A seesaw battle between creationists and their opponents in Texas ended this afternoon on a dismal note for scientists and educators. The Texas State Board of Education voted 13–2 to adopt new science standards containing a number of last-minute amendments aimed at weakening the teaching of evolution. The only silver lining for scientists is that the new document does not require teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory as was stipulated by the old standards.
Creationists on the board "amended and amended and amended" the draft standards until "they got what they wanted," Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education told ScienceInsider.
The "strengths and weaknesses" language was substituted by a guideline to teach students to
analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.
Creationists also inserted the statement that students be taught to
analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell
and
Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.
That language, Scott points out, comes straight from the intelligent design literature and is aimed at promoting skepticism about evolution.
"What the creationists got was a bunch of heavily compromised standards that will allow them to go to textbook publishers and ask for content for teaching of intelligent design," Scott says. The state is due to consider adopting new textbooks 2 years from now.
—Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
That’s something,That's what I was thinking.Brilliant idea.
That’s something,That's what I was thinking.Brilliant idea.
I agree with Elmar, the coverage of this story changed drastically. Initially, the creationists were upset because their BS changes were all rejected. Yes, the words would provide air cover for creationists... if there were any evidence for creationism. There isn't.
The wording itself is good science, analyzing, evaluating, and critiquing is ubiquitous in Science. Furthermore, the theory of the formation of organic and self-replicating cells is far from complete, and all sides of that should be analyzed.
Creationism is not a side of that argument any more than "God pulls on the moon" solves the problem of reconciling gravity and quantum mechanics. Hiding the incompleteness of theories does a disservice to young scientists, when they should know they have encountered the cutting edge!
Also, I'll put in a plug here for expanding the Open-Access mandate beyond the NIH to the NSF and DoE. That way these creationist boneheads (and their global warming denying oil cronies) can be confronted directly with the scientific record. As is, they have no access to the science itself, unless they want to pay exorbitant prices. Hint: they don't, and who can blame them.
Similar language should be included for Bible classes! Yes some high school students can take a class on the Bible. Encourage students to "analyze, evaluate and critique contradictions, errors and any claims of miracles or supernatural characters and events" in the Bible.
You know something's wrong when creationists want science courses to "[use] empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing". I mean, aren't science courses ALREADY supposed to be teaching this anyway? And it goes without saying that those methods are incompatible with creationism and any of its disguises.
what kills me here is that creationism isn't, nor does it come close to, any form of science and this language all but conflate the two.
I don't see what could be wrong with these standards. If students really analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations, using empirical evidence plus logical reasoning, surely they will come to the conclusion that creationism is not compatible with reality.
Examining 'all sides of scientific evidence' isn't very realistic, though. Who has time to do that? But on the bright side, this means there's no need to spend any time on creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, as they have zero evidence to support them.