YOU know about Don McLeroy — the creationist dentist whose appointment as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education (BOE) recently failed to win confirmation in the state senate. When we learned that McLeroy was being challenged in the Republican primary next year by Thomas Ratliff, the son of former Texas Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, we posted the news here. After giving the matter some consideration for a couple of days, we posted this: Re-Elect Don McLeroy!
Mr. Ratliff has favored us with a comment to that latter article. To provide his remarks as wide an audience as possible, we are copying his comment here as a stand-alone article. What follows are Mr. Ratliff’s words in their entirety, with no embellishment and no interruption by us. Our brief commentary appears at the end.
If you want to have a real discussion about the issue, then call me or email me, but don’t make assumptions like “Our conclusion is that Ratliff is a closeted creationist, but one who has slick relationships with the state legislature.” without doing some work. It’s easy to lob cheap shots from your blog, but come on, ask a few questions instead of making an assumption.
The answer you are looking for is this. I believe the Bible tells us who created the Earth and why and science tells us when it was created and how. Neither can tell the other’s story.
I do not believe the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old, but in fact millions and millions of years old.
I do believe that God created all things, but I don’t want a school teacher talking to my kids about theology in science class.
My family attends church to reinforce our religious beliefs and we send our kids to science class to reinforce their learning of science.
If you would like to discuss this more, please contact me and please try to refrain from any more blind assumptions.
Rest assured, I will be updating my website with my positions on several issues, not just this one.
Finally, I think this issue has become a MUCH larger issue than it should have been at the SBOE. When Tincy Miller chaired the board and they adopted the science standards, it wasn’t nearly the sideshow distraction that it was last year.
We looked at Thomas Ratliff’s website this morning. We don’t yet see anything there that addresses our concerns. As we said in our earlier post:
Something is wrong here. Running against Don McLeroy and not discussing whether creationism belongs in science education is like running for President against Abe Lincoln’s re-election in 1864 and not mentioning that there’s a war going on. Our conclusion is that Ratliff is a closeted creationist, but one who has slick relationships with the state legislature.
We regret that “slick relationships” remark. It wasn’t appropriate. And we are pleased that Mr. Ratliff understands that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years. But will he say so on his website? And what does he think of teaching the alleged “weaknesses” of evolution in the science classes of state-run schools? Does he understand that if there actually were weaknesses, or counter-evidence, such would be taught — without the need for any politician’s insistence?
In other words, does Mr. Ratliff want the children of Texas to learn science, as the scientists understand it, or does he want to teach some kind of creationist (or intelligent design) version that leaves the students not only confused, but woefully misinformed?
As Mr. Ratliff quite reasonably requests, we shall “try to refrain from any more blind assumptions.” Therefore, we look forward to a clear and unambiguous statement on Mr. Ratliff’s website. What kind of science education does he favor — evolution, straight up? Or some watered-down, religiously-oriented creationist version? This is a simple question. One or two straightforward sentences on the Ratliff website will clarify the matter.
To keep any relevant comments in one place — this post — we’ll shut comments off for our earlier two posts on the McLeroy election challenge.
Addendum: One of our readers drew our attention to comment #49 following this article: Texas Board Will Consider Letting Creationist Institute Offer Teaching Degrees, at the website of the Chronicle of Higher Education. That comment appears to be by Thomas Ratliff. Among other things, it supports the Institute for Creation Research in their quest to have their creation science degrees recognized by Texas. We’d appreciate some clarification.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Curmudgeon wrote: “And we are pleased that Mr. Ratliff understands that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years.”
Ideally anyone who has control over science education should understand that the overwhelming evidence places it in the narrow window of 4.5 – 4.6 billion years, and that the first life appeared roughly half a billion years later. Of course progressive (meaning not the “young life” varieties) OECs and most IDers accept that too. But they usually aren’t as up front as Ratliff is on the “why” vs. “how” questions. So he does appear legitimate.
In any case the acid test is how they react to anti-evolution activist groups. Those groups are already free to mislead students during the ~99.9% of their waking hours that they are not learning evolutionary biology. Anything short of clear opposition to those groups – on the evolution education issue at least – is undesirable.
