Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Texas Board of Education passed the new science standards on Friday. The good news is that an amendment to add back in the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement failed. The bad news is that a more specific amendment with the same effect passed and was added to the standards, where it will now be used to shoehorn creationist propaganda into science classrooms. The Texas Freedom Network was liveblogging the meeting and has the details on the amendment:
1:30 - Dunbar offers an amendment, calling for students to "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record." Bob Craig wants to amend, striking "the sufficiency of." Berlanga is bothered that the board is making recommendations on specific standards without allowing time for members to discuss the amendments with science experts. Very good question, of course.1:43 - Terri Leo, acting as chair, says all this was debated yesterday, and the board doesn't need anymore input from the science community. Of course, the board never asked science experts to advise the board about McLeroy's measure in January or this week.
1:46 - Dunbar's amendment, as amended by Craig, passes 13-2.
McLeroy is happy, which says it all. Creationists will now pressure publishers to challenge common ancestry in textbooks and base their challenges on McLeroy's arguments.
This will now be used to get the same creationist nonsense that McLeroy has already been spewing into science classrooms. Creationist teachers all over Texas, I guarantee you, will be adding supplemental material to their biology classes that come straight from the usual suspects full of ignorant blather about stasis and how it negates common descent.
Competent teachers, of course, will know that this is bunk. Competent teachers will know what any educated person knows, that common descent is the only rational explanation for the sequential nature of the fossil record.
And it gets worse:
1:59 - Craig offers an amendment: "Analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell." This amendment passes 13-2.
That will now be used to introduce irreducible complexity into science classrooms.
2:03 - Allen moves to strike a Terri Leo amendment passed yesterday that stated: "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." The motion fails 5-10.
And that will be used to introduce bogus creationist probability statistics about the origin of life. It's all about getting creationist arguments in without having any label on them to make clear what they are.
And my favorite bit of stupidity from the whole thing:
12:41: McLeroy: "I disagree with all these experts. Somebody has to stand up to these experts. I don't know why they're doing it."
That ranks up there with Ray Mummert saying, "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
Politics
Comments
I see this as a problem, and you see this as a problem, but it is difficult to explain to someone that isn't immersed in this discussion why teaching "all sides" is a problem.
I think we're getting backed into a corner here, where science has won so stunningly that creationists have been forced water down their rhetoric so that only themselves and those attuned to it can hear the dog whistle.
The only way to guarantee that creationism isn't taught in class (in one form or another) is to stop having creationists teach science - legislation won't do it.
It seems the logical thing to do is insure that science teachers are aware of the mainstream scientific opinion, and give each idea the weight it carries in that community. Why isn't there an amendment to that effect introduced? Beyond that I think we're going to just have to fight this on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: Phaedrus | March 30, 2009 9:36 AM
It'd be nice to hear a broader perspective on this issue. For example, where we all see risk of religious notions being treated as equal to empirical evidence, I also see some opportunities to make an overwhelming argument regarding the evidence for evolution and the idiocy of the creationist arguments by actually honestly presenting the evidence in three forums.
1) Sue any school in federal court that introduces a science text book into a science classroom that promotes religion as science. We know Texas is monolithic in its text book purchases so this should be easy to track and capture.
2) Sue any school who uses supplementary materials promoting religion in a science classroom. This requires some help from locals which is not always easily forthcoming, but the state only needs one good case to take to Federal Court.
3) Have those teachers who understand both biology and creationism start following the curriculum in an honest manner, which would be devastating to creationism in those locales. Fights that would surely follow and be escalated to school boards by creationists would provide an opportunity for the related teachers to show how they are honestly following the new regulations - which shows the overwhelming evidence for evolution and the idiocy of creationist arguments.
