Texas Freedom Network

OK, we’ve had a little time to digest all that went on today at the Texas State Board of Education. Without going through each of the many amendments that passed, here’s essentially what happened. This morning the board slammed the door on bringing creationism into classrooms through phony “weaknesses” arguments. But then board members turned around and threw open all the windows to pseudoscientific nonsense attacking core concepts like common descent and natural selection.

The amendments approved today are very problematic, regardless of the important victory over “strengths and weaknesses.” We anticipate that all 15 board members will be participating tomorrow, however, including a pro-science member who was absent today. So there is still time to reverse course.

Tomorrow, with the final vote, the board has a serious decision to make: is the science education of the next generation of Texas schoolchildren going to be based on fact-based, 21st-century science or on the personal beliefs of board members promoting phony arguments and pseudoscience?

You can still weigh in by sending e-mails to board members at sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us. Texas Education Agency staff will distribute e-mails to board members.

2:56 – Barbara Cargill now offers an amendment for Earth and Space Science designed to challenge the Big Bang theory. She wants teachers to tell students that there are different estimates of the age of the universe. (Like, maybe billions of years vs. 10,000?)

3:00 – Cargill says she has no intention to open the door to teaching creationist suggestions on the age of the universe. Uh huh. Right.

3:02 – Cargill slipped up a little while ago, saying “universal common design” instead of “universal common descent.” Oops. A revealing slip, yes?

3:05 – Cargill’s amendment passes 11-3.

3:09 – These and other Cargill amendments are designed to fudge science, making it more tentative on key points.

3:15 – Gail Lowe offers an amendment to the environmental systems course for high school. The current standard: “discuss the positive and negative influence of commonly held ethical beliefs on scientific practices such as methods used to increase food production or the existence of global warming.” Lowe wants to drop global warming. Mavis Knight suggests that students be asked to analyze and evaluate differing views on the existence of global warming. The revised amendment passes.

3:25 – The board has just voted to pass the amended standards on for consideration at the final board meeting tomorrow.

3:35 – We will be wrapping up this live-blogging now. We’ll be back for the final vote tomorrow.

1:43 – Sometimes the hypocrisy is really astounding. The anti-evolution Discovery Institute is harshly criticizing State Board of Education member Rick Agosto for asking that creationists remove their anti-evolution signs from the board room. Says the Disco:

Apparently Texas Board of Education member Rick Agosto isn’t just content to censor science by removing any criticisms of evolution from the science curriculum. The San Antonio Democrat even wants to prevent citizens from expressing their disagreement with that censorship. This morning Agosto demanded that some citizens quietly holding signs stating “Don’t Censor Science” at the Board meeting take down their signs. He even called on security personnel to forcibly remove the signs, but Board chair Don McElroy intervened to stop that abuse of power. 

We saw no effort to have security personnel remove anybody from the board room. Mr. Agosto was simply asking Chairman McLeroy to enforce the rule that McLeroy decreed after pro-science citizens brought signs with them to the November hearing.

Does the Discovery Institute think rules are only for people who support sound science?

1:47 – Terri Leo offers a bad amendment to the biology standards:

Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.

Mr. Agosto says he will vote for it but then discuss it with science experts later with an eye toward moving to strike it tomorrow if necessary. That’s just a bad parliamentary strategy. It’s harder to remove an amendment than to defeat it outright.

The amendment passes 8-6, with Agosto and Craig voting for it.

1:50 – Mavis Knight moves to strip out the January amendment from Don McLeroy questioning common ancestry.

1:57 – Chairman McLeroy argues against Knight’s amendment and criticizes those who say his January arguments for the original amendment were “dishonest” and “deceitful.”

1:59 – Knight’s amendment fails 7-6, with Agosto abstaining.

2:01 – McLeroy moves the following amendment to the biology standards:

Analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.

Let the pseudoscientific babble and distortions begin…

2:03 – McLeroy acknowledges that his January amendment was intended to attack what he describes as the first important principle of evolution, common ancestry. He says now he’s going after the second, natural selection. He wants schools to be “honest” with the kids.

2:04 – McLeroy defends his new amendment by reading passages from the work of Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences. We don’t have Alberts’ work available here, but we highly (HIGHLY) doubt that he would be pleased to see McLeroy interpret his work as proof of a “weakness” of evolution.

2:16 – Wow. Now McLeroy wants to amend his amendment to read the “sufficiency or insufficiency of unguided natural processes to explain the complexity of the cell.”

