Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The creationists in Texas are declaring victory in the battle over science standards and I think they're right. While we did succeed in getting the general "strengths and weaknesses" language taken out of the science standards, they managed to get several specific changes that not only allow the introduction of tried-and-false creationist arguments on a range of issues into science classrooms but will also be harder to mount a legal challenge to.
Kelly Coghlan, the religious right lawyer from Houston who has led the fight to weaken the teaching of evolution in Texas for years, says "our side (pro-science) prevailed on most of these issues in close votes. The evolution lobby won the battle but lost the war." That he calls his side "pro-science" shows just how delusional he is.
Texans for Better Science Education, a pro-creationist group, is even more blunt. On their website they declare:
This is a huge victory for our side.
And the man, the myth, the legend Casey Luskin says that Texas now has the "strongest standards in the country." And you know that the DI is going to be working with the Board of Education to exploit the new standards to find any possible way to get their propaganda into the classrooms.
The problem is that in a couple years the same State Board of Education is going to be considering the purchase of new textbooks. And the creationists are making very clear that they consider the new standards a victory because they can use them to pressure textbook companies to include a whole range of creationist nonsense about common descent, stasis in the fossil record, "irreducible complexity" in the cell and the origin of life.
And because Texas is such a huge state, any changes made in textbooks for that state will be made nationwide. They're right, they won and they won big. The "strengths and weaknesses" language turned out to be a big distraction. While we managed to close that door up front, they were busy opening up the big double doors in the back of the building so trucks could drive through and deliver loads of creationist propaganda.
Politics
Comments
This is sad. Thousands of children in Texas are going to be taught a bunch of completely bunk and told it's science. And, of course, making children more ignorant and deluded helps the creationists, so the longer these standards stand, the harder it will be to get rid of them.
Posted by: Wes | April 1, 2009 9:42 AM
"And the man, the myth, the legend Casey Luskin says that Texas now has the "strongest standards in the country.""
Clearly a typo. What he meant was that Texas has the "strangest standards in the country."
Posted by: Philbert | April 1, 2009 9:47 AM
One more reason why science teachers need to be weaned away from textbooks. As I tell my science methods classes, "Use them as a reference only, even Miller & Levine."
Posted by: MReap | April 1, 2009 9:50 AM
I really, really wish that NCSE could come up with a packet for teachers to use. If you want to do strengths and weaknesses, it's only appropriate to have a list of the more obvious lies that come from creationists (along with sourcing, of course). It's only fair after all.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | April 1, 2009 10:09 AM
Next, I suppose we can await the new "strengths and weaknesses" of the Germ theory of disease to be introduced.
Posted by: Caliban | April 1, 2009 10:28 AM
When I read your title I had really hoped that this was some sort of an April fool's joke.
Posted by: deep | April 1, 2009 10:30 AM
I think there should be a basic standard before you can use the word "science" in your organisation's name.
but don't worry, all the other countries of the world are still doing science...and in a few years your children can go flip burgers for them...so they won't be out of a job.
Posted by: Richard Eis | April 1, 2009 10:44 AM
Its great that they see increasing the disdain school kids already have for textbooks and education as a victory. In their desire to win a political victory over a perceived enemy on an issue of preference, the creationists have managed to pave the way for wishy-washy textbooks, court battles challenging those books and the state standards, and science departments split between teachers who use the books as an excuse to bad-mouth science they refuse to understand, and teachers who refuse to use the textbook because they consider it misleading. What will be the impact of seeing their education dragged through the courts, or one teacher passing on a anti-evolution answer and another failing on it? To increase the sense that the purpose of school is not to teach them facts, but to keep them busy during the day.
Good thing the Lege is in the process of getting rid of the 10% rule on college admission; I predict the amount of science illiterate high school graduates clamoring for admission will increase significantly over the next 10 years.
Posted by: Julian | April 1, 2009 10:44 AM
I would love to see a massive movement toward the use of open source textbooks. Traditional textbooks are too expensive, too big, and are often revised--but in actually are just repackaged--to reduce the value of used textbooks. I would use open source--except it is not clear yet how the accreditation bodies will deal with them.
And of course this could reduce the problems associated with selecting textbooks (effectively for the entire country) on the basis of Tx or Ca state Boards of Education.
Posted by: heddle | April 1, 2009 10:58 AM
One more reason why science teachers need to be weaned away from textbooks.
That wouldn't help much here in Texas (and the Bible Belt in general), I fear. There are already bunches and scads of creationist biology teachers here who would welcome a move away from Atheistic East Coast Biology texts like the ones they now have to use.
I'm upset about this crap, and I hope I can summon up some of the energy to be an activist that I had back in 1967.
