Textbooks at center of evolution debate

AUSTIN -- Texas will be under the microscope this week in the fight over teaching evolution in public schools as the State Board of Education votes on adopting biology textbooks that have been at the center of the debate.

The board meets Thursday and Friday and is set to consider proposed changes submitted by 11 publishers. The board's decisions -- which could determine which textbooks publishers offer to dozens of states -- will end a review process that has been marked by months of heated debate over the theory of evolution.

Religious activists and proponents of alternative science urged publishers to revise some of the 10th-grade books and want the board to reject others, saying they contain factual errors regarding the theory of evolution. Mainstream scientists assert that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern research and technology.

Board members can only vote to reject books based on factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the Legislature.

"There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.

Among those questioning the textbooks are about 60 biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution and said both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.

Texas is the nation's second largest buyer of textbooks, and books sold in the state are often marketed by publishers nationwide. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas.

One of the most vocal advocates of changing the textbooks is the Discovery Institute, a nonprofit think tank based in Seattle. Institute officials have argued at board hearings that alternatives to commonly accepted theories of evolution should be included in textbooks to comply with a state requirement that both strengths and weaknesses are presented.

"These things are widely criticized as being problematic. They aren't criticisms we made up; they're criticisms widely held in the scientific community," said Discovery Institute fellow John West.

Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said there are no weaknesses in current textbooks' explanation of evolution. Publishers are required to cover evolution in science books.

The institute has referred to a theory dubbed intelligent design -- a belief that life did not evolve randomly but progressed according to a plan or design. No book on the mainstream market presents the intelligent design theory of evolution.

"We know that this is a very contentious issue. We know that, but the sorts of things we were proposing we thought were moderate," West said.

Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors religious activists, argues that the Discovery Institute's arguments are rooted in religion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that the teaching of creationism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.

"It says that the theory of evolution can't explain the diversity of life on this planet and that there must have been a designer," Smoot said. "That is a very valid and commonly held religious perspective, but not one that is upheld by scientific evidence. Therefore it's not one that belongs in science classrooms."

The Discovery Institute has maintained that its arguments have no religious foundation, but Smoot disagrees.

"The concept of intelligent design was crafted specifically to get around legal prohibitions against teaching religion in public schools," she said. "And as long as proponents of intelligent design deny that they're referring to God when they talk about the designer, they hope to be able to pull this off."

At least one publisher has submitted changes in line with the institute's recommendations.

Holt, Rinehart & Winston has submitted a change that directs students to "study hypotheses for the origin of life that are alternatives" to the others in the book. Students also are encouraged to research alternative theories on the Internet.

Yes the quote(s) are badly butchered.

O.K. I don't really doubt it, especially considering the source. My only point really was that Darwin peppered his correspondence with self effacing comments like these. Anyone who has read many of Darwin's letters is familiar with comments like them, BUT is also equally aware that they do not actually reflect a lack of confidence on Darwin's part concerning evolution. Darwin was trying to disarm his correspondents long enough to get a fair hearing for his ideas, to draw out pertinent criticism, or (most often) to wheedle others into providing data, answering questions, or helping with experiments. Darwin was a prodigious charmer and wheedler. It's astonishing the amount of work he got others to undertake on his behalf: everyone from other scientists, to professional gardeners to pigeon fanciers. Not to suggest that Darwin was not hard worker himself.

No, there isn't.

You've been given, via link, examples of beneficial mutations. Now you're engaged in the virtual equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and intoning, "nah, nah, nah, nah; I can't hear you."

Furthermore, even ignoring directly or immediately beneficial mutations -- which nevertheless do occur, as has been proved to you -- the majority of mutations are neutral. Their accumulation within a specie's genome builds up a genetic diversity which is in itself beneficial, providing for future adaptive shifts, differential disease resistance, and the like.

There are not on the net yet, but they are coming.

Here is a link to Fiske on Darwin. The site has a large number of articles by Fiske. The text below it is the last paragraph of the article. It is an obituary for Darwin written by Fiske an widely published in the US.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?root=%2Fmoa%2Fatla%2Fatla0049%2F&tif=00843.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABK2934-0049-165&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50

