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 ... 1,841-1,8601,861-1,8801,881-1,900 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: VadeRetro
However, as to design in general, once you understand the purpose of something and how it works It is easy for an intelligent designer [to] adapt it to other situations.-me-

"... Unless it's convenient to second-guess the Designer."

No, I am not second guessing anything. This is a scientific discussion not a theological one and I am explaining the situation on a scientific basis which is supposedly what the theory of evolution is about.

The "Designer" of ID does not act like a human designer.

'Should' is not a scientific term nor is it an objective criteria for anything. It is totally rhetorical and therefore does not address the scientific questions which I have delineated.

Further, for you to show that 'convergent evolution' is anything more than rhetorical nonsense you have to show, not that species which are totally unrelated have similar features, but that species which are totally unrelated inherited those features. Such you will claim is a non-sensical request, my reply to such an objection has already been given - the concept of convergent evolution is nonsensical therefore any proof of it will have to be nonsensical in itself and not in accordance with scientific fact.

When he made the bat, he apparently didn't borrow from the bird

The above statement is scientifically false:

Bat bones tend to be light and slender (which accounts in part for the sparse fossil record of bats). As in birds, bats have some reduced bones, the radius and fibula are shortened and thin. Bats, like birds, also have fused cranial bones for additional lightness. The arrangement of the muscles is also designed for lightness and for flight.
From: Amazing Creatures, an article which evolutionists could not refute and therefore abused to force its being pulled from FR.

1,861 posted on 07/13/2003 8:30:35 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1844 | View Replies]

To: All

click the pic


1,862 posted on 07/13/2003 8:39:21 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1861 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Further, for you to show that 'convergent evolution' is anything more than rhetorical nonsense you have to show, not that species which are totally unrelated have similar features, but that species which are totally unrelated inherited those features. Such you will claim is a non-sensical request, my reply to such an objection has already been given - the concept of convergent evolution is nonsensical therefore any proof of it will have to be nonsensical in itself and not in accordance with scientific fact.

You have descended into nonsense. Repeating an assertion is not the same as supporting it.

Convergent evolution is not a problem for mainstream science. Here's a Yahoo! on the term, about 13000 hits.

Many documented cases, clear and non-magical mechanisms. No problem except finding a way to get it into your head.

Shifting gears, you've been dodging me for hundreds of replies now on something that I've been asking repeatedly on this thread. You keep linking this study which shows mtDNA analysis to be statistically unreliable. You offer it up straightforwardly as a refutation of all of modern science with which you disagree, which is practically all of it.

Ignoring your total misreading of the content of the story, the only basis for the frequent goreism "Genetics have disproven the idea that neanderthals are the ancestors of humans" is mtDNA analysis of bone fragments.

Do you accept mtDNA studies as valid or not? You can't use the results of mtDNA studies when you like them while trumpeting their discrediting out of the other side of your mouth. It's a shame I can't get an answer on this. I would be particularly disappointed if, the next time we were discussing the hominid fossil series, you came in once again saying "Genetics have disproven ..." yada yada, conveniently forgetting that that particular baby is gone, thrown out with the Duke study bathwater.

Is it asking to much for you to take a clear and consistent position?

1,863 posted on 07/13/2003 9:01:31 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1861 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Remain alert. Beware of Trolls.
1,864 posted on 07/13/2003 9:14:30 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1863 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A troll is a varmint, right?

Is it "No license, no limit?" Or maybe "Shoot, shovel, and shut up?"

1,865 posted on 07/13/2003 9:18:48 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1864 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry
1,866 posted on 07/13/2003 9:25:31 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1864 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Wished you could shoot all the Christians? Think that would solve your embarassing personal religious problems?
1,867 posted on 07/13/2003 9:32:28 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1865 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Convergent evolution is not a problem for mainstream science.

It is not science if there is no factual evidence for it. You cannot give factual evidence for it in spite of your supposed 13,000 hits on Yahoo. Let's remember that when you had 3,000 hits supposedly showing the observation of gene duplication you were not able to give a single example, nor were other evolutionists who followed your lead. So the truth is that there is a lot of gibberish written by evolutionists with few or no facts to support it scientifically.

As to your attempt to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up Neanderthals, I am not biting.

The issue here is far more important - whether genetic evidence proves or disproves evolution. I have shown with scientific facts in Post# 1861 , Post# 1754 , Post# 1682 , Post# 1593 , Post# 1570 , and Post# 1549 that genetic evidence disproves evolution. You have been totally unable to refute those posts with scientific facts.

The inability of mtDNA to provide an accurate evolutionary tree, the disproven claim that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' and the nonsensicallity of the claim that 'convergent evolution' occurs without a single iota of scientific substantiation for it, shows quite clearly that evolution is scientifically false.

1,868 posted on 07/13/2003 9:45:47 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1863 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; All
The Atheist Wedding:
"The Atheist couple should be particularly careful in their selection of music, since so many of the available wedding themes are contaminated with religion. At one wedding the author attended, the bride, a second generation Atheist, had chosen a popular tune called "The Wedding Song" without realizing that the song discussed — in detail — the potential relationship between bride, groom, and Jesus. To keep the wedding symbolism untarnished, the bridal couple should listen to music all the way through before deciding on their selection."


Nope, no obsession with God there...

for more laughs on how people who pretend there is no God, pretend there is no God, go here:
http://www.atheists.org/comingout/weddings/atheistweddings.html

Looks like we found the source of your constant connecting of "science" with hating Christians. It's called "an unhealthy obsession".
1,869 posted on 07/13/2003 9:49:34 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1867 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Thank you so much for the link!

