The Texas Observer

After six hours of often mind-numbing debate, the State Board of Education has mercifully passed a final version of new science standards that will guide the content of science textbooks and curriculum for the next decade.

Reporters and members of the public packed the meeting room in Austin today to see if creationists on the board could succeed in poisoning Texas science classes with a requirement to teach so-called weaknesses in evolutionary theory. On that front, the pro-evolution side mostly won the day (more on this in a minute).

But perhaps the most notable aspect of today’s proceedings was not what the Board members did, but how they did it. Dysfunctional doesn’t quite cover it. These folks make the Texas Legislature look organized and deliberative.

Imagine a policy-making body run by the Smothers Brothers with help from the Three Stooges and you get some idea of what it’s like to sit through a State Board of Education meeting.

The board has supposedly been working on these science standards for a year, yet members were still debating topics as mundane as word choice on this, the very last day. There were quite a few substantive amendments, of course, but they took a while to get through. Most of the amendments were hand-written (see photo below). Sloppy scrawl and poor spelling (one key amendment included the word “expirimental”) made proposals hard to read. It typically took at least 10 minutes of discussion before all the board members could even understand what some amendments were proposing.

Board Chair Don McLeroy, the dentist from Bryan, didn’t help. McLeroy’s frequent bumbling of parliamentary rules left some board members confused. “OK, we’re going to get this right now,” McLeroy would say. At least twice, fellow social conservative David Bradley interrupted McLeroy’s ramblings to summarize and clarify exactly what the board had just done, so the minutes would be correct.

“Slow me down if I get too fast” McLeroy said at one point.

“I’ve been trying to,” Bradley quipped.

You can read our earlier dispatch on today’s meeting here. Also, the Texas Freedom Network live-blogged the meeting, and has a good play-by-play of the amendments and maneuverings (from the pro-evolution side of things) here.

In the end, the pro-evolution side won several significant victories today. The language that required students to examine the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution is gone from the standards, presumably forever. (In its place are some rather harmless-sounding compromise phrases that ask students to examine “all sides of scientific evidence of the scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.”)

A statement from TFN this afternoon says the new language is better, but still will allow social conservatives to pressure textbook writers into including doubts about evolution. Perhaps, but if there’s wiggle room there, it’s very small.

Similar compromises were struck in the sections governing biology and Earth science classes. Pro-evolution members removed the most controversial, anti-evolution language and replaced it with compromise phrases that encourage critical thinking and examination of all sides. For example, the board removed language that McLeroy had promoted that would require students to learn how certain parts of the fossil record supposedly disprove evolution.

When this junk science was taken out, McLeroy launched into a lecture. He said that examining flaws in the fossil record was the scientific thing to do. He also added that genetics was the true basis of science and that evolution had simply hitched itself to genetics. “Evolution goes back to a man [Darwin] who basically came up with philosophical speculation.”

The board finally compromised on language that satisfied both McLeroy and the pro-evolution board members, asking students to examine “scientific explanations concerning” different elements of the fossil record.

Again, there may be some maneuvering room there for social conservatives in future debates, but not much.

In the end, it seems, after much debate and effort, the school children of Texas were saved from the whims of the State Board’s seven social conservatives.

Others of us weren’t so lucky.

UPDATED BELOW

After a year of fierce debate about how evolution should be taught (or not taught) to Texas school kids, the State Board of Education is expected this morning to give final approval to new science standards.

But not without one more fight.

The board is quarreling once more over the exact wording of the curriculum requirements.

Just to review yesterday’s action, a reference to the “weaknesses” of evolution was removed from the standards, although creationists on the board passed several other amendments that diluted science lessons.

Debate has just begun. The board is about to consider an amendment by Cynthia Dunbar that would require students to examine evidence “supportive and not supportive” of scientific explanations. Critics have said language like that may be an effort to sneak unscientific doubts about evolution into science classes.

Updates to follow.

UPDATE: Board members reached a compromise on Dunbar’s amendment (see above). The compromise language removes the words “supportive and not supportive,” but permits students in all science classes to examine “all sides of scientific evidence….to encourage critical thinking.” That language leaves a slight opening for bringing criticisms of evolution into the classroom. But it’s a much softer standard than the “strengths and weaknesses” language that creationists on the board have been pushing for.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The board is debating standards for biology classes. Lawrence Allen of Houston has offered amendments that would remove language that creationists passed into the standards in January. Scientists have strongly criticized this language, which would require students to examine so-called flaws in the fossil record. Chair Don McLeroy gave an impassioned defense of the unscientific language, arguing that the fossil record doesn’t always support the theory of evolution. “Evolution goes back to a man [Darwin] who basically came up with philosophical speculation,” McLeroy said.

Moments ago, the board voted (8-7) to remove the unscientific language McLeroy inserted in January. The board has taken a 10-minute break. When it returns, Allen has four more amendments that remove other lines of unscientific language from the standards. It appears the pro-evolution side has the votes to prevail today.

More updates to follow.

Pro-evolution advocates no doubt enjoyed the morning half of today’s long-anticipated State Board of Education meeting. They prevailed in the headline fight: A proposal to slip into the science standards a reference to “weaknesses” of evolution was beaten back.

But things changed this afternoon.

The seven social conservatives on the 15-member board mostly got their way this afternoon. They passed a series of minor amendments that, with a slight word change here and there, diluted the state’s science standards and the teaching of evolutionary theory. Critics say these proposals open loopholes in the standards for the teaching of unscientific theories espoused by religious conservatives. (The same approach was tried, quite successfully, at the board’s meeting in January.}

“We’re opening the conversation and broadening it to alternative theories,” said Barbara Cargill, a socially conservative board member from The Woodlands. “We know there are a lot of questions about the fossil record.”

Terri Leo, an ardent social conservative, passed an amendment requiring biology students to “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding the formation of simple organic molecules.”

Board Chair Don McLeroy passed an amendment that will require science curriculum and textbooks to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”

Cargill snuck through an amendment that struck a reference to the Universe being 14 billion years old. “It clarifies this for our teachers to let students know that there are differing theories for the age of the Universe,” Cargill said, adding that she was simply trying to add a sense of “humility” to the science standards.

Pro-evolution members offered several amendments themselves, many from Lubbock’s Bob Craig, to undo the social conservatives’ victories from January. Nearly all of those amendments failed.

The change in fortunes occurred largely because of Rick Agosto of San Antonio, who voted against the social conservatives in the morning and mostly with them in the afternoon. Agosto is viewed as the key swing vote on the board. He voted against the “strengths and weaknesses” language in January and again this morning, despite fierce lobbying from religious groups in his district.

Agosto wasn’t alone. Several other pro-evolution board members voted with the social conservatives’ this afternoon.

The board will take its final vote on the science standards, which will set content of classes and textbooks for years to come, tomorrow. The board can add in or take out language up until final passage.

So one last fight is likely tomorrow.

Social conservatives on the State Board of Education are trying once again this morning to inject doubts about evolution into Texas’ science classrooms.

San Antonio’s Ken Mercer, part of the board’s seven-member social conservative bloc, tried to put the much-debated “strengths and weaknesses” language back into the state’s science standards that guide the content of textbooks and curriculum. Mercer’s amendment to a final draft of the science standards would have required science teachers to discuss the so-called weaknesses of evolutionary theory in their science classes.

A few minutes ago, Mercer’s amendment failed by one vote (the tally was 7-7).

Corpus Christi’s Mary Helen Berlanga missed this morning’s vote, though she isn’t one of the board’s social conservatives and would be expected to vote against the strengths weaknesses language.

The board will take a final vote on the science standards tomorrow.

Unless one of the other members has a last-minute change of heart, it appears the strengths and weaknesses language won’t be included in the new science standards. That would be a huge victory for the pro-evolution side.

More updates to follow.

Erle Nye, the controversial former head of energy company TXU, today was appointed the new chair of UTIMCO — the investment arm of the University of Texas.

Nye replaces multi-millionaire Robert Rowling, who abruptly resigned last week in the middle of a contentious hearing in the Senate Finance Committee. The state senators were berating Rowling about bonuses UTIMCO had doled out despite a down year. You can read our report on that hearing here.

Nye is a former CEO and board chairman at TXU Corp., a giant Dallas-based company that was bought out in 2007. Nye’s tenure as CEO at TXU ended in 2004 following a financial crisis at the company that collapsed the stock price and nearly knocked the firm into bankruptcy. Some shareholders lost their life savings when the stock tanked.

In 2004, the Observer reported on a whistle-blower lawsuit in which a former TXU insider claimed that Nye and other TXU executives knew about the company’s impending financial problems and intentionally misled investors and Wall Street analysts. Several executives, including Nye, sold TXU shares not long before the stock price tumbled in late 2002.

Before taking over the top job at UTIMCO, Nye had led its ethics committee.

Social conservatives on the State Board of Education once again took up their crusade this afternoon against teaching the theory of evolution to Texas high school students.

