Talk:Texas textbooks

From EvoWiki

Reading the actual testimony (about 2/5ths now), a tedious process, reveals more about this case than the summaries describe. The majority of the witnesses were creationists, of course, merely appearing to want to "correct" evolutionary theory (usually expressed as "weaknesses" since there were specific Texas regulations requiring 'weaknesses" to be presented in the textbooks). The creationist-favorable board members used their position to ask leading questions of the creationist witnesses (often to give them more than their alloted 3 minutes of testimony), in contrast to the smaller number of anti-creationist who got their 3 minutes and that was all. Since the board ended up voting 11-4 anyway (against the creationists) perhaps the majority were just letting the creationists have their say, but it is startling to actually read the testimony and see how skewed the procedure was in favor of the creationists (only the vote to exclude out-of-state witnesses was a procedural win for the anti-creationists). What also is striking is how well coordinated and coached the witnesses were. For ordinary citizens they were remarkably brief and also presented a single coherent script (with an occasional wild card thrown in who wasn't scripted). That the witnesses wouldn't duplicate each other or wander off in irrelevant directions is ample testament to the pre-planning, esp. in coordination to the supportive board members that had to take place. Anyway, after I finish plowing through the testimony and tracking down who is who, I think I can add quite a bit to the arguments the creationists presented and the deceptive tactics they used. In several cases the anti-creationist board members must have anticipated these tactics as they successfully questioned the witnesses exposing their misleading comments. While the testimony is incredibly tedious, I can't actually call it "dull". It certainly isn't a "debate" since it is merely scripted positions. Since probably the creationists could count and knew they were going to lose, I suspect they haven't given up yet and will look toward another round. --Dmill96 05:58, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

An interesting example occurs in p.174-180 where Ms. Susan Wright declares that her son (tagging along with her) was taught Haeckel's drawing in 7th grade and she declared these to be discredited, also using the tactic of declaring them old. Upon close questioning, Ms. Wright finally admitted these were not actually Haeckel's drawings, just something that looked like them. Upon further close questioning, she admitted these drawings were not even in the text book! (this entire hearing is about text book contents and only text book contents) but something the teacher had brought in, and, no, they didn't haven't any copies, but she concludes her "case" by saying: "So I think we should support our Texas teachers". Fortunately two of the commissioner knew what was coming and were able to pierce this deception.