That’s creationism, pure and simple. McLeroy has just called on the standards to pit science against God.

2:18 – McLeroy withdraws the amendment to his amendment. He goes back to his original proposal attacking natural selection. It passes 9-5, with Agosto and Nunez voting yes.

2:21 – The board moves on to amendments for chemistry.

2:22 – What we’re seeing is a combination of things. Some board members seem to be seeking some political cover. On the other hand, some may genuinely not be aware that they’re putting creationist nonsense in the science standards.

2:32 – Nothing big on chemistry. On to Earth and Space Science. Bob Craig offers five amendments. One would change a problematic amendment passed in January that suggested there are differing scientific theories about the origin of the universe. Another changes language in a January amendment attacking common descent.

2:39 – We’re hearing news from the Capitol that the House Public Education Committee has approved legislation that would put the State Board of Education under sunset review. Will provide more details when we get them.

2:43 – Mr. Craig’s amendment about the origins of the universe fails 6-8, with Agosto voting no.

2:45 – Update: We hear that the House Public Education Committee vote to put the state board under sunset review was unanimous.

2:48 – Mr. Craig’s amendments, by the way, have come from a majority of members of the Earth and Space Science curriculum writing team. Creationist board members, sometimes joined by one or two other members, are opposing them (even if the have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, origins or common descent.) None can pass anyway on a 7-7 tie.

2:54 – Mr. Craig’s amendment to change language in the January amendment challenging common descent fails 6-8, with Agosto voting no.

BREAKING NEWS: A proposed amendment adding “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories back to the science standards has failed on a 7-7 vote.

11:17 – With the defeat of “strengths and weaknesses,” the board is now on to other amendments. Ms. Cargill begins.

Note: A link for audio from the state board debate and vote is available here.

9:17 – The Texas State Board of Education meeting has begun, and we have some encouraging news. Dallas member Mavis Knight, a strong supporter of sound science standards, is participating by videoconference. It appears that Mary Helen Berlanga from Corpus Christi is not present, but no motion can pass on a 7-7 tie. So if all votes hold from January, the pro-science board members should be able to block bad amendments today. (We said “if” and “should be able.”)

The board has not yet reached the agenda item on science standards.

9:24 – A representative of the right-wing Texas Public Policy Foundation is talking to the board about early revisions of the social studies standards, which the board will take up after science. We’re waiting for a copy of the document the representative is presenting to the board.

9:40 – Board member Terri Leo decries any suggestion to leave out of the social studies standards important historical figures to make room for “multicultural” issues and personalities. “I’ve never heard of half of these people,”  Leo says of one proposed list of names. Well, we haven’t seen the list of proposed names or those who might be left out, and everyone agrees that key historical figures should be covered in social studies classrooms. But that Ms. Leo has never heard of someone in history is hardly a sound criterion the state should be following for deciding who gets in and who gets left out of standards.

9:53 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar is suggesting that the board should perhaps start the social studies process over. Let’s recap: board members have appointed members to social studies writing teams, who have already met once. The board has received one report on their work, from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The teams have not finished their work. In fact, a representative of the Texas Education Agency has informed the board that writing teams were still very early in the revision process. Ms. Dunbar, however, is concerned that the writing teams will present drafts based on “entrenched” interests (“academia,” she says), not parents and others. (Are many teachers not parents?) Chairman Don McLeroy wants to cancel the social studies revision process at this point and then come up with a new proposal for how to proceed.

10:01 – It appears the board will defer a decision until tomorrow on how to proceed on social studies standards.

10:03 – By the way, we now have the document presented by Brooke Dollens Terry of Texas Public Policy Foundation. Following are the names she says have been added to the standards for third grade. (Terri Leo says she has never heard of half of the names being added, but it’s unclear if she means for all the standards or just for third grade.)

Grace Hopper, Margaret Knight, Quanah Parker, Dr. Hector P. Garcia, Maya Lin, Maya Angelou, Sandra Cisneros, Kadir Nelson, Jean Pinkey, Angela Shelf Medear, Elisabet Ney, Carmen Lomas Garza, and Bill Martin.

10:07 – The board is about to begin its debate on science.

10:09 – Board member Ken Mercer of San Antonio moves to add “strengths and weaknesses” back into the science standards.

10:12 – Mercer: This about allowing students to discuss and question strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories. He claims receiving 15,0000-16,000 e-mails on this from around the state.

