Don McLeroy–no longer head of the SBOE

It’s a sad day in Texas.

No, wait…I’m sure it’s a sad day somewhere, but not in Texas.

On Thursday, the reappointment of Don McLeroy as head of the state board of education was blocked by Democrats of the state senate.  You may recall that McLeroy is one of the creationists on the board and has given science education a difficult time by supporting “strengths and weaknesses” and “academic freedom” movements. 

Now, don’t go crazy rejoicing just yet.  He is still a member of the board. 

It’s not often that I agree with Democrats (I realize that may shock some of you, being that at least on this one issue I do agree with them more often than the more conservative of the political arena), but I think Kirk Watson, a Democrat of Austin, summed it up nicely here:

“People have a right to be confident that the State Board of Education is putting the interests of our children above ideology, politics and everything else, including the so-called good fight.  Whether they agree with McLeroy or not, Texans simply cannot have faith in this board when it is led by a man who has so enthusiastically embraced his role in these endless culture wars.”

As a Christian, there are many things that I have a firm personal opinion on.  However, I don’t always think that those things are of the utmost importance in the political sphere, and I don’t always agree with people forcing such issues simply because they are Christian.

But I digress.  Governor Rick Perry now has the responsibility of naming someone else as chairman of the board.  Since he fully supported McLeroy, it won’t surprise me if he simply nominates another creationist on the board.  Only time will tell.

To read more about this, visit the Houston Chronicle’s article here.

The latest on the Texas science standards

For live blogging updates on the current debates over the Texas science standards, visit the blog of the Texas Freedom Network here.

Creationists in Texas attack the Earth and Space Science standards

As if the foolishness surrounding the biology TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) wasn’t enough, the proposed standards for the Earth and Space Science course are under attack as well. 

Steven Schafersman has reported on this issue at his blog on the Houston Chronicle’s website here.

Victory in Texas for Science? Not quite…

Earlier this week the Texas state board of education agreed to strike the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” from the current science standards.  This move was cheered and celebrated by many scientists and teachers all over the state. 

However, on Friday, January 23, the state board looked at the issue again and decided that students should have to evaluate a variety of fossil types and assess the arguments against universal common descent.

On one hand, I feel like saying…ok!  Send me some fossils so I can teach that (hey, I’d love to have more fossils for free in my class).  But of course, it wouldn’t work like that if this proposal gets passed. 

This proposal is completely unscientific and is in the same spirit as the “strengths and weaknesses” clause that was struck down.  What is even more amazing to me, personally, is that at least before this creationists/intelligent designer proponents could make the argument that they weren’t singling out evolution–they wanted to teach the strengths and weaknesses of ALL theories (which of course for the most part wasn’t true, but they could still make that argument).  This new proposal is blatantly singling out evolution. 

Not surprisingly, chairman Don McLeroy, a self-proclaimed creationist, also added the following:

Also added to the proposed standards by board Chairman Don McLeroy, R-Bryan, is an amendment that directs science teachers and students to “describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Board member Barbara Cargill had a lot to say as well.  Recall that I recently contacted Ms. Cargill asking her to explain some of her recent comments in an editorial from a Texas newspaper.  She has never responded.

One board member who pushed for the change said that fossil records create scientific evidence against universal common descent — and students should be allowed to study the possibility.

“There are many, many gaps that don’t link species changing and evolving into another species, so we want our students to get all of the science, and we want them to have great, open discussions and learning to respect each other’s opinions,” said Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, a former science teacher.

She scoffed at claims that social conservatives on the 15-member board were just trying to find another way to expose students to creationism — the belief that life, Earth and the universe were created by a supreme being.

“This isn’t about religion. I don’t know how many times we have to say it before people accept it,” she said. “It’s about science. We want to stick to the science.”

As usual, Ms. Cargill seems to assume that teachers who WANT  to teach evolution properly are trying to censor their students’ thoughts and opinions.  Of course a good teacher wants students to be able to ask questions and respect others’ opinions.  However, this move is certainly about religion.  It’s not about science, because what these board members are proposing to teach students isn’t backed by the scientific community.

