…and this is a 
The battle rages on in Texas
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 20, 2008 10:03 AM, by PZ Myers
The Texas State Board of Education is holding hearings right now on their science standards, and by all reports it is an embarrassment to the state: on the one side, we have the educated teachers and scientists, and on the other, a coterie of ignorant ideologues. Martin has been attending the meetings (it doesn't sound like much fun), and he cuts to the heart of the creationist strategy:
This cannot be understated: Just as the anti-gay contingent of the Christian right sells its opposition to gay marriage as a "defense" of "traditional" marriage that can in no way be compared to opposition to interracial marriage or anything of that sort, so too are the creationists now abandoning the overt, lawsuit-bait language of "intelligent design" for "academic freedom" language that makes them seem like the ones encouraging students to use their minds to think about and evaluate ideas that are presented to them in class on their merits. Conversely, the pro-science side wants to shut this kind of inquiry down, and just require students to be obedient little sponges soaking up whatever the textbooks say.
Why this is a misrepresentation and gross misunderstanding of the opposition to such terms as "strengths and weaknesses" was, to his credit, appropriately explained by Texas Citizens for Science spokesman Steve Schafersman.
I suppose you could argue that "strengths and weaknesses" is a smart slogan to deploy when the evolution side has all the strengths, and the creationist side has nothing but weaknesses. It's a way to pretend that they've earned a place in the curriculum, because the bad science is currently underrepresented…if you think the role of science education is to toss every failed idea in history at students.
Comments
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 20, 2008 10:07 AM
I wonder if they are also going to point out that this opens the door to point out the weaknesses in Calculus? I mean, certainly a group of high school kids can discuss all of the problems with the Theory of Limits, unlike those snooty, elite mathematicians and their unrelenting dogmatic worship of Newton.
/snark
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Teach the strengths and weaknesses of Germ theory and Sin causes your illness.
Posted by: Michael | November 20, 2008 10:10 AM
I still have to chuckle at the new watchword, "academic freedom." It says something so dismissive and obtuse just in the wording. What I hear is a student saying "teacher, it is my academic freedom to dismiss the theory of evolution and to refuse to answer the questions on this test pertaining to that subject." The teacher in this case has the 'academic freedom' to fail that student's test based on their non-answers. As a student you don't get the choice of accepting or dismissing certain concepts simply because you don't agree with them or understand them. If you are learning genetics, you can't just decide that you want to put it into context of the existence of unicorns, simply because you feel you think you have the freedom to do so.
Posted by: Djudge | November 20, 2008 10:13 AM
By the way, Martin is still caught up in the lawsuit, as mentioned earlier on this blog. You can help him out by chipping in.
http://thisisjustinsane.blogspot.com/
Thanks
Posted by: Tulse | November 20, 2008 10:15 AM
There are, of course, various Christian sects that would argue precisely that, and presumably would welcome such curriculum change in Texas.
Posted by: Les Lane | November 20, 2008 10:17 AM
Nebraska Citizens for Science maintains a collection of annotated "Texas articles" (reverse chronological order) along with pages on the more outrageous board members:
http://www.nebscience.org/texas2.html
Posted by: Sigmund | November 20, 2008 10:22 AM
I suspect that when you have a situation where about 25% of teachers currently teach creationism (according to the Berkman paper) the actual standards themselves are not the major issue. The best standards in the world are not going to improve things unless you address the underlying problem of incompetent teachers.
Posted by: Godless Woman | November 20, 2008 10:28 AM
Conversely, the pro-science side wants to shut this kind of inquiry down, and just require students to be obedient little sponges soaking up whatever the textbooks say.
And the religious side is thinking "bulls@!t that is our job!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 10:29 AM
I think if they want to show evidence against evolution, they also ought to show evidence against god. Fair is fair.
Posted by: Tophe | November 20, 2008 10:31 AM
If the IDiots get anywhere with this tactic then perhaps the pro-science side should fight fire with fire and use "academic freedom" to point out all the errors and inconsistencies in the buy-bull.
