Creationist School to Appeal: No M D in Science Ed

Debate brewing over how to teach science
Some fear state board wants to give creationism equal status with evolution


By GARY SCHARRER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

RESOURCES
SCIENCE CURRICULUM CALENDAR

• July : State Board of Education to consider timeline and process for approving new standards for the science curriculum.
• November: A draft of new standards to go to the State Board of Education.

• January 2009: Preliminary vote on new standards.

• March 2009: Final vote.

• 2012: New science textbooks arrive in public schools.
AUSTIN ?- After feuding for months over how to teach schoolchildren to read, the State Board of Education soon will shift to a topic that could become more controversial ?- the science curriculum.

Science, after all, involves biology. And biology is built on the theory of evolution, raising fears among some observers that social conservatives on the 15-member panel will try to shade textbooks with religion.

"The issue is ... whether or not creationism will be taught alongside evolution as science, which will absolutely undermine our kids' science education and their ability to compete for the best colleges and jobs of the 21st century," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based organization that advocates religious freedom and individual liberties.

Those fears amount to hogwash, says board Vice Chairman David Bradley, R-Beaumont.

"I hate to take the air out of their balloon. They're going to be very disappointed if they come for a fight," said Bradley, a leader among the board's social conservatives. "The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."

It's been 11 years since the state of Texas last updated standards for the science curriculum in its public schools. Things change. Pluto, for example, lost its status as a planet two years ago, but students in Texas still see it listed in textbooks as a planet in Earth's solar system.

The State Board of Education recently finished a three-year rewrite of standards for the English-language arts and reading curriculum. Some called the process tortured, with revisions slipped under members' hotel-room doors in the hours just before a final 9-6 board vote.

Bradley and the board majority faulted English teachers for forcing too much of their own ideas into a proposal the board tentatively had approved two months earlier. That's why board members had to salvage a final document with a last-hour, cut-and-paste job, he said.

"I don't think this will happen again," Bradley said. "Science teachers should work with the board on their process and not try to do an end run around this elected body."


Teachers' idea?
English and reading educators vigorously deny hijacking the process, saying the curriculum facilitator hired by the board decided to use a teacher work group's revised document.

David Hillis, a biology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, predicted some board members would try to "replace real science with religious instruction." He warned that the "intelligent design" theory preferred by evolution skeptics, which holds that living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection, has no scientific support or basis.

"We should rely on scientists to establish the science standards, not nonexperts with a particular religious or political agenda to promote," Hillis said.

Board members say it is unlikely that intelligent design will even be considered. More likely is a fight over whether to keep an existing requirement that teachers present both the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including evolution.


Critical thinking
Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, favors keeping that standard.

"Part of preparing our students for postsecondary success includes providing them with a well-rounded education," she said. "Having the freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of a theory such as evolution teaches students how to evaluate both sides of an issue. It prompts them to be critical thinkers, and it also helps them to respect the opinions of other students even if they disagree."

Bradley said he does not foresee any successful effort to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement from the science standards.

"Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven," he said. "Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."


'Anti-science ideas'
It may sound like a good idea to require teachers to point out the weaknesses of scientific theories, but Hillis contends that when it comes to evolution, "its main purpose is to introduce religious ideas and anti-science ideas into the science classroom."

"The fact that biological populations evolve is not in question," he said. "Evolution is an easily observable phenomenon, and has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt. The 'theory' part of evolutionary theory concerns the experiments, observations, and models that explain how populations evolve."

I think the coordinated, higher strategy of such organizations across the country is to put pressure on state agencies through political influence. Even when politicians don't actively campaign on a religious agenda, they are loathe to offend religious sensibilities. The Dover case taught these jokers they can't win in the Federal courts, and they can't win on the merits of claims about "intelligent design" as science, so they've changed their tack. It's hilarious, pathetic, and a little scary that they'd actually go after this issue based not on "intelligent design," but on literal creationism. Maybe they think they have a good chance for this in Tejas, as opposed to somewhere else. Maybe these boys are just plain goofy.

And this boy is the Vice Chairman? That don't sound so good . . .

I'll tell you what is " hilarious, pathetic, and a little scary" Set.

It is that 300 million people will work together efficiently when they are all critical thinkers and have the capacity to dicuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of (any) theory. And that they can all expect "post-secondary success".

Hilarious, pathetic and scary doesn't do justice to such idiocy.

You end up with too many chiefs and not enough Indians as they always say here when some large company gets broken up and sold off.

And it's even more idiotic when 300 million people think they are critical thinkers when they are not and think they are enjoying post-secondary success when they are not or having to pretend they are to save face.

Looks good to me.

What's it like being untouched by a noodly appendages?

Re: Creationist School to Appeal: No M D in Science Ed

So the viewpoint being discriminated against is a non-scientific viewpoint, and yet the approval they are seeking is for a science degree program.

I guess they are saying that they have the right to teach and approve science credentials even though they don't agree with the science and have no intention of representing science as a functional and effective system to the students.


"Including information about evolution" while saying, "we don't believe it" doesn't seem to constitute good science education.


Yeh, I wonder why.

Man, Texas is scary. What's worse is the boards running the public school curricula - have any of you heard of the way the english standards were recently pushed through? They have a group take three years to establish recommendations and then wait until the last minute to replace it with their own social conservative version. How last-minute? I believe it was an hour or so before the meeting at which they were to vote on it. Naturally, a majority did vote for it (and had surely been coached).

If that's what happens with the english standards, what do you think is going to happen with the science ones, especially with the various attitudes and controversies coming out of that same department? And the truly scary thing is that textbook publishers cater to California and Texas, so whatever happens in those two states does affect the textbooks flowing into other ones.

Yeah, it seems Texas just loves to put idiot creationists in charge of important activities. Bumbling, dishonest ones.

Hey, the bible was translated into English, so that should make it approved reading in any english class, right? And if they don't allow it, then that's "Contextual Discrimination".

Maybe the creationists are going about this all wrong. Instead of trying to sneak religion into science class, maybe it's easier just to sneak it into English class under the guise of "containing english words". Instead of the Dick and Jane reader, we can have the Jesus and Mary reader.

I should work for the ICR. They would love me.

From: edgarblythe


Most frightening is the fact that . . .


"'Texas is clearly one of the most dominant states in setting textbook adoption standard', according to Stephen Driesler, executive director of the American Association of Publisher's school division. "

source

Which means that as Texas goes so goes most of the text books in the country. If creationism (ID) gets into these books it will very likely find its way into the majority of public school systems.

Hello, Doc. Welcome to a2k.

No matter how the appeal proceeds,or no matter how TExas "retools its curricula" the ultimate stand for this has got to be the State and then Fed Supreme court.
Its based upon an interpretation of a "Deity driven" model. This fact, either now or twenty years from now, will have the decision drug throught the higher appeal process until the Constitution prevails.

I believe that, with a stare decisis that heavily supports a clean interpretation of the "free expression and establishment clauses" even the most conservative members of the court can only find against the conferral of MS (ed) degrees.

Remember, it was Texass that denied the MS in the first place.

Thank you. It looks like a great site.

yeh, were mostly harmless but passionate about palaver. Pull up a chair doc.