There is still hope, however.  The board will not take a final vote on these newly proposed science standards until March. 

You can read more about the issue here.

Take action to support science in Texas!

From the Texas Freedom Network:

This Wednesday the State Board of Education will hear public testimony on proposed science curriculum standards. The new draft standards reject efforts by creationists to undermine instruction on evolution. They also make it clear that supernatural explanations like creationism/”intelligent design” have no place in public school science classes. But creationists who control the state board are insisting that the standards require students to learn phony “weaknesses” of evolution. They want to force publishers to include those bogus arguments in new biology textbooks.

Take Action!

Help us turn back efforts to sabotage the education of Texas schoolchildren by standing up for science this week!

• Click here to sign up to testify before the State Board of Education IN SUPPORT OF THE DRAFT STANDARDS at the public hearing on Wednesday. The board will hear only four hours of testimony. But even if you don’t get a chance to speak, adding your name in support of the draft standards is very important. Also, supporters of the draft standards will WEAR GREEN at the hearing to show their support for a sound science education.
• Tell your state board member that you SUPPORT the draft science standards and OPPOSE efforts to water down the curriculum by opening the door to phony attacks against evolution. Click here to find the name and contact information for your State Board of Education member. Once you have the name of your board member, you can also click here to send an e-mail to him or her in care of the Texas Education Agency.
• Donate to the Texas Freedom Networks’ Stand Up for Science campaign. Your contribution will help ensure that the next generation of Texas schoolchildren gets a 21st-century science education that helps them succeed in college and the jobs of the future.

 

Let them learn science!

This is the cry of a new website entitled “Teach Them Science“.  The site does a nice job of explaining exactly why Texas’ science curriculum is important and how it impacts the entire country.  Visit the site to learn how Texas decides what teachers teach and to see how you can get involved.

Darwin 2009–Houston!

Several institutions in Houston are participating in an event called “Darwin 2009”.  Participating institutions are working together to offer events related to natural selection, evolution, and genetics.  The activities take place during 2009, which marks the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of “On The Origin of Species”.

A few events of interest:

• 2/7/09–Darwin Day at the Houston Museum of Natural Science
• 2/11/09–Politics of Teaching Evolution in Texas (panel discussion)
• 2/24/09–Lecture by Francisco Ayala
• And much more!

Visit http://www.darwin2009houston.org/ for more information!

Airtightnoodle–conspiracy theorist extraordinaire!

Recently I’ve been accused of being a conspiracy theorist and a member of some sort of special interest group.  I’m not really sure what group that would be, but nevertheless, Michael from “New Discoveries and Comments About Creationism” affirms it.  I hope Michael can let me know what group that is, because I probably owe them some membership dues…

Basically, Michael seems to feel that I am picking on Don McLeroy, chair of the Texas state board of education, for no good reason.  So…to find out why I am concerned over the state board…read on!

The first part of Michael’s post (linked to above)  relates to Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch, the NCSE, and Bobby Jindal.  Of Eugenie Scott, Michael states:

Eugenie Scott is the same woman who appeared in a movie where she advocates ruining careers if anyone dares to question Darwinism. She makes up stories, trying to demonize creationists and intelligent design proponents.

Now, I’m going to be honest.  I don’t know much about Eugenie Scott.  I don’t even regularly track what the NCSE is doing (sorry if that disappoints some of you).  I don’t know anything about her appearing in a movie advocating ruining the careers of those that question “Darwinism”.   (By the way, is this a reference to “Expelled”?  I have yet to see it, as I didn’t want to pay money at a theater to view it.)  Somehow, though, Michael seems to feel I am a lot like her, because later in his post he takes a few stabs at me:

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever in it’s 10 year history in Texas and I have even confronted a Texas science teacher over this issue. Granted she takes her teaching seriously, and wants the best for her students. But she is wrong on a number of issues including this one, because she believes in special interests like the NCSE.

