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."
Agreed.
Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. [...etc]
Admittedly it is several paragraphs along, but it's interesting that you don't choose to quote Hitler's summarizing comments (emphasis added):
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
This turns out to have been a myth:
Mythical Chestnut
It's a well-known chestnut of Darwinian trivia that the father of international socialism, Karl Marx, once offered to dedicate one of the volumes of his magnum opus, Das Kapital, to that other 19th Century bearded revolutionary living in the south of England, Charles Darwin. Unfortunately, it turns out that this particular chestnut is something of a myth, although the story of how it came about is of interest in its own right.
Kapital Idea
Marx genuinely admired Darwin's Origin, despite its crude English style. He even sent Darwin a personally inscribed copy of the recently published second edition of Das Kapital in 1873. Darwin's letter of acknowledgment (quoted above) delighted Marx, who used it as proof that the great scientist appreciated his work. In fact, Darwin, ever the gentleman (and no German scholar), was merely being polite: he never read Marx's book, the vast majority of whose pages remained uncut in his library.
But, although Marx admired Darwin's work, some of its implications, particularly the support it gave to the theories of Thomas Malthus, gave him great cause for concern. This makes it extremely unlikely that Marx would ever have considered dedicating Das Kapital to Darwin.
Myth Conception
So, how did the dedication story come about? The answer is given, amongst other places, in Francis Wheen's highly readable biography, Karl Marx (Fourth Estate, ISBN: 1-85702-637-3). It all started with a second Darwin letter unearthed amongst Marx's papers, dated 13th October, 1880:
Dear Sir:
I am much obliged for your kind letter & the Enclosure.— The publication in any form of your remarks on my writing really requires no consent on my part, & it would be ridiculous in me to give consent to what requires none. I shd prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing.— Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request, but I am old & have very little strength, and looking over proof-sheets (as I know by present experience) fatigues me much.
I remain Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Ch. DarwinThis letter was published in a Soviet newspaper in 1931, which went on to suggest that the enclosures referred to in the letter might have been chapters from Das Kapital that dealt with evolution. No matter that Das Kapital, a book on economics, could never be considered a direct attack on religion, whatever Marx's well-documented views on the subject.
So what on Earth was going on?
Mystery Solved
The mystery was investigated and solved by Margaret Fay of the University of California, who came across an obscure book published in 1881, entitled The Students' Darwin. This was the second in a series of books sponsored by a pair of evangelical atheists.
The author of the book, Edward Aveling, later became the lover of Marx's daughter, Eleanor. In 1895, he and Eleanor began organising her late father's papers (which she had recently inherited from Engels). Later, in 1897, Aveling wrote an article about Marx and Darwin, in which he mentioned having corresponded with Darwin. Presumably, he then filed Darwin's letter to him along with Marx's papers.
Eventually, a letter from Aveling to Darwin (dated 12th October, 1880) was discovered amongst Darwin's papers at Cambridge University. Enclosed with this letter were sample chapters from The Students' Darwin. The letter requested permission to dedicate the book to Darwin.
So, it wasn't Karl Marx's Das Kapital that Darwin politely declined the dedication of; it was Edward Aveling's The Students' Darwin.
Source:
http://www.gruts.com/darwin/articles/2000/marx/
BTW, Darwin only actually met Aveling once. I happened to post a thread here on FR describing the occassion:
The "gentle squire of Down" (Charles Darwin) & the day the Pinko Atheists came to lunch
No, true enough, they didn't. Hitler played off the revival of scientific racism and eugenics that emerged in the 1910's and 20's, a full generation after Darwin was dead. Hitler did indeed appeal to (an overextended analogy of) evolutionary "struggle" in support of his militarism. So did German militarists in WWI, as William Jennings Bryan correctly noted.
But, interestingly, Hitler tended not appeal to evolution when it came to his racism and antisemitism so much as he did "laws of nature" ultimately attributed to the "will of the creator" (see my previous post to you about your quote from Mein Kampf). In fact, the official Nazi philosopher of racism and antisemitism, Alfred Rosenberg, in his Myth of the Twentieth Century spoke of racial purity in connection with the notion that each "nation" had been created with it's own particular "soul". (Granted this sense of "creation" was mystical rather than literal.)
Although you're probably right about Darwin wanting to avoid controversy. Aveling was a notorious atheist and radical. (See my "gentle squire of Down" thread for Darwin's reaction to Aveling.)
The leader of the Thule Society in the 1930s was Dietrich Eckhart. He was Hitler's mentor who nurtured and led him into the world of the supernatural. In the Thule group in Munich , Eckhart, Alfred Rosenberg and Hitler held seances and communicated with demons. Eckhart believed that a dark spirit had informed him that he was the guardian of the coming "great one" , the "Antichrist". Eckhart said on his deathbed ; " Follow Hitler ; he will dance, but it is I who have called the tune. I have initiated him into the secret doctrine, opened his centres in vision and given him the means to communicate with the powers."
Thule was supposedly a lost island inhabited by an ancient race who were "masters of wisdom," who though unseen, were superior and highly intelligent. Hitler believed he was in contact with them and that they gave him power and energy. Through his alleged contacts with this mythical superior race, he believed he was destined to lead the Aryans to rule the world as Eckart had said.
I think they are overemphasized sometimes, but I am aware of the occult views of many Nazis. I did note, for instance, in dicussing Rosenberg, that his references to "creation" were mystical rather than literal.
I most certainly was not agreeing that Darwin was a follower of Marx.
Never said he visited the US, you need to learn to read. Whether he was in favor of the War or not is irrelevant, his racism justified slavery and gave support for it.
More of your dishonest character defamation. When I post from an article, I invariably do not cut a word from the entire passage being quoted. I also, whenever it is on the net, give a link to the full work. The same cannot be said for yourself or your friends who purposely fail to give references and links to what is cited so that the context and the authorship will not be found.
How can you say that Hitler was more racist than those in his time when it was through pandering to racism that he came to power?
In addition, for your information, the excuse 'everybody does it' was completely discredited by the degenerate which at FR we call X42.
That both Darwin was racist and that racism is an integral part of his theory is shown quite well by the following:
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same conclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors.
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.
Only evolutionists would be so arrogant and so unscientific as to claim that the vast majority of DNA is junk. Only evolutionists would be so arrogant and so unscientific as to claim that tons of DNA are there just to prove their theory. Only evolutionists would be so contradictory of their own theory to say that 95% of DNA, replicated in almost all the 100 trillion cells of the human body is useless.
The concept of pseudogenes on which evolutionists have relied so much as verification of their theory has been totally disproven by REAL science. Pseudogenes rest on the concept that most DNA is junk and that the junk is just the useless remains from previous evolutions. Science has shown that it is that very junk DNA which controls the genes and an organism's operation.
Does not seem to me that such fish would live too long in the wild eh?
Have you done experiments to find this out? Do not make such an assumption. After all there are plenty of fish that glow in some form or another.
Your silence on the remainder of my points must mean that you agree with them, eh? Good to see it!
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.