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."

Interesting that you had to go to the 6th edition [of The Origin of Species] to find something that was an experiment. They do not appear in the first which I checked (and am sure you did too).

Why, you shameless little liar!

In the table below, all of the material I quoted from the 6th Edition is matched with the corresponding material from the 1st Edition. I have highlighted, in red, the only substantive addition in the 6th edition, where Darwin provides some data from experiments only (but nevertheless) alluded to in the 1st edition.

6th Edition	1st Edition
Believing that it is always best to study some special group, I have, after deliberation, taken up domestic pigeons. I have kept every breed which I could purchase or obtain, and have been most kindly favoured with skins from several quarters of the world, more especially by the Hon. W. Elliot from India, and by the Hon. C. Murray from Persia. Many treatises in different languages have been published on pigeons, and some of them are very important, as being of considerable antiquity. I have associated with several eminent fanciers, and have been permitted to join two of the London Pigeon Clubs....	Believing that it is always best to study some special group, I have, after deliberation, taken up domestic pigeons. I have kept every breed which I could purchase or obtain, and have been most kindly favoured with skins from several quarters of the world, more especially by the Honourable W. Elliot from India, and by the Honourable C. Murray from Persia. Many treatises in different languages have been published on pigeons, and some of them are very important, as being of considerable antiquity. I have associated with several eminent fanciers, and have been permitted to join two of the London Pigeon Clubs...
In the skeletons of the several breeds, the development of the bones of the face, in length and breadth and curvature, differs enormously. The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner. The caudal and sacral vertebrae vary in number; as does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula. The proportional width of the gape of mouth, the proportional length of the eyelids, of the orifice of the nostrils, of the tongue...	In the skeletons of the several breeds, the development of the bones of the face in length and breadth and curvature differs enormously. The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner. The number of the caudal and sacral vertebrae vary; as does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula. The proportional width of the gape of mouth, the proportional length of the eyelids, of the orifice of the nostrils, of the tongue...
Great as are the differences between the breeds of the pigeon, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all are descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects....	Great as the differences are between the breeds of pigeons, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all have descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects....
Some facts in regard to the colouring of pigeons well deserve consideration. The rock-pigeon is of a slaty-blue, with white loins; but the Indian sub-species, C. intermedia...	Some facts in regard to the colouring of pigeons well deserve consideration. The rock-pigeon is of a slaty-blue, and has a white rump (the Indian sub-species, C. intermedia...
To give one instance out of several which I have observed: I crossed some white fantails, which breed very true, with some black barbs-- and it so happens that blue varieties of barbs are so rare that I never heard of an instance in England; and the mongrels were black, brown and mottled. I also crossed a barb with a spot, which is a white bird with a red tail and red spot on the forehead, and which notoriously breeds very true; the mongrels were dusky and mottled. I then crossed one of the mongrel barb-fantails with a mongrel barb-spot, and they produced a bird of as beautiful a blue colour, with the white loins, double black wing-bar, and barred and white-edged tail-feathers, as any wild rock-pigeon! We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle of reversion to ancestral characters, if all the domestic breeds are descended from the rock-pigeon. But if we deny this, we must make one of the two following highly improbable suppositions. Either, first, that all the several imagined aboriginal stocks were coloured and marked like the rock-pigeon, although no other existing species is thus coloured and marked, so that in each separate breed there might be a tendency to revert to the very same colours and markings. Or, secondly, that each breed, even the purest, has within a dozen, or at most within a score, of generations, been crossed by the rock-pigeon: I say within a dozen or twenty generations, for no instance is known of crossed descendants reverting to an ancestor of foreign blood, removed by a greater number of generations....	Moreover, when two birds belonging to two distinct breeds are crossed, neither of which is blue or has any of the above-specified marks, the mongrel offspring are very apt suddenly to acquire these characters; for instance, I crossed some uniformly white fantails with some uniformly black barbs, and they produced mottled brown and black birds; these I again crossed together, and one grandchild of the pure white fantail and pure black barb was of as beautiful a blue colour, with the white rump, double black wing-bar, and barred and white-edged tail-feathers, as any wild rock-pigeon! We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle of reversion to ancestral characters, if all the domestic breeds have descended from the rock-pigeon. But if we deny this, we must make one of the two following highly improbable suppositions. Either, firstly, that all the several imagined aboriginal stocks were coloured and marked like the rock-pigeon, although no other existing species is thus coloured and marked, so that in each separate breed there might be a tendency to revert to the very same colours and markings. Or, secondly, that each breed, even the purest, has within a dozen or, at most, within a score of generations, been crossed by the rock-pigeon: I say within a dozen or twenty generations, for we know of no fact countenancing the belief that the child ever reverts to some one ancestor, removed by a greater number of generations....
Lastly, the hybrids or mongrels from between all the breeds of the pigeon are perfectly fertile, as I can state from my own observations, purposely made, on the most distinct breeds.	Lastly, the hybrids or mongrels from between all the domestic breeds of pigeons are perfectly fertile. I can state this from my own observations, purposely made on the most distinct breeds.
I am tempted to give one more instance showing how plants and animals, remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. I shall hereafter have occasion to show that the exotic Lobelia fulgens is never visited in my garden by insects, and consequently, from its peculiar structure, never sets a seed. Nearly all our orchidaceous plants absolutely require the visits of insects to remove their pollen-masses and thus to fertilise them. I find from experiments that humble-bees are almost indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. I have also found that the visits of bees are necessary for the fertilisation of some kinds of clover; for instance twenty heads of Dutch clover (Trifolium repens) yielded 2,290 seeds, but twenty other heads, protected from bees, produced not one. Again, 100 heads of red clover (T. pratense) produced 2,700 seeds, but the same number of protected heads produced not a single seed. Humble bees alone visit red clover, as other bees cannot reach the nectar....	I am tempted to give one more instance showing how plants and animals, most remote in the scale of nature, are bound together by a web of complex relations. I shall hereafter have occasion to show that the exotic Lobelia fulgens, in this part of England, is never visited by insects, and consequently, from its peculiar structure, never can set a seed. Many of our orchidaceous plants absolutely require the visits of moths to remove their pollen-masses and thus to fertilise them. I have, also, reason to believe that humble-bees are indispensable to the fertilisation of the heartsease (Viola tricolor), for other bees do not visit this flower. From experiments which I have tried, I have found that the visits of bees, if not indispensable, are at least highly beneficial to the fertilisation of our clovers; [language made more definite -- "are necessary" replacing "if not indispensable ... at least highly beneficial" -- and details of such experiments were added here in 6th Edition] but humble-bees alone visit the common red clover (Trifolium pratense), as other bees cannot reach the nectar....

looks like its just not you, but other of your evolutionist pals also have gone of the deep end. Even when new names are assigned to the stars, they are still in the same place...no matter how much the earth tilts. Perhaps you need to get your brain ordered so you can see the orderly Universe your pal Carl Sagan termed "cosmos" .

Where to start. Hmmmmmm....

The Earth is tilted on its axis from the plane of the ecliptic by 23.5 degrees. That tilt causes the North Pole to be currently pointed towards Polaris. As the Earth moves around the sun its pole stays pointed at Polaris. This is the cause of the seasons we experience. Note. This tilt varies back and forth from 21.6 degrees to 24.5 degrees approximately every 41,000 years.

There is also a precession of our pole and it sweeps a complete circle in the sky (think of the Earth as a top wobbling as it rotates) about every 26,000 years. (Hard to explain without a diagram)

There are also a number of other motions that must be taken into effect over the years such as the precession of the aphelion. Our Earth’s orbit around the Sun is not a perfect circle. It is an ellipse with the closest point of the orbit called the perihelion and the furthest point the aphelion. Currently the aphelion falls on the fourth of July. However, this is not always the case. The aphelion and perihelion change over the centuries and sweeps thru the calendar year with a periodicity of around 22,000 years. The amount of “squishing” (LOL now that’s a scientific term) of an ellipse is called its eccentricity. Note; the Earth's eccentricity is very small. However, even this changes over time. Its eccentricity varies periodically about every 100,000 years.

