they can, to mess it up.
I'm president of the Texas
Freedom Network Education Fund
and we are putting on this Board of
Education candidate training today
The Texas Freedom Network
Education Fund was created in 1996
and we focus on research and citizen
education and leadership training
on the issues of religious freedom,
civil liberties and public education
The State Board of Education
in our opinion
is probably one of the most
important bodies in this state
in determining education policy
and the content of what
our kids in the public schools learn
from kindergarten to graduation.
It's a down ballot race that almost
no one has ever heard of before
with districts that have over
a million potential voters in them
That's an extremely
unique circumstance
So we thought that it was really
important to do this kind of training
for anyone who's interested
in the campaign
dd [soft music]
Participating in the review
of the science standards
was really
a very awakening lesson for me,
Because what I discovered,
much to my chagrin,
is that the level
of just plain ignorance
of the basic facts
of science,
the basic terminology
that science uses
that the average eighth grader
knows very well,
those terms, those concepts,
those ideas
were not only alien
to most of the board members,
but, in fact,
most of the board members
had completely faulty
understandings of those.
And we're not talking
about interpretations;
we're talking about the facts.
If we simply have
analyzed and evaluate,
and every sensible person
including the textbook writers.
Understands that that includes
any weaknesses where they exist,
they're gonna put it in.
But it has to be on
a legitimate scientific basis.
So "legitimate" only means
if it's not challenging
Or what do you mean by that?
Clarify that.
The alternative to Darwinism,
in order to be debatable,
must be
of equal scientific merit.
Not demonstrated, not proven,
but of equal scientific merit.
When we ask a student...
When I ask my students
to evaluate this particular skull
as to whether or not
it belongs to a new species
or a preexisting one,
if I make the argument that
it should belong to a new species,
what's the weakness
of that argument?
And that's what 'evaluate' means.
But if I ask them,
"show me the weakness
in this argument?"
Perhaps the argument
has no weakness.
And so I'm asking them
to do something
that probably should not be done
because it doesn't need to be done.
But I would argue this:
that a hearty discourse
on any issue,
by asking them
to show you the weakness
when there is none,
only serves to underscore
the fact that it is strong.
There is no fear from asking that
if there truly is no weakness.
You're absolutely right.
And we're talking here
not about what happens
in the classrooms
but what happens when
we're selecting textbooks.
I understand that.
But the textbooks
are only going to use areas
that are going to promote
discussion within the classroom.
That's right,
but you remember in 2003,
when that language was there,
there was a large discussion
going on about,
"well, this particular
science textbook
"does not talk about
any weakness in evolution.
We should reject it. "
Textbook publishers were being
leaned upon very heavily
back in 2003
to add a lot of
creationist-inspired nonsense
to their books
so that they could meet
the standard
of the TEKS
of strengths and weaknesses.
And this is very scary
for textbook publishers,
because none of them
really want to put
all this so-called weaknesses
of evolution in the books.
But if Texas requires them
to do it,
they have to do it.
You have a gate-keeper
that you have to get past
to get to the marking room.
In Texas the gate-keeper
is the Standards from the
State Board of Education Review
You've gotta make sure that
you get through that gate.
Otherwise you don't have an
opporunity to sell your materials
in a very significant market
In Texas the law was that
every child would have a new book
every 7 years. And so they would
adopt on a cycle
And when they bought the product
they bought 110% of the enrolment
right out of the chute.
So they put a huge amount of money
that Texas was putting in.
That meant that a publisher
could publish at the Texas cycle
to the Texas mandates
and recoup its investment
by the start
But if you go too far
with material
to address those gatekeeper concerns
you run the risk of
being rejected in the market place
There is the catch for the publishers
Being on the State lists in Texas
all that does is give you the license
to go out and sell
your materials in the market
it doesn't guarantee
that you'll sell a single book
I'm currently
a freelance science writer
writing textbooks for a national
textbook publishing company.
My publishers recognize,
as do I,
that in order for a text book to be
approved by the Board of Education
the standard must be covered completely
Science is based on testing
and evaluation.
If you can't design
an experiment to test something,
you'll have a very hard time
learning anything about it.
Alternative theories
that attempt to explain
the diversity of species
on this planet
and the origin of life
are simply not testable
and, therefore, not science.
Why would you want students
to read nonscientific ideas
in a science book?
Thank you.
Miss Dunbar?
So would you feel
as a textbook author
that if the language 'strengths
and weaknesses' was stricken,
that "analyze and evaluate"
would give you an onus
to present evidence
that's supportive
and nonsupportive?
It's hard to find
scientific evidence
that's not supportive
of that theory.
- Whoo!
We will be silent in the audience.
I want to tell you if
it's outbursts like that,
I'll empty the room
and just have the testifiers
come in to testify.
We are not gonna have
any outbursts like that.
Thank you.
OK, let me simplify
the question for you
OK, turn this way a bit.
Open wide as you can.
I became a Christian when I was 29.
And within that first year of...
After putting my trust
in Jesus Christ,
I was fully convinced that
you could fully trust the Bible.
And 30 years later,
I'm even more convinced.
I'm also convinced about...
It's biblical principles
that made this country free.
And as a board member,
it's not my role
to force my view on it,
and I have not.
I guarantee you. I have not.
Well, this filling you've had
there about 30, 40 years.
We really need to replace it, OK?
