Texas Freedom Network

Texas State Board of Education members are beginning debate on new public school science curriculum standards. The board will likely take a preliminary vote (or votes) today on whether to amend the draft standards submitted by teacher writing teams and then post them for public comment. A formal vote on posting the standards comes on Friday, but we’ll get the main debate today. The final vote to adopt the standards will come in March. We’ll keep you updated over the next couple of hours on the action here.

1:17 p.m. – Board member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, moves to put “strengths and weaknesses” back in the standards. She argues that “strengths and weaknesses” hasn’t been challenged in two decades (we assume she means in the courts).

1:21 – Board member Mavis Knight, D-Dallas, opposes the motion: “Longevity is not an indication of the quality of something.”

1:23 – Bob Craig, R-Lubbock, also speaks in opposition, arguing that the board should approve what the writings teams — made up of teachers and academics appointed by the board — have drafted over the past year. “Some (here) think they know better how to teach than the teachers.” “‘Strengths and weaknesses’ has taken on a different connotation from what it was 20 years ago.”

1:26 – Pat Hardy, R-Fort Worth, joins in opposition. “I think the clarification made by the teacher groups is very good.”

1:28 – Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, speaks in support of Dunbar’s amendment. She argues that not all the members of the writing teams (the members who want “strengths and weaknesses”) had their concerns heard and properly considered. She wants teachers to have “the freedom to talk about these things” (“weaknesses”).

1:34 – Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, supports Dunbar’s amendment. “The sons and daughters of Texas must be able to discuss the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of any theory.” He points out that three of the six “experts” on the state board’s review panel wanted to teach “strengths and weaknesses.” (Of course, one of those three is a co-founder of the anti-evolution pressure group Discovery Institute. The other two are also opponents of evolution.)

1:37 – Mercer mocks the warning that students who don’t have a sound education on something as important to science as evolution will be at a disadvantage in getting into the best colleges and succeeding there. He portrays that as discrimination against people whose religious beliefs lead them to reject evolution. (So much for the argument that this debate isn’t about religion.) Now he’s on to “Piltdown man” and a list of other phony “weaknesses” of evolution.

1:40 – Terri Leo, R-Spring, speaks in support of Dunbar’s amendment. “The way we do it here is the correct way in applying “strengths and weaknesses” to all theories,” not just evolution. (That’s blatantly false.)

1:43 – Lawrence Allen, D-Houston, speaks against Dunbar’s amendment. He notes that his constituents (“every one”) who have talked to him about this issue want him to vote against “strengths and weaknesses.”

1:46 – Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, speaks against Dunbar’s amendment. “We’re not talking about faith. We’re not talking about religion. We’re talking about science.”

1:48 – Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas, supports Dunbar’s amendment. “There is no one opinion from science teachers or from science experts.”

1:49 – Problem. Rene Nuñez, D-El Paso, is missing from the floor. Very strange.

1:52 – David Bradley, R-Buna, supports Dunbar’s amendment. “This one word ‘weaknesses’ is just kind of baffling.” (Yes, Mr. Bradley, it’s baffling why you’re so determined to keep it.) Bradley says the writing teams the board appointed came up only with recommendations. “It’s our decision. I wasn’t given a rubber stamp when I was sworn in.” (That’s fancy way of saying that it really doesn’t matter what the experts say.)

1:55 – Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio, is stalling.

1:56 – Agosto: “We have several camps here. Both are highly qualified in academia.”

1:57 – Agosto: He opposes Dunbar’s amendment. “I’m listening to my district.”

1:59 – Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, R-Dallas, says “real science is truly debate over all issues.” She says the experts the board put on the writing teams came to a consensus after such debate. Miller opposes Dunbar’s amendment.

2:02 – Craig: Nobody on the board wants anybody to be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. “But we’re talking about science.” The new standards, he argues, do not restrict discussion but, instead, actually do a better job of encouraging it.

2:04 – Dunbar says the teacher writing teams are just some of the people board members need to be listening to. She says her constituents want her to support “strengths and weaknesses.” She accuses opponents of “strengths and weaknesses” of supporting using intimidation to stifle debate and questions in classrooms.

2:08 – Dunbar says supporters of evolution “are afraid of what weaknesses will show.” Students, she says, should have the right to “pursue academic freedom” in their courses.

2:09 – Knight takes issue with the suggestion that she is “rubber-stamping” the draft from the writing teams.

2:12 – Mercer argues again about “intimidation” against people of faith who question evolution.

2:17 - Nuñez is still missing. Dunbar’s amendment fails on a 7-7 tie vote. Now they move on to a motion of adopting the standards.

2:18 – Dunbar offers a new amendment replacing “strengths and weaknesses” with “evidence supportive and nonsupportive” of scientific explanations.

2:29 – We won’t go through all of the arguments being made on this. Essentially, “supportive and nonsupportive” is just another way to say “strengths and weaknesses.”

2:39 – Things are getting heated, with board members disagreeing on what the board’s six expert panels have said and support on this issue.

2:40 - Nuñez is back. Dunbar’s second amendment fails 8-7!

2:43 – The board is discussing specifically the standards for Earth and Space Science, a high school course. Some board members apparently have objections to various parts, but it’s unclear what those objections are. The board has yet to vote on the overall standards draft.

2:47 – Cargill wants what she calls “some qualifying language” in the ESS standards:
- She wants students to learn “differing theories” about “the structure, scale, composition, origin and history of the universe.” This is a stealth effort to allow “intelligent design” into classrooms. Craig, Miller and others don’t seem to be buying into it.

3:06 – Cargill’s amendment passes 8-7, with Hardy voting in favor.

3:07 – Cargill is proposing another amendment, but the wording isn’t available for the public to see at this time. Motion fails.

3:09 – Cargill is making a series of other motions. The thrust seems to be to add tentativeness to some of the standards, raising the possibility that scientific explanations suggested by those standards may or may not be accurate. This seems to be a subtle attempt to call scientific explanations into questions. It’s all rather confusing to folks in the audience.

3:15 – Most, but not all, of Cargill’s amendments are failing. We remain confused by Hardy’s vote in favor of Cargill’s first amendment and will try to clarify her position on this. It’s possible that she was unclear about Cargill’s intent at first.

3:33 – One of Cargill’s amendments calls into question the validity of radiometric dating methods used to calculate the ages of igneous rocks. This seems a clear effort to call into question the way scientists date the age of the earth. (Young earth creationists think the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old.) That amendment fails to pass.

3:36 – Now Cargill offers an amendment directly attacking the concept of common descent through evolution. This passes, with two abstaining: Hardy and Miller. It looks like we have clean-up work to do before tomorrow.

3:58 – Now Leo is offering amendments for the biology course standards. As with Earth and Space Science, these amendments seem intended to add tentativeness to the standards, particularly standards regarding evolution. They may be setting their own trap: these amendments are efforts to treat evolution in a special way not applied to other scientific theories (something their own legal counsel advised them earlier not to do). It’s possible that they are leaving the standards vulnerable to a legal challenge.

4:07 – McLeroy is now offering amendments. One amendment: “Know the definition of science and know its limitations.” This is an attempt by McLeroy to make his point that natural phenomena aren’t the source of all explanations. He has argued in the past that science should be redefined to include supernatural explanations, even if he’s not offering that specific recommendation here. The overall standards already include a definition of science from the National Academy of Sciences noting that “some questions are outside the realm of science.”

4:23 – McLeroy wants to amend the section on biology dealing with evolution, calling into question common descent through evolution. This is a very bad amendment. Good heavens. McLeroy is a dentist, and he’s trying to argue against the heart of evolution right here. He has absolutely no qualifications here.

4:32 – We’re reeling here at the absurdity. McLeroy has launched a broadside against a core concept of evolution — common descent. This is like an army losing a battle (“strengths and weaknesses”) and then launching a nuclear strike.

4:45 – Good God. It passed. Board members surely don’t understand what they’ve done here. Certainly not all of them. Strengths and weaknesses is out, but McLeroy has succeeded in using the standards to raise doubts about a core concept of biology.

4:48 – The board has voted 9-6 to give preliminary approval to the standards. UPDATE: In the confusion at the end, we missed the final vote count. But the board did give preliminary approval to the standards draft.

5:04 – Time for deep breaths. One: The failure of creationists to reinsert “strengths and weaknesses” into the standards is a huge victory for sound science education. We need to fight to keep it out in tomorrow’s formal vote and again in the final March votes on the standards.

Second: Board members — none of whom are research scientists, much less biologists — appeared confused when they were asked to consider amendments with changes to specific passages of the standards. That’s why it’s foolish to let dentists and insurance salesmen play-pretend that they’re scientists. The result is that the standards draft includes language that is more tentative. Not good, but not necessarily disastrous overall.

Third, and this is more of a problem, McLeroy has succeeded in inserting language that would have students waste time evaluating evidence on a concept that is established science — in fact, it’s a core concept in the study of evolution, common descent. Even worse, it’s such a complicated and bizarre standard that teachers will have a very difficult time even translating it, much less teaching about it. (TEA has not yet posted it.) What we saw is what happens when a dentist pretends that he knows more about science than scientists do.

5:49 p.m. – We’re entering the home stretch (maybe). Charles Garner, a creationist chemist from Baylor, is up. “There is an effort to redefine theories and how they distinguish from hypotheses” that’s not accepted by everyone in science. We certainly agree that there has been an effort to redefine scientific theories, but that effort has been primarily from the creationist side.

5:51 – Garner is offering a PowerPoint presentation showing some of his research. This involves “stereoelectivity in peptide bond formation.” Now, do we know anything about this topic? Of course not. Do any of these board members? We’ll say (safely) no. This is a common tactic by evolution opponents: dazzle nonscientists with scientific jargon as if they can really understand it. Then use that to justify their arguments against evolution. Seelke tried this tactic earlier (and was shot down later by Wetherington).

6:10 – Garner: “I’m not in favor of bringing creationism or ‘intelligent design’ into public schools.” Oh, no. Perish the thought. He just wants to bring into the classroom the arguments that creationists and ID supporters use to attack evolution.

6:13 – Garner: “Anything you don’t allow to be questioned is … religion. You don’t want to enshrine any scientific theory.” This is one of the creationists’ key arguments: evolution has become a religion for science. For Pete’s sake. No one has suggested that questions about evolution are not allowed. Scientists ask questions all the time. But we shouldn’t be teaching students conjecture. We should teach them evidence that answers the questions scientists ask. Opponents of evolution have yet to show such scientific evidence in their efforts to discredit evolution.

6:17 – Garner: “Strengths and weaknesses” should be fine for the standards if the only weaknesses discussed in classrooms are truly scientific weaknesses. Well, yes. But if the weaknesses evolution deniers have promoted were truly based on science, there would be no debate here. In fact, scientists themselves would be demanding that such weaknesses be taught.

6:21 – Garner: “The problem is, the conclusive evidence is really hard to get on evolution.”

6:27 – Garner says with a straight face: “I don’t endorse any pseudoscience at all. It must be scientific strengths and weaknesses.”

6:29 – David Hillis is up to bat. (McLeroy just reminded the board that Meyer will be brought back for questions because his presentation earlier was shortened to take Prof. Skoog’s testimony before he had to leave to catch his flight home. So the Discovery Institute will get the last word.)

6:31 – Hillis echoes comments from Skoog and Wetherington — respect your writing teams and approve the standards draft they have proposed after nearly a year of work.

6:32 – Hillis lays out the overwhelming volume of scientific research supporting evolution and points out that this mass of research has vastly expanded in recent decades. Much of this most recent research, he notes, has important applications for today, such as medicine and health care. Evolution explains, for example, why we need new flu vaccines each year.

6:39 – Another reminder, this time from Hillis, that creationists on the state board tried in 2003 to force publishers to include phony “weaknesses” in new biology textbooks. They didn’t have the votes to prevail at the time. They may well have enough votes in 2011, when the next generation of science textbooks are up for adoption in Texas.

6:40 – Hillis: “Evolution of the Species” was not the last argument in evolution. Why are we still debating 19th-century arguments about evolution? Research on evolution has vastly expanded just in recent decades, making those arguments outdated and a waste of classroom time.

6:43 – Hillis joins Wetherington’s attack on the argument that the “Cambrian explosion” supposedly offers a “weakness” of evolution.

6:45 – Too bad we can’t type faster. Hillis is kicking butt and taking names. One anti-evolution argument after another bites the dust in his presentation.

