
"A fair result can be obtained
only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of
each question..." - Charles Darwin in
Origin of the Species by
Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life
In spite of a reported 6500
constituent emails, three-quarters of the public testifiers, and
recommendations of half of the "experts" to keep weaknesses in
theories and two-thirds of the "experts" to keep weaknesses of
hypotheses, Darwinists succeeded in deceiving eight members of
the State Board of Education (SBOE) on most votes -- including a
decisive one specifically related to retaining "strengths and
weaknesses" in biology standards. How did YOUR SBOE member
vote? (Above was typical vote split--8 votes were required to
pass, hence passed items needed abstentions or swing votes from
the above 8 NOs to pass. Note that Craig, Hardy, and Miller are
Republicans).
To those who have already helped in some way,
Thank You! To those who
have not yet gotten involved, it is not too late. The SBOE has
the opportunity to correct problems at its March 25-27 meeting,
where the final votes will be taken. If your SBOE member voted
NO
in the above, we need them to hear from you! Email them at
SBOESUPPORT@tea.state.tx.us.
TBSE volunteers
+++
|
|
|
REPORT: SBOE Members Expel
Weaknesses From Curriculum Standards |
"Strengths and Weaknesses" Removed from Texas Science
Standards--Academic Freedom and Critical Thinking Suffer
at State Board of Education - Darwinists Gloat
Austin, Texas--January 21-23, 2009: Three Republican and
five Democratic Texas State Board of Education (SBOE)
members voted with Darwinists, atheists, ACLU members, and
at least one bona
fide signer of the
infamous Humanist
Manifesto III, in an attempt to promote
indoctrination over critical thinking skills. The GOP
members ignored both the 2008 Republican Party Platform[1]
and constituent emails that numbered over 6500--an
unprecedented number for SBOE battles.
The twenty-year-old clear mandate to teach scientific
"strengths and weaknesses" of theories and hypotheses,
both of which have weaknesses, was taken out of the Texas
science standards and replaced with "analyze and
evaluate", a far less clear phrasing. This was in spite
of the recommendations of 3 of 6 designated experts to
retain the "strengths and weaknesses" language for
theories and 4 of 6 to retain the language for hypotheses.
Additionally, over three-fourths of the public testimony,
including that of numerous PhDs, supported retaining
"strengths and weaknesses".
Left to
right: Area ACLU secretary Steve Schafersman (in back,
barely visible in this picture); arch-Darwinist Eugenie
Scott of Berkeley, California; TFN's Kathy Miller (white
coat); SBOE member Tincy Miller (in back, facing others);
SBOE member Bob Craig of Lubbock. (Taken while the five
were huddled in a strategy session to promote evolution
being taught without weaknesses language. Do you have
this sort of influence with your SBOE members?)
The three GOP members that lined up with the Darwinists on
most important votes were
Bob Craig of Lubbock,
Geraldine "Tincy" Miller
of Dallas, and Pat Hardy
of Fort Worth. These GOP members were also seen listening
during breaks to arch-Darwinist
Eugenie Scott, (she
flew in from Berkeley, California to "mess with Texas'"
science standards--see the movie
Expelled-No Intelligence
Allowed) and area ACLU secretary
Steve Schafersman.
They also listened to members of the Texas Freedom
Network, far-and-away the most liberal lobbying group in
Texas founded by current
Planned Parenthood of America president Cecile
Richards. The Democratic members of the board are Mary
Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, Rene Nunez of El Paso,
Rick Agosto of San Antonio, Lawrence Allen of Houston, and
Mavis Knight of Dallas.
The writing process of the new science standards had
earlier been hijacked by Darwinists who clearly had an
agenda of removing the strengths and weaknesses language.
With the help of the Texas Education Agency, the review
panels were packed with members unwilling to allow
Darwinism to be criticized. One panel member, Kenn
Heydrick, was an activist against the "strengths and
weaknesses" language prior to being hired by the TEA as
science director, where he allegedly continued his
activism in spite of his new job responsibilities
forbidding it.
Some members of the TEA review panels were so focused on
removal of language that questioned evolution that they
short-changed solid science. They neglected to include
teaching students about the basic workings of our Solar
System in one case and Simple Machines in another. In a
new course, Earth and Space Science, (ESS), geo-science
related to oil and gas exploration activities and orbital
mechanics were neglected. However, naturalistic
origin-of-life from dead chemicals ideas were included,
and with newly adopted wording, will be treated as fact.
A minority report on the ESS course objected, in part, to
the "dogmatic tone" in the standards. (The Solar System
and Simple Machines omissions are expected to be corrected
at the March SBOE meeting).
