The Revisionaries Page #3

and they deserve absolutely

everything I can do to ensure

that they

and every other student

attending public schools

gets the best possible education.

And the curriculum

is the building blocks.

The schoolhouse is the place

where that incredible benefit accrues.

And the State Board

of Education, these days,

seems to be doing everything

they can, to mess it up.

I'm president of the Texas

Freedom Network Education Fund

and we are putting on this Board of

Education candidate training today

The Texas Freedom Network

Education Fund was created in 1996

and we focus on research and citizen

education and leadership training

on the issues of religious freedom,

civil liberties and public education

The State Board of Education

in our opinion

is probably one of the most

important bodies in this state

in determining education policy

and the content of what

our kids in the public schools learn

from kindergarten to graduation.

It's a down ballot race that almost

no one has ever heard of before

with districts that have over

a million potential voters in them

That's an extremely

unique circumstance

So we thought that it was really

important to do this kind of training

for anyone who's interested

in the campaign

dd [soft music]

dd

Participating in the review

of the science standards

was really

a very awakening lesson for me,

Because what I discovered,

much to my chagrin,

is that the level

of just plain ignorance

of the basic facts

of science,

the basic terminology

that science uses

that the average eighth grader

knows very well,

those terms, those concepts,

those ideas

were not only alien

to most of the board members,

but, in fact,

most of the board members

had completely faulty

understandings of those.

And we're not talking

about interpretations;

we're talking about the facts.

If we simply have

analyzed and evaluate,

and every sensible person

understands...

including the textbook writers.

Understands that that includes

any weaknesses where they exist,

they're gonna put it in.

But it has to be on

a legitimate scientific basis.

So "legitimate" only means

if it's not challenging

Neo-darwisinem...

Darwinism...

Or what do you mean by that?

Clarify that.

The alternative to Darwinism,

in order to be debatable,

must be

of equal scientific merit.

Not demonstrated, not proven,

but of equal scientific merit.

When we ask a student...

When I ask my students

to evaluate this particular skull

as to whether or not

it belongs to a new species

or a preexisting one,

if I make the argument that

it should belong to a new species,

what's the weakness

of that argument?

And that's what 'evaluate' means.

But if I ask them,

"show me the weakness

in this argument?"

Perhaps the argument

has no weakness.

And so I'm asking them

to do something

that probably should not be done

because it doesn't need to be done.

But I would argue this:

that a hearty discourse

on any issue,

by asking them

to show you the weakness

when there is none,

only serves to underscore

the fact that it is strong.

There is no fear from asking that

if there truly is no weakness.

You're absolutely right.

And we're talking here

not about what happens

in the classrooms

but what happens when

we're selecting textbooks.

I understand that.

But the textbooks

are only going to use areas

that are going to promote

discussion within the classroom.

That's right,

but you remember in 2003,

when that language was there,

there was a large discussion

going on about,

"well, this particular

science textbook

"does not talk about

any weakness in evolution.

We should reject it. "

Textbook publishers were being

leaned upon very heavily

back in 2003

to add a lot of

creationist-inspired nonsense

to their books

so that they could meet

the standard

of the TEKS

of strengths and weaknesses.

And this is very scary

for textbook publishers,

because none of them

really want to put

all this so-called weaknesses

of evolution in the books.

But if Texas requires them

to do it,

they have to do it.

You have a gate-keeper

that you have to get past

to get to the marking room.

In Texas the gate-keeper

is the Standards from the

State Board of Education Review

You've gotta make sure that

you get through that gate.

Otherwise you don't have an

opporunity to sell your materials

in a very significant market

In Texas the law was that

every child would have a new book

every 7 years. And so they would

adopt on a cycle

And when they bought the product

they bought 110% of the enrolment

right out of the chute.

So they put a huge amount of money

that Texas was putting in.

That meant that a publisher

could publish at the Texas cycle

to the Texas mandates

and recoup its investment

by the start

But if you go too far

with material

to address those gatekeeper concerns

you run the risk of

being rejected in the market place

There is the catch for the publishers

Being on the State lists in Texas

all that does is give you the license

to go out and sell

your materials in the market

it doesn't guarantee

that you'll sell a single book

I'm currently

a freelance science writer

writing textbooks for a national

textbook publishing company.

My publishers recognize,

as do I,

that in order for a text book to be

approved by the Board of Education

the standard must be covered completely

Science is based on testing

and evaluation.

If you can't design

an experiment to test something,

you'll have a very hard time

learning anything about it.

Alternative theories

that attempt to explain

the diversity of species

on this planet

and the origin of life

are simply not testable

and, therefore, not science.

Why would you want students

to read nonscientific ideas

in a science book?

Thank you.

Miss Dunbar?

So would you feel

as a textbook author

that if the language 'strengths

and weaknesses' was stricken,

that "analyze and evaluate"

would give you an onus

to present evidence

that's supportive

and nonsupportive?

[sighs]

It's hard to find

scientific evidence

that's not supportive

of that theory.

[grumblings]

- Whoo!

[gavel]

We will be silent in the audience.

I want to tell you if

it's outbursts like that,

I'll empty the room

and just have the testifiers

come in to testify.

We are not gonna have

any outbursts like that.

Thank you.

OK, let me simplify

the question for you

[beep]

OK, turn this way a bit.

Open wide as you can.

I became a Christian when I was 29.

And within that first year of...

After putting my trust

in Jesus Christ,

I was fully convinced that

you could fully trust the Bible.

And 30 years later,

I'm even more convinced.

I'm also convinced about...

It's biblical principles

that made this country free.

And as a board member,

it's not my role

to force my view on it,

and I have not.

I guarantee you. I have not.

Well, this filling you've had

there about 30, 40 years.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes