Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) -
The long-running debate over the origins of mankind continues Wednesday before the Texas State Board of Education, and the result could change the way science is taught here and across the nation.

Local and out-of-state lobbying groups will try to convince the board that the next generation of biology books should contain new scientific evidence that reportedly pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Many of those groups say that they are not pushing to place a divine creator back into science books, but to show that Darwin's theory is far from a perfect explanation of the origin of mankind.

"It has become a battle ground," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of theNational Center of Science Education, which is dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Almost 45 scientists, educators and special interest groups from across the state will testify at the state's first public hearing this year on the next generation of textbooks for the courses of biology, family and career studies and English as a Second Language.

Approved textbooks will be available for classrooms for the 2004-05 school year. And because Texas is the second largest textbook buyer in the nation, the outcome could affect education nationwide.

The Texas Freedom Network and a handful of educators held a conference call last week to warn that conservative Christians and special interest organizations will try to twist textbook content to further their own views.

"We are seeing the wave of the future of religious right's attack on basic scientific principles," said Samantha Smoot, executive director of the network, an anti-censorship group and opponent of the radical right.

Those named by the network disagree with the claim, including the Discovery Institute and its Science and Culture Center of Seattle.

"Instead of wasting time looking at motivations, we wish people would look at the facts," said John West, associate director of the center.

"Our goal nationally is to encourage schools and educators to include more about evolution, including controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists," West said. "We are a secular think tank."

The institute also is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have occurred without the help of an unknown, intelligent being.

It pushed this view through grants to teachers and scientists, including Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The Institute receives millions of dollars from philanthropists and foundations dedicated to discrediting Darwin's theory.

The center sent the state board a 55-page report that graded 11 high school biology textbooks submitted for adoption. None earned a grade above a C minus. The report also includes four arguments it says show that evolutionary theory is not as solid as presented in biology textbooks.

Discovery Institute Fellow Raymond Bohlin, who also is executive director of Probe Ministries, based in Richardson, Texas, will deliver that message in person Wednesday before the State Board of Education. Bohlin has a doctorate degree in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas at Dallas.

"If we can simply allow students to see that evolution is not an established fact, that leaves freedom for students to pursue other ideas," Bohlin said. "All I can do is continue to point these things out and hopefully get a group that hears and sees relevant data and insist on some changes."

The executive director of Texas Citizens for Science, Steven Schafersman, calls the institute's information "pseudoscience nonsense." Schafersman is an evolutionary scientist who, for more than two decades, taught biology, geology, paleontology and environmental science at a number of universities, including the University of Houston and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.

"It sounds plausible to people who are not scientifically informed," Schafersman said. "But they are fraudulently trying to deceive board members. They might succeed, but it will be over the public protests of scientists."

The last time Texas looked at biology books, in 1997, the State Board of Education considered replacing them all with new ones that did not mention evolution. The board voted down the proposal by a slim margin.

The state requires that evolution be in textbooks. But arguments against evolution have been successful over the last decade in other states. Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska made changes that, to varying degrees, challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.

In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education voted to wash the concepts of evolution from the state's science curricula. A new state board has since put evolution back in. Last year, the Cobb County school board in Georgia voted to include creationism in science classes.

Texas education requirements demand that textbooks include arguments for and against evolution, said Neal Frey, an analyst working with perhaps Texas' most famous textbook reviewers, Mel and Norma Gabler.

The Gablers, of Longview, have been reviewing Texas textbooks for almost four decades. They describe themselves as conservative Christians. Some of their priorities include making sure textbooks include scientific flaws in arguments for evolution.

"None of the texts truly conform to the state's requirements that the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories be presented to students," Frey said.

The Texas textbook proclamation of 2001, which is part of the standard for the state's curriculum, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that biology textbooks instruct students so they may "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weakness using scientific evidence and information."

The state board is empowered to reject books only for factual errors or for not meeting the state's curriculum requirements. If speakers convince the state board that their evidence is scientifically sound, members may see little choice but to demand its presence in schoolbooks.

Proposed books already have been reviewed and approved by Texas Tech University. After a public hearing Wednesday and another Sept. 10, the state board is scheduled to adopt the new textbooks in November.

Satisfying the state board is only half the battle for textbook publishers. Individual school districts choose which books to use and are reimbursed by the state unless they buy texts rejected by the state board.

Districts can opt not to use books with passages they find objectionable. So when speakers at the public hearings criticize what they perceived as flaws in various books - such as failing to portray the United States or Christianity in a positive light - many publishers listen.

State Board member Terri Leo said the Discovery Institute works with esteemed scientists and that their evidence should be heard.

"You cannot teach students how to think if you don't present both sides of a scientific issue," Leo said. "Wouldn't you think that the body that has the responsibility of what's in the classroom would look at all scientific arguments?"

State board member Bob Craig said he had heard of the Intelligent Design theory.

