Texans for Better Science Education

Texans for Better Science Education is a misleadingly-named creationist organization that wants students in Texas to learn their "both sides" of the debate between creationism and the theory of evolution[1] Their website[2] lists apparent "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution (many of which sound suspiciously like creationist arguments), but does not list any of evolutionary theory's strengths (or creationism's multiple weaknesses).

The divine comedy Creationism

Running gags

Biblical literalism Young/Old Earth Intelligent design Creation scientists

Jokes aside

Biogeography Carbon dating Geology Plate tectonics

Blooper reel

Creation geophysics Is the Bible an Immoral Book? Louisiana Academic Freedom Act RATE v - t - e

Their work is challenged by Texan Citizens for Science[3].

Obligatory debunk

Given weakness of evolution

RationalWiki's responses

Origin of Life Weaknesses

(To quote Wikipedia, "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began."[4]But, since you bring it up...)

The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.	Sure, at any given place at any given moment. But, like the lottery, you're rolling the dice often enough that it's almost certain that some improbable things will happen.
The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.	Amides are actually quite difficult to hydrolyze; otherwise, the proteins of a body would "fall apart." The body requires specific enzymes to do so. Probability and facility are confused here. Also, is this not a problem for the designer as well?
No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems. All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.	There is no way to account for left-handed amino acids in an "origin of life" theory, but once life evolved, there is no problem with maintaining chirality, especially if amino acids of one organism, do not interact with amino acids of another, discrete organism. Again, there is still no mechanism for a designer-creator to design chiral amino acids and no explanation as to why such a designer-creator would want one chirality favored over another.
Photodissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!	There's a difference between oxide minerals (the geologic evidence) and free, molecular O2 in the atmosphere, and mineral evidence shows that metals that normally form insoluble precipitates in the presence of oxygen were mobile and able to accumulate in large bodies of water (Banded Iron Formations). Furthermore, this is a problem for the designer-creator that is not a problem for evolution, as organisms naturally selected mechanisms to deal with oxidative processes. While the details are not known as to how these processes developed, neither is it for the creator-designer.
There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.	That's because nature doesn't deal with information. Random, natural processes cannot create it because it only exists in the perception of the human mind. What nature does produce are random genetic shifts, and those that create useful amino acid sequences get to be preserved and passed on to future generations. Also, like most cdesign proponentsists making arguments from information theory, the author doesn't specify whether the mystical "information" that's so problematic is Shannon information or Kolmogorov information, which are not interchangeable. It actually doesn't matter which, though, as an information source in information theory is simply a random process that outputs symbols from a fixed alphabet at a given rate with all symbols being equally probable as output.[5] So yes, random processes are known to produce information.

Fossil Record Weaknesses

The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.	As pointed out on this blog, this is a patently false statement. Evolutionary theory has no problem with rapid, episodic change. Even if it did, the Cambrian explosion appears to have lasted between 70 and 80 million years. This is fast in geologic time but it's still a mind-bogglingly long time by the standards of any life form.
Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.	Another false statement. If there is no environmental pressures for evolution, a species can remain constant.
Most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile-hipped dinosaurs like Velociraptor and Deinonychus. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs.	Transitional fossils are only controversial if you are a creationist, and many are known. Furthermore DNA/genomic evidence for evolution is quite strong.

Presently Observed Nature Weaknesses

Why creationists and conservatives can't figure out adjectives (nature vs. natural, Democrat vs. Democratic, etc.) is beyond me...

Selective breeding has produced only very limited change with no new structures occurring over thousands of years and multitudes of generations of selection. This clearly demonstrates that there are natural limits to biological change. Examples: dogs, cattle, pigeons ...	As pointed out by this blog, the teosintes are an example of new structures occurring over a relatively short time span.
Induced mutations followed by selection in laboratory experiments have not produced any beneficial structural changes.	Talk to Richard Lenski. Before then, please define the word "beneficial".
Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial.	Most mutations are neutral, not detrimental. We'll give the author the benefit of the doubt here and assume he was misinformed on this point. Natural selection works perfectly fine with detrimental mutations: they are selected against and soon disappear. That's sort of the whole idea. The fact is that beneficial mutations do happen and are selected for, regardless of how frequently. Also, the effect of a mutation is not necessarily an "on-off switch".
Small changes resulting from natural selection are observed, but are not observed to accumulate to produce structural changes.	This is likely an ID argument—an irreducible complexity argument—that has been debunked before. Languages evolve in much the same way as populations, just (usually) much faster. Small changes in speech eventually add up to big changes until there's enough difference between, say, two dialects to classify them as separate languages—which is analogous to the process of speciation.
It is extremely difficult for scientists to propose in detail how the structural or biochemical systems of life could change from a more simple form that was functional.	It is impossible for creationists to propose a mechanism for their creator. Also, just because a part of science is in its infancy does not mean it is incorrect—the argument from ignorance is poor here given the tremendous amount of evidence for evolution.

General practice to avoid misunderstanding

When fossils are illustrated, the illustration should indicate which parts of the skeleton are actually present in the fossil material and which parts are inferred. This may be done for example by color, shading, or outline weight.	There is no weakness with evolution here. Many texts already do this. Maybe they should have included a dotted-line creator-designer as well.
Fossil abundance versus geologic period diagrams should be shown for all life forms discussed in the text or presented in tree of life or cladogram interpretations. One large diagram might be presented at an early point in the discussion of fossils. Where little intact fossil material is known, fine lines or dotted lines should be used to indicate inferred or hypothesized connections or relationships.	Again, many texts deal quite well with this. If many examples are given, one uber-diagram will be hard to digest. This is a stylistic difference that does not deal with a weakness to evolution.
If evolution is compared to the change over time of the product of any human endeavor, then the role of intelligence and purpose in that human endeavor must also be clearly recognized and discussed.	Few books use this sort of comparison as real examples of evolution are much more concrete. In fact, we'd advocate that books rid of this sort of analogy because it is incorrect and misinterpreted by IDers and creationists.

See also

• Texas Board of Education

References

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html
2. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/
3. http://www.texscience.org/
4. WP cites talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
5. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/shannon.html#Sources