SBOE Mangling Texas Science TEKS -- Act Now

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) revises it's science curriculum (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills -- or TEKS) once every ten years. That time is now and this year, new science TEKS (pdf) were written and recommended by science writing panels and experts appointed by the SBOE.

At their January meeting, Don McLeroy and members of his hard-right faction of the SBOE managed to make some unscientific amendments to the proposed recommended science TEKS. This SBOE revised document (pdf) was then approved as the first reading by the SBOE of the science TEKS and was filed with the Texas Register. On March 25, 26, and 27, the SBOE will meet again and could make these TEKS the final ones.

The National Center for Science Education has produced a detailed description and analysis of the January amendments and why they are scientifically unsound.

If you reside in Texas, you can help by writing, telephoning, or emailing your SBOE member (enter your zip code to look up). Check this page to see how your member voted on these amendments at the January meeting. If your member voted against these amendments, thank your member and encourage him or her to continue to support sound science at the March meeting. If your member voted for these amendments, encourage him or her to promote the best science education for Texas schoolchildren by voting to remove these unfortunate amendments and support the TEKS as drafted by the writing panels and experts. In either case, let your SBOE member know that you are their constituent and why you think the amendments that were passed in January should not become part of the new science TEKS.

Any member of the SBOE may be emailed via sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. Email pertaining to details of the TEKS should be sent to sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us. Comments on the first reading TEKS may also be made online.

The SBOE will hear public testimony on March 25 from noon to 6pm, with registration starting at 8am Friday, March 20th. (Registration form here (pdf).) Please attend and/or testify, if you can. The SBOE meets at 1701 Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78701 (see map).

See the SBOE web page for more information.

Texas SBOE creationists in denial

The evidence for evolution goes way beyond the fossils, but this poster summarizes the fossil evidence quite well. One of the things creationists are always claiming is that there are “no transitional fossils!” Well you’re staring right at one!

There are seven creationists on the Texas State Board of Education. They are David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, and Don McLeroy, the Chairman.

These far-right hardliners want unscientific "weaknesses" to be taught in public school science classes order to try to undermine the teaching of biological evolution and to open the door for teaching the discredited Intelligent Design Theory of the Discovery Institute.

Unfortunately for them, the vote to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language around did not pass in January. The creationists Leo, Cargill, and McLeroy did, however, manage to pass other amendments which could weaken the science standards.

Mr. Mercer has pointed out that some of the Republicans on Board voted against the Texas Republican party platform which includes the teaching of ID, saying "I pray for my three friends, Pat Hardy of Ft. Worth , Bob Craig of Lubbock, and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller of Dallas." I say more power to Pat Hardy, Bob Craig, and Geraldine Miller for standing up for the children of Texas.

I sincerely hope that the Board can continue to muster enough votes to ensure that children attending the public schools of Texas will receive educations which will be among the best in the nation in the 21st century.

Don McLeroy, leading the SBOE and subverting science

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) last month finally voted to get rid of the controversial "strengths and weaknesses" language which was a vestige of a bygone time from the new science curriculum standards. The creationists on the SBOE (a near majority) and elsewhere implied that the language had served Texas well for 20 years, when it had done no such thing. A common attack on the removal was to claim censorship or a reduction in academic freedom, in line with the current Wedge strategy being promulgated by the Discovery Institute of Seattle, Washington. The fact is that these words have nothing to do with the questions students can ask in the science classroom, and were being subverted into a trojan horse for the introduction of creationist arguments into science classes.

In a last-ditch attempt to corrupt the new 21st Century science standards, the creationist bloc on the board proposed a series of amendments and succeeded in getting some of them passed. The tactic used by Dr. McLeroy (pronounced mackle-roy), a dentist from College Station, Texas, and chairman of the SBOE, to advance one of his amendments was to claim that he had read up on evolution "as a hobby" and he then proceeded to read a lot of out of context quotations (he admitted he was quote mining) distorting the positions of scientists and creating confusion among the board members. See "The collapse of a quote mine" for an analysis of Dr. McLeroy's quote mining effort and the true source of his information.

