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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: bondserv

321 posted on 07/09/2003 5:46:09 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
uhoh

tornado sirens in ahhhs!

brb
322 posted on 07/09/2003 5:47:02 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I think that the agnostic position is that it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if a god exists.

Such an agnostic could still accept the existence of a god "on faith" (and thus be a theist agnostic) or find the idea of believing in something that cannot be established to exist silly and not believe in any gods (and thus be an atheist agnostic).
323 posted on 07/09/2003 6:02:51 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Who is this ALS people speak of? I see no postings by an "ALS".
324 posted on 07/09/2003 6:04:07 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Who is this ALS people speak of? I see no postings by an "ALS".

So would you say you're agnostic on the question?

325 posted on 07/09/2003 6:06:58 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I'm agnostic about his existence.
326 posted on 07/09/2003 6:08:01 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: js1138
It's at least as real as Kent Hovind's doctorate. What is the going rate for a fake Ed.D. degree these days, anyway?
327 posted on 07/09/2003 6:09:26 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
ALS
Arnold Lewis Schwarzenegger - Terminator
328 posted on 07/09/2003 6:12:59 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
No, we would say the obvious. He selectively sees what he wants. evo-typical symptom
329 posted on 07/09/2003 6:15:04 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Well, the terminator part anyway. :-)
330 posted on 07/09/2003 6:16:43 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
If there is scientific evidence that creates problems for the Theory of Evolution, I'd like to hear it.

Well, actually it is the LACK of evidence that creates the problem for the Theory of Evolution. If there was substantial evidence, this debate would be moot. However . . .

331 posted on 07/09/2003 6:18:07 PM PDT by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timmy
Don't see any lack of evidence here...
332 posted on 07/09/2003 6:22:03 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: bondserv

333 posted on 07/09/2003 6:24:27 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I think that the agnostic position is that it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if a god exists. Such an agnostic could still accept the existence of a god "on faith" (and thus be a theist agnostic) or find the idea of believing in something that cannot be established to exist silly and not believe in any gods (and thus be an atheist agnostic).

I've never encountered these expressions. They're clever, but I suspect they're redundant. Intelligent theists realize they can't literally prove their positions are correct, so they would all be "theistic agnostics" as you define the term. They would differ only in the degree of their personal doubts, but all would understand that proof is impossible.

In the non-theist camp, I'm aware of a few catagories of this position, some being weak versions of atheism, some strong. Each variety concludes that he doesn't believe because: (1) I don't know if gods exist; (2) no one can know if gods exist; and (3) I do know that gods do not exist. These are all different positions.

334 posted on 07/09/2003 6:24:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Positions 2 and 3 are too strong for my blood. I could envision certain kinds of evidence that would convince me I had witnessed a manifestation of God, even though no one else could confirm it. Not being John Denver, I haven't been privy to such a manifestation.
335 posted on 07/09/2003 6:40:51 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: goodseedhomeschool
Dr. Dino has a new radio call in talk show which comes on M-F at 5:00 pm central time.
http://www.drdino.com
scroll to bottom of his page and click on the radio on line show. Here is your chance evos to have your voice heard. Think of your best question and call in 888-878-8436. I would love to hear you debate him live on the air. He is tough so have your notes ready. :)
His show is wonderful fellow Christians and Creationists. YOu will get a blessing. I will return later. Gotta go make pizza. Blessings to all.
I DID IT :)
I say if you question Dr. Hovind's ability, put it to the test. Fear not, learning is GOOD
336 posted on 07/09/2003 6:44:02 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (Evolution is the religion for men who want no accountability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: goodseedhomeschool
They don't fare well without each other. Can they do a conference call?
337 posted on 07/09/2003 6:46:14 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Sure, the more the better. I saw him take on 3 professors once, it was a thing of beauty. :)
338 posted on 07/09/2003 6:48:06 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (Evolution is the religion for men who want no accountability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
All your "sources" have been thoroughly refuted. SciAm was so ashamed it tried to sue those who refuted their article - again showing that evolution cannot stand the light of scrutiny. The rebuttal is 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub

There is plenty of Evidence Disproving Evolution , solid scientific evidence, as well as plenty of Amazing Creatures which are totally unexplainable by evolution. All one needs to see the falsity of the theory is to open one's eyes to the real scientific facts not to the rhetoric of pseudo-scientists.

339 posted on 07/09/2003 6:49:32 PM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goodseedhomeschool
I say if you question Dr. Hovind's ability, put it to the test

What if we question his integrity? Buying a degree from a storefront degree mill and then calling yourself 'Dr' isn't a hopeful sign we'll get an honest discussion.

340 posted on 07/09/2003 6:51:05 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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