The Revisionaries Page #4

We really need to replace it, OK?

[buzzing]

I think the most

Orwellian-named group

in this whole entire

culture war battle

is the Texas Freedom Network.

I don't know... I kind of think

they're kind of a self-perpetuating

liberal organization,

and the only way

they can keep going

is just to keep attacking us.

But I think, really, one

of the most amazing things is,

I've gotten to know Kathy Miller.

Kathy Miller's gotten to know me.

We've talked about things.

And I'm surprised

that she still sees

that the religious conservatives

Like me, like Gail, like Barbara

are such a threat.

I really do not understand

her fear of the conservatives.

I really don't understand it.

I just...

I don't understand Kathy Miller.

If you'd pray with me, please.

Father, we thank you

for an opportunity

to come together again

and discuss the business

of the public education

in our great state.

As we deliberate now,

we ask that you would give us

wisdom and discernment

as we make important

policy decisions.

Help us to implement our decisions

in the best way possible.

We pray in Jesus' name, Amen.

It was clear that

there were not eight votes

to force the 'strength

and weaknesses' language

into the curriculum standards.

Unfortunately,

some members of the Board,

I believe,

were fearful of the politics

of teaching evolution.

And they felt a need

to engage in a compromise

with the far-right members

of the Board

so that it couldn't be

a clear win or loss for anyone.

That compromise process

began with some...

a language that,

actually, a genuine expert,

Dr. Ron Wetherington from SMU...

He had introduced some language

talking about 'analyze and

evaluate scientific evidence

for the theory of evolution'.

Cynthia Dunbar seized upon

'analyze and evaluate'

because she saw

the political potential

and capital in that language.

I was not choosing words

from a political standpoint.

It was just,

'analyze and evaluate'

that Ron Wetherington

had put forward,

I knew from my scientific

background

that that was appropriate

language to use.

And we wanted that pertaining

to all scientific theories.

She convinced Bob Craig,

the Republican from Lubbock

who's one of the moderates,

to work with her

to develop language

that says,

'analyze and evaluate

'using scientific evidence'

"all sides" of the theory

of evolution. "

And it's the "all sides"

that will likely present problems

when textbook publishers begin

their work drafting textbooks.

The motion is:

after testing, to insert

the words including,

"examining all sides

of scientific evidence. "

Do we have copies?

We're not gonna discuss it

till we get a copy.

Just take a five-minute break.

One thing

that you should understand

about the State Board

of Education

is that every single time

the Board takes a break,

a Board member is surrounded

by people lobbying

from both sides of this issue.

"analyze and evaluate

how evolution explains

the complexity of the cell. "

"how evolution explains"...

I mean, that's what

Y'all don't understand.

You don't understand

the pressure that we're under.

A vote in favour puts this

in the TEKS

All those...

Oh, we'll take a record vote

OK, the motion carries

13 to 2

Mr Nunez and Mrs Berlanga voted no

It was a loss

Yes we shut the door

to the urging that we teach

"strengths and weaknesses"

But we threw the windows open

to creationists and

intelligent design theorists

trying to insert that stuff

in our textbooks in the future

by the new adoption of examine

"all sides" of the debate

Yesterday we had vote were they left out

the 'strengths and weaknesses' language

which to a lot of people, made them think:

"look the Board must want to allow

censorship and no discussion"

Then we had a vote today adding

the language of 'examining all sides'

and the word 'critique' into

the current standards

that have now been adopted.

That's just as good as saying

'strengths and weaknesses' if not better

I personally don't know what 'all sides' means.

I don't know what 'all' means in any of this

but I know it's better than

not having that strengths...

and that first one I'd like

to look at is section 112.34

which was striked 7B

There's a fear that those who

may have some ulterior motives

would use that to introduce something

that we don't believe is sound science

So I've been sitting here

reading, and I'm thinking:

'OK, what are we instructing

our teachers to do?'

OK, in 'A', we're talking about

evolutionary theory

universal common ancestry,

and they're looking at how that

evidence is provided among groups.

You can read the list

Right, now we need to take it

a step further

We need to bump it up. We need

to engage our students even more

So with Dr, McLeroy's additional

language it kind of

puts the period at the end

of the sentence.

That's how I think of it

let's let our kids talk about that

I think it's a fantastic TEKS

and I support it

This is the one that I didn't

understand last time

and ended up voting for it.

But I've learned something that

I should not vote on things

that I really don't understand

and it does a disservice

This standard represents

questions...

that our students can handle.

It is so scientific...

It's not complicated

It doesn't take mathematics

I disagree with these experts

Somebody's gotta stand up to

experts that are just...

I don't know why they're doing it

They're wonderful people but

the fossil record does to it

why take it out

The textbooks would say:

'there's the sudden appearence'

that this... that... that is...

It does raise problems for the idea

of common ancestry.

Thank you for letting me make my plea

and I would really like you to think

before you push this button.

Thank you.

The vote is 8 to 7,

the language will be struck.

What's happening is,

ideology has (triumphed) science.

The reason the Board members

voted the way they did

was 'cause the scientists

told them to

This is what they said.

And it hits...

That's not wha...

The scientist are not...

They lost their luster

'Cause the evidence

doesn't support it

Evidence doesn't support it

Evidence doesn't support it

To both the teachers,

that they have academic freedom

to allow and encourage

discussion within the classroom

and also to the publishers

that we do...

...language from both sides

to be brought in...

There are not many

Board members who say,

"I am an expert in string theory.

"I am an expert in gravitational theory.

And I will talk to you about that. "

But they will sure talk to you

about evolution.

And that is a mixture

of ignorance and arrogance,

which is a flammable mixture.

Miss Miller.

I've got a question, Just...

Would somebody explain to me

what stasis is?

Dr. McLeroy, you are wonderful

at explaining things.

Stasis is just

the equilibrium of an organism.

when you see it

in the fossil record.

When you first see it

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes