Reporting From the Front Lines of the Texas Evolution Debate

Just hours before the Texas State Board of Education held its final hearings on the science education standards that would be put in place for the next decade, I set my kitchen timer for three minutes. I practiced my testimony among open jars of peanut butter and jelly strewn about from making kids' lunches. Ding. I still had my conclusion to read. What could I cut?

For months I had been slinking around the controversy in Texas. I had gone to ... Full Story »

Posted by Kristin Gorski

See All Reviews »

Review

Walter Cox
2.6
by Walter Cox - Apr. 2, 2009

Author Juli Berwald's obvious bias blinds her to the fact that most people who are open to new avenues of scientific inquiry supportive of a hypothesis of intelligent design are scientific folk (many eminent in their fields) who also embrace the established theory of evolution. What they favor is school policy that allows for scientific questioning of the exclusivity of traditional Darwinian evolution (random mutation combined with natural selection) as an explanation for the life forms we observe on our planet. The author crudely equates intelligent design with creationism; actually the two are quite different. Both traditional Darwinian evolutionists and intelligent design folk are focused on the "How?" question. Only creationists want to include the "Why?" question in school curriculae.

Although hypothesis and theory are often used simultaneously, the truly scientific among us are always open to new hypotheses that challenge established scientific theory. Only those with shallow grounding in science wish to close the door to inquiry that might reveal new evidence challenging established scientific theory. This sort of closed-mindedness results in a stranglehold much like that imposed by the Catholic Church at the dawn of the scientific era. The "science gestapo," as some observers have called it.

See All Reviews »

Walter's Rating

Overall
2.6

Average
from 12 answers
Quality
2.5
Information
3.0
Insight
2.0
Style
3.0
Context
2.0
Expertise
2.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.0
Recommendation
2.0
Credibility
4.0
More How our ratings work »