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 ... 1,701-1,7201,721-1,7401,741-1,760 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: Aric2000
"I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here."

backpeddling?
1,721 posted on 07/12/2003 9:16:35 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1720 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"But instead they attack CONTINUASLY, and do NOT give anyone a chance to find a possible middle ground."

hmmmm...

What middle ground do you propose?
1,722 posted on 07/12/2003 9:17:41 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1720 | View Replies]

To: ALS
What the devil are you talking about?

I love PRESIDENT BUSH, I have never said that I didn't, he is tolerant of others beliefs, but most of all, HE CARES about the oath he took to the constitution.

As long he protects the constitution, and does ALL he can to uphold his oath, I couldn't care less what his religious beliefs are.

He has EXCELLENT cconservative ideas, I don't agree on everything he does, but a vast majority of what he does I agree with TOTALLY.

You are the type of fundamentalist that I am afraid of, you lie without remorse because it is for god, you attack others without remorse, because it is for god, you cut and paste and hack without remorse because it is for god, you do not tell others your beliefs because you are afraid they will do to you, what you do to them.

You are the type of taliban fundamentalist that I am talking about, YOU are the type of fundamentalist that I am afraid of, because you would shred the constitution if it allowed your beliefs more power.

YOU frighten me, because you would do it for god, and would have NO remorse in doing it.

At least that is the impression that I have gotten from your incessant attacks and nonsense.

Note to moderators, this is STRICTLY my opinion and my opinion only, it is NOT an attack, I am merely sharing my impressions of his posting style and attitude.
1,723 posted on 07/12/2003 9:18:44 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1719 | View Replies]

To: ALS
So you don't agree with the big fear factor on fundamentalists by the evos in these threads?

No, but why do you need to ask? After all you made several replies to #1701 where I specifically addressed this, describing a couple of my fellow evos as "overly paranoid" on this point. I've expressed the same views in several other posts. Are you slow today, or just desperately seeking traction?

1,724 posted on 07/12/2003 9:19:06 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1719 | View Replies]

To: ALS
No getting MORE specific...
1,725 posted on 07/12/2003 9:19:18 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1721 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You said, "I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here."

backpeddling?
1,726 posted on 07/12/2003 9:19:49 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1723 | View Replies]

To: js1138
That was always a hopeless dream.

Probably original sin. I'm still hopeful. We elected Eisenhower and Reagan twice. We'll probably always be dangling on the edge.

1,727 posted on 07/12/2003 9:20:02 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1690 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Your boy said, "I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here."

who's paranoid?
1,728 posted on 07/12/2003 9:20:26 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1724 | View Replies]

To: ALS; Aric2000
He's right about you. He's paranoid, however, to the extent that he believes your type has any real influence in politics, or on FR.
1,729 posted on 07/12/2003 9:22:42 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1728 | View Replies]

To: ALS; Aric2000
He's also wrong (to the extent that) he believes that your type is respresentative even among "fundamentalists". Anyway, I have lots more respect for fundamentalists than to think that.
1,730 posted on 07/12/2003 9:24:55 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
In fact, this is more of what he said:

"I have NO problem with Christian conservatives, it is the fundamentalists that I am afraid of, and as you can see, we have our unfair share here.

They are trying to take over this website and make it their own. THe old assimilate or perish Borg trick.

They Are WAY right wing and will push this website that direction as well, as the constitutionalist conservatives, meaning myself and others, Libertarian constitutionalists, and just plain old conservatives will be chased off this site because of the abuse brought on to them by the fundamentalists that have NO tolerance for anyone that does not agree 100% with what they believe."


Fundamentalists is plural. You had no problem casting the net. Now you want to revise and extend your remarks to carefully select out those YOU wish to relabel as whatever you want, but the problem there is that there are those on here that have stated they are fundamentalists. You didn't exclude them beforehand, so attempting that now is, well, backpeddling.

wonder why? Was your statement bogus?
1,731 posted on 07/12/2003 9:25:54 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1724 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
What is my type?
1,732 posted on 07/12/2003 9:26:15 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Stultis,

I believe that you are correct, they have no REAL political influence, but they will be used as an example by the opposition to be used against us.

That is where their power comes from, to allow others to put us in the same mold as they are, and that WILL lose us elections. They might not have the power to get elected and hurt our country the way I think they would, but they do have the power to get others elected that I believe could.
1,733 posted on 07/12/2003 9:27:42 PM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"I believe that you are correct, they have no REAL political influence"

Then what's your worry, backpeddler?
1,734 posted on 07/12/2003 9:28:47 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1733 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; Aric2000
This isn't about forcing you guys to become Bible believing Christians. Only God has that kind of power.

Our job, and as a Christian country from the start, has been and is to expose people to the love, truth and righteousness of God.

Our concern is that libertarians will marginalize the moral core of our communities, states and nation. If we open the AMORAL door to become a more powerful influence in our party, we will cease being the:
Pro-family
Pro-academic integrity (The greatest Universities in our nation were founded as Christian ministerial training facilities)
Pro-life
Pro-marriage between one man and one woman
Pro-capital punishment
Pro-corporal punishment (we love our children and believe corporal punishment should be administered only with good intentions for the child, by the parents)
Pro-individual accountability
Pro-national and state sovereignty
Anti-drugs
Anti-divorce
Anti-adultery
Anti-child abuse (In all of its perverted liberal iterations)
Anti-lawyer (1 in 1000 operate with moral integrity, maybe fewer, this is a major blight on our nation, we need a complete overhaul of the judicial system putting it back to its original guidelines)

Hopefully you are on the same page, for these are common sense ideas pertaining to rightousness, and good for our nation. Notice there is no "force my religion on you" on the list.



1,735 posted on 07/12/2003 9:29:45 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1701 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
"That is where their power comes from, to allow others to put us in the same mold as they are, and that WILL lose us elections. They might not have the power to get elected and hurt our country the way I think they would, but they do have the power to get others elected that I believe could."

Right back to bashing fundamentalists again. Are you sure you're sure about what you are sure about?
1,736 posted on 07/12/2003 9:29:54 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1733 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You are the type of taliban fundamentalist that I am talking about, YOU are the type of fundamentalist that I am afraid of, because you would shred the constitution if it allowed your beliefs more power.

Good thing you weren't present during the Constitutional debates and signing. The place was positively packed with fundamentalists. They would have looked on Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and Reed as liberals. Oh but wait...They gave us that Constitution, a document many of them said was written for a moral and religious people, fit for a Christian nation.

1,737 posted on 07/12/2003 9:30:39 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1723 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Thanks bondserv. What we really have here is just the opposite of the claims being made. We have those that don't want us to stand up for our beliefs, by those that want their beliefs to be the law of the land. Is it any small wonder why we have a problem?

The paranoid stuff is quite silly.
1,738 posted on 07/12/2003 9:31:48 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1735 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
The bottom line is that an omnipotent deity does not require government support in schools.

The government doesn't pay for anything. It's all us, our neighbors and other Americans. I don't favor radicalizing school age boys, by the way.

In the information age, I don't think schools should look anything like they currently do. But I don't see any big changes until local governments start going bankrupt. If they hadn't legalized gambling, we might have gotten there already.

1,739 posted on 07/12/2003 9:33:12 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1686 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
Odd thing is, he said earlier that he wasn't a conservative, he was a constitutionalist.

I wonder if the framers would agree?
1,740 posted on 07/12/2003 9:35:56 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1737 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,701-1,7201,721-1,7401,741-1,760 ... 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