Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Ft. Worth Star Telegram reports that the proposed final draft of the new Texas science standards are much better than expected and that scientists and groups like the Texas Freedom Network are pleased with them.
The final proposal for the state's science curriculum pleases scientists and watch groups, who say it will help protect Texas public school classrooms over the next decade from what they call "watered-down science" -- specifically during the instruction of evolution.
Believe it or not, the "strengths and weaknesses" language has been removed:
Much of the concern over earlier versions of the proposed curriculum centered on a requirement that students be able to analyze the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, a phrase which some say is being used by creationists -- including some members of the State Board of Education -- to subvert the teaching of evolution.But with the "weaknesses" requirement removed and a new definition for science, the new plan makes it clear that supernatural explanations like creationism and intelligent design have no place in public classrooms, said Dan Quinn with the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based nonprofit group that opposes religious influence on public education.
"The old standards were so vague, people can interpret them any way they want to," Quinn said. "It's a very important move forward that says teachers and curriculum writers are unanimous in wanting our kids to get a 21st-century education."
Educators removed the "weaknesses" phrase in their first draft of the science curriculum. After a public hearing that attracted more than 200 speakers, the phrase was back in the second draft, but "weaknesses" was changed to "limitations."
Then there's the definition of science:
The old definition -- which included phrases like "a way of learning about nature" and "may not answer all questions" -- has been replaced with a definition from the National Academy of Sciences. It states that science involves using evidence to form explanations and make predictions that can be measured and tested. It also warns that questions on subjects that cannot be scientifically tested do not belong in science.
Now the bad news: all of this is just a recommendation to the Texas Board of Education, which is dominated by creationists and they don't have to follow those recommendations. In fact, they've already ignored proposed standards on other subjects and substituted their own. I'd expect that to happen again.
Politics
Comments
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institue was on Mitch Album's show on WJR Radio in Detroit last night crying fowl over this issue. The guest host played into the theme that "Darwinists are forbidding any criticism of evolution" and called it Draconian.
It was pathetically typical, but it demonstrates that the new meme of the creationsists to define their stupidity as an "academic freedom" issue is something we should all be concerned about.
Posted by: Audrey | January 8, 2009 10:04 AM
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institue was on Mitch Album's show on WJR Radio in Detroit last night crying fowl over this issue. The guest host played into the theme that "Darwinists are forbidding any criticism of evolution" and called it Draconian.
It was pathetically typical, but it demonstrates that the new meme of the creationsists to define their stupidity as an "academic freedom" issue is something we should all be concerned about.
Posted by: Audrey | January 8, 2009 10:10 AM
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institue was on Mitch Album's show on WJR Radio in Detroit last night crying fowl over this issue. The guest host played into the theme that "Darwinists are forbidding any criticism of evolution" and called it Draconian.
It was pathetically typical, but it demonstrates that the new meme of the creationsists to define their stupidity as an "academic freedom" issue is something we should all be concerned about.
Posted by: Audrey | January 8, 2009 10:12 AM
Hmmm, looks like Audrey wins the "Alice's Restaurant" award for posting in three-part harmony.
I kid, I kid!
Seriously, though, she's right on the money.
All three of her. ;)
Posted by: G Barnett | January 8, 2009 10:58 AM
Everyone is excited about what the Texas science standards say in the proposed draft. I have zero, none, not even a glimmer of hope that the science standards will look like the draft.
Posted by: bjohnson | January 8, 2009 11:03 AM
I'm with bjohnson, no hope.
When they ignore the recommendation, at least their motivations will be transparent. I like the "supernatural explanations" part, they will look foolish excising that.
The scary part: the voluntary stupids will never give up.
"subjects that cannot be scientifically tested do not belong in science."
There goes string theory.
Posted by: kamaka | January 8, 2009 11:28 AM
I have no "faith" that this draft will be the final...remember what the board did on the English/Arts standards last year...introducing a version at the last minute that ignored the draft proposed by the educators. This may be no different.
Posted by: Paul | January 8, 2009 11:31 AM
It would be great if everyone were taught the correct way to evaluate "strengths and weaknesses" in scientific data. If everyone did it the right way, there would be no creationists. That's why it's an important part of the scientific method.
Posted by: catgirl | January 8, 2009 11:33 AM
Audrey, you don't recall who the guest host was, do you? I'd like to send him an email explaining exactly why he has his head up his ass.
Posted by: Taz | January 8, 2009 11:38 AM
That may have seemed so a couple years ago. But String Theory makes predictions that can be tested. CERN has run preliminary tests. The LHC (if they can ever get it working reliably) will certainly be testing the theory as well.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 8, 2009 11:43 AM
Sorry, brain fart. I meant Fermilab, not CERN.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 8, 2009 11:46 AM
Re Taz
It was Mitch Albums' call in show so I presume that he host was Mitch Album, the worst sportswriter west of Mike Lupica.