Posted by: ED | November 20, 2008 10:32 AM
If any creation story is taught in a classroom, other religions with different creation stories should file a petition to have their creation story included in the classroom. Being required to teach ten different creation stories, should convince any child in the classroom that they are all bovine excrement.
Posted by: Sundar | November 20, 2008 10:33 AM
PZ, I am not sure if you have already discussed Stu Haufmann on your blog. Any comments on his latest interview on Salon?
http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/
Posted by: woody | November 20, 2008 10:38 AM
Was it Arthur C. Clarke who famously said that, in a sufficiently technologically advanced society, it was impossible to distinguish between technology and magic?
Both science and religion come to an apoeria, finally: where did it all begin? The difference between science and magic is that science says: well, we don't really know but there are some pretty strong suggestionsm, and we're looking for more answers, and there's more data, but it's not all that clear, yet, so we continue looking.
The magicians say "God."
And to a crowd of 'ignorant peasants'--that is, anyone without an advanced degree in one of the component parts of the technological culture, or at least training in some critical disciplinary thinking--bemused by the incredible splendor of it all, and their own insignificance in it, "God" is the answer they'll ALWAYS gravitate toward, cuz they don't have to think about it...
Posted by: Peter Hearty | November 20, 2008 10:45 AM
Surely the counter to this academic freedom argument, is that academic freedom is intended to protect those involved in scholarly debate and scientific research who may be exploring unpopular or contentious points of view? In science, academic freedom is expressed via the peer review process. That is where the scientific debate takes place - in journals and at conferences, and that is where creationists should be presenting their "research" if they have any.
Far from being an attempt to uphold academic freedom, what they are currently doing is subverting the scientific process. They're trying to bypass academic debate by taking their case, not to a scientific peer community, but to schoolchildren.
This is not academic freedom. It is academic fraud.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 20, 2008 10:46 AM
As just another of my random thoughts, I realized that I forgot when it was mandated that science classes become classes in debate. I must have missed the bus when school boards changed science from "conclusions based on evidence" to "arguments from loudmouths". Not that some scientists aren't loudmouths, but at least they shout evidence and not ideology.
Posted by: BobC | November 20, 2008 10:51 AM
Would it be correct to say evolution has zero weaknesses? Biologists will never know every single detail about the history of life, and I assume biologists disagree about some of the minor details of evolution. Are these weaknesses? I don't think so. I think it's very dishonest to call research opportunities and disagreements "weaknesses".
It's too bad about Texas. Even if the scientists and science teachers win this battle, I bet most of the students in that state are too brainwashed to accept reality, no matter how good their biology teacher is.
Posted by: Christie | November 20, 2008 10:57 AM
Creation belongs in philosophy discussions, not science ones. I can't believe they won't listen to - what was it, 98%, 99% of Texas biology teachers - who said that evolution is right? I mean, really? 49% of Californian's didn't want to ban gay marriage, but 1% of the texas bio professionals get to decide what happens with science? Seriously? Academic freedom my ass. If you want 'academic freedom' provide a high-school level comparative religion course that includes ID or whatnot as well as other religious perspectives on the origins of life.
Posted by: Janothar | November 20, 2008 10:58 AM
BobC, I think it's a bad idea to write off the students. The problem is that education standards in this country have fallen apart. My view is that high school, though a necessary battle, isn't the one where we can win this fight. What we need to focus on is elementary school curriculum: tighten it up and introduce more hands-on science and critical/logical thinking tasks. The religionists talk about getting them while they're young, we need to think that way too.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 20, 2008 11:00 AM
It's ridiculous. And this is a repeat of what's been said a thousand times before but....
High School science classes are (almost always) not the place where science questions are sussed out and new info is added to the scientific consensus. Science class is about teaching the current scientific consensus to the students. Teaching the best science available to prepare them for moving forward to college or whatever.
ID and Creationism are not only not the best science available, they are not science. It has no place in the classroom. If the ID people want it to be then they should start publishing and providing the research for it to take the place as the scientific consensus.
It's so blatantly fucking obvious that even to the ID people it isn't about the science, it's about the theology. Sneaking it in under the costume of science is just a ploy.