I think the most
Orwellian-named group
in this whole entire
culture war battle
is the Texas Freedom Network.
I don't know... I kind of think
they're kind of a self-perpetuating
liberal organization,
and the only way
they can keep going
is just to keep attacking us.
But I think, really, one
of the most amazing things is,
I've gotten to know Kathy Miller.
Kathy Miller's gotten to know me.
We've talked about things.
And I'm surprised
that she still sees
that the religious conservatives
Like me, like Gail, like Barbara
are such a threat.
I really do not understand
her fear of the conservatives.
I really don't understand it.
I just...
I don't understand Kathy Miller.
If you'd pray with me, please.
Father, we thank you
for an opportunity
to come together again
and discuss the business
of the public education
in our great state.
As we deliberate now,
we ask that you would give us
wisdom and discernment
as we make important
policy decisions.
Help us to implement our decisions
in the best way possible.
We pray in Jesus' name, Amen.
It was clear that
there were not eight votes
to force the 'strength
and weaknesses' language
into the curriculum standards.
some members of the Board,
I believe,
were fearful of the politics
of teaching evolution.
And they felt a need
to engage in a compromise
with the far-right members
of the Board
so that it couldn't be
a clear win or loss for anyone.
That compromise process
began with some...
a language that,
actually, a genuine expert,
Dr. Ron Wetherington from SMU...
He had introduced some language
talking about 'analyze and
evaluate scientific evidence
for the theory of evolution'.
Cynthia Dunbar seized upon
'analyze and evaluate'
because she saw
the political potential
and capital in that language.
I was not choosing words
from a political standpoint.
It was just,
'analyze and evaluate'
that Ron Wetherington
had put forward,
I knew from my scientific
that that was appropriate
language to use.
And we wanted that pertaining
to all scientific theories.
She convinced Bob Craig,
the Republican from Lubbock
who's one of the moderates,
to work with her
to develop language
that says,
'analyze and evaluate
'using scientific evidence'
"all sides" of the theory
of evolution. "
And it's the "all sides"
that will likely present problems
when textbook publishers begin
their work drafting textbooks.
The motion is:
after testing, to insert
the words including,
"examining all sides
of scientific evidence. "
Do we have copies?
We're not gonna discuss it
till we get a copy.
Just take a five-minute break.
One thing
that you should understand
about the State Board
of Education
is that every single time
the Board takes a break,
a Board member is surrounded
by people lobbying
from both sides of this issue.
"analyze and evaluate
how evolution explains
the complexity of the cell. "
"how evolution explains"...
I mean, that's what
Y'all don't understand.
You don't understand
the pressure that we're under.
A vote in favour puts this
in the TEKS
All those...
Oh, we'll take a record vote
OK, the motion carries
13 to 2
Mr Nunez and Mrs Berlanga voted no
It was a loss
Yes we shut the door
to the urging that we teach
"strengths and weaknesses"
But we threw the windows open
to creationists and
intelligent design theorists
trying to insert that stuff
in our textbooks in the future
by the new adoption of examine
"all sides" of the debate
Yesterday we had vote were they left out
the 'strengths and weaknesses' language
which to a lot of people, made them think:
"look the Board must want to allow
censorship and no discussion"
Then we had a vote today adding
the language of 'examining all sides'
and the word 'critique' into
the current standards
that have now been adopted.
That's just as good as saying
'strengths and weaknesses' if not better
I personally don't know what 'all sides' means.
I don't know what 'all' means in any of this
but I know it's better than
not having that strengths...
and that first one I'd like
to look at is section 112.34
which was striked 7B
There's a fear that those who
may have some ulterior motives
would use that to introduce something
that we don't believe is sound science
So I've been sitting here
reading, and I'm thinking:
'OK, what are we instructing
our teachers to do?'
OK, in 'A', we're talking about
evolutionary theory
universal common ancestry,
and they're looking at how that
evidence is provided among groups.
You can read the list
Right, now we need to take it
a step further
We need to bump it up. We need
to engage our students even more
So with Dr, McLeroy's additional
language it kind of
puts the period at the end
of the sentence.
That's how I think of it
let's let our kids talk about that
I think it's a fantastic TEKS
and I support it
This is the one that I didn't
understand last time
and ended up voting for it.
But I've learned something that
I should not vote on things
that I really don't understand
and it does a disservice
This standard represents
that our students can handle.
It is so scientific...
It's not complicated
It doesn't take mathematics
I disagree with these experts
Somebody's gotta stand up to
experts that are just...
I don't know why they're doing it
They're wonderful people but
the fossil record does to it
why take it out
The textbooks would say:
'there's the sudden appearence'
that this... that... that is...
It does raise problems for the idea
of common ancestry.
Thank you for letting me make my plea
and I would really like you to think
before you push this button.
Thank you.
The vote is 8 to 7,
the language will be struck.
What's happening is,
ideology has (triumphed) science.
The reason the Board members
voted the way they did
was 'cause the scientists
told them to
This is what they said.
And it hits...
That's not wha...
The scientist are not...
They lost their luster
'Cause the evidence
doesn't support it
Evidence doesn't support it
Evidence doesn't support it
To both the teachers,
that they have academic freedom
to allow and encourage
discussion within the classroom
and also to the publishers
that we do...
...language from both sides
to be brought in...
There are not many
Board members who say,
"I am an expert in string theory.
"I am an expert in gravitational theory.