Posted by: SLC | January 8, 2009 12:07 PM
Abby Normal -
What tests are those? Can you provide a link?
Posted by: Dave S. | January 8, 2009 12:23 PM
If memory serves me here, Texas doesn't just have a lot of influence on science curriculums nationwide due to the size of its total available market for science textbooks due to its high population; it's influence is disproportionately large even after consideration of that fact. That's because I believe the state board decides which actual textbooks will be used in all their state's public schools. That reduces the cost of publication for the book's publishers if they win the Texas contracts, making it an attractive purchase for schools outside of Texas given the lower costs to produce.
Given that only 25% of states in the country mandate teaching human evolution sometime through 25%, I would argue no matter what happens in Texas, we have an exceedingly long way to go prior to reaching our adequately teaching biology in this country's public school systems.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 8, 2009 12:50 PM
Until I got to the bottom of your posting Ed, I was about to apologize for the number of times I've referred to Texas as "the loon star state." I guess I should have known.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | January 8, 2009 1:09 PM
Looks like the bait and switch is a go. This draft is likely designed to get the creationists to turn out en mass for the hearing while the steam is let out of the science side. Then the board can respond to the "overwhelming support" and slip in their own standards.
Posted by: ruidh | January 8, 2009 1:46 PM
@Taz:
The guest host was John McCulloch. He used to have a regular morning show and subs regularly for Mitch.
Posted by: Audrey | January 8, 2009 1:49 PM
That's Mitch Albom -- not "Album."
Posted by: xyz | January 8, 2009 1:56 PM
Does it really matter xyz? Or is it LF?
Posted by: Dave S. | January 8, 2009 2:49 PM
There are a number of different proposals and I don't know of any good round-ups. Sorry. Your best bet is probably Google. But always wanting to back up my assertions, here's one example if you're just looking for an idea of how the theory could be tested by the LHC. A diboson landmark on the Higgs highway, is one of the preliminary tests from Fermilab I mentioned.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 8, 2009 3:16 PM
it will be great if they Keep Religion out of science class.
I dont see ANYONE opposed to teaching the ilfluence religion had on history, or a comparative religion class which are logical places to mention religion .
Posted by: VicVanity | January 8, 2009 3:19 PM
VicVanity: As a product of one of the better public school systems of Texas, I can say from experience that a class dedicated to specifically discussing the influence of religion on history or literature is unnecessary. If my experience is any indication, most schools in Texas cover adequately those influences within the specific subject classes already, on occasion to the detriment of other, more earthly, motivations.
Posted by: Julian | January 9, 2009 8:14 AM
Why are science fans so against the thought of studying the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution? Is not science about disproving things? Or are all you atheists so invested in evolution that you are willing to sacrifice true science for the safety of your religion?
Posted by: Mike_C | January 9, 2009 9:36 AM
Re Mike_C
I will believe that Mr. Mike_Cs' blathering about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution are serious when he also advocates discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics.
Posted by: SLC | January 9, 2009 9:52 AM
The proponents of this language have no intention of "studying strengths and weaknesses" and have no intereset in "true science".
The evolution-denialist movement has never, in the last 100 years, been able to mount any real challenge to the theory of evolution in the scientific community. They produce a negligeable amount of scientific publication and precisely zero new scientific results. They have, however, produced a truly prodigious volume of press releases, popular books, seminars, videos, litigation, and legislation. It isn't science; it's a PR campaign intended to bypass scientific scrutiny.
That's the reason for the "strengths and weaknesses" language. It seeks to single out evolution as a dubious theory fraught with weaknesses. we don't see any similar language used with respect to the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory, the Theory of Relativity, or the Theory of Gravity. It seeks to cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution without ever making a scientific argument. Instead, it leaves the attempt to argue against evolution as a task for smaller players, which brings us to our next point.
Another purpose of such language is to reassure teachers of a creationist bent that they can promote creationist falsehoods, bogus claims, and specious arguments without running afoul of the law. However, these same teachers will quickly find themselves on the losing side of a 1st Amendment lawsuit if they actually parrot the antiscientific claims of the Discovery Institute, Answers In Genesis, Kent Hovind, et al. They have no scientific validity and are motivated purely by religious dogma, as several courts have already ruled.
Try to find me a "weakness of evolution" that does not come from a creationist source, and is seriously considered by mainstream scientists. Go ahead. I'll wait.
This is what we call a "Dover Trap". It's a legal tactic (not a scientific argument, you might notice) used by large-scale evolution-denial organizations like the Discovery Institute. The idea is to trick individual teachers, schools, school boards, etc. into shouldering the cost of a legal war of attrition against scientific and church-state separation organizations. They don't care if this-or-that school board loses millions of dollars for no benefit. The idea is to exhaust the resources of organizations like the ACLU, or hopefully throw enough shit at the legal wall that some sympathetic judge will let some of it stick.