Posted by: Coragyps | April 1, 2009 12:18 PM
When you have stuff like this, combined with abstinence-only education, it seems pretty clear that some people just prefer students to learn nothing at all. It's a shame that kids have to suffer because some adults want them to remain ignorant of reality.
Posted by: catgirl | April 1, 2009 12:19 PM
I guess this is not an April Fools joke, eh?
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | April 1, 2009 12:20 PM
One weapon that could be used is university admission requirements. Can you imagine if major universities (especially the U of Texas) announced that Texas high school graduates must automatically take a remedial science class before being admitted?
Posted by: Taz | April 1, 2009 12:22 PM
Is it true Jack Chick will be opening a textbook factory in Texas?
Posted by: mark | April 1, 2009 12:25 PM
I re-watched Inherit the Wind last night and the ravings of Matthew Harrison Brady about science reminded me of these kinds of arguments.
These "what has science ever done for us?" arguments always remind me of Monty Python...
Posted by: David Durant | April 1, 2009 12:28 PM
Taz,
They already possess the necessary weapon. They can require SAT 2's in a science. If Texas science education is deficient, it should show up in lower SAT 2 scores. That would make it more difficult to get admitted to top universities.
Posted by: heddle | April 1, 2009 12:31 PM
They already possess the necessary weapon. They can require SAT 2's in a science. If Texas science education is deficient, it should show up in lower SAT 2 scores. That would make it more difficult to get admitted to top universities.
Wrong (dare I say again). There are two biology oriented biology tests (E and M). E focuses on ecology and M focuses on molecular biology 20 questions each, there are 60 questions in common. If I am a creationist trying to get into college, I take the M test and assume (rightly) that of the 60 questions, maybe 5 or 6 are about evolution directly (10%).
Even if my numbers are off, there is no way a general biology SAT test would be sufficient to determine if a student has adequate evolutionary biology.
That being said, I also don't think there should be a wall between getting into college and preparedness in evolutionary biology. Students can make up the material once they get to the relevant classes.
Posted by: Lorax | April 1, 2009 1:10 PM
Maybe so--but then the solution is to fix the SAT Subject Test to reflect what is considered important for students to know about biology (duh). That's a far better solution than penalizing students because their school board made bad decisions. They may still end up being penalized because of a poor science education, but at least this way students who master the material on their own will reap the benefits. Requiring all students from a given school district to take remedial biology or physics or whatever is a stupid, blunt instrument solution.
Dare I say you're a jackass? Yes, I dare.Posted by: heddle | April 1, 2009 1:27 PM
Surely when they actually start to try and teach some of this nonsense someone will file a lawsuit? I think there is going to be some serious courtroom smack down of whatever they try and sneak in. Secondly are textbooks reviewed before being mass produced, and if so by whom. I would hope that the review is carried out people knowledgeable in the subject matter and can check the book for mistakes, out of date information, lies, misrepresentations, etc.
Posted by: Doug Little | April 1, 2009 1:38 PM
The science departments of universities will now have to require remedial science just as they do with history. Most US high school history courses are the equivalent of the DI approach. Makes a bunch of people feel better about their lot in life, even if the real history was nothing like what they were taught. Oh yeah, I'll bet that there's an overlap between the history re-writers and the science killers. And did I mention that my mother was Texan? I grew up with all of those myths (myths to me, historical reality to these same folks).
Posted by: jbCharleston | April 1, 2009 1:42 PM
Ummm couldn't we come up with legitimate strengths and weaknesses standards that could be promoted as the scientific approach to biology?
Weakness, not all remains fossilize so we'll never know everything about prehistoric species, strength, we have a bountiful and well understood sample of the fossil record that accurately and firmly supports evolutionary theory.
And so on, and so on...
I agree this is a loss, but it doesn't have to be a major loss if it is handled properly and used to instead promote learning. It only becomes a victory for anti-science if those of us who support science let it become one.
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 1, 2009 1:58 PM
doug,
Personally I think that's precisely the plan they have. The lawsuit, if there were to be one filed, would be against the individual teacher and school district. That, from the very beginning, is a major part of the problem. I'm pulling numbers out of my backside, but you could sort of look at it like this:
Maybe 1 out of 10 kids realizes that what the teacher is teaching them is garbage. 1/10
Perhaps 1 out of every 10 kids that realizes it, cares (many in conservative American will agree with the teacher). So we have 1/100
Perhaps one out of every 10 of those kids will have the guts (or care enough) to complain, go to parents, etc. 1/1000
Maybe 1 out of 10 of those will have parents who care enough to make an issue of it, again some will agree with the teacher, some wont realize that they have a legal right to object, some wont know how, and others simply wont give an [expletive] 1/10000
Finally, perhaps 1 out of 10 of these select few will not simply take the school's response at face value, will not let the matter go, and will instead fight in court, etc. 1/100000
Really the ID, creationists, etc. are banking on the odds that most Americans will, if they don't agree with these efforts, at least not say anything and therefore they'll get away with it.