10:15 – Mercer goes down the “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution” path again. And he brings up “Piltdown man” and a list of other “weaknesses” he claims plague evolutionary theory.

10:19 – OK, it looks like board member David Bradley’s computer screen has TFN Insider up. Good morning, Mr. Bradley!

10:20 – Member Bob Craig of Lubbock offers a substitute amendment. “I am fully cognizant to the difference between faith and science. But I believe they can co-exist.” He argues that what the writing teams suggested in December still allows students to freely discuss all aspects of science. Mr. Craig proposes to keep the work group language (without “strengths and weaknesses”) but adds “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

10:26 – Dallas member Geraldine “Tincy” Miller supports Mr. Craig’s motion.

10:30 – This should be interesting. Mr. Mercer and other creationists have argued that taking “strengths and weaknesses” out of the standards will bar students from discussing and asking questions. Mr. Craig’s amendment addresses that, explicitly affirms the right of students to discuss and question while keeping phony “weaknesses” out of textbooks.

10:32 – Mavis Knight speaks in favor of Mr. Craig’s motion.

10:34 – The creationists have a difficult decision to make here. Is this about the freedom of students to ask questions, as they have argued, or is this about promoting phony attacks on evolution in textbooks?

10:36 – Pat Hardy speaks in favor of Mr. Craig’s motion.

10:37 – Terri Leo opposes Mr. Craig’s motion. She says the language is “too ambiguous.” She wants teachers to tell students specific “weaknesses.”

10:38 – Lawrence Allen supports Mr. Craig’s motion.

10:39 – By the way, Texas Freedom Network supports Mr. Craig’s motion (although we hadn’t seen it until now). It’s a wise and responsible way to ensure that students are free to ask questions. That’s how they learn.

10:41 – Cynthia Dunbar opposes Mr. Craig’s motion. She notes a comment from Ms. Miller that she (Ms. Miller) is a committed Christian. Ms. Dunbar says that religious beliefs are irrelevant to what the board should so. Oh, really? Then why have her creationist colleagues and their allies questioned the faith of those who oppose putting “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards.

10:43 – Rick Agosto opposes Mr. Craig’s amendment. “If it’s not ‘fully understood,’ then I don’t consider that science.”

10:44 – Once again, Mr. Craig has moved that the board retain the language proposed by writing teams in December (without “strengths and weaknesses”) but add to the expectation that students analyze and evaluate scientific explanations: “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

10:46 – Barbara Cargill opposes Mr. Craig’s motion. She says “strengths and weaknesses” language protects the ability of teachers to tell students “weaknesses” of evolution (however phony those “weaknesses” are, apparently). “Darwinists have tried to smother all the challenges … (and) weaknesses of evolution.”

10:52 – Mr. Mercer opposes Mr. Craig’s motion. “What are they afraid of? Why all this national attention over one word, ‘weaknesses’?”

10:54 – McLeroy calls a 10-minute recess.

11:08 – They’re back. Ms. Knight moves to change Mr. Craig’s amendment to read: “fully understand IN ALL FIELD OF SCIENCE.” So the wording would be: “including discussing what is not fully understood in all fields of science.” The board accepts that change without objection. We’re back to Mr. Craig’s motion.

11:12 – Mr. Craig’s motion fails 6-8. We’re back to Mr. Mercer’s original amendment adding back “strengths and weaknesses.”

11:13 – Mr. Mercer’s motion fails 7-7!!!

11;15 – This is huge victory for sound science education in Texas. Moreover, the creationists’ opposition to Mr. Craig’s motion exposed their hypocrisy about wanting to ensure that students can ask questions about science.

Note: Audio from the state board hearing is available here.

4:53 – Lots of conversations among board members between and during the testimony. We haven’t said much yet about the vote coming tomorrow and Friday. Essentially, we’re where we were in January — it will be very close. Chairman McLeroy and other board creationists have been circulating a list of amendments to the standards, nearly all targeting evolution. And they are certain to try again to force “strengths and weaknesses” back into the standards. We also expect efforts by pro-science board members to try to strip out anti-evolution amendments (particularly those challenging the concept of common descent) added in January.

5:18 – Board members are now being allowed to invite specific individuals to testify. It will be interesting to see who board members bring up.

5:25 – Board member Rick Agosto has invited Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education to speak. That’s encouraging. Genie makes it clear what’s at stake. Putting “strengths and weaknesses” back in the standards will give evolution opponents ammunition to demand pseudoscience in the 2011 biology textbooks. Other states will likely rebel against such nonsense. Says Genie: You will have a Texas edition with junk science in it, and the rest of the country will have a different textbook with real science.

