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 ... 4,061-4,0804,081-4,1004,101-4,120 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: ALS
evo sop sponge suck up judas placemaker !
4,081 posted on 07/17/2003 8:02:13 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4078 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Gone for the rest of the evening. Placemarker.
4,082 posted on 07/17/2003 8:03:12 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Idiots are on "virtual ignore," and you know exactly who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4081 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Try reading.
4,083 posted on 07/17/2003 8:03:27 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4080 | View Replies]

To: js1138
God of dysentery?

3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138


I did. Those are your words. Not quotes from someone else, and even if they were, you chose them.

you are openly disgusting

live with it
4,084 posted on 07/17/2003 8:04:37 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4083 | View Replies]

To: ALS
It is you guys who claim that the bacterial flagellum was deliberately designed by an omniscient creator. What do you suppose those bacteria do? I mean specifically the ones with flagella.
4,085 posted on 07/17/2003 8:09:00 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4084 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Here is a 1996 article by Larry Tribe I just turned up. I did not realize that the Defense of Marriage Act was a hot button issue back then as well.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/NYTtribe.html

One certainly cannot accuse Tribe of being a conservative, so it's fair to say that his arguments track the liberal party line. He agrees with me about Full Faith and Credit, which you are welcome to find unconvincing.

It won't come as any surprise to the Greek Chorus on the thread, but my caseload is majority divorces (then bankruptcies). Further, I have zero problem with homosexuality between consenting adults. Surprise, surprise.

As a result of both having gay friends and handling divorces, I doubt very much that the vast majority of gay men would actually commit to the strictures of heterosexual marriage. I don't know any heterosexual man who would willingly pay spousal support. I find it ludicrous to contemplate that a gay man would do so.

Men are men. They don't want to give up their money, or their toys, or their autonomy.

If gay men knew that they'd have to give half of everything they own to their partners in the event of divorce NO FAULT, would they do so? My guess is no.

The only real agenda which is driving gay "marriage" is HIV/AIDS and health care coverage for same.

Would the world come to an end if a nice, domesticated gay man wanted to marry another nice, domesticated gay man so his partner could have the benefits of marriage? I think not.

My beloved grandmother willingly rented her rental home to a nice gay couple in Biloxi, Mississippi, almost 40 years ago. One worked for the US Air Force at Keesler, the other was (stereotype alert) a hairdresser, who was a dear at advising me on how to do my nails and hair.

She didn't care whether they were black, white, pink, green, purple or polka-dotted, only whether they were decent human beings.

I strive to live my life according to her principles.
4,086 posted on 07/17/2003 8:10:06 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4075 | View Replies]

To: js1138
God of dysentery?

3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138


keep spinning
4,087 posted on 07/17/2003 8:11:26 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4085 | View Replies]

To: ALS
God of dysentery?

And god of rats. And god of cockroaches. And god of hamsters. And god of snakes. And god of kangaroos. And god of polio. And god of AIDS. And god of chimpanzees. And god of cholera. And god of ebola. And god of (some) humans.

Which part don't you understand?

4,088 posted on 07/17/2003 8:33:52 PM PDT by balrog666 (Universe inexorably winding down - women and children hardest hit! Film at 11.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4087 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue; ALS; scripter; AndrewC
Thank you for your post!

Indeed, I read all seven translations of John 1:3 and 10, Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16 … I didn’t just look at one.

And by comparing all seven, side-by-side, I see no substantive difference. You obviously do.

For the other Freepers in this discussion and any Lurkers still following it, here is what purports to be the official Catholic view of the matter:

U.S. Catholic Bishops - Catechism of the Catholic Church

II. Creation—Work of the Holy Trinity

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create"—Hebrew bara—always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being.

"In the beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was God . . . all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." The New Testament reveals that God created everything by the eternal Word, his beloved Son. In him "all things were created, in heaven and on earth . . . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." The Church's faith likewise confesses the creative action of the Holy Spirit, the "giver of life," "the Creator Spirit" ("Veni, Creator Spiritus"), the "source of every good."

