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 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: Junior
Well, the Big Bang theory did postulate a certain frequency of cosmic background radiation, and when researchers went looking for it, low and behold, they found it. This is a case of a theory making a prediction that tested out in the end. It most definitely has something going for it, wouldn't you agree?

Showing that any theory has sufficient evidence to support it is not a valid argument that all other theories must also have sufficient evidence to support them.

With the BB, one must assume that the physical laws and constants came about by chance...as did matter and time, but that's a topic for another thread, isn't it?

161 posted on 07/09/2003 2:51:20 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Junior
By the way, check out the astrophysics on: www.reasons.org and let me know what you think.
162 posted on 07/09/2003 2:52:22 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"A virus is a segment of RNA surrounded by a protein shell that contains the information to reproduce more copies of itself. It is not alive."

This explanation of why a virus is not alive seems to beg the question. Isn't self-replication an integral component of life?
163 posted on 07/09/2003 2:52:34 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: js1138
From the standpoint of pure logic, I don't think it's Kosher to use the word "living" as an essential part of the definition of life.

Sorry to confuse you. Cells are living because they truly self-replicate and they metabolize in order to do so.

164 posted on 07/09/2003 2:53:35 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Good. So you don't think pianos are alive either?

Agreed, So much for the preface of my post; now on to the content.

165 posted on 07/09/2003 2:53:44 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Isn't self-replication an integral component of life?

Yes, that is why virii are not alive. They do not self-replicate.

166 posted on 07/09/2003 2:54:38 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Medical doctors consult medical theory. Repeat, scientific theories are discoveries of how our natural reality is organized. To the extent a theory is useful it will be used. To the extent a theory is not useful it won’t be used.

These last two are definitely not always true.

One would be a fool to assume that medical theory operates solely on what is effective and what is not. Money and government inteference are the major drivers in medical practice. Do companies spend $250 Million to prove that vitimin C is effective at whatever? No. The cost cannot be recouped. Do doctors only perform techniques that "medical theory" say is best, or are they driven by cost or lawsuit avoidance?

Are all equally accepted theories equally valid? Of course not.

People who don't want to give up their suspect theories will ridicule and marginalize those who would question those suspect theories.

I don't know the validity of the Government's nutritional theories versus Dr. Adkins' theories. But I do know that he was marginalized and ridiculed by those whe feared that their theory would be debunked.

167 posted on 07/09/2003 2:55:22 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Agreed, So much for the preface of my post; now on to the content.

Virii do not self-replicate, neither do they metabolize.

168 posted on 07/09/2003 2:55:46 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Sorry to confuse you. Cells are living because they truly self-replicate and they metabolize in order to do so.

Are you saying that viruses do not expend energy during replication?

169 posted on 07/09/2003 2:55:52 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Man I would love to see what kind of database you have!

Right now it is over 5 gigabytes - it is a Lotus Notes database. (My day job is writing applications in Lotus Notes and Domino.) It is full-text indexed...and very accessible.

170 posted on 07/09/2003 2:55:56 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: js1138
>>I predict a large and colorful essay on prions an viruses.<<

This strikes me as one of those areas where fools rush in, and scholars tread gently.
171 posted on 07/09/2003 2:56:20 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Darwinists are only programmed to see - propagate the lies ...

and deny -- obfuscate reality - truth !


ANTI - science ...

same as liberals --- hate // destroy God - science - conservativism !


172 posted on 07/09/2003 2:57:15 PM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
First, not mentioning religion is not the same as discounting religion. Second, atheism is not a religion. It's the abscence of theism, nothing more and nothing less.

Teaching principles consistent with a religion is tantamount to teaching the relion. Second, atheism most certainly is a religion - it's a belief system wherein one chooses to believe that there is no God. It's a faith belief as much as theism is. Atheism (word comes from theos) cannot exist without theism, and it's adherents spend endless hours arging against theism which is prima facie evidence that there is no absence of belief, but vehement belief AGAINST theism. If atheism is total lack of belief, then a true atheist can only remain silent on the subject of God and theism. I have never met one who can keep his mouth shut in this regard.

173 posted on 07/09/2003 2:58:23 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Nor do they snuggle up to piano builders and cause them to create more copies of themselves.

Interesting. So do piano builders create pianos without reference to existing pianos?

174 posted on 07/09/2003 2:58:49 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Are you saying that viruses do not expend energy during replication?

No, the cell does.

175 posted on 07/09/2003 2:58:54 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
With the BB, one must assume that the physical laws and constants came about by chance...as did matter and time,

I don't think that's required by Big Bang theory at all. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

176 posted on 07/09/2003 2:58:56 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
I've posted this before, but I don't recognize your screen name. Enjoy

I'm new at harassing the evolutionists. I have been busy for a couple of years offending the Catholics. I'm branching out.

177 posted on 07/09/2003 2:59:12 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Virii do not self-replicate, neither do they metabolize.

That's a reasonable definition, but not one accepted universally. The problem is that viruses and prions are not just pieces of furniture. The fact that their replication is parasitic does not exclude them from the realm of life. There is a huge gap between things that replicate and things that don't

178 posted on 07/09/2003 3:00:26 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
I'm new at harassing the evolutionists. I have been busy for a couple of years offending the Catholics. I'm branching out.

As this thread progresses, you will be welcomed for both of your skills. ;^)

Just watch.

179 posted on 07/09/2003 3:02:01 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The fact that their replication is parasitic does not exclude them from the realm of life.

Come now a Barbie Doll is alive?

180 posted on 07/09/2003 3:02:02 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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