It is fitting that in the great Abbey, where rest the ashes of England’s noblest heroes, the place of the discoverer of natural selection should be near that of Sir Isaac Newton. Since the publication of the immortal Principia, no sci- entific book has so widened the mental horizon of mankind as the Origin of Species. Mr. Darwin, like Newton, was a very young man when his great discovery suggested itself to him. Like Newton, he waited many years before publishing it to the world. Like Newton, he lived to see it become part and parcel of the mental equipment of all men of science. The theological objection urged against the Newtonian theory by Leibnitz, that it substituted the action of natural causes for the immediate action of the Deity, was also urged against the Darwinian theory by Agassiz; and the same objection will doubtless continue to be urged against scien- tific explanations of natural phenomena so long as there are men who fail to comprehend the profoundly theistic and religious truth that the action of natural causes is in itself the immediate action of the Deity. It is interesting, however, to see that, as theologians are no longer frightened by the doctrine of gravitation, so they are already outgrowing their dread of the doctrine of natural selection. On the Sunday following Mr. Darwin’s death, Canon Liddon, at St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Canons Barry and Pro- thero, at Westminster Abbey, agreed in referring to the Darwinian theory as “not necessarily hostile to the fundamental truths of religion.” The effect of Mr. Darwin’s work has been, however, to remodel the theological conceptions 6f the origin and destiny of man which were current in former times. In this respect it has wrought a revolution as great as that which Copernicus in- augurated and Newton completed, and of very much the same kind. Again has man been rudely unseated from his im- aginary throne in the centre of the universe, but only that he may learn to see in the universe and in human life a rich- er and deeper meaning than he had before suspected. Truly, he who unfolds to us the way in which God works through the world of phenomena may well be called the best of religious teachers. In the study of the organic world, no less than in the study of the starry heavens, is it true that “day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.”

- John Fiske.

You didn't really expect them to teach you this in the modern and secular USA, did you?

the profoundly theistic and religious truth that the action of natural causes is in itself the immediate action of the Deity

But this is Fiske's interpretation of Darwin, which is fine, but it is NOT Darwin's view. Darwin remained indecisive and wavering about the issue of "design" throughout the later part of his life, but he was consistently resistant to the notion that divine intention was to be found in the specific details of selection and variation. For Darwin the divine intent, if it was there, was expressed in general laws. He made this distinction often. See his correspondence on the subject with the American botanist Asa Gray. There is an article concerning their debate here.

"DATA" science tells us this earth is millions of years old. The Bible speaks of "ages" one prior to "flesh man" when the dinosaurs existed.

I have a small rock on my monitor that has fossils in it and the snails in it look just like the snails I find today.

The Bible says "kind after kind" just like we see today, except when man starts adapting - mixing various "kinds".

Man who tries to make the "WORD" say, this earth is "six" thousands years old give up their credibility cause "science" can show the data that is not fact. Now "flesh man" or "man in the flesh" comes pretty close to that number but not the "age" of this earth.

"references" "flesh man's" or "divine". The data - evidence show that fossilized creatures such as snails, etc., that still survive are the same today. That gives proof - evidence of "kind after kind". Not all species survived, what we do not find in fossils to those that do survive is a disorganized evolution which could only be the case if "evolution" is what is going on.

The "natural" order of things continues. Gravity has not evolved. The sun still rises the same and those laws of nature have not "evolved" and if evolution was a fact all things would be in disorder to the point that "man" itself and all creatures would each be in a state of evolution.

Evolution the "theory" of either is organized or disorganize and that is left out of the equation. If organized or follows that natural order who "ORDERED" it? If it is not organized then true evolution would show up in the data.

The knowledge of recent data of DNA should wake alot of people up. DNA removes all credibility of "evolution" cause "evolution" itself is disorder not order. There is no making a mistake of "human" DNA to the other creatures DNA.

The mind can choose to believe anything or nothing and that does not make the belief a fact. The "theory" of evolution came out of, figuring out that those who claimed this earth was six thousand years old were just plain wrong.

Evolution is a religion, a religion is what one believes and puts their faith into.

So rather than finding out if in fact that is what is "WRITTEN" the whole thing was rejected and "flesh man" devised his own ideas as to age of earth, with some facts, and how living creatures got here. However, rejecting a "CREATOR", one who is in control was in fact the foundation of their "THEORY".

Some were in fact, created in the flesh with "freewill" so they will do what they do, doesn't make it fact or truth.

No, it is Asa Gray. Look at the dates. It is from Darwin's early period, before he wrote his studies on Domestication. Decades earlier than the thinking of Fiske and Darwin. Notice how the author of the article, from our secular friends studying Marx at the same time, fasten on Gray and ignore Fiske who was also a professor at Harvard, but at a later date. Doubtless Gray was not a black Republican either, but most likely an advocate of Webster, though this shouldn't be too hard to ascertain. The parting of the ways with Gray would have come over the relevant passages to race in Descent.

It is well worth noting that Asa Gray retired in 1873, the year Fiske published his Cosmic Philosophy. Interesting to note also that Fiske includes a very extensive list of those who he felt contributed to the understanding of Darwin's theory in that age, and that Asa Gray is nowhere mentioned. Interesting too to note that although Fiske was a student at Harvard in 1863 when he first found a copy of 'Origins' in the bookstore in Harvard Square, it was not part of his curriculum. It would be interesting to see if Gray ever taught anything on Darwin, but I doubt it.

