Why is the current Texas science standards requirement for students to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses," bad for both science and education? Some people think it is obvious that all explanations, including scientific explanations, have "weaknesses" and that it's fair to teach them, even if the "weaknesses" offered by creationists are completely bogus. They think, why not just replace them with legitimate "weaknesses"? After all, there must be some.

Here's why this is wrong.

Scientific theories don't have weaknesses. If scientific theories really had weaknesses, it would be permissible and even educational to teach them. Hypotheses do have weaknesses, both hypotheses of scientists that they are testing right now and those of students who generate hypotheses as part of their lab exercises. It is permissible to analyze and critique hypotheses. Weaknesses of hypotheses are removed by testing with experiments, observations, or models.

Scientific theories don't have weaknesses because they are constructed only of corroborated hypotheses, those hypotheses that have been tested and not falsified. Corroborated hypotheses are a form of reliable knowledge, and theories are constructed of reliable knowledge. Other forms of reliable knowledge are mathematical theorems, logical conclusions, definitions, base facts, etc. Only scientific theories give us the reliable knowledge obtained from a deep, empirical understanding of nature.