I understand this last point may be overly utopian, but you only need a few anecdotes to drive media stories. The more these stories run, the better educated the journalists who report them become and less likely to report morally equivalent arguments when none exist. We saw this as the Dover Trial developed in terms of the media increasing the accuracy of its stories rather than presenting both sides as equally compelling arguments as they were originally framed.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 30, 2009 9:59 AM
They've taken a page out of the anti-choice playbook: make a facial challenge to the law impossible, and force opponents to fight, case-by-case, on an as applied basis. The policy, in other words, will fail Establishment Clause review because as it will actually be applied, creationism will be taught in the science class.
This strategy will make it more difficult to challenge any particular policy, to be sure. But in the end, I don't know that it will get the creationists what they want. It is one thing for a state, with all its resources, to fight an as applied challenge to an abortion statute. The state can afford the fight. It is another thing, though, to force a county or school board to fight an as applied challenge. At the end of the day, the policy fails as applied, and the county or the school board will still have to pay attorney fees and expenses. In other words, it is still a Dover trap; it is just being postponed a bit and being fought in a different way.
Posted by: Dan | March 30, 2009 10:02 AM
Dan - could you elaborate? Why sue in state court? Why not just sue in federal court where the suit wouldn't be delayed because of state regulations?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 30, 2009 10:12 AM
That's where mockery comes in. How about some videos of teachers presenting "all sides" of geography, including the flat earth and turtles all the way down? "All sides" of astronomy, with heliocentrism getting the "critical thinking" that Texas demands?
Or, best of all, "all sides" of reproductive biology, including cabbage leaves, the stork, etc.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 30, 2009 10:27 AM
This sucks beyond words. Now every state in the fucking country has to deal with the unfortunate power creotards have because Texas buys textbooks as a state and thus has more influence than all the local districts in the country.
Is high time other states start purchasing textbooks as a state so these fucks don't diminish quality education in other states.
Posted by: Lorax | March 30, 2009 10:32 AM
Why is this a disaster?
It provides the perfect opportunity to introduce more molecular genetics and modern genomics into the curriculum. The fossil evidence is fairly incomplete compared to genetic sequence comparisons as a means of showing common descent and the relationships between different species. The techniques and principles involved are also the basis of some of the most trusted techniques used in law enforcement (and most CSI-type TV storylines).
Creationists generally feel content to discuss fossils till the cows come home yet bring up molecular genetics and they suddenly turn to vampires at an all-you-can-eat garlic restaurant.
Posted by: Sigmund | March 30, 2009 11:21 AM
Sigmund,
I love your optimism, but there may be a minor problem with the quality of education afforded the science teachers who are going to be teaching the material.
Posted by: freelunch | March 30, 2009 11:47 AM
Posted by: FishyFred | March 30, 2009 11:51 AM
Sadly, probably not many. If the people I've directly encountered are representative, then I would wager that a good number of the people out there teaching earth science at the secondary level haven't got much formal education in the subject.
Posted by: Josh | March 30, 2009 11:57 AM
I understand the problem that not many teachers are currently able to teach the necessary information about genomics. Its a relatively new subject compared to most aspects of biology yet it provides by far the best evidence for evolution. It impinges on so many aspects of the biology of the future (such as forensics, personalized medicine, population studies and archaeology) that to resign ourselves to ignoring it because of inadequate teacher knowledge is shooting ourselves in the foot.
Posted by: Sigmund | March 30, 2009 12:13 PM
As a former classroom teacher, I can also point out that the legislation dumps a lot of content on already overworked teachers. The result will be science teaching that is even more shallow and confusing to the typical HS student than it already is.
The state Board of Ed basically has no business dictating that level of specificity to any teacher in any subject. A lot of the biochemistry and genetics requires knowledge that few HS or MS teachers have, and few students can understand. It's an pedagogically inept set of standards.
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 30, 2009 12:31 PM
Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas is also covering the meeting here: http://scienceblogs.com/tfk
I think some of the material's the same as the Texas Freedom Network's.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | March 30, 2009 12:34 PM
If it's anything like the districts I've seen, the "extra money for science teachers" ended up with the most senior teaching staff snagging the science and math classes for the bonuses, while the PhD mathematicians [1] were slotted to study hall and general studies.