6:48 – Hillis: “Science doesn’t show that supernatural explanations are false. They are simply out of the realm of science.”

6:49 – Hillis: Phony “weaknesses” of evolution have no more place in science classrooms than alchemy or astrology.

6:51 – Questions for Hillis. It’s clear right away that Hillis isn’t going to suffer fools. Good for him.

6:53 – Hillis invites board members to talk to other scientists across the street at the University of Texas, one of the world’s great research institutions. Think they’ll take him up on it?

7:09 – Yes, we’re getting tired. Long day. But Meyer is waiting in the wings.

7:11 – Uh oh. Board member Gail Lowe is challenging Hillis on science. Here is Hillis’ bio. And here is Lowe’s.

7:14 – Now Dunbar is challenging him. Here’s her bio.

7:19 – Board member Barbara Cargill accuses Hillis of not speaking to the board with respect and humility. Pot, meet the kettle.

7:23 – The end to Hillis’ testimony brought some sparks. McLeroy demanded that Hillis stop speaking when he (Hillis) questioned the qualifications of the Discovery Institute’s co-founder and the other two creationists on the review panel.

7:26 – Meyer is back at the podium. Now we get a long creationist monologue from him and from board member Terri Leo. Meyer expresses indignation that Hillis and Wetherington had the audacity to point out the lack of qualifications of Meyer and other creationists on the panel. Meyer accuses them of relying on the “argument of authority.” This is gonna get deep — and there’s no opportunity for rebuttal.

7:28 – Meyer: We may be outnumbered, but there are lots of qualified scientists who agree with us. Oh, please.

7:29 – Wow. Meyer — who acknowledged earlier that he is not a biologist — is calling one of Hillis’ points a “half-baked idea.” Hillis is one of the world’s most respected biologists in his field. This is truly appalling.

7:31 – Meyer is demonstrating how nonscientists can master pseudoscientific propaganda. It’s fascinating to watch. This is what he wanted: the chance to appear as a science “expert” before an elected body.

7:34 – Board member Pat Hardy asks: How old do you think the earth is? Meyer: I think it’s 4.6 billion years old. He’s learned. When asked at the Kansas evolution “show trial,” he refused to be specific. In fact, he was so vague that his answer would have pleased either young earth creationists or supporters of evolution.

7:38: Meyer: We can’t allow someone on an issue like this to decide what’s credible and what isn’t. Really??? Isn’t that how peer-reviewed science journals work? Or should we just allow any crackpot idea from the Discovery Institute to be taught (even if they can’t provide a shred of credible scientific evidence to back it up)?

7:41 – Chairman Don McLeroy and other creationists on the board are falling all over themselves to ask Meyer’s opinion on biological questions that Meyer essentially admitted earlier today that he’s not really qualified to answer.

7:44 – McLeroy is now rambling on about the brain and other complex parts of the anatomy that are “designed.” This is classic “intelligent design” pseudoscientific nonsense.

7:47 – McLeroy (a dentist) wants to know about the evolution of teeth. He asks: isn’t the fact that they fit together so perfectly a weakness of evolution? We assume he means that they must have been intelligently designed.

7:51 – McLeroy, in his previous comment, referred to some recent research he read on teeth and evolution. Our friends at the National Center for Science Education just passed on to us a Web site that appears to be the source of that “research” – a creationist Web site. You can see it here.

7:56 – Looks like a reader beat us to the punch on McLeroy’s research source!

The hearing has just concluded. Thanks for reading!

4:04: Ralph Seelke is up, introducing himself as the grandson of a Texas cotton farmer and holding a doctorate in microbial genetics. Seelke has been a common face for the Discovery Institute in testifying against evolution in various locales. Seelke says he wants students to challenge what they learn, to ask: “How do they know that?” We agree. That’s how they learn. But we could ask the same of creationists: How do you know that evolution is a fraud? How do you know God created the universe in six days? They can’t know because they have no scientific evidence, but they can certainly believe. Faith, however, is not science. There is nothing inherently wrong with that faith — unless you want to determine what students learn based on your faith.

