A Look At Newly Proposed Science Curriculum Standards For Biology

Proposed curriculum standards for high school biology in Texas being considered this week by the State Board of Education have been drastically edited to remove language that conflicts with the ideas and beliefs of intelligent design and creationism advocates.

The curriculum standards proposed Monday can be found here. The curriculum standards proposed in September which were written by science educators are here.

From the first notices of deleted paragraphs to the last, it is evident that the State Board of Education is attempting to sanitize biology curriculum standards of anything remotely related to evolution.

Among other things, the propose standards remove language that is so bold to state that “science is a way of learning about the natural world.”

The following paragraphs were deleted from the General Requirements/Introduction section of the proposed biology TEKS. Each paragraph is followed by our analysis:

(2) Science is a way of learning about the natural world. Students should know how science has built a vast body of changing and increasing knowledge described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models, and also should know that science may not answer all questions.

Clearly, this type of language is frightening to creationists and those who promote the hogwash that is intelligent design. To these folks, the first sentence of the above is an indictment; they’d probably be okay with it if you changed the word “Science” to “The Book of Genesis.”

(3) A system is a collection of cycles, structures, and processes that interact. Students should understand a whole in terms of its components and how these components relate to each other and tothe whole. All systems have basic properties that can be described in terms of space, time, energy, and matter.

Here, I suspect that the language, “All systems have basic properties that can be described in terms of space, time, etc.” was the killer. To creationists, the creation of the world and how it exists today does not constitute a system that can be described in this way.

Change and constancy occur in systems and can be observed and measured as patterns. These patterns help to make inferences about past events, predict what will happen next and can change over time.

Creationists’ sirens probably went off on this, too. To them, thee aren’t any “patterns” that you can use to make any “inferences” about the past. God created the world in six days and on the seventh, he rested; he’ll set forth the events outlined in the book of Revalation when and if he desires, and he controls everything. Therefore, predicting “what will happen next and can change over time,” is language that conflicts with the creationists’ view of science.

(4) Investigations are used to learn about the natural world. Students should understand that certain types of questions can be answered by investigations, and that methods, models, and conclusions built from these investigations change as new observations are made. Models of objects and events are tools for understanding the natural world and can show how systems work. They have limitations and based on new discoveries are constantly being modified to more closely reflect the natural world.

Again, not language creationists like to see. They believe there are somethings you just can’t learn about the natural world unless God comes to you through a burning bush and tells you himself. The whole, “models of objects and events are tools for understanding the natural world…” language is also something creationists can’t stomach, because they believe there is no understanding of how we got here except for Genesis.

(5) 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. Many theories in science are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially; however, they are subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously (National Academy of Sciences, 2008, pp. 10-11).

Again, “predictions of natural phenomena” and “testable explanations” is stuff the creationists don’t like. To them, Hurricanes are God’s punishment to immoral areas and you simply can’t test the book of Genesis.

The above areas have now been replaced by something that is designed to look like it says the same thing, but is actually more watered-down:

NATURE OF SCIENCE
Science is a way of describing and making testable predictions about the natural world. Scientific hypotheses are tentative and testable statements that must be capable of being supported or not supported by observational evidence. Hypotheses of durable explanatory power that have been tested over a wide variety of conditions become theories. Scientific theories must be based on natural and physical phenomena and be capable of being tested by multiple, independent researchers. Students should know that scientific theories, unlike hypotheses, are well-established and highly reliable, but that they may still be subject to change as new information and new technologies are
developed. This vast body of changing and increasing knowledge is described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models. Students should know that some questions are outside the realm of science because they deal with phenomena that are not scientifically testable.

In other words, Jesus turned water in to wine, and God created the earth in six days and you can’t test that because it is not scientifically testable. Great.

(3) SCIENCE, SYSTEMS AND MODELS
A system is a defined collection of structures and processes that interact. All systems have basic properties that can be described in terms of space, time, energy, and matter. Change and constancy occur in systems and can be observed, measured as patterns. These patterns help to predict what will happen next and can change over time. Students should analyze a system in terms of its components and how these components relate to each other, to the whole, and to the external environment.

(4) SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS
Investigations are used to learn about the natural world. Students should recognize that certain types of questions can be answered by investigations, and methods, models, and conclusions built from these investigations change as new observations are made. Models of objects and events are tools for understanding the natural world and can show how systems work. They have limitations and based on new discoveries are constantly being modified to reflect the natural world more closely.

Sounds pretty flat-earth to me, at least in comparison to what they dumped.

SCIENCE AND SOCIAL ETHICS
Scientific decision-making is a way of answering questions about the natural world. Students should understand that the nature of science is to seek patterns in nature through deliberate, objective collection and analysis of empirical data. Students should be able to distinguish between scientific decision-making methods (scientific methods) and ethical/social decisions that involve science (the application of scientific information).

“A way” of answering questions, but not “the way.” In other words, “The Bible,” is “the way,” but they can’t put that in “the standards,” so they leave the door open to make teaching the theory of evolution totally optional.

And, just in case you were wondering where the “strengths and limitations” comes in, here it is. The new standards take out this:

Deleted: analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing;

and replace with this:

analyze and evaluate strengths and limitations of scientific explanations including those based on accepted scientific data, and evidence from students’ observations, experiments, models, and logical statements;

In other words, “evolution has its limits, because it does not mesh with the Bible or intelligent design.” This is the paragraph that is the killer because it allows teachers to explain that the theory of evolution has weaknesses and opens the door for creationism theory.

It may seem nit-picky, but there is more. A lot more. Consider this new language:

recognize that components that make up the genetic code are similar in most organisms;

Here is what the teachers proposed:

recognize that components that make up the genetic code is common to all organisms;

Unless science has changed a lot since September, I think what the teachers proposed is more accurate. This just constitutes another attempt by the anti-evolution crowd to try to water things down.

There is also more tinkering with evolution. The new standards also downplay the significance of natural selection.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It