'Origins' was nowhere near as profound in it's impact on religion and philosophy as was Descent, and this is clearly reflected here. The work of Darwin only really begins to show up after the Civil War, when suddenly everyone from Alexander Stephens to Stanton begin to let slip comments that are meant to establish that they have read him. But then, the true measure to which Darwin's Christian notions about race were understood and accepted are reflected in the reconstruction, and the answer was not much.

Asa Gray is more likely in the ID camp, which is the in the line of Newton's clockwork universe, where the maker builds it, winds it up and walks a way. Not found in Fiske, and no found in Darwin's last works, which you said you have not read.

One other observation:

The premise of that link that Asa Gray would have been the only American to see the manuscript of Darwin's, to the extent that he did, is erroneous also. Harvard's scientific committee shared on a regular basis in the reports and literature of the Royal Academy of Science, so the materials would have been available to anyone on that committee, and dispensed through them into Boston's intellectual society.

As a divinity student, Fiske might not at that time have been a member. But in any case, as for the black republicans, their views in race were based on the ideas Massachusetts brought to the US constitution, and not on scientific analysis, but rather on commom sense and religious belief.

The premise of that link that Asa Gray would have been the only American to see the manuscript of Darwin's, to the extent that he did, is erroneous also. Harvard's scientific committee shared on a regular basis in the reports and literature of the Royal Academy of Science

Gray later published some of his correspondence with Darwin, but he certainly did not share his private correspondence with colleagues prior to the publication of The Origin. The idea is absurd. Because Darwin's theory was unpublished, it would have been unethical and treacherous for Gray to have violated Darwin's confidence. Gray was indeed the only American to know of Darwin's views prior to their formal publication.

The last works of Darwin are his two volumes on Domestication. I have mentioned that to you several times now, and you didn't include them in your list of works by Darwin.

As for Gray, he may be popular now with ID proponents, but ID was the thinking of the late 18th and early 19th century, and considered passe in the time of Fiske among his wider circle. Gray, of course, though makes a more logical connection to Spencer and Huxley, who then bring us around to the Godless racism and totalitarianism of our universities, particularly in the early 20th century, but still alive and well in the Marxist influenced such as Chomsky etc. In short, the intellectually shriveled God is dead crowd.

The data - evidence show that fossilized creatures such as snails, etc., that still survive are the same today.

Actually, it doesn't. Some creatures are very similar to creatures that existed millions of years ago, but most, if not all, have some differences to their ancestors. Further, evidence shows that many life forms that exist now did not exist millions of years ago, meaning that they did not come about until later..

That gives proof - evidence of "kind after kind".

"Kind" is a creationist term that has no meaning in biology.

Not all species survived, what we do not find in fossils to those that do survive is a disorganized evolution which could only be the case if "evolution" is what is going on.

Disorganized evolution? Could you perhaps explain this rather than assert it without information?

The "natural" order of things continues

Uh, okay. Meaningless in a scientific explanation, but okay.

Gravity has not evolved.

Of course it hasn't. Gravity is not an imperfect replicator. Evolution does not apply to gravity. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The sun still rises the same

Actually, the sun only appears to rise to observers on earth. It's the earth that moves around the sun (the sun moves within the galaxy, but that's not something that is casually observed). Also, the movement of the earth around the sun has changed gradually over billions of years. Still, this has nothing to do with biological evolution.

and those laws of nature have not "evolved"

Evolution applies to biological life forms, not "laws of nature". You're babbling nonsense, trying to throw out meaningless philosophical babble in an attempt to cloud the issue in leiu of real knowledge.

and if evolution was a fact all things would be in disorder to the point that "man" itself and all creatures would each be in a state of evolution.

What do you mean "disordered"? And all creatures are in a state of evolution. You don't seem to understand evolution enough to have any basis for attacking it.

Evolution the "theory" of either is organized or disorganize and that is left out of the equation. If organized or follows that natural order who "ORDERED" it? If it is not organized then true evolution would show up in the data.

I can't even parse this. Nothing that you've stated consitutes an argument against evolution. Nothing that you've stated even indicates that you have a functional understanding of what evolution is or how it works.

The rest of your post, including the bit on DNA, indicates that you don't have any background whatsoever in biology. You're throwing out a bunch of words, tossing in "order" and "disorder" and somehow claiming to have disproven evolution. When you learn what evolution actually is rather than this strawman that you think that it is, come back to us and we might be able to have an intelligent discussion.

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.