Look who's determining science standards in Texas

I listened to the audio live here, I don't know if they archive it:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/mtg_mat_current.html

One other claim I remember was that not including the weaknesses language is equivalent to Nazi book burning etc. Obviously unaware of Godwin's Law. This may have been from a member of the public and not the board, can't remember for sure.

One of the few voices from the other side came from Paul Kramer, a Carrollton engineer, who said that more than 700 eminent scientists welcome the teaching of pros and cons about evolution. Not allowing debate over untested and unproven theories "seems out of place in a free society” and is reminiscent of book-burning in Nazi Germany, he said.

After I heard Terri Leo indulge in her argument from authority I emailed her to ask, if she really believes in such a fallacy, why is she not a catholic.

No reply from her yet.

"...Paul Kramer, a Carrollton engineer"

I'm shocked...

Another chestnut is Borel's law. Not sure which twinkie brought it up.

Good grief.

Stuart Weinstein said: Another chestnut is Borel's law. Not sure which twinkie brought it up. Good grief.

BINGO!

I might suggest the TBE also include discussions of the Cardiff Giant as evidence of Biblical "giants" that once populated the earth, i.e., how fundamentalists believed in nonsense and were suckered.

Has anyone asked the BOE (or any creationist) what the strengths of Evolution include? If they cannot answer this simple question, then they, in my slightly logical extension way of thinking, suffer from precisely what they are trying to promogulate. That is; non-critical thinking. And the best way to treat this illness is to develop science standards that reflect the science of the times.

Somebody on the board should play along with this and vehemently demand that they also include Flat Earth, Geocentrism, and alternatives to Germ Theory of Disease.

Wheels said: Somebody on the board should play along with this and vehemently demand that they also include Flat Earth, Geocentrism, and alternatives to Germ Theory of Disease.

I would also endorse evey important Native American creation myth, Hindu creation mythology, Greek and Roman creation mythology, and, of course, Klingon Cosmology too. John

The Lompoc Whale? Seriously?

Wasn’t that the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being introduced at the time of the hearings in Kansas?

That possibility is why evolutionists became very fearful and never showed up at the witness box at the 2005 Kansas Science hearings, despite specifically being invited. FL

FL said: John's particular argument, and other evolutionist arguments, would have been tested under public cross-examination, in front of the media, if evolutionists had actually shown up and presented them. That possibility is why evolutionists became very fearful and never showed up at the witness box at the 2005 Kansas Science hearings, despite specifically being invited. FL

FL said: Actually, nobody knows what the point of the FSM was, (other than using ridicule instead of facts as a media tactic against critical-thinking science standards).

FL said:

Wasn’t that the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being introduced at the time of the hearings in Kansas?

Actually, nobody knows what the point of the FSM was, (other than using ridicule instead of facts as a media tactic against critical-thinking science standards).

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence. Sincerely Yours, Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

FL said:

Wasn’t that the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being introduced at the time of the hearings in Kansas?

Actually, nobody knows what the point of the FSM was, (other than using ridicule instead of facts as a media tactic against critical-thinking science standards). John's particular argument, and other evolutionist arguments, would have been tested under public cross-examination, in front of the media, if evolutionists had actually shown up and presented them. That possibility is why evolutionists became very fearful and never showed up at the witness box at the 2005 Kansas Science hearings, despite specifically being invited. FL

One name that popped up in Texas, was that of Werner Arber. Apparently a geneticist from what I found on Google. One of the board members touted his work as evidence against evolution.

Any geneticist here have an idea as to what that board memebr might have been on about?

Stuart Weinstein said: One name that popped up in Texas, was that of Werner Arber. Apparently a geneticist from what I found on Google. One of the board members touted his work as evidence against evolution. Any geneticist here have an idea as to what that board memebr might have been on about?

Actually, nobody knows what the point of the FSM was, (other than using ridicule instead of facts as a media tactic against critical-thinking science standards).

And they (the Polk County "creationists") got ridiculed (emphasis Myers) on a local and national level—---bloggers and magazines mocked them, they got mail from proponents of the flying spaghetti monster, their quaintly ridiculous religious views got publicized on the front page of local newspapers. PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Dec. 22, 2007

.....Making fun of them probably isn't the way to change their minds. Worse yet, the FSMers aren't just saying that the FSM is an equally good explanation as Genesis, they've also made up a new parody religion based on it, complete with Jesus-fish parody logos. Unsurprisingly, most people who believe in ID are Christians. I'm skeptical that openly mocking their religious beliefs is the best way to convince them of one's point of view. http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2005/08/is_the_flying_s.html

This weekend in San Diego, some of the world's leading religious scholars will be discussing the satirical 'deity" in pop culture. The almighty pasta critter was invented to ridicule the 'intelligent design' lobby in schools, the rationale being that there is no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. Libby Purves, Times Online columnist, Nov. 18, 2007

Maybe the willfully ignorant don’t understand the point of the FSM. The rest of us get it.

John’s particular argument, and other evolutionist arguments, would have been tested under public cross-examination, in front of the media, if evolutionists had actually shown up and presented them (at the 2005 Kansas Science Standards hearings).

FL said: I see that some of you want to deny the following statement:

Actually, nobody knows what the point of the FSM was, (other than using ridicule instead of facts as a media tactic against critical-thinking science standards).

Honestly, at this point only "willful ignorance" would deny that the FSM is straightforward ridicule, a very clear and public ridicule tactic.

Ahhhh, here's somebody you'll listen to. Read on:

And they (the Polk County "creationists") got ridiculed (emphasis Myers) on a local and national level—---bloggers and magazines mocked them, they got mail from proponents of the flying spaghetti monster, their quaintly ridiculous religious views got publicized on the front page of local newspapers. PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Dec. 22, 2007

You see the point now don't you? Myers SPECIFICALLY cites the FSM gig as an example of national-level ridicule.

So much for posters trying to claim that the FSM thing is some sort of demonstration "against" ridicule. So much for trying to claim "the rest of the get the point." We ALL get the point: FSM is about ridicule.

Next example: Over at the "Educated Guesswork" weblog, EKRon (who thinks ID is "laughable" in his opinion), sympathetically says "I understand the urge to make fun of ID" but clearly warns you:

.....Making fun of them probably isn't the way to change their minds. Worse yet, the FSMers aren't just saying that the FSM is an equally good explanation as Genesis, they've also made up a new parody religion based on it, complete with Jesus-fish parody logos. Unsurprisingly, most people who believe in ID are Christians. I'm skeptical that openly mocking their religious beliefs is the best way to convince them of one's point of view. http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2005/08/is_the_flying_s.html

Nahhhh--better make it three sources. Repetition is essential to learning, they say.

This weekend in San Diego, some of the world's leading religious scholars will be discussing the satirical 'deity" in pop culture. The almighty pasta critter was invented to ridicule the 'intelligent design' lobby in schools, the rationale being that there is no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. Libby Purves, Times Online columnist, Nov. 18, 2007

FL said: But I didn't really want to talk at length about the FSM. I wanted to talk about this:

John’s particular argument, and other evolutionist arguments, would have been tested under public cross-examination, in front of the media, if evolutionists had actually shown up and presented them (at the 2005 Kansas Science Standards hearings).

There is no refutation against that point; it's simply self-evidently true under the 2005 hearing format. John's particular argument would have been handled according to that format, and just as the non-Darwinist scientists willingly submitted their positions to public cross-examination by an evolutionist attorney, the Darwinist scientists and their positions would have likewise had to submit to public cross-examination by the non-evolutionist attorney. That's the reason evolutionists took a powder when invited. FL

John’s particular argument would have been handled according to that format, and just as the non-Darwinist scientists willingly submitted their positions to public cross-examination by an evolutionist attorney, the Darwinist scientists and their positions would have likewise had to submit to public cross-examination by the non-evolutionist attorney.

— FL

I would also endorse evey important Native American creation myth, Hindu creation mythology, Greek and Roman creation mythology, and, of course, Klingon Cosmology too.

Wasn’t that the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being introduced at the time of the hearings in Kansas? Actually, nobody knows what the point of the FSM was, (other than using ridicule instead of facts as a media tactic against critical-thinking science standards).

Q. That's because you believe intelligent design is not science, correct? A. Creationism for me and for probably everybody in this room is a very personal thing. If you teach it in a comparative religion class, you talk about all religions, not just Christianity, not just Buddhism, not just any particular religion. You look at them, you compare them, you see how they are alike and how they are different. I have no objection to that. I just am telling you it is not a science. You're comparing apples and oranges, and there's no place in one for the other. It's like teaching science from the pulpit. There's no place for science from the pulpit. Q. I take it from your answer it's your understanding that intelligent design theory is creationism, correct? A. Yes. MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.

Q. And then the final statement in here says, "He said, 'There needn't be consideration of the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or other faiths and views,'" and then quoting you directly, "'This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution,' he said. 'This country was found on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such.'" Do you see that? A. I see it. Q. You said that, didn't you? A. No, I didn't. Q. Well -- A. I didn't say it then. I made a statement similar to that when we having a discussion about taking "under God" out of the Pledge, and I said it to Joe Maldonado after the meeting because he asked me if I didn't think that Hindus and Muslims would be offended by having "under God" in there. I said I didn't think they would, because it doesn't refer to a specific god. It refers to God. And I did make this statement that this country was founded on Christianity, we have the Pilgrims and so forth, and the Federalist Papers, the Preamble to the Constitution says we're all created, you know, it's all through our history, and that's what I was getting it. Q. So the fact is you definitely said a statement or something very similar to what's reported in this article, correct? A. Not at this time. It was at the debate about taking "under God" out of the Pledge, to pass the resolution to keep it in. Q. Right, but you actually said -- it was at a different time, but you said something very similar to what's reported in this paper, isn't that correct? A. I said something close to that, and I said to it a reporter after the meeting.

Q. Do you remember anything said by board members at this second meeting in June relating to the subject of the biology book, evolution, creationism. A. There was disagreement between my husband and Mr. Buckingham. We were concerned about the legality. When I say we, my husband and I had discussed this at home. We were concerned that we could get into trouble if we brought in the idea of creationism and did not give equal time if you will, sir, to all faiths, to all beliefs in the origins of life. It was one of the first times that I proposed offering an elective course called comparative world religions on the high school level so that our students could be introduced to the major world faiths and the way in which they're the same and the way in which they differ, in particular the fact that every major world religion has at its core what we Christians call the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The words may vary, but the intent is the same.

I would also endorse evey important Native American creation myth, Hindu creation mythology, Greek and Roman creation mythology, and, of course, Klingon Cosmology too. - -- John Kwok

FL said:

I would also endorse evey important Native American creation myth, Hindu creation mythology, Greek and Roman creation mythology, and, of course, Klingon Cosmology too. - -- John Kwok

So let's cut to the chase: The question is NOT how John Kwok's argument would have fared vis-a-vis the Dover School Board's flawed and overturned policy, but how it would have fared in Topeka as a justifiable rationale for opposing the proposed 2005 Kansas Science Standards. The answer to that question could have and would have been clarified via (for example) John Kwok or another evolutionist showing up for the 2005 Science Standards hearings, presenting that argument vis-a-vis the proposed changes to the Kansas Science standards (NOT vis-a-vis the Dover school board's policy), and then that evolutionist remaining in the witness box to be publicly cross-examined about his argument, by the opposing attorney. But, you guys got cold feet and ducked out. I have never claimed that the 2005 Kansas State Board of Education was a "legal proceeding" such as the Dover court trial was, and honestly, that excuse simply doesn't wash. Remember, the evolutionist attorney Irigonegaray happily cross-examined non-Darwinist scientists at the 2005 Science Standard hearings despite the hearing not being a "legal proceeding" or legal court trial. Y'all didn't complain. Down Texas way, THEY conducted a public Science Standards Hearing, and they are doing it for the same reason as what Kansas Board of Education did by inviting scientists from both sides in 2005: to hear public testimony from BOTH supporters and opponents of proposed changes to the standards in order for the State Board to make the best and most informed decision possible. Curiosity Note: the evolutionists are seemingly NOT referring to the Texas Science public hearing as a "Kangaroo Court." Nor did evolutionist scientists run and hide from testifying like they did in Kansas 2005. I guess those PR tactics aren't carrying water like they used to, hmm?? **************************** Bottom Line: Those of you who have a copy of the 2005 Kansas science standards, and a transcript of the 2005 Kansas Science Standards Hearings, (you DO have 'em, don't you???) ALREADY have a very clear idea how John Kwok's specific argument would fare in light of that body of information: Blown Out Of The Water in Two Seconds Flat. That's it. That's why you'd rather talk about Dover instead. Because the honest truth is that IF you talk about John Kwok's argument specifically vis-a-vis either the 2005 Kansas Science Standards or even vis-a-vis the currently proposed revisions to the Texas Science Standards, Kwok's argument falls flat. Doesn't even apply. To either gig. It's dead! FL :)

