Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]
Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

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.

New books will be distributed next summer.

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."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: AndrewC
You are just too good sometimes!! LOL

My daughters though, seem to think so, I hate Barbie, the B#$# HAS EVERYTHING!!!
221 posted on 07/09/2003 3:29:21 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Again you use the word living as part of the definition of life.

Name me a person that does not agree that a cell is living.

222 posted on 07/09/2003 3:31:33 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You have simply cut the baby in half.

And you apparently are trying to recreate Zeno's paradox.

223 posted on 07/09/2003 3:33:29 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
organic chemicals are fairly common in the universe.

and they just appeared out of nowhere too ...

like hyper - hypothesis w / o cause - effect (( reality )) too !

ether science where evolution resonates in a vaccuum ...

just beleve - click your boots - heels ...

march or die too !

224 posted on 07/09/2003 3:33:43 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Name me a person that does not agree that a cell is living.

I could, given some time, cite biologists who argue that viruses are living. That is what we have been disputing.

225 posted on 07/09/2003 3:34:50 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
hog-wash...evolution has never been observed.

New thread, same old errors

Predicting evolutionary potential: In vitro evolution accurately reproduces natural evolution of the TEM b-lactamase. Barlow, Miriam; Hall, Barry G. Biology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. Genetics (2002), 160(3), 823-832. CODEN: GENTAE ISSN: 0016-6731. Journal written in English. CAN 136:337024 AN 2002:310125 CAPLUS

Abstract: To evaluate the validity of the authors' in vitro evolution method as a model for natural evolutionary processes, the TEM-1 b-lactamase gene was evolved in vitro and was selected for increased resistance to cefotaxime, cefuroxime, ceftazadime, and aztreonam, i.e., the "extended-spectrum" phenotype. The amino acid substitutions recovered in 10 independent in vitro evolvants were compared with the amino acid substitutions in the naturally occurring extended-spectrum TEM alleles. Of the 9 substitutions that have arisen multiple times in naturally occurring extended-spectrum TEM alleles, 7 were recovered multiple times in vitro. The authors take this result as evidence that their in vitro evolution technique accurately mimics natural evolution and can therefore be used to predict the results of natural evolutionary processes. Addnl., the results predict that a phenotype not yet obsd. among TEM b-lactamases in nature, resistance to cefepime, is likely to arise in nature.

226 posted on 07/09/2003 3:35:30 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Most atheists are content to say that they don't believe that God exists.

This begs the question: what is "God"?

Thousands of different religions across the millenia have proposed varying and often mutually exclusive "Gods". A monotheist, such as a Christian, lacks belief in all but one of these "Gods". An atheist lacks belief in one more than that.
227 posted on 07/09/2003 3:35:59 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Name me a person that does not agree that a cell is living

Everyone agrees. The replicating cell is the basic unit of life, however, that does not preclude various extentions in the definition either up or down the complexity axis.

228 posted on 07/09/2003 3:37:49 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
likewise saying, "we don't know how it happend, so evolution must be true" is not science.

If any credible scientist made such a claim, then you might have a point.-
229 posted on 07/09/2003 3:38:22 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
One can believe in God and in the Big Bang theory. I do; C.S. Lewis did [not that I put myself in his league.] :-)

Yes, you are right about that, many noted people do, in fact. But I don't. The reason is that the Big Bang theory is the product of naturalistic thinking, like mixing oil and water. Genesis is enough for me.

230 posted on 07/09/2003 3:38:49 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Typical slag // skag science ...

evolution --- one grain of diamond - gold !

(( at the recovery cost - rate ... it is damaging - worthless ))

pure 14 kt gold ... designeduniverse.com !
231 posted on 07/09/2003 3:39:00 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
CobaltBlue said:
"Most atheists are content to say that they don't believe that God exists."

You said:
"This begs the question: what is "God"?

I say:
This only begs the question as to what you believe God is, not others. Those who believe in God have already settled that question sufficiently to believe, you haven't.

