Texas Scientists Denounce State Board of Educations Attempts To Water Down Evolution Instruction

A number of scientists and science instructors from universities across the state making up the newly-formed 21st Century Science Coalition yesterday denounced attempts by the State Board of Education to water down evolution instruction in Texas public schools.

The Texas Observer has a detailed account; the Dallas Morning News also covered a press conference by the group.

Of course, all of this is because the State Board of Education is preparing to consider a new science curriculum. And, since Texas buys such a large number of textbooks and have such a bizarre textbook selection process, publishers around the nation tailor the content of science textbooks to meet the whims and desires of the SBOE,. This means that whatever crap the SOBE wants is forced upon public school kids across the nation.

Last month, an academic work group proposed that standards for biology courses dump language relating to teaching students the “strengths and weaknesses” of theories. The State Board of Education is expected to oppose this, since a majority of SBOE members are right-wing, anti-evolution ideologues.
One of my favorite quotes from yesterday’s event is below:

Even at Baylor University in Waco, the world’s largest Baptist university, professors don’t teach creationism because it’s not based on science, said Richard Duhrkopf, an associate professor of biology.

“We shouldn’t be teaching the supernatural in science classrooms,” Duhrkopf said. “It’s time to keep religion and faith in the Sunday schools and not in the public schools.”

Of course the State Board of Education’s chair, Don McLeroy, denies that the issue is about religion:

McLeroy denies he is trying to force religion and the supernatural into Texas schools.

“I’m getting sick and tired or people saying we’re interjecting religion,” he said. “We’re certainly not interjecting religion. Not at all.”

McLeroy says he supports restoring the “strengths and weaknesses” language and said working groups left some form of that language in the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy. He also said he supports the “testable explanations” approach advocated by the National Academy of Sciences.

Yeah. We believe you, Don.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It