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 1, 2009 2:07 PM
Is there a silver lining for California in this cloud?
The University of Texas has, in the past, lured some top-notch scientific talent from the University of California.
This might present an opportunity for the UC system to get its scientists back.;)
Posted by: caerbannog | April 1, 2009 2:10 PM
jbcharleston,
Just curious, do you have any evidence to support your claim that "most US history course are the equivalent of the DI approach?"
Do you work in History? Do you write standards for high school history? Do you write US History textbooks? Have you done a survey of incoming freshmen and their understanding of US history?
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 1, 2009 2:12 PM
I think the net result out of this could be what's continually been the biggest harm done in the past. That we do not actually present evolution and all its evidence but instead try and teach around it. The text books may be accurate, but they could also be devoid of subject matter. That is where I predict creationists have just won the battle.
When I started taking science college classes I was furious at discovering all the evidence supporting evolution that could have easily been conveyed to me in at my public school experience in elementary, jr. high, and high school. I didn't realize how influential creationists were at the school board level until I got into college (what small town kid into sports does consider such stuff?). My primary experience in dealing with evolution was in church having our preacher "teach" us about evolution and why it was a dopey idea compared to YEC. Given he was President of the School Board, it's now no surprise why my biology teacher never even used the word (we vaguely talked about "change" a handful of times).
25% of states still do not require their high schools teach human evolution at all. That's the tragedy, our institutionalized avoidance of it that helps foster a culture that makes it easier for conservative churches and parents to indoctrinate their children in a manner that minimizes the odds they'll attend a public university or consider a career in science.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 1, 2009 2:15 PM
caerbannog ,
They lured a lot a people with oil $$$ from all over the world. At one time the joke was they were trying to buy a physics department that their football team could be proud of.
But I don't see faculty moving away because of weakened science standards. They would be more inclined, I suspect,to stay and join the fight.
Posted by: heddle | April 1, 2009 2:15 PM
Heddle and caerbannog: We lost plenty over the stem-cell fiasco. Given that most science folks are more interested in research than teaching, I doubt you'll see a big move away from the UT and TAMU systems as a result of reduced student quality, but who knows; maybe some will leave in protest. It'll be interesting to see how and if Governor Perry responds to this, considering the time and effort he's put in to trying to boost UT's recruitment efforts in biology.
Posted by: Julian | April 1, 2009 2:40 PM
the creationist groups were going to declare victory, no matter how the votes went, so what they have to say about it is meaningless.
chronicle's evosphere blog seemed to think it was a wash: neither side winning or losing - the worst language removed, with some minor "flaws" remaining. the major flaw appears to be the 3A amendment, which both sides can use in the textbook fight per the evosphere blog:
to laymen like me, (i took 2 years of science in a texas high school, aced it, could regurgitate the periodic table of elements for years, but that was about all i got out of it), which seems to be the majority of people, they're not going to see why that amendment is flawed, and if they can't see why the amendment is flawed, they're not really going to be as motivated to get rid of these people on the school board.
what was appalling to ~me~ - and could be used against them - were the actual procedures used to introduce many of these amendments: no scientific review, brought up at the last minute, etc.
Posted by: arin | April 1, 2009 2:43 PM
Hasn't Texas's reputation suffered enough afer 4 years of Bush.These people must want the whole world to think that Texas is entirely inhabited by village idiots.
Posted by: Paen | April 1, 2009 3:35 PM
arin - if standards in Texas do not teach evolution comprehensively from elementary school through high school in the vast majority of public schools throughout the state, than I would argue it's not a wash but another devastating loss.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 1, 2009 3:43 PM
Posted by: Taz | April 1, 2009 3:58 PM
A case in point of why the laughable stupidity of fundies isn't all that funny.
Posted by: democommie | April 1, 2009 4:03 PM
I commented recently over at Bad Astronomy that these people have completely disenfranchised believers in the oscillating universe.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 1, 2009 4:42 PM
perhaps, but you have to be able to explain how that's not going to be done, based on the standards as they were put forth and it has to be explained in that "this is how normal people talk about evolution" language that so many disdain... IF you want the majority of people (many of whom never even had a science class - it wasn't required in the 50s, i'm not sure when it became a requirement) to be as outraged as you are.
Posted by: arin | April 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Cant wait until in 2 generations Americans serve as cheap labor for the economies of the world,because they are too uneducated to do anything else.