4:12 – Seelke asks: Why include “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards? His answers: “It’s good common sense.” “It makes for good stories, and students remember stories.” Good heavens. Is that really the standard he wants for deciding what to teach in science classes? There are lots of good stories about space monsters, ghosts, psychics and the like, but do we want to teach those stories in science class, too?

4:18 – OK, we’re not scientists, but Seelke seems to have just argued that in experiments he has conducted with e. coli bacteria, he has shown that evolution has weaknesses. I’m sure this sounds convincing to other folks who (like us) aren’t scientists. But why haven’t scientists themselves accepted his argument? In fact, if Seelke has disproven evolution, why hasn’t he won a Nobel?

4:22 – Board member Barbara Cargill asks whether Seelke has faced opposition from other scientists in presenting his research. Seelke suggests he didn’t get a job because, he thinks, other scientists at the institution opposed his research. He refers board members to Ben Stein’s anti-evolution movie “Expelled” and to the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwin” petition. Board member Terri Leo suggests that such opposition is the reason anti-evolution folks haven’t succeeded in getting their anti-evolution “research” published in peer-reviewed science journals. Sure. That must be the reason. It wouldn’t be because they couldn’t come up with scientifically valid evidence to back up their research. Right?

4:34 – A PowerPoint slide from Seelke: “Do you want your students Educated Or Indoctrinated?” Good question. Very good question. Perhaps the board’s reationists who think evolution is a fraud (despite all the scientific evidence) could answer this.

4:39 – Seelke on “lying” to students about evolution: “I never told my children about Santa Claus. Why? Because for them I’m the sole holder of truth.” His point is that lying to kids destroys their trust. Well, yes. (Have we just ruined Christmas for kids?)

5:05 – Ron Wetherington of SMU is up. Wetherington is schooling the board on the difference between preliminary explanations, hypotheses and theories in science and, thus, why the whole argument about “weaknesses” of theories is nonsense. The old standards, with the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement, he argues, are designed to generate doubt about evolution.

5:14 – Wetherington goes down the list of alleged “weaknesses” of evolution and eviscerates each one, including “irreducible complexity.” That’s one of the major arguments made by supporters of “intelligent design”/creation, but testimony from scientists in the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial in Pennsylvania totally discredited it. Wetherington also attacks the argument that “gaps in the fossil record” are a weakness in evolution. “Absolutely not true,” he says, noting that research into the fossil record is vast and sound. Next he tears apart arguments about the “Cambrian explosion.” “Incomplete information,” he notes, is not the same thing as a “weakness.” This is among the most useful testimony we’ve heard today.

5:23 – Wetherington makes a key point: these standards will influence what goes into new biology textbooks in two years. Bad standards will result in bad textbooks. Publishers would be forced to produce those bad textbooks or risk not winning approval from the board. He warns that creationists on the board may have the votes in 2011 to reject textbooks without alleged “weaknesses” of evolution.

5:27 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar is challenging Wetherington on science: what about the “missing links” in the fossil record? Wetherington: The media uses that term. Science doesn’t. (We wonder, by the way, whether we should ask Ms. Dunbar if she thinks we have time for dinner before President Obama declares martial law.)

5:33 – Wetherington: Keeping “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards would allow board members who oppose evolution to force publishers to include phony “weaknesses” in the next biology textbooks. Dunbar: “You can’t make a law based on how it’s going to be applied.” What?

5:41 – Wethington: Science is willing to debate an issue, but both sides must have scientific merit. “Intelligent design” doesn’t meet that requirement.

5:43 – Jiminy Cricket. Now creationists on the board are arguing about the bacterial flagellum and complex eyes. (“The eye of the trilobite!”) This is evolving, so to speak, into a debate about “intelligent design.” Fortunately, Wetherington is easily countering this nonsense.

3 p.m. – Texas State Board of Education members are gathering for the second part of today’s hearing — the evolution “show trial” the folks at the Discovery Institute have been salivating over. The board will hear from a panel of six “expert” reviewers, three of whom are creationists who want Texas public school science classes to challenge evolution. Among those three is Stephen Meyer, co-founder of the anti-evolution pressure group Discovery Institute. The other panelists –

Supporters of teaching evolution: David Hillis, professor of integrative biology and director of the Center of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics at theUniversity of Texas at Austin; Ronald K. Wetherington, professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University and director of the Center for Teaching Excellence; and Gerald Skoog, professor and dean emeritus of the College ofEducation at Texas Tech and co-director of the Center for Integration of Science Education and Research.

