San Antonio's Ken Mercer, part of the board's seven-member social conservative bloc, tried to put the much-debated "strengths and weaknesses" language back into the state's science standards that guide the content of textbooks and curriculum. Mercer's amendment to a final draft of the science standards would have required science teachers to discuss the so-called weaknesses of evolutionary theory in their science classes.
A few minutes ago, Mercer's amendment failed by one vote (the tally was 7-7).
Corpus Christi's Mary Helen Berlanga missed this morning's vote, though she isn't one of the board's social conservatives and would be expected to vote against the strengths weaknesses language.
The board will take a final vote on the science standards tomorrow.
Unless one of the other members has a last-minute change of heart, it appears the strengths and weaknesses language won't be included in the new science standards. That would be a huge victory for the pro-evolution side.
The bad news is that some other petty little odious amendments did make it through. I haven't followed this closely enough to tell you about it, but there are plenty of others who have, so for more information than you could possibly need, here's where to go:
Vince's liveblog from today.
On balance, I'd call it a good week for science, though between this and the stem cell skulduggery, I wouldn't say it was good by that much.
UPDATE: The TFN summarizes:
OK, we've had a little time to digest all that went on today at the Texas State Board of Education. Without going through each of the many amendments that passed, here's essentially what happened. This morning the board slammed the door on bringing creationism into classrooms through phony "weaknesses" arguments. But then board members turned around and threw open all the windows to pseudoscientific nonsense attacking core concepts like common descent and natural selection.
The amendments approved today are very problematic, regardless of the important victory over "strengths and weaknesses." We anticipate that all 15 board members will be participating tomorrow, however, including a pro-science member who was absent today. So there is still time to reverse course.
Tomorrow, with the final vote, the board has a serious decision to make: is the science education of the next generation of Texas schoolchildren going to be based on fact-based, 21st-century science or on the personal beliefs of board members promoting phony arguments and pseudoscience?
You can still weigh in by sending e-mails to board members at email@example.com. Texas Education Agency staff will distribute e-mails to board members.
UPDATE: Dave Mann thinks the picture is bleaker.
The seven social conservatives on the 15-member board mostly got their way this afternoon. They passed a series of minor amendments that, with a slight word change here and there, diluted the state's science standards and the teaching of evolutionary theory. Critics say these proposals open loopholes in the standards for the teaching of unscientific theories espoused by religious conservatives. (The same approach was tried, quite successfully, at the board's meeting in January.)
The change in fortunes occurred largely because of Rick Agosto of San Antonio, who voted against the social conservatives in the morning and mostly with them in the afternoon. Agosto is viewed as the key swing vote on the board. He voted against the "strengths and weaknesses" language in January and again this morning, despite fierce lobbying from religious groups in his district.
Agosto wasn't alone. Several other pro-evolution board members voted with the social conservatives' this afternoon.
The board will take its final vote on the science standards, which will set content of classes and textbooks for years to come, tomorrow. The board can add in or take out language up until final passage.
So one last fight is likely tomorrow.