So what's the answer?
232 posted on 07/09/2003 3:39:09 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Which gives significant credence to the panspermia hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth.

While sidestepping the question.

233 posted on 07/09/2003 3:39:56 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Junior
So, the mutation and selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria or pesticide-resistant pests does not count as observed evolution?

Hey, just because a new trait shows up in a genome doesn't mean you actually observed the mutation occurring at the molecular level. Come back when you have some evidence.

234 posted on 07/09/2003 3:40:35 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Another one (if you push me, my search came up with over 100 similar hits in the last 10 years)

Rapid in vivo evolution of a b-lactamase using phagemids. Long-McGie, Jeffrey; Liu, Amy D.; Schellenberger, Volker. Genencor International, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA. Biotechnology and Bioengineering (2000), 68(1), 121-125. CODEN: BIBIAU ISSN: 0006-3592. Journal written in English. CAN 132:292807 AN 2000:207909 CAPLUS

Abstract: RNA viruses are capable of undergoing extremely rapid evolution due to their high rates of reprodn., small genome size, and a high frequency of spontaneous mutagenesis. Here we demonstrate that a virus-like, evolutionary state can be created by propagating a phagemid population in a hypermutator strain of Escherichia coli in the presence of a helper phage. This enables one to subject individual phagemid-encoded genes to rapid in vivo evolution. We applied this approach to TEM-1 b-lactamase which confers resistance to 0.05 mg/L of the antibiotic cefotaxime. After 3 wk of in vivo evolution we were able to isolate a double mutant, E104K/G238S, of the enzyme which confers a 500-fold increased level of resistance to cefotaxime compared to the starting enzyme. In two independent expts. we obtained a triple mutant, E104K/G238S/T263M, which confers a 1000-fold increase in resistance compared to the wild type enzyme. The same three mutations have been previously obsd. in TEM-4 b-lactamase which was discovered in a highly cefotaxime-resistant clin. isolate. The probability of randomly obtaining a b-lactamase carrying three identical point mutations is less than 10-10. This indicates that phagemid evolution can rapidly reproduce evolution occurring in nature.

235 posted on 07/09/2003 3:40:57 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
If any credible scientist made such a claim, then you might have a point

The looney circle jerk ... tautology --- w / o a reality check !

236 posted on 07/09/2003 3:41:13 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Viruses have genes. Please explain how something which does not live has genes. They also mutate to better fit their host. Please explain how something which is not alive mutates.
237 posted on 07/09/2003 3:41:50 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
How do you define species in single celled organisms?
238 posted on 07/09/2003 3:41:52 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Teaching principles consistent with a religion is tantamount to teaching the relion.

What principles consistent with the "religion of atheism" are being taught?

Second, atheism most certainly is a religion - it's a belief system wherein one chooses to believe that there is no God.

It's a lack of belief in all gods, not just a choice to not believe in a specific God. If you could actually look at it from outside of the perspective of assuming your own religion as truth, then you might be able to understand this.

Atheism (word comes from theos) cannot exist without theism,

Yes it can. There just wouldn't be a word for it, because there would be nothing from which to differentiate it.

and it's adherents spend endless hours arging against theism which is prima facie evidence that there is no absence of belief, but vehement belief AGAINST theism.

And it has nothing to do with followers of various theologies insisting that their theology is truth with a minimal (if any) amount of evidence and attempts to shift the burden of proof onto the atheists (even though they're the ones who proposed the gods)?

If atheism is total lack of belief, then a true atheist can only remain silent on the subject of God and theism.

Again, you use the term "God" like it is a fully defined quantity for an atheist. This is not the case, and it shows that you have no understanding of atheism.
239 posted on 07/09/2003 3:42:10 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The reason is that the Big Bang theory is the product of naturalistic thinking, like mixing oil and water.

This would imply that religion states that the natural world does not exist at all. You've not thought your position through very carefully.
240 posted on 07/09/2003 3:43:33 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 4,381-4,387 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson