From the 21st Century Science Coalition:
Dear Colleagues,Click through for more information on how to contact the Texas State Board of Education.
The Texas State Board of Education is considering several changes to
the state science curriculum that will undermine effective coverage
of evolution in high-school biology classes. Proposed anti-evolution
language will also put pressure on textbook publishers to
incorporate creationist criticisms of evolution or else risk being
excluded from the monolithic Texas textbook market.
The board members are receiving thousands of emails from
creationists supporting the current curriculum draft. To keep
scientifically unfounded arguments out of our schools' biology
classes, we need help from each and every one of you. Please email
the 15 members of the State Board and urge them to
(1) adopt the scientifically sound curriculum standards drafted by a
working group of teachers and scientists in December, and
(2) reject amendments to these standards that have been proposed by
anti-evolution members of the State Board of Education.
Below, we provide instructions on how to contact State Board of
Education members. Although we include a form letter below, we
encourage you to personalize the email. Below, we also provide a
succinct explanation of the current status of curriculum revision in
Texas.
Sincerely,
The 21st Century Science Coalition (www.texasscientists.org)
Dr. D.I. Bolnick University of Texas at Austin
Dr. R.E. Duhrkopf Baylor University
Dr. D. Hillis University of Texas at Austin
Dr. B. Pierce Southwestern University
Dr. S. Sarkar University of Texas at Austin
PS If you know of colleagues who have not yet signed the 21st
Century Science Coalition statement, please forward them this e-mail
or direct them to www.texasscientists.org.
What you can do to help
Please email members of the State Board Of Education, encouraging
them to adopt the original draft of the standards proposed by
working groups in December.
You can email the entire SBOE directly at sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us.
Here is a template for an email to the SBOE (we encourage you to
personalize this):
To the Texas State Board of Education,
As a scientist and active researcher and educator, I am writing to
urge you to support sound science education in Texas. In particular,
I request that you adopt the Biology and Earth Sciences TEKS draft
as originally proposed by the Working Groups. These working groups
are composed of educators and scientists with deep expertise in
science, and their proposed TEKS drafts should be given unreserved
support without amendment.
In particular, I object to the recent changes made to the highschool
TEKS (subchapter C) section 112.34 (c) 7.B: "analyze and evaluate
the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the
sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the
fossil record;" This language inaccurately insinuates that the
fossil record supports long-standing creationist arguments that
existing species were created as they exist today. The present
wording is misleading. I also object to changes to section 112.36
(c) 8.A, which now read: "evaluate a variety of fossil types,
proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant
fossil deposits and assess the arguments for and against universal
common descent in light of this fossil evidence" ; Transitional
fossils are not "proposed" - they are clearly documented based on
detailed anatomical measurements. Also, the phrase "arguments for
and against universal common descent" is a common creationist phrase
that inaccurately suggests that there is credible scientific data
arguing against common ancestry.
In conclusion, please revert to the original working group version
of the science TEKS, and resist additional changes that are not
approved by the working groups of scientists and educators.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR QUALIFICATIONS
YOUR AFFILIATION/POSITION
_______________
Some suggestions for emailing the SBOE
1. You can specify in your email to sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us that
you wish your message to reach particular SBOE members. It may help
if you take advantage of this and vary your tone depending on which
members you are writing to. For instance, the Science Supporters
[Bob Craig; Mary Helen Berlanga; Pat Hardy; Rene Nunez; Mavis
Knight] cast difficult votes to support evolution in the TEKS, and
are being hammered by angry emails from creationists. When emailing
these members, please be sure to thank these five for their
consistent support of the science standards AS WRITTEN BY THE
WORKING GROUPS, and urge them to continue to oppose amendments to
the standards or efforts to revert to problematic language that
would weaken science education in Texas. Be supportive rather than
critical. This also holds for the swing voters Rick Agosto; Lawrence
Allen; Geraldine Miller - who voted for good evolution standards in
the first round of voting. We don't want to antagonize them.
However, the swing voters may require more detailed explanations to
convince them.
2. If you personalize your email, keep in mind that best message is
that sound science standards are needed to ensure that Texas
schoolchildren get a 21st century science education, not an
education based on ideology and the personal beliefs of some board
members. The board members should stick to the draft proposed by the
working groups.
3. The seven-member pro-creationist bloc: Barbara Cargill, Cynthia
Dunbar, Don McLeroy , Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, Terri Leo, David
Bradley. These 7 are unlikely to listen to reason. If you want to
write them anyway, you might want to look at the creationist website
for the Explore Evolution textbook, or visit the pro-science website http://www.teachthemscience.org/ee
to see some examples of common creationist claims and counter-
arguments. Claims made in "Explore Evolution" are routinely cited by
these creationist board members. If you feel really motivated, maybe
pick one favorite creationist argument (e.g., the lack of
transitional fossils, the Cambrian Explosion, fabrication of
Haekel's embryological drawings, Piltdown Man, separation of micro-
versus macro-evolution, etc.) and show why it does not disprove
evolution. Specific citations to peer-reviewed research (or better
yet, pdfs of research papers, or figures presenting data
illustrating evolution) might make an impression.
______________________
What else can you do to help out?
1. Forward this email to friends and colleagues, in Texas and beyond.
2. Sign up to testify at the March 25 SBOE hearing in Austin,
Texas . For more information about signing up to testify, please
visit: www.teachthemscience.org/texas or www.tfn.org. These sites
will post information once it is clear what you need to do sign up.
3. If you are a scientist within the state of Texas:
a) join the list of scientists supporting good evolution education,
by signing the petition at the 21st Century Science Coalition (www.texasscientists.org
). If you signed previously and do not see your name, please email danbolnick@mail.utexas.edu
.
b) remember to vote in SBOE elections and encourage friends to do
likewise.
c) Write Op-Ed essays for your local newspapers.
4. Join the National Center for Science Education, or the Texas
Freedom Network.
For more information, visit:
Teach Them Science
21st Century Science Coalition
Texas Freedom Network
Texas Citizens for Science
______________________
History and current status of the curriculum revisions
The State Board of Education (SBOE) is currently revising the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. These standards
dictate what students are supposed to be taught in K-12 science
classrooms, what can be on standardized state tests, and what
textbooks will have to include to be considered for adoption.
A proposed draft of the new TEKS standards was produced in late fall
2008 by a working group of highly qualified teachers and scientists.
The draft was rigorous and effectively reflected the views of
scientists and educators. Of particular note, the draft changed
standard 3(A) from its previous 20-year-old version:
(3) The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem
solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including
hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using
scientific evidence and information;
to a new wording:
(3) The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning and
problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the
classroom. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical
evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational
testing;
We prefer the new wording because it more closely reflects the
process of evaluating scientific data. Furthermore, 'weaknesses' is
often used by anti-evolutionists to refer to repeatedly refuted
claims about the incomplete fossil record, sudden appearance of
species, irreducible complexity, which are meant to imply that
evolution has not happened at all. In particular, there was concern
that the 'weaknesses' language would be used by the SBOE to approve
a creationist biology textbook aimed at high school students,
"Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism."
On January 22, 2009, the SBOE heard testimony about the revised
standards. Many local creationists attended and testified that the
'weaknesses' language should be reintroduced. To our relief, the
SBOE ultimately voted 8-7 in favor of the working group's draft,
rejecting an amendment to reintroduce language about "weaknesses" of
evolution.
Unfortunately, after the testimony was over, creationists -
including board chairman Don McLeroy -- proposed additional
amendments. Because the SBOE heard no testimony, the normally pro-
science board members did not have enough information to judge
whether the amendments were sound and voted for them. Therefore, the
current draft of the TEKS contains objectionable and creationist-
inspired wording (Chairman McLeroy essentially plagiarized from a
creationist website when he introduced his new amendment; see An
Evolving Creation for details).
For much more detailed description and analysis of the history of
the curriculum revisions, please visit Texas Citizens for Science.
Problems with the language in the current TEKS drafts
Two amendments are particularly troubling. One creationist amendment
changed this standard for the Earth and Space Science course:
(8)(A) evaluate a variety of fossil types, transitional fossils,
fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to
their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution;
The amended draft now reads (underlined text represents words added
by the amendment, strike-through text indicates words deleted)
(8)(A) evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional
fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with
regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of
evolution and assess the arguments for and against universal common
descent in light of this fossil evidence;
To explain what is objectionable about these changes, I will quote
selections from a response written by the Earth and Space Science
TEKS Working Group that produced the original draft (complete text
can be found at Texas Citizens for Science):
First, the phrase "with regard to their appearance, completeness,
and rate of diversity of evolution" should not have been removed
since it is essential to the purpose of the standard, which is to
evaluate fossils and their evolution.
Second, the phrase about "arguments for and against universal common
descent" substituted for the struck phase is totally unscientific.
There are no good arguments in modern science "against universal
common descent," which has been accepted by biologists for over 130
years, so the phrase is asking for something that authors and
publishers cannot honestly supply.
Finally, transitional fossils are not "proposed." There is no doubt
of their existence. They exist in the fossil record and are well-
known by paleontologists, so insertion of the word "proposed" makes
this phrase unscientific, since it suggests a false uncertainty.
In conclusion, Student Expectation 8A should be returned to its
original language. Otherwise, the ESS standards will be permanently
weakened and damaged.
Just as troubling was an amendment McLeroy succeeded in adding to
the standards for biology:
Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a
scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The
student is expected to:
(B) analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common
ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential
nature of groups in the fossil record;
This wording implies that taxonomic groups appear suddenly in the
fossil record. While there are certainly many groups with incomplete
fossil records, the wording insinuates that groups may have been
created suddenly. The wording is also problematic in that it implies
that common ancestry is invoked to "explain" stasis, or the
incompleteness of the fossil record.
Please email members of the State Board Of Education, encouraging
them to adopt the original draft of the standards proposed by
working groups in December.
You can email the entire SBOE directly at sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us.
Here is a template for an email to the SBOE (we encourage you to
personalize this):
To the Texas State Board of Education,
As a scientist and active researcher and educator, I am writing to
urge you to support sound science education in Texas. In particular,
I request that you adopt the Biology and Earth Sciences TEKS draft
as originally proposed by the Working Groups. These working groups
are composed of educators and scientists with deep expertise in
science, and their proposed TEKS drafts should be given unreserved
support without amendment.
In particular, I object to the recent changes made to the highschool
TEKS (subchapter C) section 112.34 (c) 7.B: "analyze and evaluate
the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the
sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the
fossil record;" This language inaccurately insinuates that the
fossil record supports long-standing creationist arguments that
existing species were created as they exist today. The present
wording is misleading. I also object to changes to section 112.36
(c) 8.A, which now read: "evaluate a variety of fossil types,
proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant
fossil deposits and assess the arguments for and against universal
common descent in light of this fossil evidence" ; Transitional
fossils are not "proposed" - they are clearly documented based on
detailed anatomical measurements. Also, the phrase "arguments for
and against universal common descent" is a common creationist phrase
that inaccurately suggests that there is credible scientific data
arguing against common ancestry.
In conclusion, please revert to the original working group version
of the science TEKS, and resist additional changes that are not
approved by the working groups of scientists and educators.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR QUALIFICATIONS
YOUR AFFILIATION/POSITION
_______________
Some suggestions for emailing the SBOE
1. You can specify in your email to sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us that
you wish your message to reach particular SBOE members. It may help
if you take advantage of this and vary your tone depending on which
members you are writing to. For instance, the Science Supporters
[Bob Craig; Mary Helen Berlanga; Pat Hardy; Rene Nunez; Mavis
Knight] cast difficult votes to support evolution in the TEKS, and
are being hammered by angry emails from creationists. When emailing
these members, please be sure to thank these five for their
consistent support of the science standards AS WRITTEN BY THE
WORKING GROUPS, and urge them to continue to oppose amendments to
the standards or efforts to revert to problematic language that
would weaken science education in Texas. Be supportive rather than
critical. This also holds for the swing voters Rick Agosto; Lawrence
Allen; Geraldine Miller - who voted for good evolution standards in
the first round of voting. We don't want to antagonize them.
However, the swing voters may require more detailed explanations to
convince them.
2. If you personalize your email, keep in mind that best message is
that sound science standards are needed to ensure that Texas
schoolchildren get a 21st century science education, not an
education based on ideology and the personal beliefs of some board
members. The board members should stick to the draft proposed by the
working groups.
3. The seven-member pro-creationist bloc: Barbara Cargill, Cynthia
Dunbar, Don McLeroy , Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, Terri Leo, David
Bradley. These 7 are unlikely to listen to reason. If you want to
write them anyway, you might want to look at the creationist website
for the Explore Evolution textbook, or visit the pro-science website http://www.teachthemscience.org/ee
to see some examples of common creationist claims and counter-
arguments. Claims made in "Explore Evolution" are routinely cited by
these creationist board members. If you feel really motivated, maybe
pick one favorite creationist argument (e.g., the lack of
transitional fossils, the Cambrian Explosion, fabrication of
Haekel's embryological drawings, Piltdown Man, separation of micro-
versus macro-evolution, etc.) and show why it does not disprove
evolution. Specific citations to peer-reviewed research (or better
yet, pdfs of research papers, or figures presenting data
illustrating evolution) might make an impression.
______________________
What else can you do to help out?
1. Forward this email to friends and colleagues, in Texas and beyond.
2. Sign up to testify at the March 25 SBOE hearing in Austin,
Texas . For more information about signing up to testify, please
visit: www.teachthemscience.org/texas or www.tfn.org. These sites
will post information once it is clear what you need to do sign up.
