I am dressed today as a woman from the time when there was an actual controversy concerning The Theory of Evolution. At that time, the concerns inherent in the Science TEKS, Rule 3A might have been called for. The year is 1860. Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” has sold out. The scientific community was divided. Debates were heated. Will this theory stand up to the rigors of the scientific method?

In the year 1860, no one ever would have guessed that germs cause gum disease or cavities. In the year 1860, I would be afraid of birthing in a hospital, since the mortality rate was as high as 16%. Why so high? Because physicians didn’t wash their hands when moving from cadavers to laboring women!(1)

In the year 1860, most scientists recognized Cell Theory, the idea that all living things are composed of cells, but the idea that all cells come from pre-existing cells was not yet widely known. In other words, they still thought that maggots arose spontaneously from raw meat(2,3). Obviously no one would waste precious classroom time teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of Cell Theory or Germ Theory of Disease. We are beyond having a 19th century understanding of these Theories. We have a 21st century understanding of these Theories.

So why is Texas considering jumping back 150 years to teach that the Theory of Evolution is controversial and poorly understood, when in fact it is not controversial and is very well understood? Shouldn’t we teach our children sound science?

But what is sound science? I would not expect an elected official to have a scientist’s understanding of sound science any more than you would expect me to understand the intricacies of running an election campaign. To ignore the advice of scientists about science would be like me ignoring the advice of my dentist who tells me I’m doing a bad job of brushing my teeth.

You have at your disposal experts on what is sound science and I am one such expert. I hope you are listening: Teaching “strengths and weaknesses” or “limitations” of any theory, especially one as accepted as The Theory of Evolution, is not sound science.

In 1860, Darwin’s Theory was under debate. But even then, no one spoke of “strengths and weaknesses.” In fact, I can’t remember in all my years of education and work in the field of science ever referring to the “strengths” or “weaknesses” of any Theory. Certainly, Theories in their infancy might be controversial. Look no further than the Multiverse Theory, for such a case. There is talk of probability. There are hypotheses proposed that beg testing. But there is no discussion of “strengths and weaknesses.”

Aside from the fact that the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” is not legitimate scientific terminology, it is simply irrelevant in the case of The Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution in the year 2009 is far from its infancy.

In fact it is solidly accepted in the scientific community. Using the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” makes it sound like the Theory of Evolution works, but only “kinda-sorta.” To the contrary, 95% of scientists at the University of Texas want only Evolution taught.(4) Of all the innumerable data points gathered with regard to the Theory of Evolution, there have been exactly zero instances when the data did not support the Theory of Evolution. ZERO. It has passed the rigors of scientific testing 100% of the time. The controversy is entirely in the minds of politicians, religious leaders, media, and the unwitting public that listens to them.

You might be saying to yourself, “Yes, but what about this ‘weakness’ I’ve heard about?” I can’t address each false weakness in the three minutes I have been allotted. But in January, the Center for Inquiry Austin will launch a web site that will. Suffice to say “Scientists reject teaching the so-called “weaknesses” of evolution, with 94 percent saying that those arguments are not valid scientific objections to evolution.”(5)

Please heed the words from the expert standing before you and the vast majority of scientists in the world. We have science’s best interest at heart.

We also have our children’s best interest at heart. We are genuinely concerned about how Texas’ students will look to universities, research programs, and scientists in general if they are taught this faulty approach to learning about science. To use “strengths and weaknesses” language will make clear to anyone in science that the speaker is not up-to-date in the field of science.

People across the country are watching to see what you do. So are people in other countries. They sit poised to see if you will make the same mistake that the Kansas State Board of Education and the Dover Area School District made in 2005. Please don’t set Texas’ science education standards back 150 years.

827

It was “true” and “false.”(6) There are gaps that scientists would like to see filled. But this is nothing more than formulation of hypotheses, not a weakness. The Eiffel Tower (inaugurated in 1889) is not a solid structure, but it is exceptionally sturdy—an engineering marvel—and it is gorgeous, just like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

http://www.bda.org/museum/story.cfm?ContentID=530
1831 first reclining dental chair

http://www.ada.org/public/resources/history/timeline_19cent.asp
1844 Dr. Horace Wells nitrous oxide first used
1871—James B. Morrison patents the first commercially manufactured foot-treadle dental engine. Morrison’s inexpensive, mechanized tool supplies dental burs with enough speed to cut enamel and dentin smoothly and quickly, revolutionizing the practice of dentistry.
1890—Willoughby Miller an American dentist in Germany, notes the microbial basis of dental decay in his book Micro-Organisms of the Human Mouth. This generates an unprecedented interest in oral hygiene and starts a world-wide movement to promote regular toothbrushing and flossing.
1895—Wilhelm Roentgen, a German physicist, discovers the x-ray. In 1896 prominent New Orleans dentist C. Edmond Kells takes the first dental x-ray of a living person in the U.S.
1905—Alfred Einhorn, a German chemist, formulates the local anesthetic procain, later marketed under the trade name Novocain.
1930–1943—Frederick S. McKay, a Colorado dentist, is convinced that brown stains (mottling) on his patients’ teeth are related to their water supply. McKay’s research verifies that drinking water with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride is associated with low dental caries and a high degree of mottled enamel.  By the early 1940s, H. Trendley Dean determines the ideal level of fluoride in drinking water to substantially reduce decay without mottling.
1950s—The first fluoride toothpastes are marketed.

James Buchanan is President