First, I do thank Michael for recognizing the fact that I truly do want the best for my students.  However, I’m not a member of the NCSE, I don’t follow the NCSE much as stated above, I strongly disagree with several well-known members of the NCSE on several issues, I’ve never donated to the NCSE, and so on. 

Next Michael stated:

Her response or lack thereof wasn’t surprising concerning because she can’t even find a notion that she believes is a real example of her concerns to even agree or disagree with, but she will write mainly about personal beliefs like the blogger whom I quoted, undermine people’s character who are creationists or ID proponents in such places like the school board and about so-called errors by creationists. To me, she is just as bad as Eugenie Scott!

Apparently Michael was miffed that I didn’t respond to a comment he had made at one of my posts, as linked to in the above paragraph.  Other than that, there isn’t a lot about this paragraph of his that makes much sense to me.  As I told Michael at his own blog, I simply didn’t think there was anything in his post that required a response.  In fact, I even agreed with some of what he said.  I asked Michael at his own blog to please tell me what he wanted me to respond to.  There were a few posts back and forth between Michael and myself, but he clarified what he wanted me to answer, so here are my responses.

Michael stated:

Mr. Mcleroy from your home state of Texas has been a target for special interests including yourself. There has been nothing as far as solid evidence that he had pushed creationism or intelligent design in the public schools.

Though McLeroy has stated on occasion that he will not push for intelligent design to be taught in school, his actions often say otherwise.  For instance, back when McLeroy was first appointed as the chairman of the state board of education, an article from the Dallas News reported the following on McLeroy:

“One of four board members who voted against current high school biology books because of their failure to list weaknesses in the theory of evolution.”

“…in 2003, Dr. McLeroy was one of four board members who voted against proposed high school biology textbooks because he felt their coverage of evolution was “too dogmatic” and did not include possible flaws in Charles Darwin’s theory of how life on Earth evolved from lower forms.”

McLeroy has stated that he won’t push for creationism or intelligent design to be taught in schools, yet he told his home church congregation in College Station to “keep chipping away at the objective empirical evidence”.  He also seemed to encourage young people to “take on” evolutionists by stating the following: “But it’s the young people, talented young people, that be able to rise to the intellectual level it takes to take on the future talented naturalists that will be on the scene.”

Again, though he has said often that he doesn’t want intelligent design or creationism as part of the standards, the Texas Insider reported the following:

Mr. McLeroy and others say they’ll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

McLeroy believes there are weaknesses because he doesn’t “believe” in evolution.  He is a self-proclaimed creationist.  He can continue making the claim that this debate is about teaching “good science”, but the truth is that he is religiously motivated to have the “strengths and weaknesses” wording as part of the Texas science standards.  One only needs to look into what he has preached at his own home church and check out his own personal website to see that this is the case.

Furthermore, it is not surprising that McLeroy continues to state that he does not support teaching creationism or intelligent design.  He is following the wedge strategy and has basically even stated so (again, from the address to his church in College Station):

So what do we do about our Bible in the intelligent design movement? According to Johnson [reference to Phillip Johnson, author of “Darwin on Trial”], the first thing to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion.

Michael asked:

“Why are you concerned about the survey anyway? What has he done on the job to prompt you to track what he believes in?”

McLeroy, along with other board members, have pushed for textbooks to be adopted that are critical of evolutionary theory.  That’s a red flag that deserves “tracking”, to use Michael’s own wording.  Regardless of whether there were any evidence of McLeroy wanting creationism taught in schools, his personal beliefs DO matter.  The personal beliefs of ANY person involved in politics matter.  Isn’t this largely what we base our votes on for any position?  (By personal beliefs, I am referring to the ones that are related in some way to his job.  It’s not as if I’m interested in his personal beliefs about taking milk or honey in his tea.)  McLeroy’s beliefs do matter because they have the potential to affect how he does his job, and thus the education of the students of our great state.   

Speaking of which, the duties of the state board include the following:

• As part of its efforts to provide the best possible education to public school students, the Board designates and mandates instruction in the knowledge and skills that are essential to a well-balanced curriculum. The Board approves and determines passing scores for the state-mandated assessment program.