Well, compared to McLeroy, Mr. Ratliff sounds reasonable but, so far, all we see is the typical politically vague statements that sound nice. Of course, it is still early in the campaign and one would hope he will be making statements clarifying his positions. It seems he is not a YEC at least but what does he thinks of teaching ID? What does he think of the so-called “Academic Freedom Act”? What does he think of teaching the “weaknesses” of evolution? Is he aware that these are just ploys to get religious teachings into public school?
http://chronicle.com/news/article/3644/texas-board-will-consider-letting-creationist-institute-offer-teaching-degrees
“I trust the officials of Texas will show wisdom when evaluating the petition from the Institute for Creation Research. Wisdom that will recognize whether or not they are an organization committed to pursuing and sharing truth, whether or not it is truth that educated scoffers want to hear, and if they are, that they may be granted access to help teach others who have open minds, willing to consider things that are illuminating even if intimidating.”
Cites Bible prophecy… thinks people “scoff” at creationists… thinks the ICR does a heckofajob, thinks people don’t have “open minds”.
Naww couldn’t be a creationist at all. Of course not…
386sx, great find! I may amend the article to mention it.
Update: I have amended the article. See the “addendum” at the end.
386sx:
Let me start by giving Ratliff the benefit of the doubt: Even liberal politicians cite Bible prophecy. His approval of ICR is undoubtedly about his perception of them “restoring God” and not about their conclusions of “what happened when in earth’s history”, with which he apparently disagrees radically. And let’s face it, some people do treat creationists – the innocent but misled rank and file, if not the activists – quite unfairly.
That said, I am very curious how “open minded” Ratliff considers devout Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, and how “open minded” he considers anti-evolution activists (especially the “don’t ask, don’t tell ID variety) with their deliberate avoidance of practicng science, in favor of cherry picking of evidence, defining terms to suit the argument, liberal quote mining and other tactics “designed” only to mislead. I’m also very curious of how “open minded” he thinks “Expelled” was, especially for “expelling” Miller and Collins for being inconvenient to their propaganda.
Let me start by giving Ratliff the benefit of the doubt:
I’m all for giving him the benefit of the doubt, but the way he rode in there in defense of a young earth creationist’s “truths” makes it a not so easy thing to do though!
Frank J says: “Let me start by giving Ratliff the benefit of the doubt:”
Fine. I’ll also credit him with honesty in saying that he thinks the earth is far older than 6,000 years. But I’m uneasy that he doesn’t address the other issues: intelligent design, creation science, “strengths and weaknesses,” teaching “all sides,” “sufficiency or insufficiency,” “evidence for and against evolution,” and all the other code-words used by the creationists who pretend that a scientific controversy exists when there isn’t one.
Ratliff is, after all, running against McLeroy, and those issues have made Texas a laughingstock. It’s a simple matter to clarify. The experts (before the Discovery Institute got involved) originally recommended good standards to the Board. Things went downhill from there. What would he have have done — support the originally proposed standards? If so, say so. This isn’t difficult.
There are other Thomas Ratliffs out there, and one of them is an administrator at a Christian University. This might not be the same Thomas Ratliff. Sorry for jumping the gun if it isn’t.
386sx says: “There are other Thomas Ratliffs out there …”
Then the confusion must be resolved so the voters can understand the situation. It’s not necessary for the candidate to clarify the situation here. His own website is the place where he should be as informative as possible.
386sx wrote: “I’m all for giving him the benefit of the doubt, but the way he rode in there in defense of a young earth creationist’s ‘truths’ makes it a not so easy thing to do though!”
It’s easy for me, but only on those specific questions. As for the questions in my 2nd paragraph, however, I’m almost certain that he’d either evade them or spin them in favor of the anti-evolution activists, regardless of which “kind” they are. He is of course free to prove me wrong. If that’s the case I will gladly admit being unfairly cynical.
Thanks for the update, S.C. So far, Mr. Ratliff is a big improvement over Dr. McLeroy, but I withhold judgement until I hear a clarification on the ICR bill.