The government should intervene,if they have any interest that american children are not soon the laughing stock of the world.
Posted by: clinteas | April 1, 2009 6:44 PM
THe consequences of this are more mundane. The next adoption cycle for biology texts will be a knock-down drag-out fight. The state standards, over which much air was expended last week, are very limited in scope and will be open to interpretation by the folks staffing the TEA, the text book committee appointed that year, and the advisors the committee members select. And then the publishers will do their best to read the tea leaves to figure out how to slant the text books to get them adopted. In the end, however, what really matters will be how each teacher approaches the subject.
The staunch creationist teachers will teach creationism, ignore evolution and pay no attention to state standards. The less sure creationist teachers and the knowledgeable biology teachers who don't want parents harassing them will either mention origins and Darwin in one class or avoid both creationism and evolution entirely. And then there will be a minority, probably about ten of fifteen percent who will actually cover evolution the way it should be taught.
The battles for state standards in a place like Texas are largely battles of symbols with the major practical impact being the absence of evolution from the course, resulting in another large group of students growing up to believe in all kinds of strange things about evolution, just what the DI and their acolytes want.
The place to address the problem lies in tougher credentialing of biology teachers, ensuring that no one teaching biology confuses religious doctrine with biology. But that's a tall order given the nature of pubic school systems in the US.
Posted by: Keanus | April 1, 2009 9:57 PM
Count me as one Texas bio teacher who does a huge unit on evolution each year with nary a comment from a parent. Most kids come in with misconceptions and are curious as they seem to know their pastors are know nothings on the topic.
Once they learn what it really is that actually become fascinated by the subject. I was the same way, I used to be a creationist often arguing with my professors. Education when presented correctly does open minds.
Posted by: CD | April 1, 2009 10:18 PM
How much longer will students be using textbooks in the traditional sense? Won't it soon be possible to download a "textbook" from any source the district chooses for their students to use on their e-books?
Will Texas still have this power then?
Posted by: Icky | April 1, 2009 10:25 PM
Maybe you really should let Texas leave the USA. You would benefit from it.
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | April 2, 2009 3:29 AM
-They already possess the necessary weapon. They can require SAT 2's in a science.-
until no one is getting in and they lower the standard...
Constant suing of the public school system is a hiding to nothing in the long run. although the lawyers may disagree with me since they have done very well out of it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | April 2, 2009 4:14 AM
Religion is simple (feelings and wishful thinking and following the tribe's script)
Requires no real scholarship (some people make careers out of studying and learning to promote the fantasies and propaganda but an ordinary player need do nothing but listen and believe)
Brain effort is minimal (again ordinary players need only follow the script)
It is fun (social aspects, community, etc.)
It makes one feel superior even when inferior (examples: I know more about origin of species than that atheist PhD, or Glad I'm saved and not a fag)
Religion (unless Jewish or Jesuit) when tightly woven into the fabric of society dumbs down a population in general. It rewards wishful thinking, disregard of evidence, and unquestioning allegiance to the establishment.
It is pablum - it is heroin.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 2, 2009 5:44 AM
CD - did your unit of evolution refer to your text book or did you require the introduction of peripheral materials?
The reason I ask is that I suspect that science teachers who are creationists are ignorant of evolution. I think a primary way a state like Texas can remedy that if their state authorities support the proper teaching of science is to insure that the textbooks that are authorized for use are comprehensive in their coverage in both explanation and evidence of evolution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 2, 2009 7:03 AM
ConcernedJoe,
That sounds better in the original German.
Posted by: heddle | April 2, 2009 7:39 AM
Michael Heath,
(This is a real question, not a challenge.)
Do you (or does anyone) know whether there is widespread support among the science teachers for the Texas SBOE decisions--or is it more like Dover?
If it is the latter --then again I point out that the Open Source Textbook movement should be considered as a potential solution.
Posted by: heddle | April 2, 2009 7:45 AM
If textbook companies include non-science, then you cannot justify purchasing that textbook with funds allocated to purchase science books in my opinion.
Schools like to save money. If textbook manufacturers do this, science teachers of integrity can lobby their board for a textbook that doesn't, and if that is not possible, lobby to teach without a textbook. Worst case scenario, you have the (non)Science Books but refuse to use them in class. But not having them at all would be better since that would begin to hit publishers in the wallet, and I think a lot of school boards would be okay with saving the money it costs for science books.
Posted by: SouthernFriedSkeptic | April 2, 2009 12:39 PM
heddle -- LOL
no personal offense intended BTW
I have in mind a host of mindless ... you do not fit that
peace out
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 2, 2009 2:49 PM
Concerned Joe,
None taken. Peace.
Posted by: heddle | April 2, 2009 2:55 PM