Some scientific organizations remain uneasy about Texasā new science standards, given their potential influence, even though long-standing language that says students should learn about the āstrengths and weaknessesā of evolution has been stripped from the document.
Scientists, on the one hand, were heartened by the state school boardās decision late last month to remove that language.
For years, they had argued that the wording falsely suggested that scientific support for evolution is shakyāwhen 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 documentās reach, moreover, will likely extend far beyond Texas. The stateās academic standards guide textbook content, and publishers tend to write textbooks for other states to conform with Texasā expectations, because of that stateās 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:
āIn 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.ā
Free-Speech Argument
Board member Cynthia N. Dunbar said she was āecstaticā about the new wording. She said it will not allow religion to be brought into discussions of evolution, but rather give teachers and students āacademic freedomā to approach the topic critically. Similar free-speech arguments have been made in other states recently. (āAcademic Freedomā Used as Basis Of Bills to Question Evolution,ā May 14, 2008.)
āWe want pure science in the classroom,ā Ms. Dunbar said in an interview, ābut we do not want censorship in the classroom, and this document does not allow that.ā
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 documentās call for students to examine āall sides of scientific evidenceā is problematic.
Supporters of āintelligent design,ā he noted, have claimed that scientific evidence supports their viewāan 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 āsufficiency or insufficiencyā 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 studentsā understanding.
However, one of the alternative phrases approved by the boardāthat students should āanalyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell"āalso 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.
āThatās a very worrisome thing,ā 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 āscientificā exploration of the subject, she said.
Misleading Language?
Another amendment approved by the board requires students to āanalyze 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.ā
Francis Q. Eberle, the executive director of the , a professional organization based in Arlington, Va., said that language, particularly the wording about āproposedā fossils, is unscientific and misleading.
It is āan 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,ā Mr. Eberle said in an e-mail. āHence, this is no longer science, but something else.ā
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.
āWe gave a very clear direction,ā 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.
āMy hope would be that textbooks would publish science and not wander into other areas,ā Mr. Eberle said in an interview.
The academic standards have the potential to be confusing, he added, and if texts mimic the standards language, āitās a real setback for students.ā