I compared the passages in John 1:3 and 10 among the original Greek and seven translations. There is no significant difference that I can see.

The root Greek word in both passages is ginomai.

1,870 posted on 07/13/2003 10:06:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1839 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Wow! It sounds like you had a great time! And now you've made me hungry for oyster stew...
1,871 posted on 07/13/2003 10:07:56 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1842 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
As to your attempt to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up Neanderthals, I am not biting.

Translation: "I will be back again, dumb as stump, talking out of the other side of my mouth, citing evidence obtained by methods I have denounced."

I have been troubled that the questions raised by the Duke study have been--so far as I know--ignored. At any rate, mtDNA analysis continues to be widely used. I can only shrug and hope that nuclear DNA studies will follow eventually. That, and maybe some of the problems in mtDNA research have been quietly addressed. Maybe nuclear DNA studies have been mostly confirming mtDNA results, which would indicate that the Duke study may have by chance overstated the problem. Just now, I can't tell what's going on but I expect it will be clearer, later.

Some of the hypotheses I personally don't favor (such as Out-of-Africa, the complete replacement version) depend heavily on mtDNA. (But not entirely in the OOA case.) Everyone sooner or later someday hopes that thing A is true versus thing B. Nevertheless, the siren song of hearing what you want to believe must be resisted if you're going after the truth. If you don't know how things are going to come out, it's best to just say so. The trick is not to make a religion out of your preferences. That is the difference between your approach and mine.

1,872 posted on 07/13/2003 10:21:24 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1868 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for your reply! Hugs!!!

No one regrets the side-tracking more than I do. I would prefer to discuss evolution and anyone's scientific objections or alternatives to it. If the proposed objections and alternatives are religious in nature, as is often the case, I personally regard them as off-topic and entirely irrelevant in a science thread.

Unfortunately, some people around here regard that position to be "Christian-bashing," while I regard it as merely trying to stay on topic. Alas, things can all-too-easily degenerate when someone (often well-intentioned but horrendously ignorant) takes the position that "We good Christian folk have to shut down you eeeeevil science folk." It is most unfortunate when a thread swerves off in that direction.

Please try to see this from the other point of view as well.

When evolutionists declare that Young Earth Creationists (or Christian Fundamentalists) are an embarrassment to conservatism in general and the Republican party in particular, it is taken as Christian-bashing. What else could it be?

Wouldn’t a person of a particular ethnicity, gender, age or sexual orientation be righteously indignant if he were told he was an embarrassment to conservatism?

Christian Fundamentalists are not second-class conservatives --- nor are Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.

Likewise, Young Earth Creationists are not second-class conservatives --- nor are Evolutionists, Intelligent Design Supporters, Panspermia Supporters, etc.

IMHO, if we can agree to level the political playing field, we can get back to the core debate of the theory of evolution v intelligent design --- and the issues concerning the age of the universe.

1,873 posted on 07/13/2003 10:24:26 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1843 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thank you for the post! And many hugs to you as well!!!

I see that I should have read ahead and pinged you to my reply to PatrickHenry at post 1873. Sorry about that.

1,874 posted on 07/13/2003 10:29:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1852 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
You have a point, but it's only good for so much. The crazy Aunt in the attic isn't second-class family, but she can't enter into binding contracts, either.
1,875 posted on 07/13/2003 10:43:04 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1874 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Translation: "I will be back again, dumb as stump, talking out of the other side of my mouth, citing evidence obtained by methods I have denounced."

Since all you can do regarding my scientific demolition of evolution in Post# 1868 is insult and spout irrelevancies, you clearly are unable to refute my argument and there is no sense continuing this discussion.

1,876 posted on 07/13/2003 10:44:19 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1872 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
When evolutionists declare that Young Earth Creationists (or Christian Fundamentalists) are an embarrassment to conservatism in general and the Republican party in particular, it is taken as Christian-bashing. What else could it be?

Well now, it may be that you've identified the core of the whole conflict. Perhaps we can use your tripartite method of classification to think about this. Back in #1752 you said:

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.
So, using these catagories for YEC people, we have: (1) Those who are YEC, and don't mind if you are not; (2) those who want to convince you to be YEC and will argue in a respectful manner; and (3) those who really hate everyone who isn't YEC, and they aren’t trying to persuade anyone.

Yes, A-Girl [pause for hugs] I think your classification system is a good fit. And I would regard the type one or type two YEC to be no problem whatsoever to anyone. But now we come to the problem area -- those pesky type threes. Like you, I have a problem with type three (including type 3 atheists, by the way). I certainly do regard the type three YEC to be an embarrassment -- both to the Republican party and to conservatism in general. Actually, I think the type three personality is a problem for everyone, no matter what his specific belief system is.

1,877 posted on 07/13/2003 10:49:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1873 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thank you so much for your post! It is a great example of what can fuel these flame wars.

I don't take it as a personal affront that you use the term "crazy Aunt in the attic" to refer to a group of people to which I belong. But others surely would be offended by the metaphor. To me, you were just being colorful.

1,878 posted on 07/13/2003 11:01:07 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1875 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; All
Top liberal spammers on the fr ...

patrick gulag henry

vape retroll

darwin junior

for longevity and amt ---

any others ... dishonorable mentions ?

ah2

whattalib

blueglue

1,879 posted on 07/13/2003 11:05:08 AM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1877 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
And then there's type four ...
1,880 posted on 07/13/2003 11:07:35 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1878 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,841-1,8601,861-1,8801,881-1,900 ... 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