Earth and Space Science Amendments: One Step Forward...X Steps Back?

Craig has brought forth our proposed amendments to fix the Earth and Space Science (ESS) curriculum.

We want to restore the original language in (c)(4) of the ESS to read:

Amend Section 112.36 (c)(4) to read: (4) The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal differing theories information about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.

This would be far more accurate. Observations do not reveal theories, but rather reveal information that allows scientists to build theories that explain those observations.

Vote: Fails 7-8, Agosto punked us again.

Now on to (8)(A) in ESS. Again, we are proposing this be returned to the original language:

"evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution and assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence;"

This garbage about common descent was stuck in by Barbara Cargill in January as part of a series of silly amendments to the ESS. the underlined language (which she removed) was actually specific language in the college readiness standards, so getting this re-inserted and the getting common descent was the highest priority for us as geoscientists.

Oddly enough, Cargill (of all people) has proposed this version of (8)(A):

"analyze 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;"

Notice that she snuck in "proposed transitional fossils"; this isn't such a big deal given the rest of the fossil analysis is restored. Common descent was removed as well. This is basically our version of the amendment, but with "rate and diversity of evolution" changes to "alignment with scientific explanations". It could be worse. It was worse, so this is an improvement.

Passed: 9-6

The TEKS have now been officially voted on as a whole. It passed 13-2, with only Nunez and Berlanga voting against it. Mary Helen Berlanga is the only person who showed any integrity in this process and voted consistently.

The flip-flop voting of Agosto, Nunez, Craig, Hardy, Allen, Knight and Miller was deplorable. They literally voted for amendments five minutes after voting against them. Don McLeroy and the other creationists completely snowed them by simply re-wording these amendments.

This is what happens when science is decided in a political process. Science happens by concensus, but it is not a democratic compromise. Horse-trading may work with making laws, but it defies the underlying pragmatism of science; you don't strike a compromise between real science and B.S. and expect it to carry weight among scientists or science teachers.