[1] No, I'm not exaggerating. She was idealistic and took the extra two years on top of a PhD to qualify as a secondary ed teacher.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 30, 2009 1:06 PM
I haven't seen anyone explain why the pro-science group, with an 8-7 majority, agreed to those final three compromises. All they had to do was vote against the amendments as written and it was done. Michael Heath - a Dover repeat would surely be glorious, but I doubt we'll see anything similar coming from the 5th Circuit. Changing public opinion, or waiting another 50 years, are about the only available options.
Posted by: Tim | March 30, 2009 1:44 PM
Tim,
Whatever decision was made in the Texas District or 5th Circuit Courts would not necessarily be the end game. The Supreme Court still lies beyond them. And while the 5th Circuit is conservative, not all the justices there are nutcases.
Wheatdogg, I concur fully. I have great sympathy for elementary and high school teachers--the state might as well script everything, have professional actors record it on TV, then play the TV to the kids. All the "real" teacher would need to do is take attendance and grade tests according to the state approved answer key.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 30, 2009 3:17 PM
All you "Gloomy Gus's" see is the black clouds of cretinist siunz. I, otoh, see the silver lining. I have no formal education in anything higher than HS biology and no college degree. Now, thanks to the state of Texas' idiocy, I can see myself teaching cyuntz. Heck, two weeks I couldn't even spell effolushin and now I don't gotta worry, 'cuz I won't have to write it on the blackboard.
Posted by: democommie | March 30, 2009 4:29 PM
Phaedrus, I agree with your post, but I would expand a bit on the first sentence. The problem with the "teaching both sides" (non)controversy is that most people don't understand that there is NO controversy, and there aren't two sides to teach. Science education in this country has been so abysmal that the average person has no concept of the depth and breadth of evidence for evolution, and so they accept that there's actually a credible opposing point of view. Until the public understands and values that evidence, we're going to have to continue to fight tooth and nail.
Posted by: mathyoo | March 30, 2009 4:33 PM
The sad fact is that this is what the people in Texas want. They don't want the truth. They want fantasy. They want their magic and sky fairies; and there's nothing we can do except for either a) wait for them to grow up or b) strip them of their title as text book manufacturer. Because I don't see that first one happening this century, I can only hope that the second one will come to pass.
We can't force the truth down people's throat - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can lead a Texan - or an American, for that matter - to a library, but you can't make him think. The parents don't want their kids thinking for themselves - they want another generation of brain-dead creotards. And sadly, that's what they're going to get. And while they do this, our science scores will really take a hit (in the sense that even our cream of the crop will be laughable by global standards) and we begin a slow and arduous descent into the stone ages.
Sorry for the pessimism, but this nation has always had the toxic attitude that "those who can, do, those who can't, teach." Thus, we won't have molecular biologists in the classroom teaching molecular biology, because they'll make more money and be more highly respected at a hospital or university. We're left with science teachers who, sadly, are barely familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy*
*caveat: Not all science teachers. There are good ones. There are a lot of good ones. But they suffer from the same problems that the English department has at the school I work in - too little funding, and a general disdain towards the "educated elite" - acuz stoopid as all fuck is better than knowing what you're talking about.
Enigma
Posted by: TheEngima32 | March 30, 2009 5:02 PM
I was at the local SUNY campus in Oswego the other day (it was just for music, nothing damaging to the educational system) and I stopped in the campus bookstore. I asked the young lady behind the counter if textbooks were insanely expensive these days, and how that affected faculty's assignment of them for various courses. She replied that most of the publishers would now let the school buy just the section of the book that they wanted and charge them a prorated fee. Is this possible for all textbooks? If so, fuck Texas. Let them be as benighted as they want to be.