The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit, inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative cooperation is clearly affirmed in the Church's rule of faith: "There exists but one God . . . he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by himself, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom," "by the Son and the Spirit" who, so to speak, are "his hands." Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity.


4,089 posted on 07/17/2003 8:34:57 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3985 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Won't work. he's cooked and he knows it. Otherwise he wouldn't be spinning and whining for you to help UNSPIN his filth.

btw - interesting how you chose all lower case "g"'s and he didn't.


get it yet sparky?

4,090 posted on 07/17/2003 8:38:22 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4088 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
>>Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity. <<

So, in your mind, would it be proper to say that the Holy Ghost created the Universe?
4,091 posted on 07/17/2003 8:49:38 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4089 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I predict that not one of the Creationists on FR will criticize g3k for this particular lie. Not one criticized his falacious bibliography. By their continued silence they give their approval.
4,092 posted on 07/17/2003 8:55:07 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3819 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Thank you for your reply and your question!

So, in your mind, would it be proper to say that the Holy Ghost created the Universe?

I'm not getting a reaction in the Spirit to this sentence of the above Catechism text:

The Church's faith likewise confesses the creative action of the Holy Spirit, the "giver of life," "the Creator Spirit" ("Veni, Creator Spiritus"), the "source of every good."

Generally, when I read a Spiritual Truth I feel it strongly. But I will check the Bible for confirmation of the non-confirmation.

4,093 posted on 07/17/2003 8:56:30 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4091 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
It looked more like a sauteeing pan in the past.
4,094 posted on 07/17/2003 8:56:30 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3820 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
God of dysentery?

3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138


hypocrite
4,095 posted on 07/17/2003 9:03:34 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4092 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
So, some form of spirit moves you in the here-and-now and that's as good as orthodox theology?

Interesting.
4,096 posted on 07/17/2003 9:04:19 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4093 | View Replies]

To: MitchellC
I believe we're created with certain knowledge ...

Chomsky makes that argument but not everyone accepts it. What knowledge do you claim that people are created with? You must have some idea just to make the claim. (Note that reflexes do not count.) How many cells does an embryo need to actually have such knowledge?

4,097 posted on 07/17/2003 9:14:55 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3948 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thank you for your research,

I was raised Catholic and was taught this very thing. However, I have not been a Catholic for over 12 years.

I was a little worried for our Catholic brothers and sisters for a minute. Glad you could clear that up.
4,098 posted on 07/17/2003 9:16:42 PM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4089 | View Replies]

To: js1138
As far as I can tell,Just about every Kenneth in the world claims to have just the right frequency, but no one has the same one. Just as everyone has a piece of the one true hologram, but they don't seem to be cut from the same master.

LOL! Yes, if they could all just converge on a single "frequency" they can all agree with, then that would be evidence there was something valid there.

4,099 posted on 07/17/2003 9:26:29 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4028 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Thank you so much for your reply!

So, some form of spirit moves you in the here-and-now and that's as good as orthodox theology?

Not at all. It is infinitely better than orthodox theology!!!

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9

Back to the subject at hand. The non-confirmation in my Spirit was confirmed in my research. Here’s what I found:

The breath of God, made Adamic man a living soul - Genesis 2:7

The host of the heavens were made by the breath of God – Psalms 33:6

But the breath of God is not the same thing as the Spirit of God. For instance,

The Spirit of God came upon Saul in 1 Samuel 11:6 and left him in I Samuel 16:14.

Jesus said that He had to go to the Father, before the Spirit could come (Pentecost) John 16:7

The witnesses in Tribulation will be raised from the dead when the Spirit of Life enters them Revelation 11:11

But the only claim that “the Spirit made me” came from Job’s friend Elihu in Job 33:4.

Therefore, I take the Catholic reading on this as a tradition of the church and not based on the Word.

4,100 posted on 07/17/2003 9:26:58 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4096 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 4,061-4,0804,081-4,1004,101-4,120 ... 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