And I will talk to you about that. "
But they will sure talk to you
about evolution.
And that is a mixture
of ignorance and arrogance,
which is a flammable mixture.
Miss Miller.
I've got a question, Just...
Would somebody explain to me
what stasis is?
Dr. McLeroy, you are wonderful
at explaining things.
Stasis is just
the equilibrium of an organism.
when you see it
in the fossil record.
When you first see it
as you go up those...
from old rock layers
to new ones,
all of a sudden, something appears.
Stasis is just the term
that it's equal.
It just stays the same,
and when it disappears,
it's still the same.
And that's just a fact
in the fossil record.
OK, the question is...
Mr. Chairman, I...
Now, we're taking the vote.
We call... the vote... I'm sorry.
I'm gonna abstain from this vote.
I haven't had a chance to...
OK, that's fine. OK.
I think you need to use your brain.
You make a decision:
'yes or no', or you abstain.
We need to do it,
do it thoughtfully,
but the time comes for leadership,
and sometimes
that leadership means
you just have to make a choice.
We'll take a recorded vote on this.
So 13 'yesses' and 2 'nos'.
The motion passes.
I would like to thank
my fellow Board members.
That is wonderful.
It covers the words...
'sudden appearance and stasis'
which is in the data.
It's probably a lot better
than the standard I wrote.
Thank you.
...any further amendments...
It's really disappointing
to see this happen,
because the standards
that the Board of Education
Got from the writing comittees...
were pretty decent
when it came to evolution,
And they've just amended
the dickens out of them,
And now we've got standards
that are very distinctly
in the creationist direction.
- thanks for all your work.
- you bet.
- thank you so much.
what this means is that
there's gonna be pressure
on the publishers
to put this
into the textbooks.
And that's too bad,
'cause that doesn't help
the science education
of kids in Texas very much.
The way I would understand it,
if I can speak for the other
Board members who changed their votes.
They were trying to balance
these two key demands.
They had
this pro-evolutionist side
that said this language
was unscientific.
They had this other side
that said,
"we want you to support
the strengths and weaknesses".
So they came up with a compromise.
They got rid of the bad language,
And, therefore, they voted
to support the new standards.
Frankly, it was great.
It was a failure of strategy
of the... of Eugenie Scott's,
what it was.
And Kathy Miller.
d... that's along the way
d So faith, hope, and charity d
You've been quoted as saying
The earth is 6,000 years old.
That's my personal belief.
You said:
I disagree with these experts.
Someone has to stand up to them.
Scientific consensus
means nothing.
Do you at least get
that you're a point
of significant controversy
in the state of Texas?
Oh, absolutely.
And I think
you need to have a Board
that's willing
to take some controversy
and to make
some controversial decisions.
I'm embarrassed by that.
I'm embarrassed that I said it.
I wished I hadn't said that.
Can you perceive how that
might create controversy?
Can you see?
I agree.
You said education
is too important
not to be politicized.
It came across the wrong way,
but the only reason
I got involved in education
is because I see all children
as created in God's image.
d How do I know?
d The Bible tells me so
Isn't that a cool song?
Don has always treated me
very fairly.
I find him very congenial
as a person.
And he has always been,
I think,
fair in conducting
all the public testimony
in public hearings.
What I find objectionable
is the conflict between
his ethical responsibility
to foster the letter
and spirit of the law
in TEKS science mandates
and his personal conviction
as a young earth creationist
that evolution has never happened
And that the belief in
evolution is atheistic.
Leaders must lead.
And Dr. Mcleroy
has proven conclusively
that he is less concerned
with leading the Board
than he is
with fighting the battle.
Members, let's leave him
to his battle,
and let's request the Governor
find a true leader
to chair the Texas
Board of Education.
Now here come certain preachers
on radio and TV and in the mail,
telling us,
on a bunch of political issues,
that there's just one
Christian position.
And implying, if we don't agree,
we're not good Christians.
My problem is I know my boy's
as good a Christian as me.
My wife... she's better.
So maybe there's something
wrong when people, even preachers
suggest that other people are
good Christians or bad Christians,
depending on their political views.
That's not the American way.
The public hearings in Texas
provided an opportunity
for what we now call
special interest groups
to come forward
and take their views and apply
them to the textbook process.
And of course
the most famous people
were Mel and Norma Gabler
from Longview.
They set up a foundation
and hired people to go through
every submitted textbook
and look for errors of either
fact or interpretation.
Humanism is prevalent
in our textbooks
from cover to cover,
in all grades and all subjects.
The Gablers were
tremendously influential.
And, as they were probably
at the peak of their influence
with the Board, into Texas comes
'People for the American Way'.
Those little tips on end...
- Right.
That's all that's proven fact.
Science rests on doubt.
Creationism rests on faith.
That is a major difference
between science and religion.
You are not interested in science.
I am absolu...
I want scientific evidence
to be shown, and if you're...
There is no scientific evidence
to disprove the theory of evolution.
...plenty of scientific evidence
which will disprove it. For instance...
You would win the Nobel Prize
if you had scientific evidence
to disprove the theory of evolution.
They've been critiquing
textbooks since 1961.
And because of the bizarre
provision in Texas law
they were basically the only people
that were able to come in
and critique the books.
And thus,
the State Board of Education
and the publishers
were almost captives
of the Gablers and their
fundamentalist allies.
