LIKE the picture? It fits the occasion. Maybe that chainsaw should be a dental drill, but upon reflection, the chainsaw is better.
If you’ve been following events in Texas, you can skip the background information in the next two indented paragraphs.
These are the final hearings on the Texas science education standards. Presiding over this show-trial is Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist whom Governor Rick Perry has appointed as chairman of the Texas Board of Education (BOE), and he’s determined to draft a science curriculum that will assure the teaching of creationism in Texas science classes. The hearings should conclude with a final vote on 27 March.
For these three days, the BOE will consider — or pretend to consider — whether the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” should remain deleted from the state’s science standards regarding evolution, and whether the recently added requirement that students should “analyze and evaluate” the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of evolution should remain.
Most of the press’ accounts of the BOE’s activities on the 26th don’t yet reflect the meaning of what happened. To understand the actual events, you need to read the live-blogging that some sites have been posting — for example, the Texas Freedom Network .
Here’s how the traditional news media are reporting the situation as day three begins. Any bold in the excerpts that follow was added by us.
In the Dallas Morning News we read: Texas rejects effort to require teaching of evolution ‘weaknesses’. They say:
In a decision watched by science educators across the nation, the State Board of Education on Thursday narrowly turned aside a last-ditch effort by social conservatives to require that “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution be taught in science classes in Texas.
“Strengths and weaknesses” is out. That’s old news. What else do they say?
Voting for the ["strengths and weaknesses"] requirement were the seven Republican board members aligned with social conservative groups. Against the proposal were three other Republicans and four Democrats. Critics of evolution managed to add a few small caveats to the curriculum, but none as sweeping as the strengths-and-weaknesses rule.
We don’t agree at all with that last sentence.
Regarding the votes, the seven creationist Republicans were: Don McLeroy, Cynthia Dunbar, Ken Mercer, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, David Bradley, and Barbara Cargill. The three Republicans voting for sane science (pro-evolution) were: Patricia Hardy, Geraldine Miller, and Bob Craig. The four Democrats voting for science (at least against “strengths and weaknesses”) were Rene Nuñez, Lawrence A. Allen, Jr., Mavis B. Knight, and Rick Agosto — although Agosto later voted to approve several creationist amendments. He’s all over the place. Mary Helen Berlanga, a pro-science member, wasn’t present.
Back to the article:
Board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, proposed that the rule be put back into the standards, arguing that evolution advocates were trying to stifle classroom discussion of Darwin’s theory that humans gradually developed from lower life forms.
[...]
He also charged that evolution advocates have a history of falsifying evidence and drawing erroneous conclusions to support their position.
Amazing, isn’t it? The article has a few other goodies like that. If you prefer to maintain the illusion that our political leaders are wise and informed people, don’t read any further.
One board member who was absent, Democrat Mary Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, will participate in today’s meeting by videoconference from Houston. She has already stated her opposition to the ["strengths and weaknesses"] rule.
That’s important. Berlanga is a pro-science member of the BOE, and she wasn’t voting yesterday. She might make a difference in the final voting. Finally, almost as an afterthought, the article mentions:
Evolution critics scored some victories before the standards for all elementary and high school science classes were tentatively adopted Thursday.
The most significant was a change brought by board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, who proposed that students be required to study the “sufficiency or insufficiency” of common ancestry and natural selection – two key Darwin tenets – in examining fossil records and cell structure, respectively.
In the New York Times (which is okay when reporting science) we read: Defeat and Some Success for Texas Evolution Foes. They say:
In an evenly split vote, the State Board of Education on Thursday upheld teaching evolution as accepted mainstream science. But social conservatives on the board, using a series of amendments tailored to particular school subjects, succeeded in requiring teachers to evaluate critically a variety of scientific principles like cell formation and the Big Bang.
There you go. The Times struck the right note from the beginning. And to show that science articles don’t get edited by their usual staff, they said “social conservatives” instead of Republicans. They also wrote:
Failing to overhaul the curriculum broadly, conservatives instead attached a series of measures specific to subjects like biology, where teachers would be newly required to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”
In the earth-science curriculum, conservatives weakened language concerning “the concept of an expanding universe” to address instead “current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.”
In the Houston Chronicle we read Evolution moves to head of class in Texas schools. The don’t tell us much more than the others, but at the end they say:
Some board members will try today to reverse amendments that some experts contend attempt to dilute evolution. One asks students to evaluate fossil types and to assess “arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence.” Another would cast doubt on “natural selection.”
“If you can’t attack evolution through strengths and weaknesses, talk about the insufficiency of natural selection. We see this in other states. This is what creationists are doing … attacking evolution,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
So that’s the situation at the end of the second day. The final day of this tragedy — or is it a comedy? — and the final voting is today, Friday the 27th. The fifteenth member of the BOE should be present for this meeting, and she’s pro-science.
The players are getting into their costumes, the orchestra is warming up, and the audience is filing into their seats. The curtain is about to rise …
. 
. Permalink for this article