Posted by: democommie | March 30, 2009 5:14 PM
Regarding the textbooks: Texas may be the second largest market, but California is the largest. Their residents are less likely to stand for shoddy science, as would be the case for any of the larger states with perhaps the exception of Florida. We need educators, parents, and boards in those states to make very clear to the publishers what they want to see in a Biology text. Force the publishers to realize that abandoning science for folly will result in their financial ruin. The choice between Texas, Florida, and the insignificant red states and the larger rational market should be made clear.
Posted by: Robert Faber | March 30, 2009 7:58 PM
Robert Faber - can you provide some validation for your inference that CA has more influence on book publishers than Texas? It has been frequently mentioned that Texas coordinates acceptable text books at the state level unlike other large states. So even though CA has more students, they may not represent anywhere near the sort of "TAM" (total available market) that Texas commands.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 30, 2009 8:14 PM
Michael Health - I am pretty sure that in California, the State approves textbooks that comply with the state-level standards. Thus, multiple books/publishers are approved for each subject area. The individual school districts then go through a selection process themselves to select exactly which textbook they will use in that district.
Posted by: celdd | March 30, 2009 9:35 PM
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, science teachers are already buried under a massive mountain of standards they have to cover. They usually don't have time for much more than a cursory coverage of evolution. To make matters worse in many very conservative areas the teachers know that they will run into major objections over evolution so they treat it with kid gloves, try to avoid conflict, and some sub-consciously water down the material.
Now the folks above that I mentioned are the people who are dedicated to good science and scientific method. For the others:
The only way to guarantee that creationism isn't taught in class (in one form or another) is to stop having creationists teach science - legislation won't do it.
Phaedrus,
A couple of problems with this. First, how do you tell the creationists from the non-creationists? If you ask them at the interview I guarantee you will be slapped with a lawsuit that you will lose about 30 seconds after you hire the teacher who gives you the answer you are looking for. Second, as we've seen through their underhanded and deceitful tactics, these people are willing to lie for JEEEZUS! I've seen situations in my time as an educator where the administration didn't know that the teacher was pushing "alternative" science until some of the kids popped up either complaining to other teachers or arguing with them when they presented accurate depictions of the nature of the world.
In addition to discipline, budget issues, meetings, etc., administrators normally have 30 or more teachers working under them. They have to devote more time to those struggling and/or new teachers and often, understandably, rely on the professionalism and experience of their veteran teachers. If a teacher appears to be doing a good job, there aren't any complaints, etc., there isn't any particular reason why an administrator would keep a closer eye on a teacher.
Nine times out of ten this system works perfectly well. Unfortunately that tenth time you have a John Freshwater shocking his kids and preaching YEC.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 30, 2009 9:40 PM
Michael Heath wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not suggesting that any suit would be in state court, though it certainly could be brought there. The usual course, as you point out, would be to file in federal district court. In using the word "postponed" I only meant that any challenge will have to wait until a policy is actually implemented -- as opposed to being challenged facially at adoption.
Bringing a facial challenge is complicated by the facial neutrality of the statute. I wonder if the creationists might be trying to position this issue in a way that the Court would apply the rather empty neutrality standard that it has grown fond of in aid-to-religion cases.
Posted by: Dan | March 31, 2009 7:32 AM
The Houston Chronicle is currently discussing Intelligent Design in their Christ and Culture blog. Apparently, the low-IQ gomers are annoyed at being characterized as low-IQ gomers, and so they take pains to confirm everyone else's low opinion of them.
Posted by: william e emba | March 31, 2009 10:51 AM
@Enigma
You are painting with a very broad brush there. There is a sizable portion of the population in Texas who are firmly for progress in science education. I believe that many more would not stand for these standards if they fully understood the likely effects.
Re Textbooks
I believe the situation can be improved with HB2959 which would lower the price of textbooks. I realise that the main driver for this bill is not keeping religion out, but it could help reduce the influence the state's textbook market has nationally.
Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | April 1, 2009 12:49 AM
I still don't understand why hell you guys even use this process to set school standards.
Posted by: Kengee | April 1, 2009 10:38 AM