5:31 – Dave Welch of the Texas Pastor Council is now speaking. It’s unclear which board member invited him. Welch wants students to be taught challenges to evolution: “Sound science and academic demand full disclosure of this in order to make a sound decision.” Welch accuses opponents of “strengths and weaknesses” of censorship and claims there are scientifically valid “weaknesses” of evolution.

FYI: In February, WorldNetDaily published a piece from Welch headlined “Making a monkey out of Christians.” Money quote:

I assert that any so-called Christian and most emphatically any member of Christian clergy who embraces the deception of Darwinian evolution is no more a Christian than the chimpanzees from which he or she claims to have evolved.

5:38 – Another testifier (we missed the name) suggests that “fervent dogmatists” who support the science of evolution are “religious fundamentalists” themselves. (Update: We think this is a gentleman named Don Patton.)

5:45 – Patton says the fossil record is really just a bunch of clams: “Clams, clams and more clams.” His point, apparently, is that evolution is supported mostly by the fossil record and that the fossil record is insufficient.

5:50 – Prof. Gerald Skoog of Texas Tech is up. Prof. Skoog, who served as an “expert reviewer” of the curriculum standards, presents a letter supporting sound science (and opposing “strengths and weaknesses”) from the National Academy of Sciences.

5:54 – Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Free Market Foundation Focus on the Family Texas is up. He points to a letter from legislators supporting “strengths and weaknesses” and to polling showing that most American are skeptical of evolution

Well, yes. Most Americans are skeptical of a lot of things, but science isn’t decided by popular vote. Moreover, a lot of money has been poured into anti-evolution propaganda. Are we surprised by its effects on public opinion?

5:58 – Sasser suggests that taking “strengths and weaknesses” out of the standards is tantamount to totalitarianism and would put schools at legal risk for barring teachers and students from questioning evolution. This is rubbish.

6:07 – The Dallas Morning News has posted an editorial in tomorrow’s newspaper. Money quote:

The fact is, evolution is not subject to scientific questioning, as McLeroy suggests. If there are ways to present alternative views in a religion class – or, better yet, church – fine. But science class in a public school isn’t that place.

Even many people of faith accept the theory of evolution. Daniel Foster, a professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center and an elder at the First Presbyterian Church of Dallas, exemplified this on yesterday’s Viewpoints page, urging the board to reject amendments that question evolution.

“No” votes to the anti-evolution parts of the standards are doubly important because what happens in Texas doesn’t stay here. Because the state has so many students, textbook publishers write to Texas standards and then sell their books to districts around the nation.

Doubting evolution shouldn’t be Texas’ legacy. More importantly, our students should not be subject to an erroneous line of teaching.

6:10 – The National Center for Science Education has posted a letter signed by 54 scientific and educational societies opposed to dumbing down instruction on evolution.

6:17 – Good heavens. Some evolution opponents have no problem at all distorting what others have written. The dishonesty is appalling. We just heard someone point to a New Scientist article about Darwin’s tree of life as evidence that evolution has weaknesses. Yet this is what New Scientist has to say in an editorial:

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that “New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong”. Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn’t see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science’s giants. In the same way, Darwin’s ideas will prove influential for decades to come.

6:47 – We told you earlier that dueling press conferences (for and against dumbing down instruction in evolution) were interrupted by observers, as happened with this woman:

“My grandfather was not a monkey!” one woman shouted at a crowd before the meeting began.

You can read more about today’s science debate in an Associated Press story that just hit the wire.

6:48 – Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science is up. He is taking the board to the woodshed for refusing to hear from science experts when considering amendments to the standards in January.

6:51 – Testimony has just ended. The board will begin debate on the standards tomorrow, likely around mid-morning. TFN Insider will be live-blogging the debate and keeping you updated on events here.

2:00 – We thought you might want to know a bit about the atmosphere here. The Texas Education Agency lobby was packed with science supporters when we arrived this morning. The litigators from anti-evolution Free Market Foundation Texas affiliate of Focus on the Family had already begun a press conference promoting the “strengths and weaknesses” propaganda. Following that, TFN started its press conference with educators and scientists. We’ve rarely seen so many cameras for a press event at TEA, although it appears that some of the cameras (including ours) were from non-news organizations.