/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk
/hammer to skull
/headdesk
/hammer to skull
/headdesk
/headdesk
Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2008 11:01 AM
The creationists think they are being clever, and using the liberal's own tactics against them, like in judo. You're in favor of critical thinking? We'll redefine the Argument from Ignorance as critical thinking. You're in favor of democracy and the peer review process? We'll reframe the concept of scientific peers into "we the people," and act as if science is determined by popular vote. You believe that Christian fundamentalism is narrow and dogmatic? We'll promote creationism as its own world view and "way of knowing" -- one which deserves just as much respect as other world views.
This is nothing new to them. How else can they insist that believing in God is a matter of "accepting that there are things out there you don't know" and deciding to believe something because you want it to be true is a way of "telling yourself that you're not the center of the universe." They've been living in Opposite Land for a while.
Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2008 11:02 AM
COUNTERMEME:
Academic Freedom demands Professional Responsibility.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 20, 2008 11:06 AM
Why not just teach all of the weaknesses of science, its assumptions and inability to get to some "certain truth"?
After all, those are about the only "weaknesses" in evolutionary theory--but it's true of all science, and hell, we wouldn't want to actually teach science when we can discuss abstract objections to it.
Following up on others, it's not clear that evolutionary theory has "weaknesses" in the context of scientific theory. There is much yet to be explained, as is true of stellar dynamics, but what "weaknesses" in physics are behind any of the remaining research projects in stellar dynamics? Likewise, while we would like to know more about the evolution of flagella, does anyone know of any actual weaknesses behind the remaining lacunae?
As far as I can tell, the inherent lack of total knowledge in humans is what is being called "weaknesses" in evolutionary theory. That's bullshit, if not unexpected from those constant liars.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: BobC | November 20, 2008 11:07 AM
I totally agree. I would be in favor of teaching evolution in First Grade, or even earlier if a parent could do it. When I was in First Grade (Catholic school) I was taught people were magically created in the image of Mr. God. I wish I was taught instead that we developed from other animals. Imagine learning the truth at a very young age instead of a bunch of lies.
Posted by: Tim H | November 20, 2008 11:11 AM
I don't understand why Texas has so much clout in the texbook market. (Which is the main reason the rest of the nation is sweating this, of course.)
Yes, Texas is the second-most populus state, but California is #1 and NY is #3. Let's go by # of congressmen:
CA 53
TX 32
NY 29
FL 25
PA 19
IL 19
OH 18
(This is from memory of electoral vote maps, subtracting the 2 senators from each. If I screwed up, feel free to correct me.)
Just going from the last couple elections, I see 32 wingnut votes, 62 tossup, and 101 liberal. If CA, NY, and IL would get together, Texas wouldn't have any clout. There's a solution for you.
Posted by: Janothar | November 20, 2008 11:11 AM
Exactly. Or even if not the specific theory, teaching kids to be skeptics. There's NOTHING that young children seem to like better than being able to prove an adult wrong. (In my limited experience, at least.) Do something like teaching critical thought by making up assignments for them that involve showing that something that you (the teacher) tell them is wrong. Also gives them a nice healthy distrust of authority figures...perhaps it can be rolled into a civics class?
Posted by: E.V. | November 20, 2008 11:11 AM
So Haufmann's take on spirituality is determining long term consequences from a Secular Humanist point of view?
Determining self purpose and ascribing value= God?
How is this new thought?
For our Creationist friends, Secular Humanism = Atheism= evil.
Getting the godists to let go of a supernatural anthropomorphic god for a touchy feely "we all matter because we're part of the cosmos so therefore the universe has meaning and that, in effect, is God" is sublimely naive as it underestimates the malevolence and credulity of those who will always cling to a wish-granting and vengeful personal god who promises a conscious life beyond this very difficult material existence (even though their concept of an afterlife is is predicated on a perpetual material existence without messes, disease, conflict, pests and unwanted body functions).
Posted by: E.V. | November 20, 2008 11:14 AM
#26 was in response to #12 clickback
Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2008 11:16 AM
BobC: Would it be correct to say evolution has zero weaknesses?
