Thinking critically is what science is all about.
Introducing long-since refuted ideas as valid criticism is nonsense.
So just ask yourself, are these standards made to better science or to weaken it by introducing non-scientific and anti-scientific religious beliefs in the guise of critical thinking? The latter is clearly the case. That's what these new standards are all about and everyone knows it.
Claiming that this is pro-science is nonsense.
Thinking critically is what science is all about.
Except when it comes to the cult of evolution.
Can you show us any instance, ever, of where your cult was challenged and you didn’t attack the challenge as a science hating religious attack?
It’s been a while, but could you recite your scientific qualifications, training and experience that should lead any person to believe you actually know anything about the subjects on which you comment.
If I recall correctly, you have no background in biology, chemistry, microbiology, or biological chemistry; isn’t that correct?