| |
AUSTIN — After feuding for months over how to
teach school children to read, the State Board of Education soon
will shift to a topic that could become much more controversial
— the science curriculum.
Science, after all, involves biology. And biology is built on
the theory of evolution, raising fears among some observers that
social conservatives on the 15-member panel will try to shade
textbooks with religion.
“The issue is ... whether or not creationism will be taught
alongside evolution as science, which will absolutely undermine
our kids' science education and their ability to compete for the
best colleges and jobs of the 21st century,” said Kathy Miller,
president of the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based
organization that advocates religious freedom and individual
liberties.
Those fears amount to hogwash, says board Vice Chairman David
Bradley, R-Beaumont.
“I hate to take the air out of their balloon. They're going to
be very disappointed if they come for a fight,” said Bradley, a
leader among the board's social conservatives. “The only thing
that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy.”
It's been 11 years since the state of Texas last updated
standards for the science curriculum for its public schools.
Things change. Pluto, for example, lost its status as a planet
two years ago, but students in Texas still see it listed in
textbooks as one of nine planets in the Earth's solar system.
“So that changes how we look at the solar system and how we
teach students about the characterization of planets,” said
Anita Givens, a deputy associate commissioner at the Texas
Education Agency.
The State Board of Education recently finished a three-year
rewrite of standards for the English language arts and reading
curriculum. Some called the process tortured, with revisions
slipped under members' hotel room doors in the early morning
hours just before a final, 9-6 board vote.
Bradley and the board majority faulted English teachers for
forcing too much of their own ideas into a proposal the board
had tentatively approved two months earlier. That's why board
members had to salvage a final document with a last-hour cut and
paste job, he said.
“I don't think this will happen again because they got spanked,”
Bradley said. “Science teachers should work with the board on
their process and not try to do an end run around this elected
body and steal the process.”
English and reading educators vigorously deny hijacking the
process, saying the curriculum facilitator hired by the board
decided to use a teacher work group's revised the document.
David Hillis, a distinguished biology professor at the
University of Texas at Austin, predicted some board members
would try to “replace real science with religious instruction.”
He warned that the “intelligent design” theory preferred by
evolution skeptics, which holds that living things are too
complex to be the result of natural selection, has no scientific
support or basis.
“We should rely on scientists to establish the science
standards, not non-experts with a particular religious or
political agenda to promote,” Hillis said.
Board members say it's unlikely that intelligent design will
even be considered. Bradley said a fight pitting evolution
against creationism simply will not materialize.
“It's all going to be in the Texas anti-Freedom Network's mind.
They are working themselves into a frenzy,” he said.
More likely is a fight over whether to keep an existing
requirement that teachers present both the strengths and
weaknesses of scientific theories, including evolution.
Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said that standard is clear and worth
keeping.
“We want our children to be able to think and understand the
strengths and weaknesses of any theory. Some ultra-radical
groups have not evolved to the point where they realize that the
‘theory of Evolution' is just that — a theory,” Mercer said.
“Any real scientist understands there are major weaknesses in
evolution,” said Mercer, who has a degree in biology from the
University of Texas at Austin. “If we truly believe in
intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses.”
Bradley said he doesn't foresee any successful effort to remove
the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement from the science
standards.
“There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been
proven wrong,” he said. “Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a
theory and, as such, cannot be proven. Students need to be able
to jump to their own conclusions.”
It may sound like a good idea to require teachers to point out
the weaknesses of scientific theories, but Hillis contends that
when it comes to evolution, “its main purpose is to introduce
religious ideas and anti-science ideas into the science
classroom.”
“The fact that biological populations evolve is not in
question,” he said. “Evolution is an easily observable
phenomenon, and has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt.
The ‘theory' part of evolutionary theory concerns the
experiments, observations, and models that explain how
populations evolve.”
“At this level of introductory instruction, it is ludicrous to
think about teaching what some people disingenuously call
‘weaknesses.'” Hillis said. “We teach what is known and has been
supported by a huge body of scientific research.”
|
|
