Texas vote leaves loopholes for teaching creationism - science-in-society - 28 March 2009 - New Scientist
//
One amendment calls for students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell," phrasing that rings of intelligent design arguments.
Another amendment requires students to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record." These issues are commonly held up by creationists as arguments against evolution, even though the scientific community disagrees.
...
An amendment to the Earth and space sciences curriculum requires the teaching of different theories of the origin, age and history of the universe.
The board voted to remove from the standards the statement that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old.
"The goal here was to make science more tentative and vague so that teachers have room to tell students, 'This is only one explanation and the scientists are not even sure about it themselves' – which is, of course, utter nonsense," says Quinn.
...
Texas is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks in the US, a market publishers can't afford to lose. So they will likely have to water down the science in their books and add in creationist pseudo-science to appease the school board. "If the publishers don't come back with arguments against natural selection and common descent, the board is going to vote to reject those textbooks," Quinn says.
...
The book does not explicitly mention ID, but presents its standard arguments, arguments that are precisely in line with those adopted in the new standards. That may be no coincidence: one of the co-authors of the book, Ralph Seelke, was chosen by McLeroy to serve as an expert curriculum reviewer for the Texas board. So too was Stephen Meyer, director of the
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin also testified at the board meeting, saying, "We urge you to make students aware of these scientific debates."
//