Bob Craig is proposing amendments to Earth and Space Science. These largely track recommendations from a panel of the ESS writers, in response to amendments offered by the Board last January.
The first strikes “differing theories” and replaces it with “information about,” in:
4) Earth in Space and Time. The student knows how Earth-based and space-based astronomical observations reveal information about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.
Dunbar asks who proposed it, and Craig points out that Kyle Lewallen presented it to the Board yesterday, and that he was Cargill’s appointee to the committee.
Cargill is whinging about Schafersman’s analysis of the amendment, which isn’t quite germane. She supports the old language (her amendment), saying it has humility. Will anyone ask what these supposed “differing theories” are?
Mavis asks what she means by “a little more humility.” Cargill: “There are more theories out there.” She likes an article on the origin of life in the universe, from Science, which isn’t germane to a standard on the origins of the universe, is it?
Motion fails, on a 6–8 vote
Next amendment: Changing “understands” to “know” in:
5) The student knows the solar nebular accretionary disk model.
He thinks it makes it clearer.
Cargill thinks it bumps it up a notch, using a higher level of Bloom’s taxonomy. But is that necessary?
Knight asks for Hardy and Allen’s views. Hardy thinks it’s a consistency matter, Allen agrees, both support the amendment. Fails 7–7.
(5)(B) investigate thermal energy sources of heat, including kinetic heat of impact accretion, gravitational compression, and radioactive decay, which are thought to allow and their role in protoplanet differentiation into layers and atmosphere and hydrosphere formation.
Underscores are additions, strikethroughs are removals. He can’t really explain his change, resting on the committee’s recommendation.
Cargill likes the first change, but wants to retain “which are thought to allow.” Cargill cites peer reviewed papers on asteroid formation.
Leo offers an amendment with only the “thermal” changes. No objection.
Craig amendment, grammatical (striking “the”), Cargill seconds, no objection.
Evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution and assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence;
Cargill objects because the Biology TEKS now question common descent, too. Which was a bad choice anyway. She cites Don Patton’s claim that no transitional fossils exist. Wants students to learn “universal common design.”
Motion fails 6–8.
Cargill offers another amendment. 4(A) replacing “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model, such as red shift and cosmic background radiation, and the concept of an expanding universe that originated about 14 billion years ago” with “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model, such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation, and current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.”
Miller wonders if this allows young earth creationism. Cargill says that the source of the amendment is the astronomy TEKS, which clarify that these must be scientific theories, but the ESS TEKS don’t.
Leo, supporting the amendment, replaces “cosmology” with “cosmetology.” McLeroy gets snippy as Cargill and Leo joke about that.
Mavis asks about consistency across disciplines, wondering if this amendment misses important differences between Astronomy and ESS, and why they aren’t consulting the experts.
Carries 11–3! Ugh.
Cargill turns to 6(A) inserts “that could have occurred” into “analyze the changes of Earth’s atmosphere that could have occurred through time from the original hydrogen-helium atmosphere, the carbon dioxide-water vapor-methane atmosphere, and the current nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere.”
Defends the amendment with the claim that “Science does not have all of the answers.”
No discussion. Folks are tired, I think. Passes 10–4.
Cargill goes after 7(B), changing “apply radiometric dating methods that can be used to calculate the ages of igneous rocks from Earth and the Moon and meteorites;” to “calculate the ages of igneous rocks from Earth and the Moon and meteorites using radiometric dating methods.”
Debate about whether it’s necessary to specify the need to calculate this. Passes 8–6.
On to 13(F) adding “given the complexity of living systems” to the end of “discuss scientific hypotheses for the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes in an aqueous environment through complex geochemical cycles.”
Cargill thinks this is analogous to bogus amendment added to biology. Passes 9–5.