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."

How could you teach your students obedience without describing disobedience?

Actually, it can be done. I find the word obedience to have some baggage I'd rather not carry. I would prefer to ask, how can you teach children to live in conformity with morality. Christian morality is something other than a list of rules to be obeyed. It requires a positive or proactive effort, not just to obey rules but to love, to make things better. It is not enough to refrain from hurting people. You need to apply your intelligence to protecting the weak and building political and economic institutions that reward fair play.

In the case of children it is rather simple. Be the kind of person you want your children to be. When the store clerk gives you too much change, explain to your children that you have to go back and return the money, because the clerk is responsible for errors.

Now is this easy to do, and have I always been this perfect? Absolutely not, but I tried.

The only credentials I bring to these discussions are in psychology and special education. I can assure from both theory and from experience raising my kids, that it is easier and more effective to teach them what you want them to do than to teach what you want them not to do. If someone wants to stay on the road, you do not need such enormous siderails.

First, you ignored 3 of the 5 evidences I gave.

Tis true. Sorry...

1. Manuscript evidence: There are over 15,000 manuscripts of the OT and NT which prove that the bible has been preserved over the centuries...

I don't deny this. But just being old doesn't mean anything to me. There are plenty of old religious texts. This isn't supernatural evidence of anything.

2. Archeology: Over 5,000 artifacts and finds have confirmed the truth of biblical passages but not one find has conclusively controverted any bible passage...

I don't deny this. There are plenty of old artifacts found to corroborate many things. This isn't supernatural evidence of anything.

4. The life of Jesus Christ Himself: Jesus Christ claimed He was the Son of God come to take away the sins of the world and rise again from the dead. He made the wildest claims possible, yet is considered to be a "good man and wise teacher" even by skeptics. No one who makes the claims He made can be considered a good man or wise teacher. He was either who He claimed to be, or he was a liar, or he was a lunatic. Those are the only options.

This is actually interesting, and a new take on things. I don't deny Jesus existed. You've caught me though, b/c I've always (as one who attaches no deistic quality to the man) been one of those who say, "he's was a good man and wise teacher." I guess I've justified it by saying that he never claimed he was the son of god, but rather that others tagged him with that after his death. I'll stick with that, but I may have to revise it.

This is a very deep scholarly topic and in order to even argue the point you would have to have an in depth knowledge of hebrew language and hermeneutics. But, there are roughly over 300 prophecies that have been attributed to Christ.

You caught me again, I don't know Hebrew or hermeneutics. I have no desire to learn them either. I'd be quite interested in a clearly laid out case for the prophesies. Now, mind you, any prophesy that he stated that already happened won't count for much. Give me 2000 years to make some open ended guesses, and I assure you, I'll do quite well. You'd think an omnipotent would be a bit more clear with things... you know, dates, names, places and stuff. Plenty of fools believe John Edward or Sylvia Brown have a gift. They don't. Neither did Nostradamus and neither did Jesus himself.

But what reason do you give the kids for locking the house, not talking to strangers, not running into the street, not playing with snakes?

Every child experiences pain as natural consequence of ordinary activities. These do not need to be taught. One of the first words any kid should learn is "dangerous" or "hurt" or some equivalent. As a child learns to talk and reason, these words can be applied to situations that are not obvious to the child.

I might add, that nearly all the swats my kids ever received were to reinforce the avoidance of danger.

I know some theologians define sin as separation from God, rather than jusr rule-breaking. I'm pretty sure that most children, given a consistent family environment, will do whatever is necessary to avoid being separated from the love of their parents. If this is "obedience", so be it, but it doesn't require a long list of explicit negative rules.

This is actually interesting, and a new take on things. I don't deny Jesus existed. You've caught me though, b/c I've always (as one who attaches no deistic quality to the man) been one of those who say, "he's was a good man and wise teacher." I guess I've justified it by saying that he never claimed he was the son of god, but rather that others tagged him with that after his death. I'll stick with that, but I may have to revise it.

I have entertained this thought, but I'm pretty sure it is a stretch. The Jesus of the Bible seems pretty confident that he is divine, not just a teacher. It's possible that his words have been incorrectly recorded, but this seems to lead nowhere. Personally I can believe that some people and some words can be inspired without worrying about whether I am dealing with the actual voice of God mucking about in the natural order, or the words of a charlatan or lunatic. It just doesn't matter to me. The truth of moral teachings is not dependent on the source.

I know this is a heresy, and I don't care.

I don't deny this. But just being old doesn't mean anything to me. There are plenty of old religious texts. This isn't supernatural evidence of anything.

What it does show is the intact preservation of the scriptures over the centuries, which is very important. It goes to reliability.

guess I've justified it by saying that he never claimed he was the son of god, but rather that others tagged him with that after his death. I'll stick with that, but I may have to revise it.

If you stick to that, then you will be going against Jesus' words in the gospels. Are you then saying that the gospels that record His words are wrong? When studying any ancient text, a good scholar will give the writer the benefit of the doubt unless there is other evidence that the writer's account is not true. Since we know that historians take Tacitus, Suetonius, Caesar, Herodotus, and other historians at the word, why do you doubt the accuracy of the writers of the gospels? Do you doubt ALL historical texts or just this one? (remember, the gospels have been traced back to the 1st century). I might also add that Sir William Ramsey (perhaps the greatest archeologist of the 19th century) set out to disprove the accuracy (as to places, names, etc.) of the book of Luke and Acts. What he found not only confirmed the meticulous accuracy of Luke's account, but resulted in Ramsey's conversion.

I'd be quite interested in a clearly laid out case for the prophesies.

Pick up a copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Josh McDowell).

You'd think an omnipotent would be a bit more clear with things... you know, dates, names, places and stuff.

They were clear enough for Paul to use them to convert people. For starters, read these scriptures and then tell me how clear they are: Micah 5:2 (place of birth), Is. 7:14 (virgin birth), Is. Chap. 53 (suffering Messiah and atonement), Is. 9:6, Psalm 22 (crucifixion), Zech. 12:10 (crucifixion).

Plenty of fools believe John Edward or Sylvia Brown have a gift. They don't. Neither did Nostradamus and neither did Jesus himself.

Jesus didn't have what gift?

Thank you so much for your reply!

Truly, I would that you would spend some time in Romans 1-8, especially Romans 8. Spirit-filled Christians are free from the law of sin and death:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Romans 8:2 Without giving away the details in Romans, I would mention that a reader will discover:

(a) the law exists to show that we cannot be "good enough"

(b) that if anyone tries to be "good enough" to get to heaven, He will let them and they will fail (if it were possible to be "good enough" then Christ would have died for nothing) - and

Indeed, I'd be in big trouble if God kept a balance sheet on me. But I know that He does not because I do not keep a balance sheet on anyone else (Matthew 7).

BTW, another question on child-rearing. If you have survived a teenage rebellion (when the parent don't know anything anymore) - how'd you do it?

I guess I've justified it by saying that he never claimed he was the son of god, but rather that others tagged him with that after his death.

Jesus' favorite term for himself was the Son of Man, which is an interesting study in itself. Was Jesus the Son of God? Well, he claimed to be God when he said in John 8:58, which somebody previously posted:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

The following online commentary offers some hints as to what he meant.

Jesus' reference to Abraham sounds to the opponents like an incredible claim to spiritual experience. His reply to their incredulity pushes his claim far beyond the idea of vision whether mystical or otherwise, whether of the past or through ascents into heaven: I tell you the truth . . . before Abraham was born, I am! (v. 58). He is not just making a statement of his age, for then he would have said something like, "Before Abraham was born, I was" (Carson 1991:358). Rather, he is now using in an unambiguous way the divine I AM (Harner 1970:26-30). The I AM was the name of God revealed to Moses, though the Greek expression (ego eimi) is not that used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 (ho on). The phrase ego eimi is used of the divine name in Isaiah (41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:18; 46:4; 47:8, 10; 51:12; 52:6). Isaiah 43:10 is a particularly significant passage since it includes a reference to the Lord's chosen servant (pais) who is his witness, "so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he [hoti ego eimi]. There was no other god before me nor will there be after me." This strong statement of monotheism is the very thing the opponents think Jesus' claim is denying.
By using the I AM Jesus is claiming to have existed not just at the time of Abraham, but from eternity. This is not only a statement about his salvific work, though that is implied here as it was in God's self-identification at the bush (Schnackenburg 1980b:224). Rather, he is saying that his words and deeds are not about God; they are in fact God's own words and deeds. He speaks in language of oneness, though he has just clearly expressed distinctness also (vv. 54-55). Jesus is God, though not simply by way of identification with Yahweh, for there is also distinction. He is not simply a human being who has been taken up into the divine counsels and made an agent of God unlike any other, but neither is he simply God in a suit of flesh. Rather, as the later church counsels said, he is fully God and fully man. Such formulations are based on revelation such as found in this passage.
Clearly this is the climax of the revelation that has been unfolding during the Feast of Tabernacles. People have been wondering if Jesus is the Prophet or the Messiah. "But messianic categories are transcended when Jesus offers Himself as the source of living water, and as the light of the world, and finally pronounces the ego eimi which affirms the mystery of His own eternal being, in unity with the Father" (Dodd 1953:351).

Source

I don't have time to write anything else, so sorry for the hit and run for now.

If you have survived a teenage rebellion (when the parent don't know anything anymore) - how'd you do it?

I could pretend to be a superparent, but the truth is my genetic line tends to produce late bloomers (code word for nerds). By the time we hit the hormones we are older and wiser than most. For some reason, my house was always the one that my kids' friends wanted to hang out at. My wife an I are pretty laid back and like to talk to kids, but we aren't dopers and don't consume much alcohol (there's no beer in the fridge). So the bottom line is, my kids were usually home, along with a tribe of their friends.

My daughter was especially lucky in school. She got into a college prep program within the public school system. Nothing is life is more fortunate than having peer pressure work in your favor.

I think the answer to your question is we had good luck.

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.