John’s particular argument, and other evolutionist arguments, would have been tested under public cross-examination, in front of the media, if evolutionists had actually shown up and presented them. That possibility is why evolutionists became very fearful and never showed up at the witness box at the 2005 Kansas Science hearings, despite specifically being invited.

So let’s cut to the chase: The question is NOT how John Kwok’s argument would have fared vis-a-vis the Dover School Board’s flawed and overturned policy, but how it would have fared in Topeka as a justifiable rationale for opposing the proposed 2005 Kansas Science Standards.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that KCFS calls on the entire science and science education community of Kansas to refuse to participate in the hearing proceedings. Science has its own validity and has made its position on these matters perfectly clear and unambiguous. ID and other forms of creationism aren't science. The specific proposals in the minority report have been rejected by the writing committee and by the science community at large. The science community should not put itself in the position of participating in a rigged hearing where non-scientists will appear to sit in judgment and find science lacking. Science should not give the anti-evolution members of the board the veneer of respectability when they take their predictable action. Let the board take responsibility for its actions without dignifying those actions with the appearance of academic rigor.

Considering that some ID'ers and creationists are still holding out for geocentrism as it accords with the Bible - I guess FL must have accepted something of an update on the original Biblical world view

So let’s cut to the chase: …

— FL

Mike Elzinga said: You have been posting on Panda’s Thumb long enough to actually learn some science; yet you have never even tried. You have no interest in education, do you? You like snarky taunts, and you resort to the use of fear, guilt, and misinformation to control people.

It’s not that he doesn’t care about educating himself, FL has stated that he’s been divinely commanded not do so, and Heaven forbid that he disobeys.

The specific proposals in the minority report have been rejected by the writing committee and by the science community at large.

FL apparently didn't notice the topic of the post here, that what is being offered as "weaknesses" is the same ensemble of religious antievolution arguments that were part of various creationisms that went before. I don't see a problem in taking that to court. Courts have long been able to figure out what constitutes derivative work; they aren't likely to go blind just when religious antievolutionists need them to.

But hey, no matter. This thread ain’t about me, boys.

— FL

FL said:

It’s not that he doesn’t care about educating himself, FL has stated that he’s been divinely commanded not do so, and Heaven forbid that he disobeys.

Hey Stanton, this kind of stuff surprises me coming from you. It's the first time I've seen you resort to obvious and intentional lying. Didn't you read what you wrote before hitting the submit button? I had you pegged for a lot more integrity than that, but you have falsified my hypothesis entirely. But hey, no matter. This thread ain't about me, boys. Make it personal if that's how your momma raised you, but my only concern is with the following items.

That, and tell me again why I should be worried that you doubt my integrity, when you, yourself, claimed that only the Pope can accept Evolution and simultaneously be a Christian, despite the fact that the vast majority of Christians, along with the Pope, accept Evolution.

The idea that scientists refused to be subjected to a hostile court ideologically biased against them in the first place is in no way a slight against the science of evolution. You haven’t addressed that point. In contrast, ID had its day for a say in a fair, unbiased court. Half its expert witnesses got stage fright, the remainder demonstrated quite clearly the lethal anti-science basis for ID.

— Wheels

"What your KCFS sales-pitch failed to mention is that EIGHT of the 25 members of the official Kansas Science Writing Committee DID in fact accept the 2005 science standards proposals. (Did you know that, Dr. Elsberry?)"

"A number of scientists DID speak for themselves—-showed up, testified, and submitted to public cross-examination from an opposing attorney—-and they ACCEPTED and provided reasons for adopting proposed 2005 science standards, contrary to the KCFS sales-pitch."

