Zombie Jamboree in Texas | a blog post at Beacon Broadside

Well, it wasn't long ago that creationists were trying to have intelligent design taught in the schools, and not so long ago that creationists were trying to have creation science taught in the schools, and really not all that long ago that creationists were trying to ban the teaching of evolution. After a string of defeats in the courts, they've adopted new tactics, trying to disguise their religious objections to evolution with a veneer of appealing secular language, like "strengths and weaknesses." So beware!

Highlighted by ukantic

Three creationists were just appointed to a six-member committee to review a draft set of Texas state biology standards, which determine what is taught in Texas's public school science classrooms and the content of the biology textbooks approved for use in the state. And since Texas is one of the largest textbook markets in the country, what happens to textbooks there is relevant to the content of textbooks everywhere.

With all that at stake, why would anyone appoint a creationist, let alone three, to such a committee? Oh, right: the chair of the board, Don McLeroy, is a confessed creationist, who offers folksy criticisms of evolution like, "Given all the time in the world, I don't think I could make a spider out of a rock. However, most of the books we are considering adopting, claim that Nothing made a spider out of a rock." The far-right faction on the state board of education, including McLeroy, presently holds seven of its fifteen seats.

Highlighted by cburell

A central issue is that the new draft omits a reference to "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Innocuous on its face, the "strengths and weaknesses" language was selectively applied only to evolution in 2003 by members of the board attempting to dilute the treatment of evolution in the biology textbooks then under consideration. After a concerted effort by scientists, teachers, parents, and others to defend evolution, all eleven books were eventually adopted—but it was a long, hard, and unedifying ordeal.

In a 2005 talk at his church, McLeroy was candid about the connection between his religious beliefs and his abuse of the "strengths and weaknesses" language, saying: "It was only the four really conservative, orthodox Christians on the board [who] were willing to stand up to the textbooks and say they don't present the weaknesses of evolution." (If you're a Christian who accepts evolution, like the over 11,000 signatories of this open letter, you're apparently not "orthodox" enough for him.)

Also under attack is the new draft's explanation of the limits of science, which notes, "If ideas are based upon purported forces outside of nature, they cannot be tested using scientific methods." McLeroy is digging in his heels here too, wanting to open the science classroom door to the supernatural—and not just the costumed trick-or-treating variety. As he told The New York Times, he thinks there are two types of science: "a creationist system and a naturalist system."

Highlighted by cburell