The amendment “makes no sense to me,” said David M. Hillis, a prominent professor of biology at the University of Texas, adding, “It’s a clear indication that the chairman of the state school board doesn’t understand the science.” He also said, "This new proposed language is absurd. It shows very clearly why the board should not be rewriting the science standards, especially when they introduce new language that has not even been reviewed by a single science expert."

George W. Bush's scientific legacy

Some may sneer at President Bush's actions, but at least one thing he did worked out well for science -- he appointed Judge John E. Jones III to the federal bench.

Thanks to Judge Jones, the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design Theory was shown to be the sham that it is in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision in December, 2005

Texas State Board of Education Censorship

Steven Schafersman's post to his blog at the Houston Chronicle regarding the new Earth and Space Science standards was deleted under pressure from some Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) members of the SBOE. Here is the first paragraph:

The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.

Read the rest of the post on the Texas Citizens for Science website. Steven Schafersman is President of Texas Citizens for Science and contributed to the new ESS standards development effort.

Don Mcleroy - Liar?

At the November meeting of the SBOE, Don Mcleroy stated

I don’t think you’ll find a single Board member that has ever advocated — in fact I don’t know of a single Board member that has ever advocated — teaching creationism, teaching intelligent design, or teaching supernatural explanations in the science classroom. (Audio here.)

The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) subsequently revealed that many of the board members had indeed advocated these positions via their responses to Free Market Foundation (FMF) questionnaires and voter guides. The FMF has clarified that the definitions shown on the voter guides accurately reflect the questions used in their candidate questionnaires.

When questioned about this, McLeroy said "... I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to." in this response to the blogger who pointed out the discrepancy to him.

So, in Dr. McLeroy's opinion, indicating that he "strongly favors it" to the FMF for publication in a voter guide is not a public statement. I wonder what a judge would say.

Don McLeroy is a Master of Deceit, if not outright liar.

Texas deserves better.

Opportunity to shake up Texas SBoE

Seven of the seats on the Texas SBoE are on the ballot this November, but only three are interesting to those of us who would like to reduce the current number of far-right members on the board.

The three races of interest are:

• District 7
  David Bradley (incumbent, far-right R) vs Laura Ewing (D)
  
  
• District 8
  Barbara Cargill (incumbent, far-right R) vs Linda Ellis (write-in)
  
  
• District 14
  Gail Lowe (incumbent, far-right R) vs Edra Bogle (D)
  

To see if you can vote on one of these contests, enter your address at this website.

Help if you can.

McCain is choice of terrorists

McCain has been endorsed by Al Qaeda, according to this article in the New York Times: The Endorsement From Hell.

“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for [Al Qaeda] recruiting,” said Professor Joseph Nye, [the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council,] adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

As if we needed another reason not to vote for him.

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

It's time to clean house.

Some FAQs about Separation of Church and State

Q. Where is the "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
A. The First Amendment's religion clauses state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The Establishment Clause forbids more than the establishment of a national religion; it also forbids laws or actions respecting an establishment of religion. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, put it "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.

Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" was first noted by the Supreme Court in an 1878 opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa. Requiring neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and protects each citizen's right to express his or her personal beliefs.

Q. What is a "law respecting an establishment of religion"?
A. The Supreme Court has used a variety of methods to decide if a government action amounts to religious establishment. Unconstitutional actions typically lack a secular purpose or have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Religiously motivated actions violate the basic idea that government should concern itself only with civil matters and leave religion to the individual's conscience. Expressive actions, such as prayer at government-sponsored events or religious symbols on government property, are invalid if they effectively endorse or disapprove of religion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor designed the "endorsement test" to thwart government actions that link one's religion to his or her standing in the political community. In her words, government endorsement of religion sends a "message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community," and the "accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Q. Doesn't the First Amendment only apply to the federal government?
A. Not anymore. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it was clearly intended to apply only to the federal government. However, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 set the course for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment reads in part "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." In 1940, in a case called Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses must be applied to the states. Since that time, all government action "respecting an establishment of religion," whether at the federal, state or local level, is subject to review under the U.S. Constitution.


For more information, see

• Americans United FAQs
• Top 10 Lies about church and state