A closing thought about the proposed Texas Science Standards. Baylor chemistry professor and TEKS reviewer Charles Garner recently pointed out that there’s no “religious infringement” with the proposed Texas changes.

FL said: Honestly, at this point only "willful ignorance" would deny that the FSM is straightforward ridicule, a very clear and public ridicule tactic.

Talk about willful ignorance. In all the time over the last few years that FL has popped in to Panda’s Thumb to deposit his snarky comments, he could have earned a legitimate university degree in a solid scientific area and be well on his way through graduate work. Does he feel that this would set a bad example to the young rubes he leads around by their fears and guilt?

To FL - while you are right that no scientists showed up, Pedro Irigonegary evidently didn’t need us.

Technically the term is satire, and by focusing on the term ‘ridicule’ you are selectively remembering only half of the operative definition.

As Bobby so elegantly pointed out, it is folly to allow the teaching of religious creation stories in science class,

Color me not surprised that a DI-appointed reviewer doesn’t find religious infringement.

The “strengths and weaknesses” language has been in place for a decade. If it had been used to introduce religion or supernatural explanations into the classroom, these groups would have a long list of specific incidents, with names, dates, etc. But when I contacted Dr. Dan Bolnik, an assistant professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas and the head of the 21st Century Science Coalition (from whose Web site the above quotes were obtained), Bolnik could not provide me with a single specific example of such an incident.

I have taught biology in Texas for 34 years and was on one of the science TEKS committees last spring. Almost every committee wrote out the strengths and weaknesses language for the simple reason it serves no purpose in any science course and provides a way for non-science (nonsense) to be inserted. teachers describe the Texas biology curriculum as a mile wide and an inch deep. There is so much to cover we don't have time to allow lengthy discussions of S&W of every theory. To even expect it is stupid. Imagine spending good class time on the S&W of germ theory or atomic theory. If we have to insert S&W then remember we have to do this for ID too. I typically spent a week on evolution evidence. If I had to present evidence of ID. Sorry kids there isn't any. They do no experiments and publish no results. Next I spend a week on the mechanisms of evolution. ID? The designer did it. We don't know who. We don't know how. We don't know when. We don't know why. There I've covered everything we know about ID and it only took me 5 minutes.
To all you ID proponents out there, be careful what you wish for, you may not like what you get!!!!

Nor what evolutionist Shanks said. Why do you suppose they did not agree with you?

— FL

FL said:

To FL - while you are right that no scientists showed up, Pedro Irigonegary evidently didn’t need us.

Odd. That's not what Time magazine said. Nor what evolutionist Shanks said. Why do you suppose they did not agree with you? FL

About the Texas hearings... FL is ignorant yet again. Joanne Richards brought up a comparative religion course being where "intelligent design" and other forms of creationist thought could be brought up in the classroom. It's in the "C" stream at about 1:55. Ken Mercer questioned Richards, completely ignoring the comparative religion argument. He was all over misunderstanding "academic freedom".

"But in the last twenty years we've just had the ability of academic freedom for children to be able to ask questions, and that's just been a critical academic endeavor where they could raise their hands, and that's just been there."

Academic freedom is not the ability of children to ask questions. The Texas State Board of Education has some very confused people on it.

And the comparative religion argument remains unrebutted testimony in the record of the Texas hearings.

Tell us again, FL, why it is that those people who stress educating students on both "the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution" never bother to mention the strengths of Evolution, and teach only those weaknesses mentioned in the repeatedly debunked claims made by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents?

Also, please describe how this new science standard will improve the quality of science education in Texas.

Mary H said: I have taught biology in Texas for 34 years and was on one of the science TEKS committees last spring. Almost every committee wrote out the strengths and weaknesses language for the simple reason it serves no purpose in any science course and provides a way for non-science (nonsense) to be inserted. teachers describe the Texas biology curriculum as a mile wide and an inch deep. There is so much to cover we don't have time to allow lengthy discussions of S&W of every theory. To even expect it is stupid. Imagine spending good class time on the S&W of germ theory or atomic theory. If we have to insert S&W then remember we have to do this for ID too. I typically spent a week on evolution evidence. If I had to present evidence of ID. Sorry kids there isn't any. They do no experiments and publish no results. Next I spend a week on the mechanisms of evolution. ID? The designer did it. We don't know who. We don't know how. We don't know when. We don't know why. There I've covered everything we know about ID and it only took me 5 minutes. To all you ID proponents out there, be careful what you wish for, you may not like what you get!!!!