Both press conferences were disrupted by observers. In our case, one observer shouted “my grandfather wasn’t an ape,” or something to that effect. Another chose to pray loudly in an effort to drown out what our speakers were saying. An argument also marred the Focus on the Family press conference.

It’s standing-room-only in the board room itself. In fact, many people are on the floor on the sides and in the back of the room. Numerous reporters — mostly television — are covering the hearing. A number of educators and scientists are in attendance, but it’s clear that creationist organizations — such as Focus and Probe Ministries — have been successful in bringing in evolution opponents.

The hearing is scheduled to go on to at least 6 p.m., but we expect it will stretch a bit beyond that. In any case, however, we don’t expect many people who signed up to speak will be able to do so. It looks like about 125 people have signed up to testify.

2:19 – Please excuse the commercial, but the truth is that we can’t keep up with this important work without the help of supporters of sound science. And the support we are receiving has been very heart-warming. Donations to TFN this week are up and, even better, are being doubled thanks to a Stand Up for Science matching grant from a generous donor. So every dollar gift we receive before Friday is worth two. If you can help: www.tfn.org/challengegrant. And whether or not you can donate, please know that your personal activism on this — by writing letters to the editor, contacting your elected officials, speaking out in support of sound science — is critical for ensuring that Texas kids get a 21st-century science education. Thanks so much for all of your support.

2:45 – The board is back from a break.

2:48 – An evolution opponent criticizes our argument that the board should be listening to science experts. “The people of this state have entrusted you” to make these decisions and not just listen to what the experts say. Actually, we’re fairly certain that Texans would feel more comfortable taking the advice of experts rather than the pseudoscientific arguments of ideologues.

2:51 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar characterizes listening to science experts as bowing to an “oligarchy.”

2:55 – Now creationists are attacking (once again) the TFN Education Fund’s survey of biology and biological anthropology faculty at Texas colleges and universities. The charge is that we have mischaracterized that study by claiming that the survey results apply to all scientists. Untrue. We clearly point out throughout, especially in the introduction (page 4) and the appendix on research methodology (page 17), who we surveyed — biologists and biological anthropologists. As before, we won’t be given an opportunity to respond to these unfounded charges. We’re not surprised.

3:04 – Good heavens. A testifier complains that she was never taught “weaknesses” of evolution in high school. Like what? She brings up “irreducible complexity,” pseudoscientific babble that has been soundly rejected by clear scientific evidence. It’s as if facts and research mean absolutely nothing.

3:39 – Josh Rosenau from the National Center for Science Education is presenting letters and statements signed by representatives of nearly 60 international, national and state science organizations opposed to efforts to dumb down instruction on evolution. That’s a pretty large “oligarchy,” yes?

3:42 – Board member Terri Leo is complaining again that too many people in a row are testifying against “strengths and weaknesses.” “It’s not fair.”

3:47 – Josh: Removing “strengths and weaknesses” from the standards means publishers won’t have to invent “weaknesses” of evolution in order to get their textbooks adopted in Texas.

4:06 – Don McLeroy continues to question, as he has in previous hearings, whether understanding evolution is vital to the study of biology.

4:11 – A bright young man (a high school senior) notes that public opinion research shows support for the science of evolution in the United States is among the lowest for countries in the developed world. He then notes that U.S. achievement scores in science also rate very low. A connection?

4:16 – Kelly “www.christianattorney.com” Coghlan of Houston  is up. Mr. Coghlan is the guy who helped saddle Texas with the so-called “Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act” in 2007. That law requires schools to turn public events into “limited public forums” and essentially allow student speakers to then turn those events into opportunities to pray and evangelize to a captive audience.

4:19 – Taking “strengths and weaknesses” out of the standards will leave schools vulnerable to lawsuits. Really? Not teaching pseudoscience will lead to lawsuits? In what other states has this happened? We heard testimony earlier from the Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute that no other state includes “strengths and weaknesses” in its standards right now. Are those states burdened with lawsuits from folks who want to teach “weaknesses” of evolution?

4:21 – Coghlan wants the standards to keep “strengths and weaknesses”: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, it is broken. The biology textbook adoption in 2003 is Exhibit A. And the board’s creationists have made it clear that they will try to hijack the 2011 biology textbook adoption.

4:23 – Terri Leo claims taking “strengths and weaknesses” out of the standards will lead to lawsuits over treating evolution differently. That’s absurd. All theories would be treated the same. Yet creationists in January passed amendments in January that single out evolution, something the board’s legal counsel warned them not to do. They have, in fact, laid the foundation for a lawsuit, but not the one they think.

