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 She says the last bit just quotes Wetherington, but he's withdrawn that idea.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.

Nuñez 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.

More like this

Dunbar offers a new amendment to the fraught 3A, formerly the "strengths and weaknesses" language. It would now read: analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, by…
Miller: Real science is debate. Praises standards writers. Votes against amendment. Nuñez is still missing. Knight: Allen said everything that should be said. Craig: This doesn't restrict discussion, doesn't infringe rights. It does better at encouraging freedom than old lines. As Cargill…
Dunbar jumped in line, and is trying to reinsert a new 7(B), slightly varied from the one just stricken. "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." Allen likes it…
Ron Wetherington, a professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University: Praises draft standards. Allows publishers to stick to facts. "Partisans are generating doubt about evolution with disingenuous phrases." People lack understanding of key concepts. What are weaknesses? Common in…