It’s worth noting something about Garner’s statements. He claims that evolution is treated specially, but this is nonsense. The language in question is used everywhere. He claims that the standards related to evolution is somehow less in-depth, that evolution is less scrutinized.
Rick Agosto was chatting about investments with a couple of the creationists in the bathroom.
Hillis is speaking now.
It sounds like Tincey Miller is looking for a way to compromise between the S&W language and the language currently on offer. This is very, very bad. They seem to be talking about restoring S&W, then adding a disclaimer that religious claims can’t sneak in. BAD!
Knight is talking about such a compromise also. Hillis is pushing back, pointing out that the only defense offered for it is that it encourages classroom discussion, but so does the language offered by the writing committee. The Disco. list comes up, and Meyer tries to interrupt. Cram a mop in it.
Hillis points out that the singling out claims are bogus, too. “What the losers want to do is say, we lost that argument,” but we should get special treatment. Hells yes.
“To try to introduce these misrepresentations of science is simply disingenuous.” Damn straight.
Mercer: Do you have a conflict of interest? No. It’s an AP textbook, not subject to TEKS.
Tincey: What about these claims that teachers don’t know what to do? Standards, especially new ones, are good.
Lowe: Are phylogenies based on morphology? Yeah, through the 1970s. Do they use biochemical similarity? DNA, protein sequence and protein affinity. Do the DNA phylogenies match morphological? Yes, great correspondence. Trotting out creationist misrepresentation of protein affinities to get odd taxonomic relationships. Discussion of relationship between birds, reptiles, mammals.
Dunbar: Do you say that college science is different from high school science? Yes. And that phylogenetics belongs in high school? Yes. Even though it’s so complicated and subject to error? Different levels of detail for different audiences. Wanders around issues of expertise and denying creationist motives. Hillis refers it back to the working groups. The standards are good, why are you trying to rewrite them now.
Dunbar: We’re here to protect the process. Hillis: You’re my rep., so please listen to my advice.
Cargill: Supporters of S&W got outvoted. Hillis: That’s what happens. Cargill cuts him off “don’t interrupt me, oh, did you want to say something?” Crosstalk, snippiness, accuses him of being mean. She keeps cutting him off, then. “I think it’s insanity,” says Hillis of their obsession with copyediting their expert-drafted science standards.
Knight: Could you have 100% agreement on these standards? Probably not, but go to the great universities. McLeroy declares that a breach of decorum.
Back to Meyer.