3. If you are a scientist within the state of Texas:
a) join the list of scientists supporting good evolution education,
by signing the petition at the 21st Century Science Coalition (www.texasscientists.org
). If you signed previously and do not see your name, please email danbolnick@mail.utexas.edu
.
b) remember to vote in SBOE elections and encourage friends to do
likewise.
c) Write Op-Ed essays for your local newspapers.
4. Join the National Center for Science Education, or the Texas
Freedom Network.
For more information, visit:
Teach Them Science
21st Century Science Coalition
Texas Freedom Network
Texas Citizens for Science
______________________
History and current status of the curriculum revisions
The State Board of Education (SBOE) is currently revising the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. These standards
dictate what students are supposed to be taught in K-12 science
classrooms, what can be on standardized state tests, and what
textbooks will have to include to be considered for adoption.
A proposed draft of the new TEKS standards was produced in late fall
2008 by a working group of highly qualified teachers and scientists.
The draft was rigorous and effectively reflected the views of
scientists and educators. Of particular note, the draft changed
standard 3(A) from its previous 20-year-old version:
(3) The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem
solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including
hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using
scientific evidence and information;
to a new wording:
(3) The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning and
problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the
classroom. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical
evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational
testing;
We prefer the new wording because it more closely reflects the
process of evaluating scientific data. Furthermore, 'weaknesses' is
often used by anti-evolutionists to refer to repeatedly refuted
claims about the incomplete fossil record, sudden appearance of
species, irreducible complexity, which are meant to imply that
evolution has not happened at all. In particular, there was concern
that the 'weaknesses' language would be used by the SBOE to approve
a creationist biology textbook aimed at high school students,
"Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism."
On January 22, 2009, the SBOE heard testimony about the revised
standards. Many local creationists attended and testified that the
'weaknesses' language should be reintroduced. To our relief, the
SBOE ultimately voted 8-7 in favor of the working group's draft,
rejecting an amendment to reintroduce language about "weaknesses" of
evolution.
Unfortunately, after the testimony was over, creationists -
including board chairman Don McLeroy -- proposed additional
amendments. Because the SBOE heard no testimony, the normally pro-
science board members did not have enough information to judge
whether the amendments were sound and voted for them. Therefore, the
current draft of the TEKS contains objectionable and creationist-
inspired wording (Chairman McLeroy essentially plagiarized from a
creationist website when he introduced his new amendment; see An
Evolving Creation for details).
For much more detailed description and analysis of the history of
the curriculum revisions, please visit Texas Citizens for Science.
Problems with the language in the current TEKS drafts
Two amendments are particularly troubling. One creationist amendment
changed this standard for the Earth and Space Science course:
(8)(A) evaluate a variety of fossil types, transitional fossils,
fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to
their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution;
The amended draft now reads (underlined text represents words added
by the amendment, strike-through text indicates words deleted)
(8)(A) evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional
fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with
regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of
evolution and assess the arguments for and against universal common
descent in light of this fossil evidence;
To explain what is objectionable about these changes, I will quote
selections from a response written by the Earth and Space Science
TEKS Working Group that produced the original draft (complete text
can be found at Texas Citizens for Science):
First, the phrase "with regard to their appearance, completeness,
and rate of diversity of evolution" should not have been removed
since it is essential to the purpose of the standard, which is to
evaluate fossils and their evolution.
Second, the phrase about "arguments for and against universal common
descent" substituted for the struck phase is totally unscientific.
There are no good arguments in modern science "against universal
common descent," which has been accepted by biologists for over 130
years, so the phrase is asking for something that authors and
publishers cannot honestly supply.
Finally, transitional fossils are not "proposed." There is no doubt
of their existence. They exist in the fossil record and are well-
known by paleontologists, so insertion of the word "proposed" makes
this phrase unscientific, since it suggests a false uncertainty.
In conclusion, Student Expectation 8A should be returned to its
original language. Otherwise, the ESS standards will be permanently
weakened and damaged.
Just as troubling was an amendment McLeroy succeeded in adding to
the standards for biology:
Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a
scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The
student is expected to:
(B) analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common
ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential
nature of groups in the fossil record;
This wording implies that taxonomic groups appear suddenly in the
fossil record. While there are certainly many groups with incomplete
fossil records, the wording insinuates that groups may have been
created suddenly. The wording is also problematic in that it implies
that common ancestry is invoked to "explain" stasis, or the
incompleteness of the fossil record.
Leave a comment