Some scientific organizations remain uneasy about Texas鈥� new science standards, given their potential influence, even though long-standing language that says students should learn about the 鈥渟trengths and weaknesses鈥� of evolution has been stripped from the document.
Scientists, on the one hand, were heartened by the state school board鈥檚 decision late last month to remove that language.
For years, they had argued that the wording falsely suggested that scientific support for evolution is shaky鈥攚hen in fact it is one of most heavily vetted theories in all of science. They also said it encouraged the insertion of religious beliefs into public school science lessons.
The previous version of the Texas science standards had been in place since 1998. The new document, given final approval March 27, is expected to guide curriculum and instruction for the next decade.
The document鈥檚 reach, moreover, will likely extend far beyond Texas. The state鈥檚 academic standards guide textbook content, and publishers tend to write textbooks for other states to conform with Texas鈥� expectations, because of that state鈥檚 large share of the market.
Instead of keeping the old language, the 15-member board voted 13-2 to insert phrasing that says students should:
鈥淚n all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of the scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.鈥�
Free-Speech Argument
Board member Cynthia N. Dunbar said she was 鈥渆cstatic鈥� about the new wording. She said it will not allow religion to be brought into discussions of evolution, but rather give teachers and students 鈥渁cademic freedom鈥� to approach the topic critically. Similar free-speech arguments have been made in other states recently. (鈥淎cademic Freedom鈥� Used as Basis Of Bills to Question Evolution,鈥� May 14, 2008.)
鈥淲e want pure science in the classroom,鈥� Ms. Dunbar said in an interview, 鈥渂ut we do not want censorship in the classroom, and this document does not allow that.鈥�
But Steven Newton, a public information project director at of the , an Oakland, Calif.-based organization that supports teaching evolution in public school science classes, said the document鈥檚 call for students to examine 鈥渁ll sides of scientific evidence鈥� is problematic.
Supporters of 鈥渋ntelligent design,鈥� he noted, have claimed that scientific evidence supports their view鈥攁n assertion rejected by the vast majority of scientists.
Intelligent design holds that some features of living things show signs of having been shaped by an unnamed force or creator.
The Texas board narrowly rejected two controversial amendments, which had called for students to weigh the 鈥渟ufficiency or insufficiency鈥� of natural selection and common ancestry.
Those proposals were staunchly opposed by scientists, who pointed out that natural selection and common ancestry are widely supported, and crucial, pieces of evolutionary theory and central to students鈥� understanding.
However, one of the alternative phrases approved by the board鈥攖hat students should 鈥渁nalyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell"鈥攁lso disappointed some science advocates.
To Mr. Newton, that phrasing sounds as if it could encourage discussions of intelligent design. Supporters of design have suggested that the complex features of the cell show signs of having been crafted intelligently, rather than having come about through evolution.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 a very worrisome thing,鈥� Mr. Newton said of the language.
But Ms. Dunbar, the state board member, disputed that assertion. The phrasing is simply meant to emphasize the importance of cellular biology and to foster a 鈥渟cientific鈥� exploration of the subject, she said.
Misleading Language?
Another amendment approved by the board requires students to 鈥渁nalyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types, such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data.鈥�
Francis Q. Eberle, the executive director of the , a professional organization based in Arlington, Va., said that language, particularly the wording about 鈥減roposed鈥� fossils, is unscientific and misleading.
It is 鈥渁n attempt to interject subjectivity and belief systems into a major unifying theme of science by isolating the concept out of context of the other evidence,鈥� Mr. Eberle said in an e-mail. 鈥淗ence, this is no longer science, but something else.鈥�
Texas officials are expected to consider new textbooks for adoption in 2011. Ms. Dunbar said she would expect publishers to follow the newly revised standards.
鈥淲e gave a very clear direction,鈥� the Texas board member said.
Mr. Eberle, whose organization represents 55,000 teachers, said he would like publishers to be given enough leeway to avoid language that could lead educators astray.
鈥淢y hope would be that textbooks would publish science and not wander into other areas,鈥� Mr. Eberle said in an interview.
The academic standards have the potential to be confusing, he added, and if texts mimic the standards language, 鈥渋t鈥檚 a real setback for students.鈥�
