The likes of the NCSE and others have lobbied hard for not teaching students to be critical thinkers of whatever is being taught to them in science.
“Creationists on the board were unsuccessful in inserting the controversial “strengths and weaknesses” language from the old set of standards, they proposed a flurry of synonyms — such as “sufficiency or insufficiency” and “supportive and not supportive” — and eventually prevailed with a requirement that students examine “all sides of scientific evidence.”
Wrong! While it’s true the exact language from the old standards in science was removed, it was however replaced by stronger language which basically means the same thing…There is no difference because examining both strengths and weaknesses is examining scientific evidence from “all sides” as stated below…
“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”
I can’t stress this enough, what a huge victory in science standards in Texas! There is not the typical dogmatic method in trying to indoctrinate students into evolution like following scientists as though they were some sort of priest. This is the very reason why lobby groups like the NCSE are still stinging in defeat, shaking their heads in disbelief, claiming the above standard is nothing more than “creationism” by code says NCSE project director Josh Rosenau (like it’s Freemasonry or some other secret society sect) rather than a practice which really is conducted by most scientists on both sides including those who are proponents of evolution.
Students should be taught “critical thinking” so they can come to conclusions in all fields in science, a solid and indisputable conclusion. Also students need to be taught “critical thinking” skills as theories and explanations of those theories can change with the progress of science.
Some who teach say, we allow our students to question, (be critical thinkers) we encourage it, which is fine then why would you be against the new science standards in Texas which basically advocates the same thing? Is it because of lobby groups are telling you to oppose it because of creationists being on the educational board? Then why wasn’t there one incident during the twenty years by having “strengths and weaknesses rule in place?
I will tell you what is happening, they(meaning the lobby groups like the NCSE) are trying to influence what sort of content is going to be put into the new textbooks and figure it might scare them enough to limit their defeat. Not surprisingly, “Lebo discussed the possibility of litigation over the board’s decision.”
We all know litigation will most likely not happen with the science standards in Texas. Critical thinking as stated earlier has a long track record in which they could have sued but then they didn’t. Why? Because they had absolutely had no grounds to bring litigation about, not even one complaint (meaning teaching creationism) surfaced under the previous weaknesses in science rule. So again I say, this is a scare tactic to try and influence what type of content goes into the new textbooks.