Earlier today, the Texas State Board of Education adopted a new set of science standards that includes the following student expectation:
In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.
The adoption of this standard was supposedly the result of a compromise between opposing factions of the Board.
In my opinion, the new standard is indeed a "compromise" - of the English language. Unfortunately, the wording of the standard is awkward, needlessly repetitive, and much too lengthy. In all of these aspects, it is utterly inferior to the concise language used by the scientists and educators originally appointed to write the standards:
The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom. The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing.
For me, the most problematic part of the new standard is the implication that there are multiple "sides" of the scientific evidence relevant to a particular scientific explanation. Scientific evidence does not have "sides." It merely exists for us to examine.
If anything, the "sides" are taken by scientists as they use empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing to determine the best scientific explanation for the available evidence.
The tortured language of this standard fails to make that important distinction, and I predict that this ambiguity will be abused in the future by individuals on the Board who think their uninformed personal opinions trump the scientific consensus.
Even worse, the notion that there are different "sides of scientific evidence" is completely foreign to the well-established language of scientific pedagogy. Based on several Internet searches I just performed, the phrase "all sides of scientific evidence" did not exist on the Internet prior to today's vote. Presumably, that means it does not show up in any of the thousands of science curriculum documents currently posted online. Therefore, not a single science educator is likely to know what the phrase is supposed to mean. This is another clear example of why science education experts should be the only ones writing science standards.
Despite this attempt to muddy the waters, this one clear truth remains:
Evolution has withstood intense scientific scrutiny to stand as the only testable explanation that explains the available evidence. It could have turned out otherwise, but it did not. Ultimately, though, the evidence does not care one way or the other.
Not surprisingly, the Discovery Institute has already declared the adoption of this muddled language a "significant victory," even asserting that this version of the standard is an improvement over the previous "strengths and weaknesses" version.
Unfortunately for teachers and students in Texas, the folks at the Discovery Institute have adopted the same attitude as the scientific evidence. As long as they get to claim victory in the end, they just don't seem to care.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