"Strengths and Weaknesses" for a hypothesis can only be taken in reference to an alternative hypothesis. Science uses the null hypothesis as the default alternative, but I don't think this is the alternative S&W proponents have in mind.
Posted by: Vidar | November 20, 2008 11:29 AM
Maybe a few pastafarians will dispatch a representative of their faith in order to protect their academic freedom to teach the FSM-centric view of the universe. Pastafarians have charts, and their creation story is more coherent then anything the IDiots came up with.
Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2008 11:31 AM
Glen Davidson: Why not just teach all of the weaknesses of science, its assumptions and inability to get to some "certain truth"?
Because the bulk of the assumptions are mathematical (minimally, Wolfram's and the ZF axioms), and the math associated is not part of the current curriculum. I think it should be; it's very useful for the foundations of computer science. However, I'm a kook, so my opinion doesn't count for much.
The only assumption necessary and sufficient for science which is not purely mathematical is "Reality and Experience (IE, evidence) are relateable by some rules allowing inference".
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 11:36 AM
This is a point that needs sticking on. There are plenty of legitimate scientific controversies but I can't think of one of them that ought to be taught at secondary school. If professional scientists don't have a clear, agreed picture of something it's just too hard for secondary pupils. "Teach the controversy/strengths and weaknesses" wouldn't make sense even for an unfucktarded idea.Actually, maybe it's worth pretending there is a real controversy. Claim that any role that magical beings have in the variety of life is an advanced topic like the nature of dark matter, and that you need to dumb down the curriculum, so kids can understand, by just teaching the natural parts of natural science. ;)
Posted by: Chris Davis | November 20, 2008 11:38 AM
This is really just the recurrent cry for more 'open mindedness' from those whose minds have already opened so far as to allow their brains to fall out.
Posted by: StirThePot | November 20, 2008 11:40 AM
Your all just upset because you don't want kids to know that there is no scientific consensus about evolution and that kids may realize that god did have a role in our creation.
Your Atheist agenda will not pass in Texas!
Posted by: Jello | November 20, 2008 11:41 AM
I.D has no place in education anywhere, with the exception of discussions on pre-Darwinian philosophy. The modern incarnation does not even qualify as a worldview, it is a Political PR campaign envisioned by a religiously motivated lobbying group in their endless war against "liberals". It should be barred from public schools on the mere grounds that it would potentially politicize the public education system between those teachers that support sound science and those who don't. If we could explain to parents that this kind of divisive conflict is what is at stake given what it did to the federal government I think support for Pro-ID candidates would fall significantly.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 20, 2008 11:44 AM
rile
Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2008 11:57 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM: Science class is about teaching the current scientific consensus to the students.
Not 100% correct. Science class is both about teaching the formal Methodology of science (gathering evidence, form conjectures about relationships in evidence, form hypothesis using conjecture to describe evidence, competitively test hypotheses to determine the best, which then gets called "theory"), as well as the current results of that methodology.
StirThePot Your all just upset because you don't want kids to know that there is no scientific consensus about evolution
Perhaps you missed the 98% consensus in the 45% self-selected response poll mentioned a few days back? Self-selected polls are most likely to pick up extreme views very easily, which tends to exaggerate the level of controversy; so, Evolution is probably less controversial than that.
StirThePot kids may realize that god did have a role in our creation
This proposition is less probable as inference from present evidence than its refutation.
StirThePot Your Atheist agenda will not pass in Texas!
Troll rating: 0.3/10; you're not even trying.
Jello I.D has no place in education anywhere, with the exception of discussions on pre-Darwinian philosophy.
I dunno; it might have a place in a discussion of engineering. Of course, this requires a good understanding of how design operates, which ID proponents generally lack. Technological design is itself a process of competitive selection of variations -- which is to say, evolutionary; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. Until it does: no evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, no Science, NO COOKIE!
Posted by: Shamar | November 20, 2008 11:59 AM
I'm in Texas (I'm currently a student at Texas A&M University), and this is just embarrassing! I hate it every time I see religious nutjobs trying to put non-science in a science classroom. It really pisses me off!