—“Scoffers and mockers (“noodley appendage unite”, oh my!), I welcome you at the table. Yes, I really do, even as I completely disagree with your perspectives.”—
Typical creationist. “My God exists! He is real! Yours isn’t!”
jdg says:
If that’s him. Even so, I don’t care what he believes in private. Science class is different. Either he realizes that or he’s no different than McLeroy. That’s what we need to know.
Once again I would invite any/all of you to email me directly rather than post your thoughts and assumptions on blogs if you are really interested in my positions/opinions on issues. However, if this is your chosen venue so you can remain anonymous, that’s up to you.
Let me address the comments as they appear:
Thank you for giving me a chance to respond to your earlier comments. I am willing to talk about the issues on a fair and level-headed basis if everyone else will too. Fair enough?
Yes, I intend to say on my website and printed material that I do not believe the Earth is a mere few thousand years old.
I’ll admit, I didn’t follow the issue all that closely during all the rhetorical battles over the “analyze and evaluate” versus the “strengths and weaknesses”. Moreover, I don’t think most teachers or students care much about the distinction. What happens in the classroom is what matters, not what happens in the headlines or blog wars on this issue.
After looking at the issue with more detail, I don’t know what the problem was with the old standards and I guess I don’t understand what the “weaknesses” of evolution are. I think kids ought to be given scientific information and they should analyze and evaluate that information and make an informed decision regarding scientific theory.
I think there is too much politics in the SBOE and their attempts to change public education. I want less politics and more local control (and by local I don’t mean the SBOE or even the legislature).
I do not support “some watered-down, religiously-oriented creationist version” of science. I want science teachers to teach science just like they have since I was in school. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Again, my family and I attend church to reinforce our religious beliefs and our kids attend school (as did I) to learn science. My faith in God and my belief in scientific principals are not mutually exclusive and neither is threatened by the other.
Your reference to the website of the Chronicle of Higher Education is, once again, off the mark. I have never visited that site until I went there to double check that it was not me who commented on that site. Not me.
Frank J-
On the question of how would I have voted on the originally proposed standards, the answer is simple. I would have voted with Bob Craig, Tincy Miller, etc.. Clear enough?
386sx
No problem on the jumping the gun. Different Thomas Ratliff and many of the comments on this blog seem to relate to that mistaken identity so I won’t comment on them.
jdg-
You are right. Science class IS different from what I believe in private, or even in public.
Let me be perfectly clear. Religion (any religion, not just mine) does not belong in science class.
To everyone on this blog and anyone listening. I am not the type that talks in “code” or talks around issues. I am willing to give direct answers to direct questions. If I don’t have all the facts or if I am not informed on an issue, I’ll say so and offer a simple “I don’t know” rather than make something up just to try to make everyone happy.
I think the SBOE has been entirely too political under Dr. McLeroy’s leadership and it and hasn’t represented the best interests of the students, parents, teachers, administrators, or school boards during that time either.
I have called almost every superintendent in the 29 county district and MANY of them have NEVER spoken to Dr. McLeroy. That’s a big problem. If he isn’t talking to, and more importantly, listening to educators, who’s he talking/listening to?
Remember, I am more than happy to talk with you and/or email directly with you if you have questions. Don’t feel like you have to have anonymity to be involved in the debate.
Mr. Ratliff, thanks again for your comments. I’m quite satisfied. Unlike my presumptive position earlier, when I assumed you were a “closet creationist,” I think you’d be a fine replacement for McLeroy. I’m looking forward to the updates on your website.
Dear Mr Ratliff, while I am sure I would enjoy discussing your positions via eMail directly, that would be a disservice to your constituents. I imagine there are quite a few of them that also prefer to “remain anonymous”. Isn’t it better to discuss these issues in a public forum where everyone can see what you think than in a one-on-one situation? You are able to reach so many more people this way.
“I think there is too much politics in the SBOE and their attempts to change public education. I want less politics and more local control (and by local I don’t mean the SBOE or even the legislature).”
