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 ... 2,901-2,9202,921-2,9402,941-2,960 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: js1138
I think we have a problem with who gets to decide which parts are figurative, which parts are parable, and which parts are literal.

There is no question on that, God does(but each portion is more than a single lesson and has more than a single meaning). Now, as to how it is revealed to each individual there is sometimes a question, but not often. Revelation is by its nature completely figurative, it is the description of a vision. All parables are figurative, etc.

2,921 posted on 07/15/2003 1:53:54 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2917 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Sorry about the duplicate. The server hung up. I refreshed another window and saw that the post had not been received so I terminated and refreshed. Voila, double post.
2,922 posted on 07/15/2003 1:55:21 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2921 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Cosmas Indicopleustes clearly saw the four corners of the earth as literal, and not figurative.

He was wrong. Or do you support his interpretation?

2,923 posted on 07/15/2003 1:56:22 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2919 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Why, yes I do. The diffculty I have understanding it comes from the fact that no one has been able, yet, to provide a coherent explanation of it.

Yes, there are always those that make life hard for themselves. You must think that a forged signature, was constructed using a furnace.

2,924 posted on 07/15/2003 1:58:27 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2919 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
He was wrong. Or do you support his interpretation?

He was a famous geographer. What grounds do you have for saying he was wrong?

2,925 posted on 07/15/2003 2:00:10 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2923 | View Replies]

To: exmarine

Science is NOT atheistic, and neither is Evolution.

What can I say to someone who believes this.

Evolution is atheistic. In exactly the same sense and degree that chemistry is atheistic.
2,926 posted on 07/15/2003 2:04:48 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2892 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Yes, there are always those that make life hard for themselves.

That's really not an answer. Cosmas Indicopleustes probably had better access to the Holy Scripture than you do, and he came up with a diametrically opposite interpretation of that scripture, in so far as it describes the topography of the earth. Is 'He was wrong' is the best you can come up with?

2,927 posted on 07/15/2003 2:04:53 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2924 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
What grounds do you have for saying he was wrong?

I think you're serious......

Nahhh, can't be.

2,928 posted on 07/15/2003 2:06:27 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2925 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Except Organic Chemistry, which is one of the Black Arts.
2,929 posted on 07/15/2003 2:06:46 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2926 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Cosmas Indicopleustes probably had better access to the Holy Scripture than you do

Yeah, right and alchemists were right about base metals.

2,930 posted on 07/15/2003 2:10:33 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2927 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I was one of the freaky kids who enjoyed Organic. I did far better in it than P-chem, that's for sure.

There's a logic behind O-Chem, to my mind. I had good profs who emphasized learning the mechanisms rather than memorizing the relationships... made a world of difference.

Plus, we got to wear cool lab coats in lab.
2,931 posted on 07/15/2003 2:10:52 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2929 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Except Organic Chemistry, which is one of the Black Arts.

Well, duh - if we teach our children organic chemistry, they'll just want to become organists!

2,932 posted on 07/15/2003 2:10:59 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2929 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
>> . . . . go read the U.S. Constitution until it sinks in . . . . The people rule in this country, not a group of 9 black-robed oligarchs . . . .<<

Someone hasn't been reading his Constitution.
2,933 posted on 07/15/2003 2:11:54 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2823 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
That's what was missing in my school: Defense Against the Black Arts.
2,934 posted on 07/15/2003 2:12:23 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2929 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Within reason. You don't have the right to abuse or neglect your children, and the state will rightfully intervene if you do. If you neglect your childrens' education, that may rise to the level of neglect such would justify state intervention. It's a mixed question of fact and law.

It's people like you who re-write law according to subjective interpretation that pose the biggest danger to society. Homeschoolers OUTPERFORM govt. schools - so good luck trying to prove that I neglect their education. This is purely arbitrary - who decides what education rises to the "level of neglect"? You? Some elitist bigot in a black robe perhaps? Or maybe some school superintendent? It's just this type of coercion that poses the biggest danger to my freedoms. You sound just like someone who would attempt to take my freedoms. And who decides what "abuse" is? Is spanking abuse? Take your liberal elitist empty-headed dictatorial value system and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

2,935 posted on 07/15/2003 2:13:47 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2918 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I think you're serious.

Evasions, evasions. Oh well, I didn't expect any better.

I'll tell you what grounds you have: you have all sorts of evidence outside of Scripture that the earth is near-spherical. Therefore, the passages about the four corners of the earth, etc., must be figurative. In other words, the exegesis of the Bible is decided based on criteria entirely independent of the Bible, such as consistency with the natural world as we now know it to be. However, that argument is so dangerous to the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories you are unwilling even to utter it. For after all, if you can discount Cosmas Indicopleustes' topography because we now know the earth is spherical, one can equally argue we can discount your Creation story because we know the earth is several billions years old.

2,936 posted on 07/15/2003 2:14:12 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2928 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Someone hasn't been reading his Constitution.

Well we know that someone has not been reading her Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2,937 posted on 07/15/2003 2:15:52 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2933 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Homeschoolers OUTPERFORM govt. schools

Cite?

2,938 posted on 07/15/2003 2:16:00 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2935 | View Replies]

To: js1138
>>What was presented as a single quote from a letter turned out to be assembled from two partial sentences from tow separate letters to two different recipients. to top that off, the quote started with a capital letter, even though it started in midsentence.<<

Man, oh, man. Talk about bearing false witness. A mortal sin, to boot. Or maybe they don't think they're breaking one of the Ten Commandments when the victim is dead.

Thank you for taking the time to scan the page, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
2,939 posted on 07/15/2003 2:16:08 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2831 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Take your liberal elitist empty-headed dictatorial value system and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

I'm out for the day but not without some more christian love according to exmarine PLACEMARKER
2,940 posted on 07/15/2003 2:18:23 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2939 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,901-2,9202,921-2,9402,941-2,960 ... 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