A committee of Texas scientists and science teachers has recommended the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the current Texas state science standards for extinction.
Creationist state board of education chairman Don McLeroy objects strenuously, of course. Keeping that language enables the state board to reject any biology textbooks which do not include the purported "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.
The current language so beloved by McLeroy, a dentist, reads
The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.
The experts in science and science teaching want to replace that language with
The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing.
Why would McLeroy and his Discovery Institute supporters object to the latter?
In the first place, the "strengths and weaknesses" language would allow pseudo-scientific textbooks like the Discovery Institute's Explore Evolution to be adopted statewide. (Awww, how cute . . . its name mimics the names of some highly-regarded websites that really do explore evolution. Those ID folks just don't seem to learn that they can re-label their books and concepts as many times as they want; it doesn't change the fact they're putting new lipstick on the same ol' pig.) Statewide adoptions in Texas and California drive the national textbook market, so the DI folks could get a huge financial and ideological boost by keeping the McLeroy-approved language.
Getting rid of the "strengths and weaknesses" language and requiring students to use "empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing" to evaluate scientific explanations would naturally reject the supernaturally-inspired ideas that McLeroy and his friends want to have taught as science in Texas. Given the dearth of intelligent design research, and the DI's apparent abhorrence for evidence, reasoning, and testing, it's to be expected that the DI will object to the proposed language.
Like his ever-so-arrogant ideological kin in Kansas, McLeroy seeks to change the definition of science itself. McLeroy would like to see his own definition of science pushed onto Texas students. According to the Austin American-Statesman, McLeroy defines science as
'the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.' Also, 'science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations.
On the other hand, the committee of scientists and science teachers who were given the task of writing the science standards agree with the National Academy of Sciences:
"Science uses observational evidence to make predictions of natural phenomena and to construct testable explanations. If ideas are based upon purported forces outside of nature, they cannot be tested using scientific methods. Scientific explanations are open to testing under different conditions, over time, and by independent scientific researchers. ... "
This brewing storm might make Texas residents wish for the return of Ike. At least hurricanes can't be blamed on the capriciousness of a dentist who wants to remake science in his own image.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