How about discussing "S&W" for simply ONE class session or two when your biology class arrives at the Origin Of Life chapter of the biology textbook, Mary?

You personally may feel that you do not have time to deviate from the canned textbook presentation at all, but can you speak for all biology teachers in that regard?

No time even to mention ANY weaknesses (such as, say, no evidence that the primordial soup ever existed) to your class for FIVE minutes?

Not talking about mentioning ID nor creationism at all -- I'm ONLY talking about mentioning scientifically documented (published) weaknesses of textbook claims.

All I can say is that my high school physics, chemistry, and biology teachers DID have occasionally five minutes to help us students think critically and discuss current topics "outside the box".

Did an excellent job of it too.
They had no trouble finishing their semester lesson plans, and they were able to help their science students to THINK rather than merely regurgitate dogma.

Only takes an occasional five minutes, Mary. Doesn't hurt anybody, honestly. And we both know there's some scientifically documented OOL weaknesses that can be discussed in biology class without even mentioning either ID or creationism.

FL

Sigh. "We don't know everything, therefore what we know is wrong."

Chapter and verse. What a shock.

FL said: How about discussing "S&W" for simply ONE class session or two when your biology class arrives at the Origin Of Life chapter of the biology textbook, Mary? You personally may feel that you do not have time to deviate from the canned textbook presentation at all, but can you speak for all biology teachers in that regard? No time even to mention ANY weaknesses (such as, say, no evidence that the primordial soup ever existed) to your class for FIVE minutes? Not talking about mentioning ID nor creationism at all -- I'm ONLY talking about mentioning scientifically documented (published) weaknesses of textbook claims. All I can say is that my high school physics, chemistry, and biology teachers DID have occasionally five minutes to help us students think critically and discuss current topics "outside the box". Did an excellent job of it too. They had no trouble finishing their semester lesson plans, and they were able to help their science students to THINK rather than merely regurgitate dogma. Only takes an occasional five minutes, Mary. Doesn't hurt anybody, honestly. And we both know there's some scientifically documented OOL weaknesses that can be discussed in biology class without even mentioning either ID or creationism. FL

How about discussing “S&W” for simply ONE class session or two when your biology class arrives at the Origin Of Life chapter of the biology textbook, Mary?

— FL

FL said:

To FL - while you are right that no scientists showed up, Pedro Irigonegary evidently didn’t need us.

Odd. That's not what Time magazine said. Nor what evolutionist Shanks said. Why do you suppose they did not agree with you? FL

Niall Shanks is reported to have said the science boycott of the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt was "a huge mistake". Google ("niall shanks" "a huge mistake") and all the hits are of reports that say only that. It's kinda tough to get excited about a bald opinion of that sort that comes with no line of reasoning to back it up. Shanks said that in August, 2005, about a month before the trial part of Kitzmiller got started. Shanks' evaluation of the boycott does not match up to outcomes seen. The voters yanked various anti-science advocates from the Kansas Board of Education seats they were misusing. Outside the anti-science movement, few experts (and by "few" I mean Niall Shanks) seem to have a negative impression of how the boycott affected things. Somebody could ask Shanks if he still thinks the boycott was "a huge mistake". If so, it seems that even "huge mistakes" can have positive outcomes.

But the strategy of disengagement may be backfiring on those who care about teaching evolution. When scientists and science teachers boycotted the discussion of biology standards at a Kansas school-board meeting last May, they left the floor wide open to critics of evolution, who won the day. "Are they wilting young maids that can't stand the heat of a hearing?" asks Washington attorney Edward Sisson, who was a co-counsel for the 23 academics who testified on the anti-Darwin side.

Again, FL’s casual lobbing of a reference into the conversation fizzles on actual contemplation of its content.

FL said: Here's what I'm looking for: If the "strengths and weaknesses" language survives and becomes part of the Texas Science Standards, then that's going to make TWO states (the other being Louisiana) where critical-thinking approaches ARE legally okay (and most of all, critical-thinking science teachers will be legally protected) wrt teaching about evolution in public schools.