Opponents: Meyer from the Discovery Institute; Ralph Seelke, a professor of the department of biology and earth sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior; Charles Garner, a professor of chemistry at Baylor University in Waco.

Click here to read more about the lead-up to today’s science smackdown.

3:11 – It’s hard to relate all the details here, but it appears the board is deeply split over how committee assignments for the next two years were decided. There has been a heated discussion over the refusal of the board’s majority to follow established rules in deciding the assignments. In short, it looks like the ideological split on the board is deepening, with bitter feelings all around.

3:14 – Review panel members will each have 15 minutes to speak to the board and then will answer any questions board members have. Stephen Meyer from the anti-evolution Discovery Institute is the first on the panel to speak.

While creationists on the board have been careful to say that they want the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement to apply to all scientific theories, Meyer just swept that contention aside. He argues that the standards should require students to learn “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution especially. This is no surprise to us: the creationists who are determined to keep that language in the standards rarely if ever argue about other scientific theories. They focus like a laser beam on evolution.

3:24 – Meyer is trying to make the case that there is substantial serious research (published in peer-reviewed science journals) that show evidence of “weaknesses” of evolution. This is, needless to say, news to biologists in the room. (Meyer’s doctorate is in the philosophy of science.)

3:26 – Meyer is clearly enjoying this opportunity. Armed with a PowerPoint presentation, he’s making all he can from the opportunity to share a stage with real scientists.

3:27 – Among the “weaknesses” Meyer is pushing: the Cambrian explosion.

3:28 – Meyer argues that exempting evolution from critical analysis (which, of course, no one has recommended) would make presentations of evolution “dogmatic or quasi-religious.” In fact, however, the teacher writing teams have proposed standards that encourage students to critically analyze scientific theories. What Meyer objects to is the removal of “weaknesses” from the curriculum standards. What’s so sacred about that one word? Is it because the Discovery Institute has latched onto that word as a political strategy?

3:31 – Interesting. Board member Bob Craig asks whether Meyer’s doctorate is in biology. Meyer acknowledges that it is not. Craig then asks Meyer whether it would help him sell his anti-evolution textbook Explore Evolution if the standards including “strengths and weaknesses.” Meyer says he doesn’t know. “I’m not here to make money, if that’s what you’re asking.”

3:37 – Prof. Gerald Skoog of Texas Tech University is now speaking, although Meyer may still take questions later. Skoog argues against any attempt to broaden the definition of science in the standards to include “supernatural” explanations.

3:40 – Skoog makes the case for keep the standards as the writing teams have drafted them. The standards, he argues, have a strong critical-thinking component, regardless of the arguments by creationists. Skoog also takes on the argument that removing “strengths and weaknesses” would in any way threaten the academic freedom of students or the freedom to question. Moreover, “academic freedom” means the freedom of educators and researchers to do their work without interference from government bodies. He notes the state board’s refusal, for example, to adopt health textbooks that include any information on responsible pregnancy and disease prevention (such as condoms and other contraceptive methods) other than through abstinence-only until marriage. That’s a true example of interference with academic freedom, Skoog notes.

3:51 – Skoog: It’s time for the state board to stop spending so much time worrying the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution instead of the “strengths and weaknesses” of science education in Texas.

3:52 – Board member Terri Leo attacks TFN’s survey of biology faculty at colleges and universities in Texas. Leo says the survey was of a selective group of folks. Well, yes, it was. We wanted to know what biology faculty thought about this issue. So what’s the point, Ms. Leo?

3:56 – Leo argues that strengths of evolution are too often over-emphasized while “weaknesses” are left out. Skoog isn’t buying it. The “weaknesses” promoted by creationists on the board “don’t hold water.”

3:59 – We’re getting the same feeling we did November. What a crazy world in which nonscientists on the State Board of Education feel competent to challenge scientists on science.

11:30 a.m. – Another entrepreneur warns of the consequences of giving Texas a reputation as being hostile to sound science education.

