Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design science education

Breaking: Texas science standards survive the mother of all gravy bombs

Spread the love

For now. From Texas Education Agency:

The board changed biology standard (4)(A) from “compare and contrast prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells and evaluate scientific explanation for their complexity;” as approved on first reading to:

“compare and contrast prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, including their complexity, and compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity.”

The board also changed biology standard (6)(A), which, as approved on first reading, read: “identify components of DNA, describe how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA, and evaluate scientific explanations for the origin of DNA;”

As approved Friday, it now reads “identify components of DNA, identify how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA, and examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA.”

“It was clear from testifiers that many who had varied concerns found the compromise language chosen by the board to be acceptable, addressing both the need to streamline content while still encouraging critical thinking by students,” SBOE Chair Donna Bahorich said. More.

Maybe the Darwin-in-the-schools’ lobby’s gravy train entitle-ees can still sue.

A friend interprets:

The Texas State Board of Education, not only kept all of the previous evolution challenging standards of 2009, but made them clearer and stronger.

The new standards have the students “compare and contrast prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, including their complexity, and compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity,” “examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA,” and “examine scientific explanations of abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record.”

In other words, the standards will reflect what we can read elsewhere today in the science news.

Anyone who has been reading either Uncommon Descent over the last few years or any work by science writer Suzan Mazur, starting with The Altenberg 16 (2009)—to name just two unrelated sources—knows that new information has created many new questions and attempted answers about patterns and mechanisms in evolution. And more of both are certain to follow.

As evolution becomes more of a history and less of a culture story, the ability to evaluate alternative science-based explanations is becoming more necessary. And it’s a highly transportable skill, as well.

Also from friend:

As a reminder, Science reported back in April 2009 “New science standards for Texas school struck a major blow to the teaching of evolution…” These 2017 standards strike and even bigger blow!

Ain’t seen nothin’ yet guys, and by the way, the genome mappers did this to you, not the creationists.

See also: Texas: The icons of evolution are STILL on welfare after all these years?

and

What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “Breaking: Texas science standards survive the mother of all gravy bombs

  1. 1
    jstanley01 says:

    How about allowing qualified science teachers to teach whatever they like? If they’re reductionists, fine, if they’re ID adherents, fine. Top down mandates are what is ruining science education.

    The failure of schools at all levels to instill critical thinking skills in their students is the biggest education scandal of the last fifty years. Instead of producing educated citizens, they’re cranking out politically-correct drones. And the higher up the academic ladder the inmates of the system go, the more brain dead they become.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    May I ask, how is science defined, and how are its methods, strengths and limitations characterised?

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    jstanley01 @ 1

    How about allowing qualified science teachers to teach whatever they like? If they’re reductionists, fine, if they’re ID adherents, fine

    So if the teacher wanted to teach astrology or that the Earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism that would be fine? Just what counts as science, then, if the teacher can teach whatever they believe?

Leave a Reply