(3) Scientific processes. The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning and problem solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to:

(A) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations, using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing...

FL. When I present the Origin of Life to my students (and I have been discouraged from doing that) I point out that this is a perfect example of the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Evolution being coherent and well supported is a theory that has withstood many attacks and tests. Origin of Life on the other hand is not a theory since the various hypotheses do not mesh well yet. Key word here is YET. Origin of Life is a baby science compared to evolution. As far as weaknesses of evolution I like to point out that many of the so called missing fossils have been found and fit right in with the previously presented hypotheses. I have also pointed out past weaknesses that have been "fixed" and present weaknesses that are being investigated as we blog. FL read Prothero's "Evolution, What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" Probably the best single explanation of the fossil record and evolution I've ever read. You'll see (that is if you want to) that many of the so called weaknesses, aren't any more. My kids learn the process of science and we don't waste time on pseudo scientific claims of "weaknesses". We do spend time on the as yet unanswered questions and how they are or could be answered.

… Its this: replace the generic “Strengths and Weaknesses” phrase in the standards with statements that identify the specific strengths and specific weaknesses you actually want taught. If there is some weakness you think is worth teaching to kids in H.S. biology, list it in the TEKS.

— eric

Second, it allows the religious weaknesses and misconceptions to be identified and separated out from the good science, so no one on either side of the debate has to worry about religion ‘sneaking in’ to the classroom. And if there is disagreement that can’t be resolved any way but legally, this solution also has the advantage of allowing courts to discuss individual, specific weaknesses without throwing any babies out with the bathwater.

If I understand what you are getting at, eric, this would require the ID/Creationists to start being explicit on the boards and committees that are setting up the standards.

Its not the board’s job to identify which of Meyer’s objections he thinks are most important, it’s Myer’s job.

— eric

Frank J said:

How about discussing “S&W” for simply ONE class session or two when your biology class arrives at the Origin Of Life chapter of the biology textbook, Mary?

— FL

I for one am all for it, as long as the teacher is required to differentiate between the fact of OOL (it had to occur at least once by definition) and a theory, one that any evolutionary biologist will freely admit does not yet exist. And as long as the teacher makes it clear that OOL and evolution are two different things, and that there is no credible evidence that many different species or even phyla originated independently from nonliving matter. IOW as long as the teacher is somehow prohibited from misrepresenting OOL any of the ways that anti-evolutionists routinely do.

I'd like to see more discussion on what actually constitutes "weakness" and "strength" with respect to scientific theory.

Suppose you have two theories that explain the same sets of data. One theory makes more testable predictions than the other. You could describe the former as a stronger theory. But does that make the latter "weak" ?

Suppose you have two theories that explain the same sets of data. One theory makes more testable predictions than the other. You could describe the former as a stronger theory. But does that make the latter “weak” ?

eric said:

If I understand what you are getting at, eric, this would require the ID/Creationists to start being explicit on the boards and committees that are setting up the standards.

That is mostly what I'm getting at. If an objector (to mainstream science) knows of some critical weakness we aren't teaching, tell us what it is. This is public education - if you the elected SBOE are proposing to teach my kid something different from what they're currently being taught, I'm entirely justified as a taxpayer in asking what that 'something' is. "Weaknesses" is a black box; I want it opened. Before the SBOE approves it.

* The irreducible complexity of biologic systems * The absence of meaningful transitional forms in the fossil record * The fact that mutations are harmful * The origin of both the molecular structure and of the information itself contained in the DNA molecule is completely unexplained by worshippers of Charles Darwin. * Not all 'common ancestor' trees of life diagrams match each other as they should if they are true. Those based on how things look—their morphology, such as humans and apes having arms, legs, etc—do not match trees of life based on molecular clues, amino acid sequences or even DNA. * The difference between variation within a species (like hair color, eye color, or finch beak size, sometimes erroneously called "micro-evolution"), and the generation of new kinds of plants or animals or new features, more properly called "macro-evolution", (which has not been observed).

There are audio files of the whole thing (in seven parts) posted at

http://curricublog.org/2008/11/26/texas-sboe-evolution-2008nov19/

with linked wiki pages for building up an annotated review of the proceedings.