Lying for Science: The Texas Science Standards

With the recent Texas School Board Decision to do away with "strengths and weaknesses language" we have come across a lot of titles like this "Science Setback For Texas Schools" around now while I agree that doing away with such points is a Science setback, the articles take a different perspective. This is due to the fact that the actual vote was not strictly in favor of, but tied to maintain the ruling that the language be removed. However, from the afore mentioned article:

Although the "strengths and weaknesses" wording that has been part of the standards for over a decade was finally excised--wording that has been used to pressure science textbook publishers to include creationist arguments--a number of amendments put the creationist-inspired wording back in.

"What we now have is Son of Strengths and Weaknesses," says Josh Rosenau, a project director for NCSE. "Having students 'analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence' is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology
textbooks."

Now look at how little of the actual text we see quoted here. Is this what the ammendments really say? Let's take a look.

“in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Wait... that seems a little different that what E. Scott implied. That doesn't even single out evolution. All it says is allow students to analyze and evaluate and critique scientific explanations. IOW critical thinking. If I have to be a "Creationist" to support critical thinking, I am fine with that. What I take issue with is lying to the scientific community about what is really going on, and lying to the public. We also hear from her:

"The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science,"

"The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore
the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the
country."

Orly? From another article we hear:

"Reasonable people understand we are not trying to cut off debate and stifle academic freedom. The problem is that [evolution] critics want religious perspective put into the classroom, which we know is unconstitutional," she (Mavis Knight) said.

Is that really what this is about? There are always at least two sides to a story. What do the "Creationists" say?

During its deliberations, the Board was presented with hundreds of articles from mainstream science publications documenting various scientific controversies over major evolutionary claims, and this past week the Board heard testimony from science teachers, students, and Ph.D. biologists about the need for students to critically analyze the scientific evidence for evolution.

Wait... why don't we ever hear about that? What we from the Creationists is like this:

"I don't see how we can say there is no disagreement about evolution. There is disagreement," said Mercer, taking issue with science teachers and academics who told the board that the theory of evolution is universally accepted in the scientific community.

Who is the one really pushing ideology over fact here? I will give you a hint. It is not "Creationists".