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 ... 2,261-2,2802,281-2,3002,301-2,320 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: Junior
And at the bottom.
2,281 posted on 07/14/2003 1:29:49 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2279 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; BMCDA
But what is this "creeping hand" movie?
Some real snoozer from the 30s or 40s. Can't think of a list of search terms that would get under 20,000 hits.

I think you mean The Beast with Five Fingers.

2,282 posted on 07/14/2003 1:30:30 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2276 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I still don't think Jesus was confused about the first two people He created. I also think He would have cleared up that geneological mess in the Old Testament if He felt there was one.

Well it would have been nice if he could have at least got his geneologies to match each other instead of leaving another of many condradictions in the bible

Genealogies of Jesus from Matthew and Luke (David to Jesus)
Mt.1:6-16 Lk.3:21-31
  1. David
  2. Solomon
  3. Robomoam
  4. Abia
  5. Asa
  6. Josaphat
  7. Joram
  8. Ozias
  9. Joatham
  10. Achaz
  11. Ezekias
  12. Manasses
  13. Amon
  14. Josias
  15. Jecohnias
  16. Salathiel
  17. Zorobabel
  18. Abiud
  19. Eliakim
  20. Azor
  21. Sadoc
  22. Achim
  23. Eliud
  24. Eleazar
  25. Matthan
  26. Jacob
  27. Joseph
  28. Jesus
  1. David
  2. Nathan
  3. Mattatha
  4. Menan
  5. Melea
  6. Eliakim
  7. Jonan
  8. Joseph
  9. Juda
  10. Simeon
  11. Levi
  12. Matthat
  13. Jorim
  14. Eliezer
  15. Jose
  16. Er
  17. Elmodam
  18. Cosam
  19. Addi
  20. Melchi
  21. Neri
  22. Salathiel
  23. Zorobabel
  24. Rhesa
  25. Joanna
  26. Juda
  27. Joseph
  28. Semei
  29. Mattathias
  30. Maath
  31. Nagge
  32. Esli
  33. Naum
  34. Amos
  35. Mattathias
  36. Joseph
  37. Janna
  38. Melchi
  39. Levi
  40. Matthat
  41. Heli
  42. Joseph
  43. Jesus

2,283 posted on 07/14/2003 1:34:12 PM PDT by qam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2272 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
You have it!

Been decades at least since I saw it, but I was never afraid of the silly hand, which may or may not have just been a Fig Newton of somebody's imagination. (I forget.)

One of the more forgettable outings of Hollywood's horror-flick assembly line of that era.
2,284 posted on 07/14/2003 1:34:56 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2282 | View Replies]

To: qam1
flamesuit on placemarker
2,285 posted on 07/14/2003 1:36:55 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2283 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I thought he meant this one:

The Crawling Hand!

Or this one:

The Creeping Eye!

2,286 posted on 07/14/2003 1:39:47 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2282 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
There was no "before" the Big Bang, as time did not exist.
2,287 posted on 07/14/2003 1:40:30 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2280 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Or maybe this classic:

The horror of ...

2,288 posted on 07/14/2003 1:41:45 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2286 | View Replies]

To: Junior; Aric2000
Atheist - evolutionists seem only capable of contriving a false theory based on tautology - word games - mantras and shibboleths !

Main Entry: [1]ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know —more at KNOW Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

shib-bo-leth

Part of Speech noun
Pronunciation shI bE lehth shI bE lihth
Definition 1. a slogan, phrase, or belief that characterizes or is held devotedly by a group.
Example the shibboleths of communism.
Definition 2. a piece of language or a pronunciation that serves as a test of one's membership in a group.

Related Words password , catchword , motto

2,289 posted on 07/14/2003 1:42:18 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- architecture !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2287 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
From the review of "Crawling Hand, The (1963):"

Finally he throws it in the trash and cats eat it. The end.

Seldom see a movie ended like that.

2,290 posted on 07/14/2003 1:44:50 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2286 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Some real snoozer from the 30s or 40s.

Uh.. OK, thought it was someting more recent. However, I'm pretty sure they recycled that idea in the 60's or 70's.

2,291 posted on 07/14/2003 1:45:09 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2276 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Don't you understand? This is one of those cases wherein the Bible can't be taken literally, but only figuratively -- a bit like the obvious contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2 that any third grader could pick out, but which do not exist according to creationists because we are not interpreting Scripture correctly (only they can interpret it correctly, you see). Of course, we'll be called anti-Christian, or idiots for pointing this out, and maybe some of the more helpful souls will point us to an obscure 18th century theologian who does a much more intricate dance around the issue, but the fact remains that the plain words of the Bible are contradictory.

Now, I knowse I'm gonna get flamed, but it had to be said.

2,292 posted on 07/14/2003 1:46:01 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2283 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Oy vey! More "Evil limb"- movies ;)
2,293 posted on 07/14/2003 1:47:15 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2286 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Could be the Creeping Flesh from 1972.
2,294 posted on 07/14/2003 1:47:32 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2286 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
If God inspires you to interpret the Bible one way, and He inspires someone else to interpret it differently, are you both right?

I have to say, interpreting a foreign language using a dictionary is almost universally acknowledged to be fraught with peril. The rule of thumb in translations is to translate from your strong language to your weak one. In other words, the appropriate person to translate Greek into English would be someone whose native tongue is Greek.
2,295 posted on 07/14/2003 1:49:32 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2181 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
Then there's the Oliver Stone / Michael Caine The Hand from 1981. Vaguely recall that one from the time.
2,296 posted on 07/14/2003 1:50:11 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2293 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The creeping hand's gonna get you.
2,297 posted on 07/14/2003 1:51:16 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2292 | View Replies]

To: Junior; qam1
haha, Junior: If, at anytime in the future you'd rather me put my name on the more blasphemous posts, I'll be happy to help you out. At least then I won't have to endure the anti catholic or "you're not a real christian" stuff you do. I'll just get the "dumb atheist" stuff. I can deal with that just fine.
2,298 posted on 07/14/2003 1:52:02 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2292 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Not a REAL christian placemarker.

By the way, what is a REAL Christian.

Well, if you believe how they believe, then you are a real christian, but if you don't, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!! ....

At least they are consistent....;)
2,299 posted on 07/14/2003 1:55:34 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 2298 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Also, IIRC there is a passage in Matthew which states that you can divorce in case of marital unfaithfulness but the same passage in Mark makes no exceptions, so if you divorce and marry someone else you commit adultery.
2,300 posted on 07/14/2003 1:58:56 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2283 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,261-2,2802,281-2,3002,301-2,320 ... 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