I agree that less politics is a good idea but, I question if “more local control” is. Isn’t part of the SBOE’s function to ensure that ALL students get a quality education? How does “local control” further this purpose? Isn’t education universal? How does stepping one foot over the line into another school district change what should be taught to ALL students?
So far, I have been pleased by what you say over what I have heard from Dr. McLeroy. I wish you luck but, want to hear more on your specific positions. Similar to what I said in the beginning, isn’t it better to state them in a public forum than having to convince one person at a time?
No problem on the jumping the gun. Different Thomas Ratliff and many of the comments on this blog seem to relate to that mistaken identity so I won’t comment on them.
Sorry about that. (I should know better.) Good luck.
Roger-
I am happy to do both public and private discussions about the issues, anonymous or not. My idea of local control is the SBOE creates the guidelines and approved textbook lists and the locals can choose from there. I also support the electronic textbook efforts as well. I think several of the SBOE members are under the impression that they control ALL of the content being taught in public schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. When some textbooks are several years old, the information grows stale and kids get bored. Information has to be timely, topical and relevant to keep kids’ attention.
My hope is this campaign will talk less about religion and more about education. The SBOE has spent far too much time talking about religion already.
I will be updating my website later this summer. Right now, I am in my RV with my wife and two kids in the Northeast exposing them to American History where it happened, not just from a textbook.
Mr. Ratliff, permit me to make one small suggestion. Rather than waiting to update your website later this summer, perhaps you should update it now to eliminate the potential for confusion. All that is needed is one sentence — something to the effect that one area where you differ from McLeroy is that because students in Texas deserve the best science education, you would have accepted the original draft of the state science standards, without amendment, as recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. We’ve written about that here and also here.
It is hard to imagine there being much confusion given my answers above. Word travels fast in this business….especially on this topic.
I don’t want to treat this issue differently than any other issue because I don’t want to give it that much power in the campaign. It is an important issue, but not any more important than the 4×4 curriculum, electronic textbooks, sound investments of the PSF, a good working relationship with the legislature and educators and a diplomatic and well-functioning SBOE.
This issue has “sucked the oxygen out of the room” for too long on the SBOE. I want to do my part to get this issue behind us and concentrate on all of the other important issues facing our school kids.
Mr. Ratliff sounds like a reasonable individual.
I used to think it was a minor issue until I learned the details of the “debate.” Now I see it at the very core of “how we think.” I can’t prove it, but I think that anti-evolution activism drives more people to atheism and philosophical naturalism than evolution does.
Thomas Ratliff says;
“I’ll admit, I didn’t follow the issue all that closely during all the rhetorical battles over the “analyze and evaluate” versus the “strengths and weaknesses”. Moreover, I don’t think most teachers or students care much about the distinction. What happens in the classroom is what matters, not what happens in the headlines or blog wars on this issue.
After looking at the issue with more detail, I don’t know what the problem was with the old standards and I guess I don’t understand what the “weaknesses” of evolution are. I think kids ought to be given scientific information and they should analyze and evaluate that information and make an informed decision regarding scientific theory.”
The old standards allowed creationist science teachers to add pseudo-scientific information to their evolution curriculum. As a science teacher myself, I see this as an “academic dishonesty” issue. Those teachers need to be fired. The new standards also allow the same thing (arguments against complexity of the cell/ age of the earth). I’m not worried about honest science teachers, they don’t care about these anti-science standards, they’ll just teach the science. I was hoping that the SBOE would of adopted the writting committee new taks standards, but they didn’t.
I don’t live in the area where you are running, but I would ask you that if you get elected you would NOT adopt a book that the has scientific inaccuracies. Examples of these inaccuracies would be evidences against common descent/ complexity of the cell/ age of the universe/ or anything the mainstream scientific community opposes. Thank you.
It doesn’t matter if Ratliff is a closet creationist or if Don McLeroy is a closet atheist or any such personal position. What matters is what they do in office. We already know what McLeroy does and we don’t need any more of that.
It matters very much so whether or not Don McLeroy is a closet atheist. If he is, then we have far more power over the polls.