Posted by: SteveM | November 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Not quite. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I would expect that a "sufficiently advanced society" should be able to tell the difference. That is, the society that produces the advanced technology would know that it is technology. It would only appear to be magic to a less advanced society.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 12:04 PM
Yes of course, I didn't say it wasn't.
Posted by: TomS | November 20, 2008 12:09 PM
If you really want to get a reaction against "strengths and weaknesses" or "academic freedom", I'd suggest applying that to ... not to fancy-shmancy stuff like calculus ...
Let's have freedom for alternative football in the schools.
All too long have the dogmatists about football insisted that the team with the highest score is the winner.
Posted by: Steve | November 20, 2008 12:11 PM
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz you apostate.
Posted by: J-Dog | November 20, 2008 12:12 PM
Davey Crockett didn't die in the damn Alamo, just so's Teh Stoopids could take over teachin' down there in Texas.
Stand Up For Texas - throw the DI elitist bums out.
Posted by: Allen N | November 20, 2008 12:20 PM
I believe in Texas, the state sets the curriculum and text selection. If that is the case, then any publisher would lose a huge amount of sales if they did not bow to the demands of the creotards.
As a long time educator, it always amazes me to see people who don't know Jack Shit ( or his sister, Pisa) about education making decisions the have profound effects on it. It mirrors an underlying belief that (a) anyone can teach and (b) anyone who might be classified as an "intellectual" is not to be trusted - they are not like us "real" folks.
Posted by: CJO | November 20, 2008 12:52 PM
Your all just upset because you don't want kids to know that there is no scientific consensus about evolution and that kids may realize that god did have a role in our creation.
Do all you insipid godbotherers have to be fucking illiterate too? It's "you're." You. Are.
And the tortured syntax! The goggles, they do nothing! I guess you're right though: we don't want kids to know that kids may realize that god did have a role. Or something.
I suppose this is an example of the fine work they're doing in Texas schools. Thanks for the object lesson in the crap we're up against.
Posted by: tresmal | November 20, 2008 12:54 PM
How's this for a compromise? The creationists provide a list of all the "weaknesses" They want taught. That list is then vetted by a qualified scientific panel (does anybody want bad science taught in our schools?) Any "weakness" that passed this review as scientifically valid could be added to the curriculum of any school district that wanted to do so. For the sake of transparency and accountability for each rejected item there would be a simple easy to understand explanation for the rejection. And to further help keep things on the up and up, this list of explanations would be sent to every household in Texas, so everybody feels like they're in the loop. Call me a starry eyed idealist, if you must, but I'm all for building bridges instead of walls.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 20, 2008 1:18 PM
I'm looking for a linguist who can help me with translation--
For it seems two different languages are used within this nation;
Much more tricky than Bulgarian, more difficult than Greek
Is the twisted form of English that Creationists now speak.
[...]
When "academic freedom" means that teachers have to lie
And "scientific evidence" comes straight from God on high,
"Intelligent", "complexity" and most egregious, "theory"
Are transmogrified to such degree it makes my brain grow weary,
I know there must be something I can do to ease my pain
So I'm looking for a linguist, so that I can start to train.
[...]
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/03/translating-from-creationist-to-english.html
a re-run, but appropriate.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 20, 2008 1:22 PM
@Steve #41
FATWAH!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 1:30 PM
I'm pretty sure that StirThePot is intentional poe bent on Rilage.
the name sort of gives it away.
Posted by: H.H. | November 20, 2008 1:32 PM
The easiest way to expose someone calling for the teaching of evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" as a dishonest ideologue is to simple ask them what those strengths are. Oh, they have a laundry list of discredited creationist "weaknesses," but they stammer and stutter and generally reveal themselves to be complete ignoramuses when asked to provide the strong evidence that has managed to convince 99.9% of working scientists of the validity of the theory of evolution. They can't do it. And even if they could, they won't, because it would totally undermine the idea that a legitimate controversy exists.
Posted by: Brett | November 20, 2008 2:01 PM
I attended the SBOE meeting, and I was struck by how well the board listened to experts. They readily took the advice of real estate and finance experts in one agenda item. In another agenda item, they reviewed and approved mathematics standards clearly drafted by knowlegeable practitioners.