Posted by: DaveL | January 9, 2009 10:13 AM
DaveL: Your argument went no where near my question. Why fight so hard to keep strength and weakness teachings out of a science classroom when many on this blog have declared that science welcomes criticism. If the evolution theory is so sound and secure then you have nothing to worry about, in a generation or two, educated kids will grow up to agree with you. I know what your worried about, that if kids are not indoctrinated with evolution at a young enough age they will not think they are decedents of banana trees and start forming their own opinions.
Posted by: Mike_C | January 9, 2009 10:48 AM
So, Mike_c, what, in your opinion, are the strengths and weaknesses of evolution? If you want them taught, you should know what they are. If you don't know, maybe you should leave the organization of science curricula to people who understand science.
Secondly, why is it that evolution is the ONLY scientific theory singled out like this? I'll tell you why, because the whole thing is just an excuse to dishonestly attack evolution, and the creationists aren't as threatened by the rest of science. If the people promoting this bullshit were actually interested in honest criticism of science, they would be promoting it across the board, in all disciplines, but they don't.
In addition to the above question, isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? That is to say, do you support the use of dishonest tactics for religious goals? Do you believe Lying for Jesusâ„¢ is a good thing? A simple yes or no will do. This will show your character. Are you an honest man or yet another pious fraud?
Finally, do you understand that teaching creationism is schools is illegal? And if you and your fellow creationists manage to trick teachers into illegally promoting your religion in class, will you pay the legal fees for the inevitable lawsuit out of you own pocket? This can, and has, run into the millions. OR were you planning on letting the school system take the hit, and the education of those children suffer?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | January 9, 2009 12:19 PM
Mike_C
You are a twit parroting twit arguments. Science is not afraid of scientific criticism. Emotional, religious, dogmatic criticism are a waste of time, money and brain cells.
The theory is sound. Any augmentation will come from SCIENTISTS in the field not a preacher from DI. Shove that banana up your ass if you can get your head out of the way.
Posted by: Mike | January 9, 2009 12:20 PM
I apologize for the delay in replying, comments weren't working at first after the upgrade.
That's because your question was begged to start with. No one is trying to keep teaching the strengths or weaknesses of any scientific theory out of the classroom. What we're against is using deceptive language to 1) cast doubt on evolutionary theory with cheap, content-free smears and 2) encourage teachers and school boards to teach scientifically worthless religious propaganda.
How much more plainly do I need to spell it out? All legitimate criticisms of any theory are already included in the mandate of science education. Nobody is trying to keep legitimate scientific criticism out of the classroom, so please drop that red herring.
The reason this language is opposed relate to the actual -not putative- reasons why this language was inserted in the first place. That purpose as I have already explained is 1) to take a cheap shot at evolution without presenting a scientific argument against it, and 2) to recruit naive school boards and teachers to undertake illegal activities in the hopes of exhausting the resources of pro-science organizations.
First, if evolution denialists were in any way interested in an honest scientific debate on the merits of evolution, you might have a point. However, they quite clearly are not. As explained above, they have made no substantive effort to engage the scientific community. They have barely published in scientific journals, and have produced no new research to support their position. They have produced no applications for any version of creationism, and they have provided us with no predictive ability. Their studious avoidance of scrutiny from scientific experts shows they have no intention of accurately portraying the state of evolutionary science. In short, when they say they want to promote critical thinking and science education, they are lying, and so are you when you pretend to believe them.
Second, educated adults who aren't beholden to a religious agenda already agree with evolution. The problem is a continued, concerted, and well-funded campaign to keep large numbers of children uneducated and/or miseducated.
No person who accepts evolution believes human beings are descended from banana trees, yet somehow, people like you don't seem to think this level of gross ignorance should disqualify you from telling working scientists what is and what is not "true science." Incredible.
The question is not whether we allow children to form their own opinions about evolution. Of course we do. The real question is whether we're going to teach religiously motivated misinformation and discredited arguments alongside mainstream science. We don't do that for the Theory of Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease, or anything else for that matter. Once again, any and all legitimate criticisms of evolution are already fair game in science education. One purpose of the above language is to suggest (wrongly) to not-so-savvy school administrators that they have a green light to present creationism and its assorted bogus arguments long rebutted by science.
If you want to claim you're just interested in open debate, then debate the scientists until you convince them. At least, try to find me one instance - just one instance, of an argument against evolution that isn't from a creationist and has some traction in mainstream science. Until you do, you're just another liar for Jesus.
Posted by: DaveL | January 14, 2009 7:57 AM
Mike_C:
Mike, I think I've asked you this before, but can you give me a weakness? What weaknesses are you talking about? Provide a weakness and I can answer your question about whether or not I'm against it being taught.
Posted by: Josh | January 14, 2009 8:39 AM