Texas and Evolution: What did it all mean?

For three days, from March 25 through March 27 of 2009, the Texas State Board of Education argued about their final draft of science standards, with all sorts of amendments and last-minute changes and appeals to outside experts of varying stripes. But what did it all mean? There were far greater stakes than merely the science requirements for a decade's worth of Texas' schoolchildren...

Unofficially, this was the biggest skirmish in the nationwide, century-long "Evolution Wars," since 2005's Dover, PA trial. Just as in Dover, all of the usual suspects from out-of-town were hovering around the edges of the proceedings: The Seattle-based Discovery Institute's lawyer, Casey Luskin, on the one hand, and the Berkeley-based National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott on the other.

At stake was what tactics doubters of evolution should try next. Courts have ruled out public-school coverage of creationism, scientific creationism, and with the Dover trial, intelligent design. (Only the folks who don't pay attention to the news are trying to argue on those bases anymore.) But, as Eugenie Scott is fond of remarking, the "other side" is a perfect example of evolution at work. When they hit a barrier like an unfavorable court decision, they change and adapt for new strategies.

Going into the discussion, it appeared that the "next wave" would be the "strengths and weaknesses of theories" language. Given that it was already in Texas' last set of standards (and that the Discovery Institute and others had been able to make use of it in the 2005 biology adoption to beat publishers soundly around the head and shoulders), it seemed like a natural next step, especially when cloaked in the glorious robes of defending "academic freedom." But it was felled (at least this time, and in this place) by a simple but narrow political majority.

Another disturbing development had been Chairman McElroy's quick sleight-of-hand in attaching some very detailed amendments to the teaching of very specific topics about evolution. (Most of the usual tactics in the past targeted very general statements, about the doubts of evolution.) These, too, were defeated by the same simple but narrow political majority.

But the results were not a home-run for mainstream science either. While some enormous and disastrously gaping loopholes were closed, a few loopholes remain (alternative theories for origin of universe, and doubts about origin of life issues). At the close of the meeting, neither side's cheerleaders in the audience looked pleased. (Perhaps that's the sign of a true compromise: nobody is completely pleased.)

So for now, the smoke and dust has cleared from this battlefield, and the armies of both sides contemplate where and when it will be time to try each other's might once more.