YET, when it came to the science agenda, members of the board refused expert opinion time and again. It was unbelievable. As the night wore on, it became increasingly obvious that this issue was never about science.
Posted by: toucantoad | November 20, 2008 2:24 PM
I just returned from testifying at the SBOE meeting, as I did in 2003 on the textbook issue. I followed by a few from Dr. Schafersman (Tex. Citizens for Sci) and the young Houston Independent School District teacher. The young teacher was beaned by Austin SBOE member Mercer with the Piltdown hoax and Haeckle's embryos. I though briefly about discarding my prepared remarks and jumping Mercer about his apparent implication that school students might have exposed the Piltdown hoax instead of the scientists practicing science who did expose it. And, of course, there are a thousand other things dishonest about that subject coming up in these hearings, but no one ever acused creationist board members of integrity on this subject.
I elected not to abandon my notes, and that is my point in this comment. Many of us (faculty, as in my case, and others) are not always good in fast-time debate. By fourteen hours after leaving the hearing I had imagined a wonderful set of responses to Mercer, but I probably would not have been nearly as effective in real time.
More younger people, firebrands like we see commenting on Pharyngula, and fewer graybeards like me might have scored better at the hearings.
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2008 3:11 PM
This is a done deal, a kangaroo hearing. What is the point of being a christofascist if one can't persecute someone or something? The creobos will ram through whatever they want and forget reality, science, and the law.
Speaking of which, we all know that teaching xian cult mythology in public schools is illegal and there are court cases stretching back decades.
Might just as well start gearing up for the inevitable Dover II court case. They can mob up sometimes and screw up one thing or another in the name of their cults. In a court of law, they invariably come across looking like what they are, brain dead religious fanatics and fascists.
Posted by: Moses | November 20, 2008 3:19 PM
When I used to be in the military, I read a little rhyme on the wall of the latrine:
Here I sit
My buns a' flexin
Just gave birth
To another Texan...
I think it was in response to the overwhelming, and unearned, arrogance we found in so many Texas recruits and soldiers. It wasn't all of them, mostly the rural ones. But, as a sub-population, they were the biggest assholes in the military. Bar none. Even the southern "the South will Rise Again!" rednecks took a distant second.
So, for me, every-time Texas educational politics comes to the forefront, that rhyme pops back into my head. Because I see that dynamic of Texas-sized arrogance coupled with Texas-sized stupidity playing itself out with these ignorant, education-destroying creationists. Again. And again. And again.
Thank god I actually know Texans who aren't like that. Thank god I see they are embarrassed by, if not out-right hate, those caricature Texans and show embarrassment over their intellectually-barren and socially-regressive activities.
Posted by: gazza | November 20, 2008 3:20 PM
I'm thousands of miles from this in the UK. But how does the press nationally in the US and in Texas play this? And the TV news reports?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 3:23 PM
I'm not in Texas but it's not a main story by any means. I'll occasionally see something on it outside of science / religion websites.
Posted by: rpenner | November 20, 2008 3:26 PM
Link storm (Live Blogging the Texas SBOE):
http://dallas.about.com/b/2008/11/20/science-standards-and-the-state-board-of-education.htm
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/live-blogging-from-the-sboe-science-hearings/
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/live-blogging-from-the-sboe-science-hearings-part-ii/
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/live-blogging-from-the-sboe-science-hearings-part-iii/
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/live-blogging-from-the-sboe-science-hearings-part-iv/
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/live-blogging-from-the-sboe-science-hearing-part-v/
With Pictures:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3ac9cf46fa-990f-4df3-b077-02eff2405b6c&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 20, 2008 3:32 PM
Nationally, it plays little in the media. In Texas? I don't know, little articles and editorials from Texas show up on internet news sources, but as a non-Texan I'd say that it doesn't appear to be a huge story there either. Someone from Texas would know rather better, though.
The fact is that this isn't all that important even in the world of ID vs. evolution. I believe that the fight is whether or not to keep the "teach the weaknesses" language that previously existed--but which was not implemented very often. Of course the "teach the weaknesses" BS should go, yet it's no Dover.
I mean, I don't wish to minimize the fact that it's presumably unconstitutional and an attempt to teach ID (since ID only knows how to cavil about evolution), still it apparently hasn't affected teaching in Texas all that much. The real problem in Texas is far more widespread throughout the US, which is that many teachers simply leave evolution out of their instruction.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 3:58 PM
that whole "strengths and weaknesses" is a good publicity tactic tbh. Of course there are strengths and weaknesses associated with all science, and evolution is no exception. But it's a great tactic to get people to think that evolution isn't "factual" by highlighting it's flaws, and let them think that their idiot creation story is better.
Posted by: Wendee Holtcamp | November 20, 2008 4:34 PM
I was there and testified. I posted my testimony and my observations at my blog. I changed my planned testimony at the hearing because I got so FED UP with their absolute lies and I called them out on them. It riled Chair McLeroy enough that he literally stopped me, and told me I could not use the word lies. I was taken aback and asked, are you serious?! Someone else pointed out that may be a violation of my free speech. My testimony was given as a Christian with evolution bioloigy advanced degrees and it was absoilutely refreshing to see about 95% of the people there pro-science, including several clergy members. This contrasted to the 2003 textbook hearings which was much more mixed creationist vs pro-science. This was the paragraph I added:
Despite what the creationist members of the Board say - Ms Lowe, Ms Leo, Ms Cargill, Ms Dunbar, Mr Mercer, Dr McLeroy and others - everybody in the nation knows that this is absolutely a religious battle, that your dislike of evolution and naturalism and any changes to the TEKs that are supported by the Discovery Institute are religiously motivated. Kitzmiller vs Dover clearly showed that ID and these issues are religious in nature. For you to sit there and tell everyone it is not smacks of arrogance and deliberate willful deception.
Posted by: god retardent | November 20, 2008 5:13 PM
I think the School Board have a valid point,science teachers should point out the gaps in evolution.
In return, would the board members give me a list of the churches they attend.That way I can visit their Sunday School classes and point out all the flaws,mistakes,and down right lies in the bible.I'm sure they would all agree.
After all,academic freedom is so vitally important to them.
Posted by: BobC | November 20, 2008 5:21 PM
Wendee Holtcamp, I thought your story about the liar McLeroy sounded familiar. I checked and found your name in this Texas news article: Evolution proponents descend on state education panel
Wendee Holtcamp, a freelance writer, drew a sharp reprimand from McLeroy when she accused the board of lying. "Are you willing to play dice with our children's education as our nation's science lead deteriorates?" Holtcamp asserted.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 5:29 PM
god retardent,
A variation of the You don't preach in my school and I won't think in your church. Deal? bumper sticker.
Posted by: BobC | November 20, 2008 5:32 PM
Kel, I have never in my life heard of a biologist talking about weaknesses or flaws in evolution. I'm just wondering what flaws and weaknesses are you talking about. Did you think points for future understanding are weaknesses?
Posted by: Josh | November 20, 2008 5:35 PM
I think the School Board have a valid point,science teachers should point out the gaps in evolution.
That would take one second. There aren't gaps. I'm not even sure what the hell a "gap" in a theory is. There are areas we don't understand particularly well, but there aren't gaps.
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 5:39 PM
In a sense, yes. What we don't understand can technically be described as a weakness. Of course this doesn't change the truth of evolutionary theory, but as a tactic it works well to undermine evolution by spending time pointing out what we don't know in an attempt to discredit it.The theory evolution has more evidential basis than gravity, yet the difference in pointing out what we don't know about evolution and what we don't know about gravity would have two very different effects on the children. No-one would question that gravity happens, but pointing out what we don't know about evolution (It's "weaknesses") would be nothing more than an effort to undermine it. I'm admiring their tactic, though it's incredibly dishonest by order of it's consequences.
Posted by: Jason | November 20, 2008 5:46 PM
FYI, audio recordings of the Texas State Board of Education hearings (4) are available here:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/audio_archived.html
(or click my name)
Haven't quite figured out how to properly download them instead of stream them yet, though ...
Posted by: James F | November 20, 2008 5:46 PM
#60 Quoting the article:
First, *facepalm* at another creationist engineer.
Second, "eminent scientists?" Only if you consider Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells eminent scientists. You want eminent scientists, go to Project Steve: two Nobel Prize winners (in fact the only two eligible Steves, Chu and Weinberg), 18 members of the National Academy of Sciences and counting, and hundreds of faculty members at top universities.
Third, Godwin.
Posted by: Ted Stevens | November 20, 2008 5:47 PM
Just listened to this online as an interested outsider from across the pond. How the hell do you folks in the US end up with folks like Terri Leo on school education boards? She actually used the phrase 'militant Darwinists', it's unbelievable. Then some other guy gets up to ramble on about the supposed 700 'scientists' who 'dissent from Darwinism'. What a farce.
Posted by: BobC | November 20, 2008 5:52 PM
I think that's misusing the word "weakness". For example, let's say I don't know how a carburetor works. Does that mean carburetors have weaknesses?
I suggest biology teachers should most definitely talk about future research opportunities. That's what makes science so interesting. But calling these points for future understanding "weaknesses" is extremely dishonest. There is nothing weak about evolution. It works. It's been working for more than 3 billion years on this planet, and perhaps even longer elsewhere in the universe. Natural processes like evolution do not have weaknesses.
Creationists will read your "What we don't understand can technically be described as a weakness." and use that as an excuse to invoke their magic fairy.
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 5:58 PM
That's the whole point of the tactic, they are using the word weakness to cast doubt on the concept. They are misrepresenting evolution as a theory by using the word as a negative instead of as the unknown. That's why I think the tactic will be somewhat effective towards the ignorant and the politicians - it sounds reasonable even though it isn't.Posted by: Jerome von Haagen-Dazs | November 20, 2008 6:01 PM
Since it was such a farce as it was already, someone should have just handed out business cards with contact information for one of the various secularist groups (or perhaps all of them) on one side, and a randomized Logical Fallacy Bingo card on the other side, and have the rational people in the group yell "BINGO!" every time they win.
Perhaps even have them be raffle cards, with most proceeds going to support the sponsoring organization?
Making a mockery of the farce sounds like it would have been more productive.
Posted by: Desert Son | November 20, 2008 6:08 PM
A variant on Nerd of Redhead's suggestion at #9 would be:
If the creationists want to teach creationism in science class, then scientists should be allowed to teach evolution in church, especially since the creationists keep equivocating about "freedom of inquiry" and "teach the controversy" and "equal time" and other such rhetorical dishonesty.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son | November 20, 2008 6:12 PM
Ah, I see god retardant got there at #59. I'm late to the discussion, sorry about the reiteration of an idea already on the table. Well said, god retardant!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Ted Stevens | November 20, 2008 6:14 PM
Terry Maxwell and Steven Schafersman were good. Why don't the board pay more attention to guys like these and ignore the pseudoscientific clowns they brought down from Seattle.
Posted by: Fatboy | November 20, 2008 6:55 PM
BobC:
No, carburetors work just fine, but your theory of how they work definitely has a glaring weakness.
Ignoring the creationists, I don't think it's much of a problem to say that current theories as to how evolution work have weaknesses. There are things we just don't know, future research opportunities as you say (there's a current article in Nature News all about group selection vs. kin selection). To me, ignorance is a weakness.
Now, considering what the creationists think are the weaknesses of evolutionary theory, I'd hate to see my daughter get taught that drivel. Fortunately, she's enough of a skeptic that she'd probably call the teacher on it.
Posted by: Ted Stevens | November 20, 2008 7:57 PM
WOW, Andrew Ellington destroyed the Discovery Institute and the ID buffons.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | November 20, 2008 8:20 PM
It's time for a look back at Atheist Eve's cartoon, "Evolution."
Posted by: toucantoad | November 20, 2008 8:59 PM
Ted Stevens,
How do yokels like these in Texas end up on school boards? Easy, two explanations.
(1) Very few good candidates (e.g. pro-evolution and sound science) will run for the board because 99% of what one does on the board has absolutely n