Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

From Discover Magazine Blog:



Breaking news: SCIENCE WINS IN TEXAS!! Barely.

Incredible news out of Texas: creationists have lost a big battle to destroy science education in the Lone Star State!

The State Board of Education voted on the science standards " the list of basic scientific knowledge students should have at various grade levels, like knowing that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter, the Earth goes around the Sun, and " say " evolution is the basic and most fundamental aspect upon which all of modern biology is based.

Creationists on the board (and there are many) tried to water down the standards by creating a phony baloney "strengths and weaknesses" amendment, a totally bogus and arbitrary rule that says that teachers have to point out where a theory has faults. They did this specifically to weaken the teaching of evolution in biology classes. They don’t actually care if the students get a solid education on the fact of evolution, they only care to tear down real science and replace it with Biblical literalism.

And they failed. According to the fantastic science-based Texas Freedom Network, which has been live-blogging the vote, the creationist amendment lost in a 7-7 vote. They could not add the amendment without an actual victory, so the tie means the garbage amendment goes down.

But before you dance in the streets, have a mind that the vote was tied 7-7. In other words, half the people on the Texas State School Board of Education thought it was fine and dandy that evolution, a foundation of modern science and shown to be fact beyond reasonable doubt, be taught as being weak and flawed.

So once again, we see that creationists have lost, but we also know that they will never, ever admit defeat. Remember, their entire outlook on life is not based on reality, but dogma, and so they cannot rest, cannot stop, without shattering their whole worldview.

So as always, this is not over, despite this advance. It’s a victory for the students of Texas and for reality, but the war will rage on.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (and I’m not the first): the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Stay sharp, Texas. They’ll regroup. Bet on it.

[UPDATE: TFN notes that a final vote will come Friday on all the standards, so even this chapter of the battle isn’t over yet. Stay Tuned.]

I have no problem with the "strengths and eaknesses" argument , if, and only if,ALL of the supposed "alternative theories" like ID, be subjected to the same scrutiny. It would be an ass backwards way to have the kiddies understand the strngths of the scientific method and the basis of science , and what a theory means.

A good HS science teacher could handle this no sweat.

LW, your reports are from this morning's session of the Board. After lunch, the Board was supposed to discuss something else. However, during the afternoon they revisited the science standards. Here is another report from Terrence Stutz of the Dallas Morning News:

Some science teachers just skip the topic altogether because of the controversy. This is still the first step by the Creationuts to suggest to students that we came from Adam and Eve, not a common ancestor to the apes. Injecting the IDiots' "teaching," there's simply not a consensus other than Discovery Institute who wants to get at least a partial retribution for being shot down at Dover. It would be in their own minds, of course, as science teachers could also point out the "strengths" and "weaknesses" of Creationism and ID -- the weaknesses alone would take a few seconds, that there is no viable proof in fact to support either and it's a matter of entirely of faith. They're also pressing to label science as a religion which is immediately laughable to any sane, logical, reasoning person.

Of course, when I attended my first year of university American History, the professor began by stating that the class should forget what they learned in high school. At that time, all the negative facts about our history were conveniently left out of textbooks and lessons.

The article states that the board member who will attend tomorrow for the final vote will vote against the language. Back to 7 vs 7.

We all know that. That's why we remain vigilant. If you define "fool" and "dross" and "intelligent" subjectively for preening purposes then defining "freedom" in the same way is just as stupid. Some right Charlies have marched under the freedom banner. So much so that it's reasonable to suspect the motives of anybody who also does.

The fact that LW thinks that quote has meaning, apart from the tied vote report, tells you all you need to know about LW's capacities as a guider of education.

14 minutes ago:

Conservatives lose Texas evolution vote

Posted on Mar 26, 2009 | by Jerry Pierce

AUSTIN, Texas (BP)--A closely watched effort to keep a 20-year-old requirement that Texas public high school students evaluate the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, including evolution, failed Thursday in a 7-7 vote by the State Board of Education.

In February, the board narrowly scuttled the strengths and weaknesses language when it voted on new science standards, but social conservatives had hoped to garner enough support to reinsert the language, with both sides lobbying the board and the public for support in the weeks before the meeting through e-mail and phone campaigns and newspaper op-ed articles.

Supporters of evolution had assailed the 20-year-old "strengths and weaknesses" clause as a back door to teaching biblical creationism, while evolution-only critics spoke of weaknesses in Darwinian theory.

The Texas school board decision has national ramifications because curriculum standards adopted in large states such as Texas and California influence content for textbooks nationwide.

With one board member absent, Thursday's tally included seven Republicans voting for the clause, with the three remaining Republicans and four Democrats opposing it. Democrat Mary Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, who was absent, was on record opposing the strengths and weaknesses rule.

