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."

Exposing Textbook Evolution

TEXTBOOK	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10
ICON
Miller-Urey	D	D	F	F	D	F	D	F	F	F
Darwin's tree of life	F	D	D	F	F	F	F	F	F	F
Vertebrate limb homology	D	D	D	D	F	F	D	F	D	D
Haeckel's embryos	F	D	F	F	F	D	F	F	F	F
Archaeopteryx	C	B	D	D	D	F	D	F	F	F
Peppered moths	X	N/A	D	F	F	F	F	D	F	F
Darwin's finches	F	D	D	X	D	F	F	D	F	F
OVERALL GRADE	D-	D+	D-	F	F	F	F	F	F	F

List of Textbooks Evaluated
(All have copyright dates of 1998 or later. Books are listed alphabetically by first author's last name.)
1. Alton Biggs, Chris Kapicka & Linda Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-02-825431-7
2. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece & Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, Fifth Edition (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1999). ISBN 0-8053-6573-7
3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9
4. Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3
5. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8
6. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
7. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9
8. Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2
9. William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3
10. Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X.

Specific Evaluation Criterion
In general, an "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theory -- like all scientific theories -- might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts. An "F" indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.

The Miller-Urey Experiment
Many modern scientists believe that living cells arose from chemical building-blocks that formed on the early Earth. In 1953, Stanley Miller used an electric spark to simulate lightning in a mixture of gasses thought to resemble the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and produced some of the chemical building-blocks of life. The experiment is pictured in many biology textbooks to show that scientists now understand an important early step in the origin of life. But scientists determined over a decade ago that the Earth's primitive atmosphere was probably nothing like the mixture of gasses Miller used, and now acknowledge that the origin of life's building-blocks remains unexplained.

D= includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; but the accompanying text explicitly points out that this was probably not the case (merely listing other gasses, and leaving it to the student to spot the discrepancy, is not sufficient); may leave the student with the impression that the experiment (or some variant of it) demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.
F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

Darwin's Tree of Life
Darwin believed that all living things are modified descendants of one or a few original forms. Most biology textbooks show the branching-tree pattern that would result from such "descent with modification," and tell students that it is so thoroughly confirmed by the fossil and molecular evidence that it may be called a "scientific fact." But the fossil record of the "Cambrian explosion" shows that the major groups of animals appeared at about the same time -- a "lawn" rather than a tree; and recent molecular evidence suggests a "tangled thicket" instead of the branching pattern of Darwin's tree of life.

D = assumes the truth of universal common ancestry without questioning it (and may call it a "fact"); mentions the Cambrian explosion in the body of the text (briefly mentioning it in a note at the end of the chapter, without explaining what it is, is not sufficient), but does not discuss the problem it poses for Darwinian evolution.
F = assumes the truth of universal common ancestry without questioning it (and may call it a "fact"); does not even mention the Cambrian explosion.

Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
A bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand all contain bones that are structurally similar. Before Darwin, biologists called this "homology," and considered it evidence for a common design, but Darwin attributed it to a common ancestor. Modern Darwinists have re-defined homology as similarity due to common ancestry, but now homology cannot serve as evidence for common ancestry without arguing in a circle. Many biology textbooks use circular reasoning anyway: We know that two features are homologous because they come from a common ancestor, and we know they come from a common ancestor because they're homologous.

D = defines homology as similarity of structure and position, and cites it as evidence for common ancestry; may attribute homology to similar genes or similar developmental pathways, but fails to mention that the evidence does not fit the claim.
F = defines homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then engages in circular reasoning by citing homology as evidence for common ancestry.

Haeckel's Embryos
Darwin believed that all animals with backbones (including humans) evolved from fish-like ancestors, and he thought the best evidence for this was that the early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are similar to fish embryos. Many biology textbooks carry drawings (originally by Ernst Haeckel) to illustrate this, and claim that human embryos possess "gill slits." But embryologists have known for over a century that such drawings are false, and that early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals do NOT resemble fish. Human embryos pass through a stage when they have wrinkles in their necks, but they never have "gill slits."

D = uses actual photos rather than Haeckel's drawings, but chooses those which best fit the theory; fails to mention that earlier stages are dissimilar, and claims that early similarities in vertebrate embryos are evidence for common ancestry and Darwinian evolution; may call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits."
F = uses Haeckel's drawings (or a re-drawn version of them) without mentioning the dissimilarity of earlier stages; claims that early similarities in vertebrate embryos are evidence for common ancestry and Darwinian evolution; may call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits."

Archaeopteryx - The Missing Link
Darwin believed that modern species were linked in the past by innumerable transitional forms, but when he published his theory in 1859 those transitional links were missing. The discovery of Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with reptile-like teeth, helped to persuade many people that Darwin's theory was true, and many biology textbooks still feature Archaeopteryx as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. Yet paleontologists no longer believe that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors are the subject of heated controversy. The "missing link" between reptiles and birds, it seems, is still missing.

D = presents Archaeopteryx as the transitional link between reptiles (or dinosaurs) and modern birds; does not point out that modern birds are probably not descended from it, but at least hints at the fact that there is a controversy over its ancestry or its transitional status.
F = presents Archaeopteryx as the transitional link between reptiles (or dinosaurs) and modern birds; does not point out that modern birds are probably not descended from it, and does not even hint at the fact that there is a controversy over its ancestry or its transitional status.

Peppered Moths
Darwin had no direct evidence for natural selection, the principal mechanism in his theory of evolution. Experiments in the 1950s seemed to provide the missing evidence by showing that light-colored peppered moths were more easily seen and eaten by predatory birds on pollution-darkened tree trunks, leaving mostly dark-colored moths to survive and reproduce. Many biology textbooks carry photographs of light and dark peppered moths on tree trunks to illustrate this famous story. Yet biologists have known for over a decade that the story has problems. Among other things, peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and the textbook photographs have been staged.

D = uses staged photos without mentioning that they misrepresent the natural situation; but the accompanying text at least hints at the fact that there are problems with Kettlewell's experiments or the classical story.
F = uses staged photos without mentioning that they misrepresent the natural situation; describes Kettlewell's experiments as a demonstration of natural selection, without mentioning their flaws or problems with the classical story.

Darwin's Finches
Many biology textbooks claim that finches on the Galapagos Islands, whose beak sizes are correlated with the foods they eat, helped to convince Darwin of evolution by natural selection in 1835. But the legend of "Darwin's finches" was actually contrived a century later. Some textbooks also tell students that a slight increase in the average size of finch beaks, observed after a severe drought in the 1970s, shows how natural selection could produce a new species in only two hundred years. But the textbooks fail to mention that the change was reversed when the rains returned, and no net evolution occurred.

D = describes the Galapagos finches as a good example of adaptive radiation (the origin of species by natural selection); but points out either that selection on finch beaks oscillates between wet and dry years or that the finches did not play an important role in the formulation of Darwin's theory.
F = describes the Galapagos finches as a good example of adaptive radiation (the origin of species by natural selection); but fails to mention that selection on finch beaks oscillates between wet and dry years, and implies that the finches played an important role in the formulation of Darwin's theory.
source

Wells Vindicated on Multiple Counts

And science should not be religion

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.