The Revisionaries Page #2

in Texas.

So they're gonna be here

about 4:
00.

We're gonna go back

to the office

Really quickly.

So how was your day?

Fine.

Yeah? Tell me about it.

Governor Perry has found a way

to use the State Board

of Education

to keep his base

here in Texas happy.

And his base

is really the far right.

And Don McLeroy has,

since being appointed chair

of the State Board of Education,

really been a lightning rod.

dd [bluesy guitar]

dd

When I first held my son

in my arms

and I realized the kind of

world he'd live in,

I started paying attention

to politics.

I was never very interested

in politics that much.

I always voted,

But when my kids

were very little,

I got really interested

in education.

I got interested in politics.

I've been elected

by my constituents,

And I've told them

what I'm for,

and I'm gonna do

the best I can to help,

you know, forward those ideas,

And frankly,

it's because these children

are precious little kids.

This is one place where

I will mention my religion.

My religion says that we're all

created in the image of God.

And because every little child

is created in the image of God,

I want to see that they have

the best opportunity possible.

If you want to control and shape

the politics of a state,

controlling and shaping

what students learn

in public schools

from age 5 through age 18

is a really, really smart strategy.

And we have witnessed

an intense focus

on gaining that control

by the far-right faction.

[applause]

Good morning.

My name is Steven Schafersman.

I'm president

Of Texas Citizens for Science,

And I was a member

Of the Earth and Space Science

Standards Writing Panel.

I have been following

this organization

for 28 years,

and there has been an effort

over this entire time,

for three decades,

to oppose science,

specifically evolution

and the origin of life.

This is a healthy debate

that's going on.

If you look at

the hundreds of people

that came to this hearing,

a lot of people are interested

in this issue.

And there's clearly

big groups on both sides.

And what you're gonna hear

is teachers,

scientists, professors, parents,

concerned citizens

across the state of Texas

that have voiced their opinion

that they want the "strengths

and weaknesses" standard

to remain.

Texas is really the first place

where that new political strategy

of promoting

the weaknesses of evolution

is having a test.

You're actually saying that

students have no business

critiquing scientific theories

or even scientific hypotheses?

Mr Mercer high school students don't have

the expertise or the ability to do that

in a scientific context.

So when you say:
'critique

the strengths and weaknesses'

I don't know what that means.

That is not scientific language

In science we investigate, analyze

do research, test hypotheses and

critiques are done in the

literature and among scientists

It's been requirement the last 20 years.

How many items of litigation

have you involved with the state

with the current requirement?

I'm aware of the requirement

for the last 20 years

it's been a problem

for the last 20 years.

The rule has been used by

anti-evolutionists

like the Discovery Institute

to come into Texas

and try to get bogus weaknesses

put in biology textbooks

They're trying to intimidate

and make teachers afraid

of teaching evolution

That's what the main goal

of this process is.

Science education

and evolution education

particularly is very politicised

in the Texas Board of Education

And the creationist majority

wanted to have the TEKS reviewed by experts in

science (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills)

The moderates selected three

competent well known Texas scientists.

Local guys.

The conservatives chose two

out-of-state

Intelligent Design supporters

and it seems odd that

they weren't able to find

3 experts in Texas for this.

They had to

go to a national organization

The Discovery Institute

for Stephen Meyer.

He's not really a scientist,

he's a historian of science

But he's an expert on Intelligent

Design, that's for sure

I'd like to present 4 binders

containin over 100 articles

from mainstream science journals

most of them peer reviewed.

Each of which presents either a weakness

in contemporary evolutionary theory

or a weakness in what is one of

the sandard aguments that are

commonly made in its favour

I chose Stephen C. Meyer and his

credentials are very impressive to me

because he brings the aspect of it

not just being strictly scientific

But the history of science

and the philosophy

and how it plays into it

and I think that's really

what we're dealing with

more than

just black and white science

There is a lot of concern,

if teaching weaknesses

is the same thing as bringing religion

or creationism into the classroom.

That's not what we want

and it's a very different thing

that would be bringing in

a religious alternative.

But there's an irony in this.

If you exempt a theory

from critical evaluation,

if you teach it as dogma

that can't be questioned,

then you're doing

the very thing that people fear

of bringing religion

into a discussion of science

They are masters

of deceit.

They are masters at the using rhetoric

to say one thing

while they mean something quite different

As in saying we have no intention of...

introducing creationism into the classroom

They first start out by saying

Intelligent Design has

nothing to do with creationism.

It has nothing to do with religion.

It is science.

All we say is, the evidence shows

there was an intelligent designer

but we do not claim to know

what or who that intelligent designer is

But it's of course

obviously transparent

that the intelligent designer

has to be the Creator.

I think we should be

teaching evolution

The way we teach it

at the university level.

We should be teaching the

scientific consensus on this.

The high school classroom

is no place to fight

the culture wars.

If the criticisms of evolution

become established science,

fine!

That's great!

It'll trickle down

into high school.

Are you aware that,

In the last 20 years,

there has not...

we have not had a section

on intelligent design

or creationism?

That's correct.

What you are discussing now

is whether you will teach

the denigration of evolution,

which is a longtime

creationist strategy.

To promote creationism

through the back door.

Had there ever been any

evidence of evolutionary fraud?

Of course.

Should we be allowed to teach that

as examples of bad science?

Certainly,

Just like you can teach examples

of political chicanery.

Thank you.

[laughter]

[murmuring]

dd [soft music]

dd

There are a lot of issues

that I care about,

But I don't wake up

in the morning and think,

I can't wait to go to T.F.N.

because I love to lobby

or, I wanna craft public policy.

I wake up in the morning

because I have two daughters,

and they go to public school,

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes