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."

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.

You have a point. I argue with LOTS of liberals. (I live in a college town.) I'm constantly amazed at how many are utterly paranoid (and hateful) about "right wing religous zealots". This perception indeed works against us because many moderates and independents buy into this mantra from the left, at least partially. But that's no reason for other conservatives to echo it!

This is the point I'm trying to make. The paranoia, even if qualified, that you and a couple others are expressing tends to reinforce the myths that all conservatives are religious nuts, or that all conservative Christians are intolerant. I prefer debunking these myths to echoing them. I get right in the face of libs who rant about "the religious right" and confront them with their manifest bigotry and intollerance.

To: CobaltBlue

Social conservatism is their only agenda. They don't believe in limited government. They want a theocracy.

That is the frightening part about it.

I see these guys say how they are conservative, but they want government to tell us what to believe and how to live, evolution is NOT science to them because if it was, then their whole house of cards as far as creationism and ID would come tumbling down.

They don't want limited government, they just want a different kind of BIG government, one that would snoop into everyones bedroom, everyones minds etc, indeed, a theocracy.

I am a constitutionalist, NOT a conservative, and NOT a liberal, I believe the constitution says what it says, nothing less, and nothing more, but to watch these guys in action is downright frightening to contemplate.

A theocracy, ugh, that is just SCARY!! but if they had the opportunity, the constitution be damned, they know what's good for you, and you will obey!!

1,576 posted on 07/12/2003 1:14 PM CDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/943130/posts?page=1576#1576

Pardon me, but the founding fathers also gave us freedom of religion. And to believe as we chose.

They knew what religious persecution was all about, and they would have nothing to do with anything that smelled of government intervention in someones personal beliefs.

I disagree with you on the fact that ALL of them were fundamentalists though, because some of them were not.

And for a christian nation? I don't think so, try for a MORAL a d religious nation, and ALL religions teach morality. Christianity is but one of those.

As I said, I couldn't care less what religion you are, as long as you respect my right to believe as I do.

I will respect yours, if you will respect mine, our morals are the same, it is how we get those morals that is different.

And this thread is about the teaching of ID as science, when it is NOT, teach it in philosophy class, MORE power to ya, teach it in a christian studies class, MORE power to you, but NOT in a science class.

Words mean things, and science should be taught as science, and if you confuse science with faith, then science is not worth the theories it is made of.

Evolution is science, no amount of lying or obfiscation is going to change that, ID is NOT science, but if it is ever shown to be scientific in any way matter shape or form, then I might open my mind to it, but it is NOT even close at this point.

Mass marketing and publicity does NOT a theory make, being peer reviewed, published in scientific journals, making predicitons etc, make a scientific theory, and ID has not done ANY of these things.

Until then, teach it in philosophy or religious classes, I have NO problem with that at ALL.

Loose lips sink ships.

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas], ALS wrote:

Largest denominational families in U.S., 2001

(self-identification, ARIS)

Denomination	1990 Est. Adult Pop.	2001 Est. Adult Pop.	Est. % of U.S. Pop., 2001	% Change 1990 - 2001
Catholic	46,004,000	50,873,000	24.5%	+11%
Baptist	33,964,000	33,830,000	16.3%	0%
Methodist/Wesleyan	14,174,000	14,150,000	6.8%	0%
Lutheran	9,110,000	9,580,000	4.6%	+5%
Presbyterian	4,985,000	5,596,000	2.7%	+12%
Pentecostal/Charismatic	3,191,000	4,407,000	2.1%	+38%
Episcopalian/Anglican	3,042,000	3,451,000	1.7%	+13%
Judaism	3,137,000	2,831,000	1.3%	-10%
Latter-day Saints/Mormon	2,487,000	2,697,000	1.3%	+8%
Churches of Christ	1,769,000	2,593,000	1.2%	+47%
Congregational/ United Church of Christ	599,000	1,378,000	0.7%	+130%
Jehovah's Witnesses	1,381,000	1,331,000	0.6%	-4%
Assemblies of God	660,000	1,106,000	0.5%	+68%

Add 827 Calvary Chapel Pastors nation wide. With a conservative estimate of 50 persons per pastor you would have

41,350.

NAVIGATION OPTIONS: CALVARY HOMEPAGE FELLOWSHIP CHURCHES

United States Clickable Map

International Clickable Map

State List

City List

ZIP Code List

Pastor List

Thank you so very much for all your kind words and for voicing your concerns!

I have a similar problem with atheists on this forum. I tend to classify atheists in three groups. The first group doesn’t believe but doesn’t mind if you do. The second wants to convince you and will argue in a respectful manner. The third group really hates God, they aren’t trying to persuade anyone. I decline to engage or encourage the third type.

Seems to me that passion can lead to trouble, because words spoken in the heat of a debate, can be harsh. This is particularly difficult for Christians, because we are committed to the Great Commandment:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. – Matthew 22:37-39

Sometimes loving God with all of our being requires us to be painfully blunt with our neighbor, but in the same way we would want our neighbor to be painfully blunt with us - i.e. ‘tough love.’

But as Christians we step over the line when we do out of meanness or vindictiveness.

Once an intelligent designer has invented something, it is easy to replicate the design with slight changes in anything totally unrelated.-me-

So why does your designer sometimes use a whole limb (birds) to invent flight, sometimes just the hand (bats), and sometimes just a finger (pterodactyl)? It's not a replication at all.

I am afraid you will have to ask Him that question when you meet Him.

However, as to design in general, once you understand the purpose of something and how it works it is easy for an intelligent designer adapt it to other situations. The same cannot be said of a stochastic process such as evolution. When one considers all the bird-like changes which were necessary to turn a mammal (the bat) into a bird-like creature, one understands why it disproves evolution. It required numerous changes to the physiology and genetics of a mammal. It involved the copying of features from a totally unrelated species. It involved the adaptation of the rest of the organism to features not normally found in the supposed ancestor species.

Therefore when evolutionists speak of convergent evolution they are talking nonsense. Since there was no ancestral trace for these traits they cannot be called evolution since there was nothing for them to evolve from. Since species cannot 'borrow' traits from widely unrelated species to call it 'evolution' is very dishonest. To say that bats developed flight because they 'needed to' when no other mammals had such a need to transform themselves to such an extent is also very ludicrous. Indeed the whole idea that 'need' cretes change in species is ridiculous. It is a deceitful borrowing of the maxim that 'necessity is the mother of invention'. The maxim applies to intelligent designers, it does not apply to anything else.

Let's have some fun with your last post Bondserv, You are going to be pleasantly surprised. My comments will be in (my Comments) I hate dealing with HTML at this time of night.

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 (I agree)
Pro-academic integrity (The greatest Universities in our nation were founded as Christian ministerial training facilities)(then what's with this ID thing in science class? Teach it in philosophy or religious studies, but it has yet to be even CLOSE to a scientific theory, when it does, I will be the first to welcome it, but until then, keep it out of the science classroom, Other then that, we agree.)

Pro-life(we agree here as well, but let's be specific, I want Roe Vs Wade overturned, because this is a state issue, the consitution gives NO power to the federal government over that issue, If a state wants abortion, I may not like it, but it is up to the individual states)

Pro-marriage between one man and one woman (100% agree)

Pro-capital punishment (100% agree)

Pro-corporal punishment (we love our children and believe corporal punishment should be administered only with good intentions for the child, by the parents) ( this I have a problem with, but I believe that it should be the parents decision, NOT anyone elses, I do NOT and have NEVER hit my children, but that is MY choice as a parent.)

Pro-individual accountability (100% agree, this is why I hate social programs, besides the fact they are unconstitutional)

Pro-national and state sovereignty (110% agree)

Anti-drugs (Not sure about this one, I am more darwinistic on this one, if someone is idiotic enough to do drugs, let them, just as long as they do it in their own home and do NOT effect others with their habit, once they leave their house and come out with it publicly, and try to do it in public as if it were OK, then that's it that's all, they are done.)

Anti-divorce(50% agree, would really agree if more people had some sort of counseling before getting married, not religious necassarily, but some sort of counseling to see if they are indeed compatible, otherwise, if you want a divorce, make it as hard and expensive as possible for BOTH parties)

Anti-adultery(100% agree)

Anti-child abuse (In all of its perverted liberal iterations) (100% agree)

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)(I actually agree with you, but I think 1 in 1000 is a little much, 1 in a 100 is more where I stand.

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.

OK, indeed, there is NO force your religion on me, and for that I am appreciative, but you can be a bit over the top sometimes, but on almost all of those points we agree.

But then again, you and I are pretty civil to each other most of the time!! ;)

Oh, right, I should have said that Catholics outnumber any Protestant denomination, not all Protestants lumped together.

Not that I think it would be meaningful to lump all Protestants together.

After all, how many Protestant denominations are there? 20,000? If ya'll could all get along, you would have already done that, seems to me.

My husband's Missouri Synod Lutheran, which can't even get along with the ELCA Lutherans and the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, much less Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc., etc., etc.

Not to mention the Church of Billy Bob and his 34 brethren.

Seems to me we're all happier going our separate ways, worshiping as we choose. It's the American way. You worship as you choose and I'll worship as I choose.

If you want to see misery on earth, look at the countries where the different religions are fighting over who gets to tell the other ones how to worship.

I tend to classify atheists in three groups. The first group doesn’t believe but doesn’t mind if you do. The second wants to convince you and will argue in a respectful manner. The third group really hates God, they aren’t trying to persuade anyone. I decline to engage or encourage the third type.

The following quote is frequently featured in my email sig:

He was an embittered atheist - the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.
~~~George Orwell

Some other favs, just for fun:

In a reversal peculiar to our age, it is innocence, not guilt, that is called upon to justify itself.
~~~Albert Camus
Mistakes committed by ignorance in a virtuous disposition, would never be of such fatal consequence to the publick weal, as the practices of a man whose inclinations led him to be corrupt, and had great abilities to manage, and multiply, and defend his corruptions.
~~~Jonathan Swift (prophecy of Bubba)
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
~~~Jonathan Swift (prophecy of Dubya)
I've gone to hundreds of fortune-tellers' parlors, and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her.
~~~New York City Detective

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.