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."
I could care less about non-Christian creation myths - those have nothing to do with anything and prove nothing. There is only ONE creation story amongst Christians - GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. Genesis is the sole authority for Christians. If one doesn't believe that, then they aren't orthodox Christian, they are outside the pale of the faith.
For example, just basic questions as the time and order of creation are greatly disputed among fundamentalist Christians. Do you want the public schools to take sides while teaching ”creationism?”
You are too simplistic in your statements. There is an in-house debate between Christians about the length of a day. However, regardless of whether a day is 24 hours or 1000 years, Genesis 1:1 is still true and Adam and Eve are still real. Both versions fall within the pale of orthodoxy. However, to say that Adam and Eve is an allegorical story, as is done by theistic evolutionists, is not orthodox as it elminates the need for a Savior. People who have this believe are confused and are unable to defend their position theologically. I have never met one who could.
The answer to the above question is extremely important; for instance, take a look at dating of fossils. A mammal fossil that is 6 million years old will be acceptable to a subset of Creationists but not to others. A mammal fossil that is 13,000 years old will be acceptable to another subset of Creationists but not to others. Similarly, a mammal fossil that is 7,000 years old will be acceptable to another subset of Creationists but not to others.
I don't believe in an old earth, but some Christians do and this is an orthodox belief and therefore would correspond to your putatively ancient fossils. On the other hand, prove to me that your dating methods are accurate.
When did God create the large Earth mammals?
At the same time He created all the other animals of course. Again, prove your dating methods are accurate.
Young Earth Creationists of the 24-hour creation days spend quite a bit of time ridiculing fossil tests that do not match their sectarian interpretation of the Bible, while other Christian fundamentalists have accepted those dates without any trouble for many decades.
I am of the 24-hour variety, and I do not believe the dating methods are accurate. They presuppose (there's that ugly "presupposition" word again!) uniformitarianism which canot be proved.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Babylonian Talmud, Josephus (all extra-biblical sources) - all mention Jesus Christ, not to mention the New Testament itself. Not bad for a poor artisan carpenter from a remote Roman province.
If you can't give me a defintion, then your statements are incoherent. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and besides, since when does majority opinion decide what truth is? Try again ace.
There may have been letters between Rome and Jerusalem concerning the issues of the day. Glen Kimball thinks he has seen some of these in a museum in Paris--some of the artifacts recovered by the expeditions to the Holy Land from 1099 on. Obviously on the speculative side.
I have nothing to prove to you - I know my statements about homeschooling are true and I don't care if you don't believe them - it's common knowledge.
Since you have no definition of science, then you have no basis for saying my idea of science is wrong. Scientific Truth isn't established by consensus - ask the phlogiston people about that. If you can't provide a definition, then your statements about my idea of science become incoherent and indefensible.
It's controversial; the controversy hinges on whether the passage is partially fraudulent, or entirely fraudulent. Google will get you many hits. This is one
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html
I'm aware of this controversey. The best scholarly experts believe the basic passage is true although it may have been altered or added to somewhat. Further, Josephus mentions John the Baptist as well.
Thanks! I will go look at those.
Thank you as well! Got a bit of research to do. :-)
Since you have no definition of science, then you have no basis for saying my idea of science is wrong. Scientific Truth isn't established by consensus - ask the phlogiston people about that. If you can't provide a definition, then your statements about my idea of science become incoherent and indefensible.
Your insistence on a definition conflicts with the considered writings of the man considered to be the seminal philosopher of science. Moreover, as a scientist myself, I don't even have to rely on Popper's vastly greater authority in this matter; what he wrote agrees with my own experience. Scientists in general make the distinction between what is and what is not science without a generally accepted definition. You don't need to 'define' an apple to distiguish with 100% reliability betwen an apple and an orange.
'I know what I know' buys you nothing on this forum, bud.
The Babylonian Talmud references are dubious. The Babylonian Talmud (written between about 300 - 500 C.E.) has a few mentions of a Jewish heretic named Yeshu bar Pandera (Jesus son of Pandera) who had five (not 12) followers and was executed by the Sanhedrin (not the Romans) by stoning (not crucifixion); one of these passages says that this occurred during the reign of King Jannai (103-76 B.C.E.), so it would not appear to be referring to Jesus of Nazareth.
In the middle ages, some rabbis, trying to combat Christian efforts to convert Jews to Christianity, pointed to these passages as being about Jesus; some medeival Christians also used these passages as excuses to persecute Jews and ban the study of the Talmud.
Josephus, on the other hand, writing in the second century C.E., clearly does refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a leader of a messianic sect who was executed by Pontius Pilate.
Yet California is not without it's homeschooling problems. We have folks like ex-Superintendant Delaine Easton who tried very hard to push her personal bias as law in California. She failed. We were interviewed (and made the front page!) regarding Easton's comments, and in their bias the areas largest newspaper couldn't get the story straight. Whatever it takes to sell newspapers, I 'spose.
So yes, homeschoolers face many obstacles even when the law is on their side. And yes we're members of hslda. Hey, for $100 a year that's very little money for complete representation and peace of mind. If/When California changes it's homeschool laws for the worse we'll move to Idaho or Texas. We'll continue to homeschool and teach our kids real science.
Your beliefs are fine in your church and in your home, not taught as "creationism" to my children in public school.
Try teaching your sectarian view of "creationism" to any of my children, and I will see in in federal court the day.
Creation myths belong in your home and in your church.
I am Christian, my parents are Christians, my grandparents were Christians, my great-grandparents were Christians, my . . . (you get the idea).
You have no right to impose your sectarian view of Christianity on my children.
It's widely accepted that the Latin version of Josephus that we have was modified by the Christian monks who copied it from the original, but there is also an Arabic text of Josephus which mentions Jesus. (Not surprisingly, the Arabic version says that Jesus's followers "claimed that he came back from the dead," while the version copied by monks reports the resurrection as a fact. That is clearly an interpolation; Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian, and if he believed that Jesus really rose from the dead he would have devoted more than one paragraph in a 12-volume history to him.) But Josephus is certainly powerful evidence that Jesus was a real person; another passage in Josephus (found in both texts) also reports the execution in 60 C.E. of "James, brother of the so-called Christ."
More on ancient Jewish references to Jesus here.
This is an appeal to authority and simply transfers my same question to Popper.
Scientists in general make the distinction between what is and what is not science without a generally accepted definition. You don't need to 'define' an apple to distiguish with 100% reliability betwen an apple and an orange.
Yes, like they did in the days of geocentrism and phlogiston...so much for 100% reliability.
'I know what I know' buys you nothing on this forum, bud.
Isn't that what you are doing - telling me what is and isn't science based on no authority other than "science is what scientists do"? The most famous scientists in history were creationists (Newton, Farraday, Kepler) - by your standard of science, they weren't scientists since they were too silly to realize that creationism isn't science. Just how is it that creationists can come up with such astounding scientific discoveries? How is believing that God created the universe (and all in it) inconsistent with the rational pursuit scientific truth? That is precisely the starting point of Newton. Inquiring minds want to know.
Clearly, these men were able to make their discoveries as a DIRECT RESULT of their theistic worldview which says that the universe is rational and ordered and understandable because the Creator is rational and ordered. Tell me, what is unscientific about that and BE SPECIFIC.
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.