In pointing out
what is going on here in Texas
with this organized effort
to restrict what goes into textbooks
and restrict
which textbooks are selected,
this not just a Texas phenomenon.
It may be more apparent here
but the same type of thing
is going on in Iowa and Ohio
New York and other places.
The Gablers who operate
here in Texas
and are very influential
on the textbook process here,
sell their reviews, their critiques
of books all over the country.
Since the Moral Majority under Falwell
and then Pat Robertson's
Christian Coalition
issues of education and what
is taught in public schools
across the country have been
a central focus
for culture warriors on the right.
If you truly, truly follow
a biblical world view
there's no way you can look at
education as not being important.
And it's kind of the viewpoint
that I've said, you know,
Abraham Lincoln was credited
with saying that
the philosophy of the
schoolroom in one generation
will become the philosophy of
the government in the next.
Liberty University is very young.
Its foundings were in the 1970's.
And yet it has grown in that time
to being the largest Christian
Evangelical university in the world.
We have, including all the
online students, I think
somewhere in excess of 50,000 or more
I don't remember the exact number.
But a very large student body.
They say college is the most
important years of your life.
You have no idea!
d L. U.!
dAh caint heah you!
d L. U.!
To see what can be done when
there's a pursuit of excellence
when there's a need of being that,
when students find a place
that they can go
that is going to embrace their
position and their beliefs,
I think it's amazing.
And I just hope that
on some small scale
that my life can reflect making
similar changes... for good.
What's really interesting about
the State Board of Education
and this larger idea
of the culture wars across
the country, is Cynthia Dunbar.
Cynthia Dunbar teaches at
Jerry Falwell's university,
attended Pat Robertson's university,
so she's really, kind of,
been bred
in the culture war movement,
through her education.
And she does clearly want to dictate
what students are taught
in public schools
as part of
her overall political strategy.
So she really does embody that
bigger goal for the far right
movement in this country.
Well, I had always been
involved in community service
and because of that there were
various people who knew who I was.
And so was approached about
considering running for this position.
And there aren't a lot of
people out there
trying to make sure that
the students have
the best possible education,
the best academic freedom,
and that, why should other
kids fall through the cracks
just because
I knew mine were gonna be OK.
[radio chatter]
Here it is. Here it is.
...we've got a problem.
Don McLeroy, our representative
on the Texas
State Board of Education,
believes the earth
is less than 10,000 years old,
that humans walked with dinosaurs,
and that supernatural
explanations are valid science.
Come on, Texans,
on march 2nd,
let's send this guy home!
Keep the State Board
of Education smart!
Yeah, smart...
vote against Don McLeroy
in the Republican primary.
Paid for by Citizens
for a Smart
State Board of Education.
Best thing about that ad though, is
it's told everybody
that I'm running.
You know,
even some of my good friends
don't even know
I was running for reelection.
You just don't walk around
livin' your life
telling everybody, "hey,
I'm running for reelection. "
You know,
that gets kind of boring,
living your life like that.
All right, good evening.
My name is Michael Alvard,
And this is Biased Transmission
Our guests tonight
are the two candidates
in the Republican primary
for the District 9 position
on the Texas
State Board of Education.
We have in our studio
Don McLeroy, the incumbent.
He's been on this Board
for 11 years.
His opponent is Thomas Ratliff,
a legislative consultant
living in Mount Pleasant, Texas.
- Don.
- Yes, sir.
There was
some committee meeting,
And I have the date here,
July 16th.
You said that education
is too important
to not be politicized.
The things that we work on,
the big decisions we make,
have been adopted
by political bodies.
They can only be changed
by a political body.
Mr. Ratliff and I
are both politicians.
We're both running
for a political office.
And in that context,
I think that's important.
I agree with that.
I think the difference is,
your local School Board
is elected
in non-partisan elections.
So you can still have
an elected body do it.
You just don't have to have
a party label
or a donkey or an elephant pin
on your lapel
to run for that.
I think it has a tendency
to start becoming more focused
on political
than it does on educational.
Alright why don't we move on
and talk about some of these expert
My understanding is that some
Board members have been criticised
for choosing out-of-State experts
that have no apparent
expertise in the field.
The standard right now,
or the process or procedure is,
if 2 Board members
agree that they're qualified
they're qualified.
And I think that is a pitiful,
low standard.
They need to say:
before we can even consider you,
you gotta have a Bachelor's,
or a Master's or field experience,
or something.
Rather than just 2 or more members
agree that they're qualified..
...they're qualified.
He says you believe the earth
is just a few thousand years old
and that dinosaurs and people
lived at the same time.
Is that something you believe?
Yessir, it is.
I am a Young Earth Creationist.
I would never advocate that
in a public school...
Young Earth Creationism.
But that is my personal view.
The challenge is
on one hand he does believe that
from his religious convictions
which I respect
but on the other hand
when he was debating
the evolution and creationism issue
he talks about the Cambrian explosion
which he says happened
550 million years ago.
550 million, and 10,000...
there's a disconnect, so...
- Don?
- Well, that's what I'm saying,
my young earth views do not come
into play when we're talking about it
And frankly, I don't really
have time to debate it now,
but I'll talk to you about it
I know that. I know...
What other force,
other than natural selection,
do you want them to consider?
How did it happen?
Yeah, yeah,
but what would that be?
- I mean...
- I don't know.
I want to see what they put
in the books.
My question is: how?
