Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution

[L.Wood]

.


Split Outcome in Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution

AUSTIN, Tex. — Moderates on the Texas Board of Education prevailed over conservatives Friday when, in a battle over the teaching of evolution, the board voted to drop a 20-year-old mandate that science teachers explore with their students the “strengths and weaknesses” of all theories.

Still, the conservative faction, led by the board’s chairman, Dr. Don McLeroy, managed to pass several amendments to the state’s science curriculum that opponents say would open the door to teaching objections to evolution and might encourage students to reject it.

Chief among these amendments is one that would compel science teachers to instruct students about aspects of the fossil record that do not neatly fit with the idea of species’ gradually changing over time, like the relatively sudden appearance of some species and the fact that others seem to remain unchanged for millions of years.

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist from College Station who describes himself as “a Darwin skeptic,” said during debate on Thursday that students should know that the fossil record does not depict a clean picture of gradual changes.

But some defenders of evolution said the amendment was intended to engender doubt in students about what most biologists accept as fact: that evolution occurs, even if there is debate about how and why.

Friday’s voting capped two days of discussion on the state’s science standards, which are routinely revisited every 10 years. But the final vote does not come until March.

Whatever the 15-member board decides then will have consequences far beyond Texas, since the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation. The new standards will be in place for the next decade, starting in 2010, and will influence the writing of the next generation of biology texts, which the state will order this summer.

New York Times story here

.

[Savonarola]

Chief among these amendments is one that would compel science teachers to instruct students about aspects of the fossil record that do not neatly fit with the idea of species’ gradually changing over time, like the relatively sudden appearance of some species and the fact that others seem to remain unchanged for millions of years.

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist from College Station who describes himself as “a Darwin skeptic,” said during debate on Thursday that students should know that the fossil record does not depict a clean picture of gradual changes.

If I were a textbook author, or a Texas State School Board Member, or even a teacher (oh wait, I am!), I'd eat this up. Add to these "amendments" to say exactly what should be taught about the objections to gradualism and what "relatively sudden" actually means.

Strict gradualism is not true, and it should not be taught as such except in the case that the particularly young students don't need to get bogged down with technical details. High schoolers, on the other hand, are capable of understanding the basics of punctuated equilibria, which is fully accepted and explained in evolutionary circles and hence causes no uproar in the scientific community. Unfortunately for creationists, it doesn't really help their cause.

"Relatively sudden" appearance means nothing when talking about the geological time scale, so let's talk about the damn geological time scale. No more pussyfooting around like it's a wild-hare idea; if they're going to grant -- nay, mandate us to talk about time comparisons, we'll knock their socks off. People who keep up with the nutjobs' attempts know that these ideas refer to the Cambrian explosion and perhaps the coelacanth, and -- just like any creatio-nut argument -- it can be easily dispelled with a ten minute conversation with somebody who isn't a moron.

That said, I realize that granting these standards really does open the door, and the last thing we want is to have so many frameworks mandating the evolution/creationism debate that the rest of biology doesn't get discussed. The problem is that the non-moron side appears close-minded because the proposed standards in and of themselves aren't very objectionable.