And, some of the duties of the chair of the state board (for those that are curious) are as follows:

• The chair shall preside at all meetings and perform all other duties prescribed by law, by board rule, or by board direction.
• The Committee of the Full Board shall be composed of all members of the board, and the chair of the board shall be the chair of the Committee of the Full Board.
• Ad hoc committees. Ad hoc committees (i.e., task forces) shall be constituted from time to time as directed by the board or by the chair to perform such duties as the board or chair may assign. The personnel and length of service of ad hoc committees shall be designated by the chair unless otherwise directed by the board. No action taken by any ad hoc committee shall be final or binding upon the board unless otherwise directed by the board.
• Special meetings of the board may be held at times and places as ordered by the chair during a regular meeting, or special meetings may be called by the chair of the board to be held at a time and place the chair shall designate.

Michael then stated:

“Isn’t it true that what you are engaging in which I think is trivial, is all about your concern over how evolution will be taught?”

Yes, of course I’m concerned over how evolution will be taught.  I’m a science teacher.  Why should this come as a surprise?

“The 1990s was suppose to be a break through decade. Genomes from diverse organisms would be collected, sequenced and compared. Through this research up until now, this data was suppose to reveal answers to a lot of questions concerning the Phylogenetic tree. It hasn’t.”

It has, but in true scientific fashion, it has also opened the door to new questions and new roads of discovery.  That’s not a flaw of the scientific method; that’s one of the things that makes it great.

“But when teaching stuff like this, you make sound like there is so much evidence. You certainly wouldn’t teach it as a weakness in evolution, now would you?”

I’m assuming by “it” Michael is referring to genomic research, which he spoke of just prior to this question.  No, I probably would not teach it as a weakness.  I probably wouldn’t teach it as a strength.  I would just teach it (because technically, there are no such things as weaknesses in scientific theories).  Regarding strengths and weaknesses, Michael (and others) might be interested in reading my post directed to Barbara Cargill asking how one is supposed to cover “strengths and weaknesses” of theories.

“One can get an idea of what you believe in considering you have public writings on the internet and the writings of others. I thank you for your reply.”

Yes, indeed, one can learn a lot about someone through their writing.  Yet Michael’s arrogant assumption that he knows what I believe is amusing to me.  What I find hysterical, honestly, is that other than evolution, I probably have much in common with many of the people I debate over intelligent design/creationism/evolution.  My beliefs and opinions don’t categorize me very neatly into any one “box”…hmm, or maybe I’m just one very confused individual.  😉

Barbara Cargill’s recent comments on evolution and “strengths and weaknesses”

Barbara Cargill

Barbara Cargill, the district 8 representative of the Texas State Board of Education, recently wrote an article addressing the controversy over Texas’ science education standards and the “strengths and weaknesses” language.  You may find her article in its entirety here.  Below I have commented on some of Ms. Cargill’s points.

“The State Board of Education began discussing our state’s science curriculum standards in November.  We listened to over 90 testifiers, and the vast majority supported teaching all of evolutionary theory as fact with no reference to its scientific weaknesses.”

As I have stated on this blog before, if evolutionary theory is going to  be judged by such standards, then much of science should be suffering under the same scrutiny.  No scientific theory is ever going to be proven to be 100% true.  No theory is safe from criticism and peer review.  That does not mean that well-tested theories should not be treated as fact.  That’s the beauty of the scientific method–which, many scientists will agree, HAS shown evolution to be true beyond “reasonable doubt”.

The current requirement states that students are expected to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”  This is a good standard that has served our teachers and students well for many years.

I would personally like to know how this is a good standard that has served the state well.  This clause is certainly put into the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) specifically for ideas that some people find troubling or controversial.  I have never heard of anyone spending time in class having their students evaluate the weaknesses of cell theory, the germ theory of disease, thermodynamics, and so on.  A good science teacher will of course discuss how parts of any of these theories have changed over time and might touch on any controversies related to the topic.  Yet this is something that is covered by the TEKS already–both the current TEKS and the newly proposed TEKS. 

For example, both the proposed TEKS  and the current TEKS state:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cargill goes on to state:

Proponents of Darwinian evolution say that the theory has no weaknesses.  However 700+ reputable scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” question major tenets of evolution.  They state, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”  In The Origin of Species, Darwin himself wrote, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

To say that proponents of “Darwinian evolution” claim the theory has no weaknesses is misleading.  Scientists realize that theories are subject to change.  This tenet of science is included in the state’s science standards, as mentioned above.  Furthermore, 700+ scientists signing a petition does not mean a whole lot, unfortunately, unless one questions each scientist as to where their dissent lies.  This is, in fact, one of the common criticisms of this petition. Further criticisms include the fact that the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent, some people may have been misled when signing the petition, and that the wording of the original document was in itself misleading.

For example, when evidence for universal common ancestry in the fossil record is taught (i.e. scientific strength), then the contradictory evidence showing the huge gaps of missing transitional fossils in the record must also be presented (i.e. scientific weakness).  We must educate our students — not indoctrinate them by letting them hear only one side of an issue. 

If this is how Ms. Cargill expects teachers to teach the strengths and weaknesses, then I would also like to see how she proposes handling the strengths and weaknesses of other biological theories, like the germ theory of disease.  I am very serious.  As a teacher who wants to make sure I am covering the TEKS properly, I would like to see some examples of how to teach strengths and weaknesses of the other theories I am required to teach my students.  I would love to see Ms. Cargill’s ideas. 

Also, should a teacher mention the strength (the fossil record), and then a potential weakness (gaps in the fossil record), but then go back to another strength (teaching about all the transitional fossils that have been found)?  Or is that unbalanced and still too one-sided and “indoctrinating”?

How does one decide exactly what is a strength and what is a weakness of a theory?  In some cases it may be obvious, but in others it may simply be in the eye of the beholder.  So where does a teacher turn to make sure they are adequately covering strengths and weaknesses?  Should there be some sort of scientific consensus on which ideas are strengths and which are weaknesses?  But wait…if we turn to scientific consensus, then wouldn’t evolution simply be taught largely as fact anyway?

I would like to note that there is one thing I can certainly agree with Ms. Cargill on:

Presently, Texas’ science standards contain key process skills like analyzing, comparing, gathering information, and drawing conclusions.  Students should practice these skills at each grade level, but too often the tendency is to teach rote memorization of accepted facts.

However, she then continues:

By applying the scientific process, students will be challenged to think “outside the box” and form their own conclusions about topics like common ancestry.  Evolution proponents should not mind if students ask questions; after all, if evolution is the best explanation, then the data should only point to its validity. 

Ms. Cargill is being misleading again here by implying that evolution proponents are scared of their students asking questions about evolution.  Unfortunately, some teachers may certainly be scared or a little intimidated, but this is not due to trying to “cover up” any inaccuracies in evolutionary theory.  It is due to the backlash that might occur from the students, their parents, other teachers, local religious groups, and so on.

Also, note to Ms. Cargill–the data does point to the validity of evolution.

Science is full of mystery and constant discovery.  Headlines such as cloning, DNA testing, and gene mapping are prolific.  Science classrooms are the perfect place to brainstorm about current science events!  With that in mind, how can teachers pick and choose which scientific evidence to teach or ignore?  Teaching students to believe that evolution indisputably holds the answers to life’s big questions undermines the very essence of scientific inquiry.

Good question, Ms. Cargill.  How can teachers pick and choose which evidence to teach or ignore?  Unfortunately, Ms. Cargill did not really address the question herself.

Tony Whitson has also commented on this article at Curricublog.

*Update

I’ve commented on the Texas Insider site where Ms. Cargill’s article is published asking her to please address my post and also sent Ms. Cargill the following email:

Ms. Cargill,
 
I recently read your article from the Texas Insider regarding the latest on the evolution/creationism/intelligent design debates.  I have posted some comments on my blog in reference to this article and welcome you to look at it and respond. 
 
The address is located here:
 
https://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/barbara-cargills-recent-comments-on-evolution-and-strengths-and-weaknesses/
 
I hope you are able to address some of my questions.
 
Merry Christmas!
 
Airtightnoodle

Hopefully she will be able to address some of the above.

*And yet another update!

Jeremy from An Evolving Creation linked to this post (thanks, Jeremy!) and added some extra food for thought:

What Cargill failed to mention is that the signatories of that statement are expressing their skepticism about “the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” The statement does not address common ancestry. In fact, several of the signatories have publicly stated that they have no problem with the fact of common ancestry.

Controversy over at TFN and a brief conversation with Don McLeroy

As mentioned previously, the Texas Freedom Network and Tony Whitson of Curricublog have pointed out the seemingly contradictory statements of certain board members regarding their views on teaching evolution.  Anyone following the conversation at the Texas Freedom Network over the Texas board of education’s views on teaching creationism and intelligent design has surely noted the controversy in the comments.  One of the more pertinent questions raised by Larry Farfarman was basically thus:

How did the voter’s guide phrase the questions to candidates?

For instance, as Larry Farfarman stated over at TFN:

How do you know that the term “CREATIONISM” was included in the questionnaire that was sent to the candidates? How do you know that “CREATIONISM” was not just a title that was added afterwards to the question when the responses were published in the voter guide? You don’t know.

So…after much back and forth, I decided to ask the Free Market Foundation, who publishes the voter’s guides in question, myself.  I sent them the following email on December 7, 2008:

Hello.  I browsed through your voter’s guide for 2008 before the election this year and had a question about how the voter’s guide is created.  At the top of the voter’s guide there are summaries of the questions that were asked to candidates.  For example, for Sexual Orientation it said: Add a law protecting students from sexual orientation discrimination.
 
Is this exactly how the question was phrased to the candidates, or did the questions they received look or sound different in any way?  This would be helpful to know in the future.  Thank you!

Tonya Peterson from the Free Market Foundation responded quickly and concisely stating:

Hi,
 
These are the exact wording the candidates received. They answered on the scale from strongly for to strongly against.
 
I hope this answered your question.

Many thanks to Tonya for a speedy reply.

Now, I could have stopped there, but since I was already online at the time (which is rare at home these days), I decided to investigate just a wee bit further.  I emailed Don McLeroy, the head of our state board of education.

Here is the text of my email to Mr. McLeroy (also sent on December 7, 2008):

Mr. Mcleroy,
 
As a Texas citizen, I am concerned about the future of science education in our great state.  Recently you made the statement that you are unaware of any board member (referring to the state board of education) that advocates or has ever advocated teaching creationism, intelligent design, or supernatural explanations in the science classroom. 
 
Yet when perusing old news articles and more, it seems that you do support, or have supported creationism and intelligent design.
 
The 2006 Voter’s Guide from the Free Market Foundation stated that you support teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.  You were not the only board member to respond in such a manner.
The 2002 Voter’s Guide also showed that you supported teaching intelligent design and not just evolution.  Again, you were not the only board member to respond this way.
 
Can you please clarify?  Do you, or do you not, support teaching intelligent design and/or creationism alongside evolution in Texas science classrooms?
 
Thank you very much for your time.

Mr. McLeroy also replied promptly stating the following:

Airtight: Good question. I had forgotten about those voter guides when I made my statement. My mistake. It is true, however, that I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to. Voter guides leave little wiggle room sometimes; they will put you in a box and you have to choose which box in which best represents your views.

While I am unsure how Mr. Mcleroy can claim that he has never wanted to teach creationism or intelligent design despite what he acknowledges answering in the voter’s guides, I do thank him for a speedy reply.  I am not sure what position Mr. McLeroy does have that prompted him to answer in such a manner, even if he does not really feel that way.  Plus, as one can tell by viewing old voter’s guides from the Free Market Foundation, candidates do have the opportunity to expand on their views or to decline answering certain questions.  They can also explain why they are declining to answer certain questions. 

Related links you may be interested in:

Don McLeroy Jenkins

Creationist Evolution in Texas from The Panda’s Thumb