There are also other motions caused by the Moon, Jupiter and the Sun called Nutations. One of the major nutations has a period of 18.6 years. (There are others that must be computed as well when flying a spacecraft)

Now that we have that out of the way, we will now describe the Celestial Sphere. If we look at the stars in the night sky they appear to be stationary relative to each other. Even with the Earth moving from one side of the Sun to the other, the displacement due to parallax is less than one second of arc even for the closest star. One way of looking at this, is a fixed sphere of stars surrounding the Earth/Sun system. This is often referred to as the Celestial Sphere.

However, over time the stars do move relative to each other and relative to the Earth. This is why the right ascension and declination (star location) changes over the years. If you look at a star catalogue based on the epoch B1950 and one base on the epoch J2000, you will find a difference.

Another interesting item of note is that the constellations we see are made up of the brightest stars. Even in the same constellation these stars are at different distances from the Earth. Some may be dimmer than the others, however, being closer they are just as bright as a larger one further away. The brightness of a star is called its magnitude. There are two ways astronomers measure magnitude. Apparent Magnitude and Absolute Magnitude.

The Apparent Magnitude is how bright a star appears to us hear on the Earth.

The Absolute Magnitude is how bright a star would appear if it were exactly ten parsecs away from the Earth. (Close to 33 light years).

Two notes:

1) Apparent magnitude is usually denoted with a small “m” and absolute magnitude uses a capital “M”.

2) The magnitude scale is backwards of what you might think; the larger the number the fainter the object.

WOW, now that we got thru all of that, we see that the stellar positions and our relationships to them vary over the centuries.

Hmm, your sources did not mention the guinea pigs did they? Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link? Seems evo 'scientists' are very selective.

Yes of course I mentioned it. The guinea pig has a different mutation than we and the other apes do. Christian discussion of this issue See section 5. or other studies or another discussion that mentions guinea pigs and primates

Guess man and chimp descended from guinea pigs? Are guinea pigs the missing link?

Mocking it won't make it go away

First of all, it is not just men and monkeys

Monkeys can; it's the great apes, including people, that can't.

(an inactivated Vitamin C synthesis gene) has been found in one human so far and no apes

The claim here is that one person has been found who doesn't require vitamin C?

from the same source

4. Maybe the Lord inserted those similarities for a reason we do not understand. They could even have been inserted as tests of our faith. The Lord does not force any to believe, but gives opportunity to doubt for those who are seeking it.

5. Another possibility is that the Lord, when he cursed Adam and Eve after the fall, also cursed all life by introducing errors into the DNA. One could expect that similar species were cursed in a similar way, out of fairness.

OK, similar species were cursed in the same way out of a sense of fairness: did some chimp taste the forbidden fruit? This has to be the silliest thing I've seen in a while.

if primates closely related to humans have the SAME crippling mutations in their LGGLO pseudogenes as we see in the human pseudogenes, this finding would support the evolutionary model. As I pointed out, the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes, but in other shared pseudogenes identical crippling mutations clearly favor evolution

OK, so the other genetic details, DO favor evolution?!

Somehow, I had a feeling that you would bring this up again. Evolutionists have a way of continuing to use 'evidence' which has already been disproven

Where exactly was what disproven? The claim is that there is a shared mutation in the great apes, specifically a missing base pair in the LGGLO gene necessary for ascorbic acid synthesis. Is there or not?

...the moth fraud ...

What fraud? Was there or was there not a change in the colour of moths in industrialized Britain? The claim that mounting light and dark moth specimems on bark, to show the difference that the bird predators saw, somehow amounts to fraud is ludicrous - the original science was done by counting the number of light and dark insects, and by releasing light and dark insects, and seeing how many were eaten.

Where exactly is the fraud?

are still claimed as proof of evolution

Proof? No, just confirmation. There is a difference.

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.