Blogging about the proceedings on Wednesday and Thursday, Jonathan Saenz, legislative affairs director for the conservative Free Market Foundation, noted that debate was already ongoing about the use of the words "analyze and evaluate" in the standards under consideration.

Those who testified Wednesday before the board included Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education and a vocal critic of the intelligent design movement, and Pierre Velasquez of San Antonio, a 31-year veteran science teacher who said preventing teachers from discussing strengths and weaknesses in scientific theories would stifle classroom discussion.

The Texas Republican Party entered the fray on March 7, adopting a resolution titled "Supporting Rigorous Educational Standards for Science in Texas" that opposed abandoning the strengths and weaknesses requirement.

Meanwhile, leading the opposition was the Texas Freedom Network, founded by Cecile Richards, national executive director Planned Parenthood and daughter of the late Texas Gov. Ann Richards. TFN, which bills itself as "a mainstream voice to counter the religious right," has mounted a "Stand Up for Science" campaign that included a March rally at First United Methodist Church in Austin.
--30--
Jerry Pierce is managing editor of the Southern Baptist TEXAN, newsjournal of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.

Apparently some reporters attended the morning session only, LW. Steve Schafersman of the Houston Chronicle covered both sessions on his blog:

wande- as a proponent of critical thinking how can you trust a reporter as biased as that.

He uses the following words which are all disputable to anybody with any sort of critical sensibility- "unscientific", "anti-evolution", "screwed", "undermine", "injure" and "debilitating". That is crude editorialising, not reporting. And nobody can be said to have "covered" a debate who goes into it with the sort of attitude he betrays. Like you lot he has his personal self-validation filter on MAX.

You can't even recognise my question about why Texas textbooks are as important as you make them out to be when the population is about 8% of the US population. You have your eyes closed to any other position than your own and which you continually justify with words similar to the ones listed above. Even to the point of an implied claim that 89% of Texans are enemies of freedom.

I'm guessing we have to wait until tomorrow to see. The TFN Blog reports:


A Mainstream Voice to Counter the Religious Right
Science Under Siege in Texas
March 26, 2009 by TFN

OK, we’ve had a little time to digest all that went on today at the Texas State Board of Education. Without going through each of the many amendments that passed, here’s essentially what happened. This morning the board slammed the door on bringing creationism into classrooms through phony “weaknesses” arguments. But then board members turned around and threw open all the windows to pseudoscientific nonsense attacking core concepts like common descent and natural selection.

The amendments approved today are very problematic, regardless of the important victory over “strengths and weaknesses.” We anticipate that all 15 board members will be participating tomorrow, however, including a pro-science member who was absent today. So there is still time to reverse course.

Tomorrow, with the final vote, the board has a serious decision to make: is the science education of the next generation of Texas schoolchildren going to be based on fact-based, 21st-century science or on the personal beliefs of board members promoting phony arguments and pseudoscience?

(Damn Blog news -- they're always releasing incorrect news so you have to wait until it all sifts out).

We have so many dumbasses in positions of influence.

And whey they're on the board of education also speaks to the "people."

Im not identifying mainstream science teachers as Creation bent or IDjicy preachers. Im saying, and I repeat. EVEN IF, the Texass ed policy would be to require to teach the weaknesses and strengths of "theories" (NB< the word theories is a plural ), then another POV would include the strengths and weaknesses of Idjicy "As a theory" (the practitioners all claim that it is a theory, the Discovery Institute plays that constantly to its audience.
The strengths and weaknesses of Idjicy would fall under a fairly skillful presentation of all these various theories within the definition of the law. If a teacher would be fired, punished or otherwise censured for presenting similar "strengths and weaknesses" of ID, that teacher would have a class action suit abuilt and ready to trash the law.

Mcelroy doesnt really understand what crap he could unleash. I was talking with a colleague at Rice the other day when this subject began showing up with hearings and all. He stated that the NCSE is already developing a "strengths and Weaknesses" white paper for teachers to use in natural sciences , biology, and earth sciences.

I sid it a few months ago
"Itll be fun"

Good points, farmerman, but those same teachers needs to be told about addressing those aspects of creationism and its weaknesses. LOL

I realized your statement was that they're opening a can of worms. It will make it so complicated that there just isn't enough time in a high school science class to light that fuse. Where do they stop before they get into theology? Can you imagine the questions and answer follow-up? Wait until the parents have to start helping them with that homework. The pop quiz could turn out to be a huge explosion.

Someone here really needs to buy a dictionary or at least go online -- the third definition of dross is:

3 : something that is base, trivial, or inferior

You're all over the place. You're political nonentities and in denial of it.

Did LW prematurely ejaculate?

Yes, all over your face.

That's a revealing remark.

I think effemm is starting to get a bit embarrassed at the company he is keeping.