11:44 – A creationist testifier: “Why are we supporting such a theory (evolution) that has no evidence supporting it?” Really? That’s the kind of stunning ignorance on display before the state board today.

11:53 – Josh Rosenau at his Thoughts from Kansas blog explains what state board member Cynthia Dunbar said in November about a Nobel laureate actually being skeptical of evolution. He nails it, explaining very clearly how evolution deniers are distorting facts in support of an ideological agenda.

12:03 – Ide Trotter, associated with the creationist group Texans for Better Science Education, is up. He argues that modern scientific theories make evolutionary theory “more difficult to believe,” but evolutionists are trying to censor those counter arguments.

12:06 – Ryan Valentine, deputy director of the Texas Freedom Network, is up now. Ryan reminds the board that four creationist members tried to reject proposed biology textbooks in 2003 because those books didn’t include phony “weaknesses” of evolution. He calls on the board not to ignore the teachers, academics, scientists and other experts who oppose requiring that students learn phony challenges to evolution.

12:14 – We’re taking a break from live blogging while we prepare for a short press conference. Live blogging will continue after lunch, when the board’s planned evolution “show trial” begins, featuring scientists and evolution opponents on a so-called “expert” reviewer panel. Check back in around 1:30. There’s a lot more to come.

9:50 a.m. – Board member Ken Mercer: “Will learning ‘weaknesses’ of evolution make someone a lesser doctor?”

9:53 – Board member David Bradley says teachers have also been intimidated when they want to teach about “weaknesses” of evolution. He says he wanted to bring Ben Stein (from the movie “Expelled”) to speak about that at the hearing. Too bad Stein didn’t come. We could have used the laugh.

10:01 – Ah. The truth made clear. A creationist testifier demands that the board force publishers to teach “weaknesses” of evolution in their textbooks. That is, of course, what the battle about the standards is all about — whether the next set of classroom textbooks will teach pseudoscience or real science.

10:08 – Arturo DeLozanne, a professor of cell biology at the University of Texas at Austin, notes President Barack Obama’s challenge from yesterday: “We need to restore science to its rightful place.” Indeed.

10:10 – Prof. DeLozanne makes it clear: removing “strengths and weaknesses” does nothing to stifle the ability of students to ask questions. There are no prohibitions against asking questions in the proposed standards. Asking questions is how science works. But: “Pseudoscience doesn’t have a place in the science curriculum.” Teaching pseudoscience in public schools, he says, will cause Texas students to fall behind their peers across the nation.

10:18 – Prof. DeLozanne points out that keeping “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards will open the door to the Discovery Institute getting its textbooks Explore Evolution adopted in Texas public schools. That textbook is full of pseudoscientific arguments against evolution. Interestingly, one of that textbook’s authors, Stephen Meyer, is co-founder of the Discovery Institute and a member of the curriculum review panel appointed by state board members. Mr. Meyer will speak to the board this afternoon. He, of course, wants to keep “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards.

10:45 – An evolution opponent argues that science advances when scientists don’t conform, when they seek new answers and explanations. No one disagrees with that, of course. The issue is whether evolution deniers have done the research necessary to provide truly scientific arguments countering evolution. They haven’t, but they want science instruction in Texas public schools to be decided based on personal and political beliefs. That hardly advances science or science education.

10:53 – Eric Hennenhoefer, an Austin engineer and entrepreneur, explains the importance of language and marketing to business. They’re important in this debate as well, he says. Adopting standards that challenge evolution (“strengths and weaknesses”) will focus attention on Texas as a state that teaches pseudoscience. These attacks on evolution are the product of a “slick PR effort,” with millions of dollars from anti-evolution groups like the Discovery Institute.

11:07 – Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education knocks it out of the ballpark. Dr. Scott notes that board member Cynthia Dunbar mischaracterized the research of a Nobel laureate back in November, when she argued that the scientist was an evolution skeptic. Scott explains that Dunbar got that piece of misinformation from the Institute for Creation Research’s Web site. She adds: “The high school classroom is no place to fight the culture wars.”

11:17 – Dr. Scott makes a key point: publishers will create textbooks challenging evolution if the state board adopts standards that require them to do so. That means Texas students will be handicapped with an education in pseudoscience. “Don’t balance this culture war on the backs of science students.”