How could a cell that gets
trapped in another cell
Gradually change
into mitochondria?
These are all
scientific questions
that we just don't
have the answers to yet.
Of course, and that's what
you get a chance to do.
All the scientists
in the new textbooks
get an opportunity.
- You're being disingenuous.
- No, I'm not.
You want to introduce
the hand of god into these...
No, I don't.
No, no, no...
I didn't put anything...
If we had put
the hand of God in there...
If we'd have put
the hand of God in there,
we would have had
those standards
challenged immediately.
- Sure.
- Absolutely.
I got what I wanted.
I got exactly what I wanted.
Neat place!
I ask these kids this question:
what was it about the world...
religion would have filled that gap.
Welcome back to Hardball.
Students in Texas will likely
soon have a new angle
on what they're taught
in Social Studies classes.
The focus of one protracted debate
during a discussion about what
should be in World History texts
was whether or not
they should use the terms:
BC - Before Christ and
AD - Anno Domini, the year of our Lord
when referring to certain
periods of time in history
They identify conservatives
in the past...
who students should
learn about, which is fine.
And then they eliminate
- Absolutely.
Right, and then they eliminate
people from the past...
who they don't agree with.
But that's how it works.
The winners...
The winners write history.
Is there further discussion
of the amendment?
Dr. Mcleroy.
I'd like to go to 6 E.
I would like to add:
"describe the causes
and key organizations
"and individuals
of the Conservative Resurgence
"of the 1980s and 1990s,
"including Phyllis Schlafly,
"the Contract with America,
"The Heritage Foundation,
The Moral Majority,
And the National
Rifle Association. "
Is there a second?
- Second.
I have an amendment for
B - Ronald Reagan
Describe Ronald Reagan's
and then insert:
"leadership in restoring
national confidence"
Economics 16 A,
I would like to strike the
words 'women' and 'minority'
Discuss the meaning and historical
significance of the mottoes:
and 'In God we trust'.
Then like to go to
Government, 18A
"to evaluate the impact
of New Deal legislation
on the historical roles of
State and Federal governments"
21A we're talking about citizenship.
I would like to insert the word
'non violent'
before the word 'protesting'
and how later release of
the Verana papers (Venona?)
confirms the suspicions
of communist infiltration
in US government.
All those in favour of
Dr. McLeroy's amendment...
all those opposed...
one hand?
Dr McLeroy?
On 23D
I would like to delete 'hip-hop'
and insert 'country music'.
Is there a second?
OK discussion about the merits of
removing 'hip-hop' and replacing
it with 'country and western music'?
Mr Allen.
I just would like to know
why we would drop 'hip-hop'.
It's a music genre that
doesn't need to be in our TEKS
I guess I would be wanting to know
what do you actually think hip-hop is
before you delete it. You might be
deleting something you know nothing about.
Maybe we could have
'country and western' added in,
but leave the 'hip-hop'. I mean...
Is Mr. Craig offering an amendment?
(... I guess we have to...)
I came about this
kind of accidentally,
Just started kind of watching it,
like most people, you know.
Not really aware of what it does.
And then
you start reading the paper,
and you think, good grief.
What's going on?
He's well-intentioned.
But maybe
he spends 5% of his time
on State Board Of Education stuff.
So he's gonna tell somebody
that has an undergraduate,
Masters, Doctorate,
and 20 years
of teaching experience
how to do their job
when they've done it
100% of their time.
I just don't share that philosophy.
You know. I'm sure you know my
campaign treasurer Jinny Preston
Well I did see
some friendly faces back there.
...under God, amen.
What direction do you wanna go?
Do you wanna go to the... 'left',
or do you wanna go to the right?
We have taken on the far left
in the last several years
and we have won.
In science class we
ended up with standards
that support scientific
integrity in the classroom
and my opponent has said
he was a moderate Republican.
And I never seen a moderate
stand up to the far left on anything.
We are turning education in a vastly
different direction. So, thank you.
The goal of my campaign
is not about me.
It's not about me winning,
it's not about me losing.
It's about a parent
of two kids in public schools
who wants to make our public
schools the best the can be.
Our kids don't go to 'red'
schools or 'blue' schools.
They don't wear donkey pins
or elephant pins to class.
They go to their local school
and they want a good education.
And I wanna take politics out of the
State Board of Education. Thank you.
Well, thank you all for coming out.
Get all your friends to get out
to vote that's the main thing
We're pushing along.
I know, you all are awesome.
Thank you so much Jeff.
This is awesome... Great!
There's some people who'd argue
that we're not a Christian nation.
As far as not founded on
biblical principles.
These people are called
'Secular Humanists'.
And they say there is no truth.
They say there is no God.
And they say that we just evolved.
Which principles are in the
Decloration of Independence?
Christians say there's Truth, that
we're created in the image of God, and?
There's a creator... there' a God.
So which principles are
our country founded on?
They're founded
on biblical principles. OK?
Y'know why
I'm teaching you this lesson?
I don't want the principles
that this country was founded
to die in the graves of our fathers.
I want you all to take up the
banner and carry it forward.
Our country's built on these principles
If we turn away from these principles,
will we keep the country we have?
No! And they're under attack,
which you'll see in a minute.
The Social Studies
Curriculum adoption
was even more political,
if that's possible,
than the science adoption.
And the separation
of church and state
is the crux of the battle.
And when Mavis Knight
introduced her amendment,
she didn't even use the words
of church and state'.
