A special interest group known as 21st Century Science Coalition designed for the sole purpose of advocating the removing the language “strengths and weakness” label from scientific theories in public school classrooms. The special interest group which began on Oct 1, 2008, claims the language contained in Texas science standards, opens the door for teaching creationism or intelligent design.
Charles Garner who is a chemistry professor at Baylor University, is one of the experts on the panel. On November 19, he wrote an editorial voicing his opinion on the special interest group’s objective…
“The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem-solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”
“The “strengths and weaknesses” language has been in place for a decade. If it had been used to introduce religion or supernatural explanations into the classroom, these groups would have a long list of specific incidents, with names, dates, etc.”
“But when I contacted Dr. Dan Bolnik, an assistant professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas and the head of the 21st Century Science Coalition (from whose Web site the above quotes were obtained), Bolnik could not provide me with a single specific example of such an incident.”
Professor Garner does an excellent job at investigating the claims of what 21st Century Science Coalition has stated. I also have posted in this blog that there wasn’t not one single example of teaching creationism or intelligent design as a result of critical thinking in Texas public schools. That’s not to say it’s a good thing, but the evidence points to another motive in removing the language.
There is a reason why Darwinists advocate it’s science theories even highly speculated ones as dogma while admitting there might be changes in those theories with new discoveries. It’s not because it’s mainly about “fear” as Professor Garner points out, but it is the way they want students to view evolution in a particular framework so they are not allowed to think outside the box.
While it’s true life changes and so does some of the evolutionary theories, but if a theory has to be changed due to new evidence, then the theory was obviously weak. Speculative theories in evolution even before new evidence might say to the contrary, are also not to be held up as infallible dogma.
The idea of a theory being changeable while not having any weakness but only having strength is an outright myth. And that is something students should not be learning in the classrooms. Now in their final part of their argument which claims the language of “strengths and weakness” is irrelevant, showing no difference in the classroom and only causes confusion.
I totally disagree, if the language was so “irrelevant” not making a difference whatsoever than why would special interest groups like 21st century coalition be fighting so hard to get rid of the “strengths and weakness” language in the science standards?
Why would false accusations be thrown out there to scare people based on no evidence that teaching “strengths and weakness” in evolution allows teachers to inject religion into the science? Answer: the language is relevant and helpful for students to learn science but it’s not the way special interests groups want them to learn.
In the editorial written by Professor Garner he makes an interesting comment and was right on target with his assessment…“That worldview, cherished by some in the scientific community and promoted heavily in the proposed Earth and Space Science TEKS standards, has several serious scientific weaknesses that students deserve to understand.”
No question about it, without critical thinking by trying to force feed evolution in a particular way would not only hurt science standards, but would be trying to indoctrinate students into group think, which is not science at all!