"I'm going in with an open mind about everybody's presentation," Craig said. "I need to hear their presentation before I make any decisions or comments.

State board member Mary Helen Berlanga said she wanted to hear from local scientists.

"If we are going to discuss scientific information in the textbooks, the discussion will have to remain scientific," Berlanga said. "I'd like to hear from some of our scientists in the field on the subject."

Here's just one of hundreds that have been published recently:

Evolution of an antibiotic resistance enzyme constrained by stability and activity trade-offs. Wang, Xiaojun; Minasov, George; Shoichet, Brian K. Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry, Northwestern University School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Journal of Molecular Biology (2002), 320(1), 85-95. CODEN: JMOBAK ISSN: 0022-2836. Journal written in English. CAN 137:306563 AN 2002:472408 CAPLUS

Abstract: Pressured by antibiotic use, resistance enzymes have been evolving new activities. Does such evolution have a cost. To investigate this question at the mol. level, clin. isolated mutants of the b-lactamase TEM-1 were studied. When purified, mutant enzymes had increased activity against cephalosporin antibiotics but lost both thermodn. stability and kinetic activity against their ancestral targets, penicillins. The x-ray crystallog. structures of three mutant enzymes were detd. These structures suggest that activity gain and stability loss is related to an enlarged active site cavity in the mutant enzymes. In several clin. isolated mutant enzymes, a secondary substitution is obsd. far from the active site (Met 182 Thr). This substitution had little effect on enzyme activity but restored stability lost by substitutions near the active site. This regained stability conferred an advantage in vivo. This pattern of stability loss and restoration may be common in the evolution of new enzyme activity.

Layperson's translation. You can introduce a single mutation into a pennicilinase enzyme. That mutation will enlarge the active site, allowing the enzyme to chew up cephalosporin, and making the bug resistant to that antibiotic. (Good for the bug, bad for you). However, that mutation makes the protein a little less stable (bad for the bug). However, a second mutation is also found that increases the stability of the protein back to its previous level, meaning you have a protein which is stable and confers a new kind of resistance.

Of course you need an old earth, time is the only friend to evolution. I do not think this time frame of billions of years is accurate in the least.

I'm curious, why not? It's not likewe only have one data point that says that there's an old Earth. There's independent confirmation from many fields that Earth is most definitely old. In Astrophysics, you have the MAP data I mentioned, which confirms the Hubble Key Project, which is an observational program that uses multiple methods to confirm the distance scales to distant objects. It used 5 separate methods to determine that the universe was old.

Close by, there is radioactive dating of rocks brought back from the moon, which shows that the Earth is old. You have radioactive dating of meteorites that shows that the earth is old. You have radioactive dating the oldest rocks on earth showing that the earth is old. You have radioactive dating of thousands of fossils showing that they are old, plus you have the fact that you can use the sedimentary layers that the fossils are found in as an independent dating mechanism for the fossils themselves.

Every new fossil they find is just that, a new fossil. Those bones did not come with an age tag on it. I am sure many creatures met their demise at the flood. If these fossils show evolution, then how come we find modern fossils under the so called "older ones".

The earth is not a constant. Things change. The surface is not static, the crust moves over the molten core. Sometimes two plates rub up against each other, or things are compressed. Even though the sedimentary layers are nice and organized like a book in most places in the world, there are a few places in this world where the pages are ripped out, and shuffled around. They are not the norm, just an abberation, since the fossils are all found in the same layers as they would be if they were laid on top of each other.

Mutating fruit flies is an example of what happens when scientists manipulate the conditions. It is never a beneficial mutation either. I don't think IMHO that any of that proves evolution in the least.

Sure it is. It shows the base mechanisms of the theory at work. Another hypothesis of the ToE is that if you mess with the genetic structure of an organism, it will not look like it's predecessors. A laboratory environment is necessary to do this, otherwise you might get a different kind of fruit fly in your experiment from someplace else. The best way to do this kind of science is to manipulate one thing while keeping everything else static. If everything is changing, you can't be sure what is actually causing the effects you observe. If you change one thing, you can be reasonably sure that the cause of the result of the experiment is the one thing you changed. Does that make sense to you? I would disagree that all mutations are harmful. You've read the articles about the pet fish that they are selling in Asian pet stores that glow in the dark? Genetically mutated fish created in a laboratory.

There have been plenty of discussion on these threads showing how what we observe today is in line with the Biblical account of Creation. -me

We recently had a discussion of radioactive dating, in which it was shown that in order to be consistent with Biblical ages, one has to hypothsize that radioactive decay was many millions of times faster in the past. That, in turn, would have wiped out all life on earth. There really is no way, in other words, to reconcile uranium:lead, uranium:helium, and potassium:argon ratios in rocks with a young earth. And many of the most prominent Christian IDer 'scientists' acknowledge that a young earth is impossible. Dembski, Behe at al are not evos.

Here is a post I saved from a pulled thread where i pointed out to Junior the fallacies of dating methods: The conclusion is that dating methods that evolutionist's love to use, are not reliable...here is the post: ***************

To: Junior

Thanks for the effort you put into your response concerning dating methods. Unfortunately your source does not adequately deal with some of the points I previously made concerning "going in assumptions" and "purity" problems with dating methods used by evolutionists and others. Your response, using your source, about additions/deletions of Parent or Daughter Isotopes, is especially poor. I have posted a few excerpts that deal with the problems of some of the highly touted dating methods.

This is from Andrew Snelling's article, DUBIOUS RADIOGENIC Pb PLACES U-Th-Pb MINERAL DATING IN DOUBT

"Clearly, the results of U-Th-Pb mineral dating are highly dependent on the investigator's interpretations. Radiogenic Pb is easily lost by diffusion from some crystals and the process is accelerated by heat, water, radiation damage, and weathering, while in other crystals it is inherited in excess. Apparent ages vary significantly within crystals at sub-microscopic scales, and on different crystal faces and at different crystal orientations. These effects make U-Th-Pb "dating" of whole mineral grains (and thus whole rocks) highly questionable at best. Such dubious radiogenic Pb behavior places U-Th-Pb mineral dating in doubt. "

This seems logical to me. You suggested that the scientists "throw out" rocks for dating if perfect conditions don't exist for the rock to be studied. First, one must trust the scientist and that, in his zeal, does not throw out the problems outlined in snelling's work. Additionally, if a rock is really old, how can the one dating the rock verify that some of the problems outlined by Snelling didn't occur? One would have to know the exact history of a rock....a daunting, if not impossible task.

Now...on to the next method of dating....

POTASSIUM-ARGON AND ARGON-ARGON DATING OF CRUSTAL ROCKS AND THE PROBLEM OF EXCESS ARGON

In this article, the author points out many of the problems with this method. Here are a few excerpts....might want to read the whole article in context to see exactly why this method cannot be trusted at all

"According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar* in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess 40Ar*, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in situ radioactive decay of 40K.1 This excess 40Ar* represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle by the parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance."

In the next excerpt, he is refering to contamination......

"However, are all other rocks in the earth's crust also susceptible to "contamination" by excess 40Ar* emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable."

And finally, the author explains what happens when rock sample is subjected to heat and pressure...when this happens the dating methods are again shown to be unreliable:

"When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*).2 In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres.3 This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize."

"Dalrymple, referring to metamorphism and melting of rocks in the crust, has commented: "If the rock is heated or melted at some later time, then some or all the 40Ar may escape and the K-Ar clock is partially or totally reset."6 Thus 40Ar* escapes to migrate in the crust to be incorporated in other minerals as excess 40Ar*, just as 40Ar* degassing from the mantle does. Excess 40Ar* has been recorded in many minerals (some with essentially no 40K) in crustal rocks—quartz, plagioclase, pyroxene, hornblende, biotite, olivine, beryl, cordierite, tourmaline, albite, and spodumene"

"his crustal migration of 40Ar* is known to cause grave problems in regional geochronology studies. For example, in the Middle Proterozoic Musgrave Block (northern South Australia), a wide scatter of K-Ar mineral "ages" was found, ranging from 343Ma to 4493Ma due to inherited (excess) 40Ar*, so no meaningful interpretation could be drawn from the rocks.11 Of the diabase dikes which gave anomalous "ages," it was concluded that the basic magmas probably formed in or passed through zones containing a high partial pressure of 40Ar*, permitting inclusion of the gas in the crystallizing minerals. Likewise, when Ar "dating" was attempted on Proterozoic granulite-facies rocks in the Fraser Range (western Australia) and Strangways Range (central Australia), it was found that garnet, sapphirine, and quartz contained excess 40Ar* that rendered the Ar dating useless because of "ages" higher than expected.12 The excess 40Ar* was probably incorporated at the time of the formation of the minerals, and calculations suggested a partial pressure of ~0.1 atm Ar in the Proterozoic lower crust of Australia, which extends over half the continent"

And another problem is shown in the following quote:

"Because it is known that excess 40Ar* is carried from the mantle by plumes of mafic magmas up into the earth's crust, it is equally likely that much of the excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks could be primordial 40Ar. Thus, we have no way of knowing if any of the 40Ar* measured in crustal rocks has any age significance. Additional to the primordial 40Ar from the mantle is 40Ar* released from minerals and rocks during diagenesis and metamorphism, so that there is continual migration and circulation of both primordial 40Ar and 40Ar* in the crust which is reflected in their presence in CO2-rich natural gases. Therefore, when samples of crustal rocks are analyzed for K-Ar andAr-Ar "dating," one can never be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the rocks is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since their formation, or if some or all of it came from the mantle or from other crustal rocks and minerals. "

All this leads to the leads to the final conclusion (i added U-Th-Pb,because I used the two different snelling articles):

"All U-Th-Pb, K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of crustal rocks are questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.