Member Cynthia Dunbar
of Sugarland offered an amendment that would have replaced
the worst parts of the new standards with the
tried-and-true strengths and weaknesses language. It was
defeated in a recorded vote (7-7-1-one member was
absent). She then offered to substitute language offered
that would have provided "evidence supporting and evidence
not supporting" evolution--language one of the Darwinists
actually used in testimony--but the Darwinists couldn't
even live with that, defeating that (even with no
"strengths and weaknesses" language) in another record
vote (7-8-see photo above). GOP members Craig, Miller,
and Hardy sided with five Democratic members in voting
against retaining strengths and weaknesses language and in
not substituting other similar language.
Member Barbara Cargill
of The Woodlands then offered a series of amendments to
the Earth and Space Science standards, a new course
originally chartered to help students gain knowledge
associated with the oil and gas and NASA related
industries, important to Texas. As written, the course
reflects more cosmology than space exploration, and more
dogmatic environmental and global warming issues than oil
and gas issues. It is not clear how this course, as the
Darwinists have structured it, will prepare students for
either the job market or college. Mrs. Cargill, herself a
former science teacher, offered thirteen amendments to
address the dogmatic tone of the standard, and succeeded
with five of those amendments, sometimes convincing Hardy.
Member Terri Leo of
Spring then offered several amendments to address the poor
language chosen by the TEA panels for sections of the new
high school biology standard. In the new standard, many
items were addressed in the most simplistic of terms in
Bloom's Taxonomy, such as "identify" and "recognize",
typically used in lower grade level standards. To help
foster critical thinking, member Leo changed that language
to "analyze and evaluate", which is higher level learning
according to Bloom's Taxonomy, a mainstay of educators.
This language change was relatively uncontroversial and
garnered support from heavy majorities of the board in
nearly every case.
Chairman Don McLeroy,
both a degreed electrical engineer and medically trained
doctor (dentistry), offered two proposals, both of which
passed. The first inserted language in all high school
science classes from the National Academy of Science that
mandates that students "understand
what science is and that science has limitations."
The second added a TEKS to the Biology standard that
includes students being able to "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." Dr. McLeroy
brilliantly instructed the board for about ten minutes on
the subject of the fossil record as understood today,
using evidence and quotations from world-class
evolutionary paleontologists, including the late Dr.
Stephen J. Gould of Harvard and Dr. Ernst Mayr. The
former two features of the fossil record,
sudden appearance
and stasis of body
styles, represent the vast majority of the
data of the fossil
record itself and led Gould with fellow evolutionist Dr.
Niles Eldridge, to formulate the
punctuated equilibria theory of evolution.
Punctuated equilibria theory is at odds with
uniformitarian or slow gradual evolution as
Darwin imagined it
and was formulated to explain the very lack of
transitional form fossil evidence.
While removal of strengths and weaknesses was certainly a
loss for clarity and critical thinking, the seven
conservatives' heroic, courageous, and principled efforts
to improve a bad standard should be applauded, (Terri Leo, Barbara Cargill,
Cynthia Dunbar, Ken Mercer, David Bradley, Gail Lowe, and
Chairman Don McLeroy.) The Board may be emailed at
sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. The
amended standards were approved a second time by unanimous
voice vote on Friday, January 23. The board must vote on
the new standards twice more, with both votes being at
their scheduled March meetings.
At the March 25-27 SBOE meeting, an effort will be made to
return the "strengths and weaknesses" language to the
Texas science standards.
Note that at press time, the Darwinists, who were doing
victory dances for anyone who would look/listen, are now
plotting to remove even the common sense improvements the
above amendments represent.
+++
[1] The Texas 2008 Republican Party Platform states on
the issue:
Theories of Origin
- We support objective
teaching and equal treatment of strengths and weaknesses
of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We
believe theories of life origins and environmental
theories should be taught as scientific theory, not
scientific law.
Teachers and students should be able to discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and
without fear of retribution or discrimination of any
kind.
[Note: You may direct comments to:
newsletterfeedback2009@strengthsandweaknesses.org]
|
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT-How
YOU Can Help!
|

Your Assistance Is Still
Needed on Three Fronts!
First, please take
a minute and sign our "Teach
Both Strengths AND WEAKNESSES of Evolution Petition"
here. It
will only take 30 seconds and will help counter the
Darwinist dogma that, "No one questions evolution."
(http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/teachbothsides.htm).
Second, please write a politely worded letter of
support to the State Board of Education encouraging them
to keep or even strengthen the "scientific strengths and
weaknesses" language that has served Texas well for TWENTY
YEARS without a single legal challenge. You might also
point out one or two of your favorite weaknesses of
evolution theories. SBOE Email:
sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. Other contact information
is located
here.
Third, mark March
25, 2009 on your calendar. This is the day public
testimony will be taken before the full State Board of
Education in Austin. It is especially important that you
consider testifying if you are a teacher or have Ph.D.
credentials. For more information, see:
http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Contact.Texas.State.Board.of.Education.htm.
Thank You!
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 TBSE. All Rights Reserved. Permission is
expressly granted to forward in its entirety to whomever you
wish! |
|
|
|