She used the words,
'that government can't promote
or denigrate any faith'.
And Cynthia Dunbar passionately
argued against this.
Examine the reasons
the founding fathers
protected religious freedom
in America
by barring government
from promoting or disfavoring
any particular religion
over all others.
Mavis Knight's amendment
was too broad and too amorphous.
And talking about barring,
which speaks of it
in a negative light.
When how the founding fathers
viewed it
was in terms of jurisdiction.
That the civil government
did not have the jurisdiction
to impede upon the ability
of religious exercise.
Free exercise came from
a sermon by William Cooper,
where he specifically
coined the phrase,
'as to the free exercise
Of his holy religion'.
This debate is too broad.
And one of the things
that we keep being hounded
by the other side
is that the conservatives
are trying to inject religion
into the TEKS
No, we're not.
But nor do we want
our religious history
to be tainted
and drawn from a viewpoint
that is not historically
So I cannot support this motion.
This will be a recorded vote.
All those in favor of the amendment
of a new '1C' as proposed
by member Knight...
should vote - yes.
Opposed to the amendment
should vote - no.
I am stunned
that this Board rejected
teaching students
about the first amendment
to the constitution's
for religious freedom
in this country
and that the government
is barred
from promoting or disfavoring
any religious perspective
over all others.
That's just shocking.
Particularly since they've been
American exceptionalism.
And this is one of our nation's
founding principles
that sets us apart.
Father I ask that you would forgive us
for taking prayer out of the schools
Father when that happened
Secular Humanism
slathered in and Father
it began to penetrate
every part of the curriculum
But today Lord we reach up
into heaven and we say:
"on this day Your kingdom come,
Your will be done in
public education once again".
We draw the line in the sand today.
And we say, no more.
Lord, I ask that You would
invade our schools.
Invade our country.
Invade our homes.
Invade our churches
with Your presence,
that we would
truly be hunger
for righteousness
and for truth.
Because truth is not a thing.
It is a person.
And it is the person
of Jesus Christ.
And Your word tells us
that if You be lifted up,
You will draw
all men unto you.
And so, God,
that's what we do right now.
We repent on behalf
of our nation.
We repent on behalf of ourselves
and our families, God.
And we lift You up.
And we want
to see you exalted, God.
In Jesus' name, we pray,
As we're here
at the Lincoln Memorial,
I think it's very fitting.
I think ours is the
greatest nation on earth,
and I think that the framework
of a Constitutional Republic
that our founders crafted
is brilliant
and has preserved for us
the greatest protection
of our liberties.
And I just want to make sure
that that historical effort
is documented. As it is
in these memorials in stone,
I want it to be crafted
in stone in our textbooks.
Explain the impact
of the writings of John Locke,
Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire,
Charles de Montesquieu,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin,
and Sir William Blackstone
on political revolutions
from 1750 to the present.
It does take out reference
to Thomas Jefferson,
but the reason is not
that I don't think
his ideas were important;
it's just that
this is a list
of political philosophers
from which
the founding fathers
based their ideologies
and their principles.
Mr. Craig.
It appears to me that
the work group members
had specifically the desire
to talk about
the Enlightenment ideas
and also to mention
these particular individuals.
Plus I think Thomas Jefferson
still needs to be there,
so I will support
what the work group members
had recommended.
My intent was in no way
to strike at Jefferson,
to 'minimalize' his impact.
I love Jefferson.
I'm a huge fan.
The problem
is that Enlightenment,
current day,
is understood
from the viewpoint
of the Secular
Humanistic ideology.
If you want to see how those
philosophers played out,
look at the distinction
between the French revolution
and the American revolution.
One was a Secular
Humanistic... Voltaire,...
Anti-Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The other was
what Jefferson put forward
in the Decloration
of Independence:
"the laws of nature
and nature's God. "
When you have added
people like Thomas Aquinas
and John Calvin
to the standards...
the standard says,
"the student understands
"how contemporary
political systems have developed
from earlier systems
of government"...
where does Thomas Aquinas
fall in that?
Yeah, uh, sir...
He doesn't.
Absolutely, Thomas Aquinas
is the philosopher
that started
the original ideology
of the laws of nature.
And it's from that
that was developed
all the political philosophies
that brought forward
the foundations
of civil jurisprudence.
And the same thing
with Calvin.
No one knows anything
of American liberty
if they don't know
of the writings of Calvin.
The fact that they have not
been included up to this point
shows that there's a dearth
of understanding
of any kind of philosophy
beyond 'Enlightenment'.
Well, I think
you're stretching it a bit.
Certainly Plato in his
'Republic' had a lot to say
about government relationships
to citizens
that could have been added here
as well.
Why isn't Thomas Jefferson
seen as a leader
of revolutionary thinking
in the 18th and 19th century?
He wrote the Declaration
of Independence.
Right, well, and, actually,
I'm really glad
that you even put that forward,
because it's been misrepresented
in the media a lot,
that Thomas Jefferson
was actually stricken
from the TEKS,
which is not accurate.
He's actually listed
in several places within...
throughout the document,
including the political
of the founding fathers.
I'm with Don McLeroy.
He's considered the leader
of the conservative bloc.
Mr. Mcleroy,
how is the meeting going?
We're a bunch
of lay citizens
on the State Board
of Education,
and we want to make sure
that our children
are taught good,
solid American history.