The headline event of today’s meeting was a vote on whether to require science class textbooks to explore the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. The motion to include those words failed — at least on this day. It was a momentary defeat for social conservatives. The State Board of Education has two more chances to vote on the textbook standards before they’re finalized in March. Right now, the pro-evolution side has a slim one-vote advantage (8-7), so the results could certainly change.

The winning margin was provided by San Antonio Democrat Rick Agosto, who many viewed as the board’s swing vote. On this day at least, he voted to keep the “strengths and weaknesses” language out of Texas science curriculum.

Many scientists see the “strength and weaknesses” issue as a backdoor way to attack the theory of evolution and perhaps slip into classrooms a few words about creationism or Intelligent Design or other non-scientific explanations of human origins. (For more background, read our story on the board’s November meeting here — hint: it’s the second item.)

Agosto told reporters after the vote that he heard from many people in his district on the issue and that he wanted to maintain the textbook standards designed by teachers and a panel of scientists. Agosto could still change his mind.

Dan Quinn, spokesman with the Texas Freedom Network, said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the next two votes — one more tomorrow and a final vote in March.

Social conservatives lost the main event, but they may have won the day. They prevailed on a series of preliminary votes that — if finalized — could dilute the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.

Barbara Cargill, board member from The Woodlands, altered the standards for the state’s new Earth and Space Science class. The most eye-catching change requires students to question the fossil record. Cargill, part of the board’s solid seven-member Christian right faction, tacked on a phrase that requires students to “assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of fossil evidence.”

That may sound rather mundane. But the theory of universal common descent is central to evolutionary theory — and is supported by nearly all the world’s biologists. Most of the “arguments against” this widely accepted scientific concept come from creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. Cargill’s amendment could allow those arguments into Texas’ science classrooms.

Not to be outdone, Chair Don McLeroy of College Station, an avowed creationist, monkeyed with the “science concepts” section of the biology standards. McLeroy added language that asks students to “describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

After introducing his new language, McLeroy spent 15 minutes trying to back up his claims that the theory of adaptation and natural selection is flawed and not necessarily supported by parts of the fossil record. His arguments consisted of quotes from books by Stephen Jay Gould and other scientists that McLeroy ripped out of context to support his thesis.

Cargill and McLeroy’s additions also must survive two more rounds of voting — one tomorrow and another in March.

If these amendments make it into the state’s science textbooks, Texas students may hear a lot about the “weaknesses” of evolution after all.

Cynthia Dunbar is the gift that keeps on giving. When she’s not rooting science out of the state’s science curriculum in her capacity as a Texas State Board of Education member or penning books subtitled “How the Left is Trying to Erase What Made Us Great,” she’s accusing Barack Obama of plotting with terrorists to destroy America.

It’s just the latest funny-if-it-wasn’t-so-scary outrage from the obscure, but powerful board of education. Dunbar and her cohorts set curriculum and textbook standards for students in Texas’ public schools.

If you recall, Dunbar got pummeled for an inflammatory anti-Obama article she wrote in November for the outer wingnut site Christian Worldview Network. Despite widespread condemnation, Dunbar has stood by her statement, telling the AP “Those are my personal opinions.”

More of Dunbar’s personal opinions have surfaced. In a column published in the Church Report Online — which may or may not be edited by the Church Lady; we’re checking on that — in September, Dunbar lobbed another screed from the fringes of the Christian Right.

The article is humbly titled: “Barack Hussein Obama would make a great Leader… of an Unconstitutional, Infanticidal, Communistic, Dictatorial Regime.”

In the article, she labels Obama “barbaric” for his stance on abortion rights and compares him to Hitler. But Obama’s not just the most extreme pro-choice candidate ever, she writes in typically understated style, but is “more like a totalitarian dictator that wants the authority to inflict death wherever he deems it appropriate.” (Maybe his first act as President will be demanding that Congress pass the President’s License to Kill Act.)

To show that Obama is a danger to the Constitution she cites a specious lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by attorney and Internet fringe hero Philip Berg. Berg titled his suit Philip J. Berg, Esq. v Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Obama aka Barack Dunham aka Barry Dunham, et al.

“Without even reading the details of the case wouldn’t you wonder, who in the world is this man we are considering for our Commander and Chief?,” Dunbar asked. (Note that Dunbar, a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School and self-described constitutional scholar, thinks the Constitution designates a Commander and Chief, not a Commander in Chief.)

As a final pearl of wisdom, Dunbar warns that her right to publish loony-bin crap on the Internet may be in danger under Chief Obama. “I’d wager this will be one of the first freedoms we will loose [sic] should the Obama Gestapo come knocking at our doors.”