Liveblogging Texas, day 2, part 6

Dunbar proposes that old TEKS be revise to say:

Analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, experimental and observational reasoning and problem solving by examining scientific evidence supportive and not supportive of those explanations.

This adds the word “critique,” and the bit at the end. She says the last bit just quotes Wetherington, but he’s withdrawn that idea.

Hardy: Vote against because Wetherington opposes.

Leo: Cites his testimony.

But he withdrew that.

Knight: This language opens up too many problems. Oppose.

NuŮez is back.

Craig: Don’t amend the draft. Leave it alone.

Mercer: That’s all hearsay!

Knight: Is this a court of law?

Cargill: This is clearer. Better for teachers. “It’s OK if it doesn’t support evolution.”

Dunbar: Doesn’t know what happened outside, knows that he said in testimony. Quotes Wetherington saying: “I think adding that would be superfluous,” and other stuff too. She takes this as supportive. Voting against would take away academic freedom. Wants to call the vote.

Hardy: “I believe my integrity has been impugned.” She spoke with him and others about some sort of compromise language. He didn’t like the idea. “I do not appreciate that anyone would question” my speaking to the reviewer I appointed.

Vote: 7-8, amendment fails.

Cargill wants to amend Earth and Space Science.