And I think we're in step
with most of the majority
of Americans.
Most gracious Heavenly Father,
as we look to our past
to guide us,
let us reflect
on the convictions
of those who have
gone before us.
I believe no one can read
the history of our country
without realizing
that the Good Book
and the spirit of the Savior
have, from the beginning,
been our guiding geniuses.
Whether we look to
the first Charter of Virginia
or the Charter of New England
or the Fundamental Orders
of Connecticut,
the same objective
is present:
a Christian land governed
by Christian principles.
I like to believe
we are living today
in the spirit
of the Christian religion.
I like, also, to believe
that as long as we do so,
no great harm can come
to our country.
All this I pray in the name
of my Lord and Savior,
Jesus Christ.
Mrs. Cargill.
18 F.
This would also be new.
"formulate generalizations
"on how economic freedom
improved the human condition
compared to communist command
This is really
the last minute.
Today we're gonna vote...
Final vote on this.
Have not been able
to consult with anybody,
And then here we are today
at the last minute
looking at new language.
I've read it.
I am thinking,
and it is highly appropriate
for students to learn
to the value of the
free enterprise system.
Is there any further
I hear things like,
"this is our privilege. "
And we are changing the intent
of the writers.
Speak to the issue
of the privilege of members
to make amendments.
I tend to remember this was
in my job description.
Striking John Calvin and
inserting Thomas Jefferson.
The amendment fails.
Mr. Mercer.
After John Calvin,
I'd like to insert
Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison.
Thomas Jefferson comma
James Madison.
We're changing everything
in this section.
I am proposing
that under number 1,
we delete
"constitutional republic"
and insert
"democratic society. "
All those opposed.
The amendment fails.
You have to have
an objective
in the standard.
That's how you write
I guess
I just have to say,
you have to trust me on this,
but I actually do teach
political philosophies
at the Doctoral level.
The amendment carries
11 to 3.
I wish to re-insert
the name Oscar Romero.
I would like to offer
an amendment,
a motion to insert
the name 'Hussein'
in between 'Barack' and 'Obama'.
I feel that I have let down
the students in our state.
Because all those kids
that are in school right now,
and they get to college,
they're gonna learn
for the first time
the real history.
There is no way
that we can go forward
with this document.
It's not representative
of my district.
It's not representative of...
Explain instances
of institutional racism
in American society.
All those opposed.
The amendment fails.
We don't want to talk
about discrimination.
So there!
These books?
Oh, we don't want
to read these.
My gosh!
I am ashamed
of what we have done
to the teachers
and to the students
of this state.
The Board is open
for the vote.
We're voting on second reading
and final adoption
of chapter 113,
sub-chapter 'C'...
High school, as amended.
9 to 5.
Motion carries.
At least in science,
we were able to hold
a majority of eight
to not let
the far-right faction win
every vote
every time
and win the day.
On history,
because they attacked it
from all angles
and all sides,
because every
far-right Board member
brought amendments
to the table,
it was devastating.
I have to say that the folks
in my office
probably spent two weeks
nursing our wounds,
'Cause it was just...
it was a really brutal fight.
I enjoyed my time
on the Board.
it was a lot of work,
and I did it
as public service.
and I'd like
to step back and say,
okay, I did the best
that I could
in the job
that I was given
in the framework
that we operate in.
But looking down the road,
do I think that education,
which is inherently religious,
is something that has to be
a primary secular purpose
when that goes against
the religious ideology
of the majority of Americans?
Their godless left-wing culture
has taken over
the mainstream media.
They have taken over
our universities.
Thousands of professors
have converted our universities
into left-wing seminaries.
And for the last two years,
with the help
of their young converts,
these so-called experts
have taken over
our national government.
Well, I disagree
with those experts.
Somebody's got to stand up
to experts.
You are the last best hope.
It is your activism
that is the last best hope
for keeping Texas
new curriculum standards.
Texas new curriculum standards
are the last best hope
for American education.
and American education
is the last best hope
for America,
which is the last best hope
of earth.
Thank you.
Thank you, Don.
d I am a man
d 'with' constant sorrow
d I've seen trouble
d all my day
One of the nice things
about being a dentist
is when you, uh...
I have an audience every day,
every morn...
you know, all day long,
I have about seven or eight
different people
that I get to practice on.
and they can't do
much talking back.
I know.
it's just wonderful.
Yeah, they're cap...
You've got a captive audience,
Don't you?
And most of 'em are
ideologically aligned with me,
And if they're not,
they need to hear it anyway,
How are y'all doing?
How are you?
There you go.
Hey, good.
I'm out here trying to get
people to vote for me.
I hope they will.
There's some professors
that have been running radio ads,
and I've heard three of 'em
just this morning
In the little bit of the radio
I've listened to.
And they mocked me.
It's amazing.
They say, "hey, Texans",
and it's a real hillbilly voice.
"Hey, Texans,
we have a problem.
"Don McLeroy serves
on the State Board of Education.
"He believes the earth's
less than 10,000 years old
and that men
walked with dinosaurs. "
And guess what they call
"the Citizens for a Smart
State Board of Education. "
Appreciate your support
for State Board Education.
Thanks for coming out today.
Appreciate your vote
for State Board Education.
All right, we're going over
to the student center
Over at Texas A&M.
So here's the campus.
Are you voting?
Oh, vote for Don McLeroy
for State Board of Education, OK?
