Print
E-mail
Comment
Activists line up to testify on science standards
 |
| A person wearing a dinosaur suit is shown during a news conference inside the building where new science curriculum for Texas public schools was discussed Wednesday in Austin. |
By April Castro
AUSTIN – The debate on how to teach evolution in science classrooms heated up in Texas on Wednesday as the State Board of Education listened to public comments on proposed revisions to the state’s science curriculum.
The current curriculum requires students be taught the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories, wording that some say has been used to undermine the theory of evolution.
The proposal being discussed would change the language to say “strengths and limitations,” even though a review committee had recommended removing the reference altogether.
“Scientific theories are strong. They don’t have weaknesses,” Steven Schafersman, president of the advocacy group Texas Citizens for Science, told the board.
The board seemed in for a long evening as 89 people had signed up to testify on the proposal, which also suggests encouraging middle school students to discuss alternative explanations for evolution.
Gathered outside the board meeting, critics complained that talking of weaknesses and limitations of evolution allows for religion-based concepts like creationism and intelligent design to enter classroom instruction.
In order to educate the next generation “with the best science around ... we must listen, not to a few political advocates, but we must listen to the consensus of most scientists from here and around the world,” said Arturo De Lozanne, an associate professor of biology at the University of Texas at Austin. “If we do not maintain high science standards in our schools we risk losing our scientific and technological edge.”
Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design.
In a survey of college biology professors released earlier this week, most respondents said they believe any focus on the weaknesses of evolution theory and on alternative theories would be detrimental to students’ college readiness and their ability to compete for jobs.
But, advocates of the curriculum proposal say not mentioning weaknesses of scientific theory cheats students out of complete information.
“This is just another attempt to stifle academic freedom and to ban any kind of free and open science inquiry on this issue,” said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Texas Free Market Foundation, who planned to testify before the board.
Saenz criticized the survey of college professors because it was commissioned by the religious watchdog group, Texas Freedom Network, which has vocally opposed any attempt to dilute evolution instruction.
“The reality is this issue is about evolution and teaching strengths and weaknesses of evolution,” Saenz said. “It’s about science and teaching science right, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.”
The State Board of Education is expected to vote on the proposal next spring. A majority of members have said they are in favor of retaining the current mandate to cover both strengths and weaknesses of major scientific theories.
Standards adopted by the board will remain in place for the next decade.
The current curriculum requires students be taught the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories, wording that some say has been used to undermine the theory of evolution.
The proposal being discussed would change the language to say “strengths and limitations,” even though a review committee had recommended removing the reference altogether.
“Scientific theories are strong. They don’t have weaknesses,” Steven Schafersman, president of the advocacy group Texas Citizens for Science, told the board.
The board seemed in for a long evening as 89 people had signed up to testify on the proposal, which also suggests encouraging middle school students to discuss alternative explanations for evolution.
Gathered outside the board meeting, critics complained that talking of weaknesses and limitations of evolution allows for religion-based concepts like creationism and intelligent design to enter classroom instruction.
In order to educate the next generation “with the best science around ... we must listen, not to a few political advocates, but we must listen to the consensus of most scientists from here and around the world,” said Arturo De Lozanne, an associate professor of biology at the University of Texas at Austin. “If we do not maintain high science standards in our schools we risk losing our scientific and technological edge.”
Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design.
In a survey of college biology professors released earlier this week, most respondents said they believe any focus on the weaknesses of evolution theory and on alternative theories would be detrimental to students’ college readiness and their ability to compete for jobs.
But, advocates of the curriculum proposal say not mentioning weaknesses of scientific theory cheats students out of complete information.
“This is just another attempt to stifle academic freedom and to ban any kind of free and open science inquiry on this issue,” said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Texas Free Market Foundation, who planned to testify before the board.
Saenz criticized the survey of college professors because it was commissioned by the religious watchdog group, Texas Freedom Network, which has vocally opposed any attempt to dilute evolution instruction.
“The reality is this issue is about evolution and teaching strengths and weaknesses of evolution,” Saenz said. “It’s about science and teaching science right, regardless of what religious beliefs people have.”
The State Board of Education is expected to vote on the proposal next spring. A majority of members have said they are in favor of retaining the current mandate to cover both strengths and weaknesses of major scientific theories.
Standards adopted by the board will remain in place for the next decade.
Submit a Comment
|
You must be logged in to post a comment.
|
Not yet a registered member?
Click here to become one. Comments to stories and articles on the Web site are not edited or pre-approved before appearing online. Readers posting comments are solely responsible for those comments. Comments must be germane to the story to which they apply. Online comments that are libelous, profane or personally attack another site participant can be reported as abuse using the link provided on each comment. Comments reported as abusive will be reviewed and may be removed from view, as will off-topic comments. BE CIVIL. Individuals continually posting abusive comments to the site may have their registrations revoked. |
BigTexN wrote on Nov 20, 2008 10:06 AM:
These are the same scientific theories that, at one time, were convinced the world was flat, right?
Just checking...continue. "