4:26 – We think it’s funny that Coghlan blames the ACLU for making this issue so controversial. The ACLU is always the whipping boy for the religious right, even when the ACLU hasn’t done anything. (In fact, Terri Burke at ACLU of Texas testified in November on this issue, the only time we’ve seen ACLU involved. Yet.)

4:28 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar suggests that taking “strengths and weaknesses” out will mean only “strengths” of evolution will be taught, leading to lawsuits.

12:25 – Our press conference ran long, and we were late getting into the hearing. Unfortunately, State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy has rejected a request for a table for us in the board room (as at the last two board meetings). We’re told that’s “too distracting” for board members, although we set up in a far back corner. Frankly, the issue is more likely one of not liking what we’ve been blogging about at past meetings. In any case, we’re here, we’re blogging, get used to it. (We’re so witty.)

12:33 – The board room is overflowing with folks. The creationists are out in force this time, but we still have lots of science supporters (wearing our signature green).

12:37 – A testifier who has worked in the textbook industry is warning the board that what is decided about science in Texas will be taught throughout the country. Indeed.

12:58 – Terri Leo is complaining because two people in a row have testified against “strengths and weaknesses.” She points out witnesses should be alternating, for and against. For Pete’s sake.

1:01 – A scientist is correctly pointing out that “strengths and weaknesses” is being used as a wedge to promote ideological arguments in science classrooms.

1:07 – Now we have a testifier arguing that the board should broaden the definition of science so that it can’t “keep the creationists out.” It really couldn’t be clearer what the agenda is here. Creationism simply science. It’s faith. Public schools have no business deciding whose religious beliefs to teach in science classrooms.

1:10 – Creationist pressure groups are bringing in their big guns. Coming up is Raymond G. Bohlin, president of Richardson (Tex.)-based Probe Ministries. Bohlin is one of the most prominent supporters of “intelligent design”/creationism in the country. Why are the creationists still pretending that their attacks on evolution have nothing to do with trying to promote creationism in science classrooms? The folks testifying for them are revealing that claim to be nothing but a charade.

1:21 – A member of the science curriculum writing teams notes that amendments creationists added to the standards in January are opposed by a team members. Board member Barbara Cargill notes that she got help from the board’s “science experts” in drafting her amendments. Want to guess who? Couldn’t be Stephen Meyer from the anti-evolution Discovery Institute, could it?

1:24 – And now Raymond Bohlin is testifying, arguing about “the limits of biological change.” “You get just so far, and you can’t push it farther.” He argues that “there is no goal in natural selection,” as opposed to “artificial selection,” as when breeders try to eliminate problematic characteristics in something. We have a hard time following him, perhaps because he doesn’t have much time to develop his thought and get to his point. (But we can guess his point.)

1:28 – Terri Leo: Is knowledge of evolution so necessary for scientific research? Bohlin: Not in my research. (He has a doctorate in molecular and cell biology.)

1:32 - Oh, yeah. Bohlin has recently posted a commentary on the Probe Ministries Web site answering the perennial scientific question: “Is Masturbation A Sin?” (Do you really want to know the answer? More to the point, do you doubt what his answer is?) Perhaps he would like the board to add a curriculum standard requiring students to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of masturbation…

1:35 – A pro-science testifier: “Texas can’t afford to be thought of as an educational backwater.”

1:41 – It’s as if scientists have been talking to a brick wall for the past year. We’re still hearing arguments that “weaknesses” of evolution are plentiful in scientific literature. Yet Nobel laureates and other distinguished scientists have repeatedly shown that’s simply not the case. Are they all lying?

1:48 – A representative of the Austin Geological Society presents a letter calling on the board to support “honest and credible” science and is strongly supportive of teaching about evolution and in opposition to the “strengths and weaknesses” propaganda.

1:56 – TFN sent out the following press release after our 11:30 press conference before the board hearing.

AUSTIN – As the State Board of Education prepares for a decisive vote on science curriculum standards this week, nearly 60 international, national and state science organizations have signed statements opposed to dumbing down instruction on evolution in Texas public schools.

“What’s happening in Texas is clearly ringing alarm bells across the country,” said Lawrence Krauss, director of the Origins Institute and a professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. “Most parents know that a sound science education will help their kids succeed in college and the jobs of the 21^stcentury. The children of Texas deserve that, and the state shouldn’t have to deal with the legal challenges that are likely to result from the board promoting ideology over sound science.”

(more…)