Thank you.
See, you could see she was a voter.
I mean...
How can you tell?
'Cause she wasn't going to class.
Keep the State Board
of Education smart.
Vote against Don McLeroy
in the Republican primary.
Ha, ha!
But on the fifth day,
He creates the breath of life.
The creatures.
'Cause he makes fish and birds.
Hey, Texans, we have a problem.
Don McLeroy.
58.76... 41.24.
I'll take it. Let's go eat.
Whew. I'm behind.
OK, OK. See you later.
dd [piano]
Collin county...
He's ahead by 300.
Here's mine.
I'm behind.
That's not good.
Ah, I don't know what to do.
Heh! Just gonna pace the floor.
Lord, we thank you
for the opportunity we have
to study your word.
Your word is the truth.
It is the absolute truth.
We know it's the truth.
We got lots of reasons for it.
One of 'em is from the lesson
we see today.
We're gonna talk about the flood,
The judgment of the flood of Noah.
The main thing you got to
realize about this lesson is,
this is sin.
God's gonna destroy it.
But he's gonna save 8 people
And a bunch of critters, OK?
And what's the purpose of it?
To judge sin.
They actually show
what it could be.
You got storage on the top.
You got the bottom deck...
would be all the poop, right?
And the middle deck would be
where all the critters live,
And so then they could shovel
all that poop
Down in there, right?
And then Noah and the grains...
They could live up there.
And they could go
along the top, maybe,
and just put some food in
for the critters, alright?
Make sense? Three decks?
Pretty smart to me!
Pretty good design!
People don't think
there was enough room
for all the animals on the ark.
What do y'all think?
- Yes.
- I think there was.
You think there was?
Let's go to the park.
We're gonna have some fun.
Come on.
- Ooh, park.
- Whoo-hoo!
What about dinosaurs?
Were dinosaurs on the ark?
- No.
- Sure they were! We don't know!
We'll have 4 cones
For the 4 corners of the ark.
And then we'll see how many animals
You all can think of
to see if you can fill it up,
Start thinkin' of critters.
Think of all the critters.
- Deer!
- A bird!
- Deers!
Oh, deers!
- Antelope.
- Fox!
- Monkeys!
- Caribou!
- Caribous.
- Zebras.
- Zebras!
Aw, man, here we go.
Antelopes. Mountain goats.
What else?
- Rams.
- Rams? Okay.
- Boars.
- Boars!
Oh, and the pigs, the wild pigs.
- Beavers.
- Beavers.
There you go.
- Platypus!
- Platypuses.
Scorpions. Iguanas.
- Crickets!
- Monkeys!
I will tell you this:
it is an absolute fact
that there is plenty of room
for all the creatures
to have fit on that ark.
Plenty of room for two of each.
- How high?
- Ostrich.
One, two, three, four.
dd [guitar]
...and will, to the best of my ability,
Protect, defend,
and preserve
the constitution and laws
of the United States.
The constitution and laws
of the United States.
And of this state.
And of this state.
So help me God.
So help me God.
Well, Don,
you've had sort of
a painful experience
here at the ballot box.
Tell me what you're gonna do
from here on.
Well, you win some,
you lose some.
I lost my first key vote,
... was last...
A year ago may,
when I didn't get confirmed
as chairman.
And at the time,
I was really disappointed.
Well, guess what that
opened the door for.
It opened a opportunity to lead
on making a lot of amendments
in the social studies.
And frankly,
I can see that it was
very, kind of maybe, providential
that I was not
the Chairman of the Board
for the social studies.
After all of these years
of this political infighting,
what's the answer?
Can Texas ever come
into the 21st century
with any degree of rationality
and any hope for
re-instituting decent education
for our kids?
That will happen long after
my grandchildren have
passed away,
I'm afraid.
But I am not an eternal optimist.
Lord, we pray for guidance
for this meeting.
We pray for wisdom from You.
And, Lord, we thank You
that You have brought us
to this place.
In Jesus' name, amen.
I ran a very good campaign.
I lost a very close vote
to a very strong opponent.
And it's only a two-year term
that was up for battle
that I lost.
And we're gonna have
all seats up for grabs
at the next election,
which is less than
two years away.
Voters in Texas
have to become more aware
of what's going into
our classrooms.
This is about the content
of what kids
in Texas public schools learn
from age 5 to 18.
It will change
the face of our state
for decades to come; it matters.
And Texas voters
need to understand the issues,
know more
about these candidates.
And we would have a very different
State Board of Education
if that were true.
The evolutionary science,
in which I participate,
never asks the question
of the origin of life.
Mainly because
we simply don't know.
And trying to give the answer
is like trying to write
a fairy tale.
And so when people ask me,
"how do you explain
the origin of life?"
I simply say,
"I don't know.
How do you explain it?"
In the end,
I think he is gradually
gonna have to recognize,
when we focus on the issues
of the origin of life
and ultimately the inclusion
of the code in life,
that there's no way
that that could randomly happen.
Well, I mean, the origin of life
is an incredible mystery,
But it's also
an incredible mystery,
because we were sitting
under this beautiful tree,
...this ancient oak tree
that's been here for...
I don't know how many...
hundreds of years.
And according to the books,
the evolution books,
we share a common ancestor
with that tree
way back in time.
The first life first appeared,
origin of life,
and then somehow it branched off.
All goes back to original life.
And they have no explanation.