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 ... 3,421-3,4403,441-3,4603,461-3,480 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: exmarine; Doctor Stochastic
For the discussion, here are some of the reasons I am concerned about science and wish that others – especially conservative scientists - would become concerned as well (emphasis mine):

Peter Singer, Princeton

A controversial professor who advocates killing the disabled up to 28 days after birth, has been honored with an international ethics award.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, has been given the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics by the World Technology Network.

The organization says its members are dedicated to the business and science of emerging technologies such as biotechnology and new energy sources.

The Fundamental Principles of the Universe and the Origin of Physical Laws

But if living organisms, the psychic phenomena, moral and social processes have wholly physical nature, this would mean that the laws of physics would govern live, psychic phenomena, moral decisions and social activity. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin, a Marxist expressed his attitude in the followings (Johnson, 1997):

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute.

In How the Mind Works, MIT professor Harold Pinker argues that the fundamental premise of ethics has been disproved by science. "Ethical theory," he writes, "requires idealisations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behaviour is uncaused." Yet, "the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events." In other words, moral reasoning assumes the existence of things that science tells us are unreal (Pearcey, 2000). These formulations demonstrate that in practice scientific materialism is a monist view ignoring completely the autonomy of any other ontological levels.

Harvard Law School adds Animal Rights course

Harvard Law School will offer its first animal rights course next year. Harvard went out and hired animal rights activist attorney Steven Wise to teach the new course. Wise, a past president of the Animal Legal Defense Fun and current president of the Center for Expansion of Fundamental Rights has litigated numerous animal rights cases at the state and federal level. .

Science as Falsification – Sir Karl Popper

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." …

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

I hate to post-and-run, but I'm helping my husband get some cabinets ready to stain. I'll check back this evening.

3,441 posted on 07/16/2003 11:00:49 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3422 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
I will never allow any school to teach such voodoo science to my children.

Ooo-wee. Shoo, they won' be teachin' voodoo down in that school anyways. That teacher, if she know somethin', she say nothin', her.

3,442 posted on 07/16/2003 11:02:00 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3431 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Catholics - evolution ... just goes to show you what an abortion - unrecognized lie deceptive evil the whole thing is !
3,443 posted on 07/16/2003 11:02:33 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3438 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
My motives here aren't evangelical in nature ...

Good thing. I'm sure your D.I. approach to the Gospel says something to the lurkers about your brand of Christianity.

3,444 posted on 07/16/2003 11:03:00 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3433 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Good thing. I'm sure your D.I. approach to the Gospel says something to the lurkers about your brand of Christianity.

Yeah, maybe it makes them feel that the nasty bigoted evos deserve what they get.

3,445 posted on 07/16/2003 11:04:46 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3444 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Answer my questions or go away. I don't have time for your games

I answered your questions, sorry you don't like my answers.

You sound like a cult member convinced that rejection of his cultic beliefs is the same as rejection of the Bible.

Your 24-hour-creation day Young Earth Creationism is not taught in the Bible; it is a sectarian interpretion of the Bible, and most Christians do not believe such sectarian view.

And most Christians will not tolerate such sectarian view to be taught in public schools.

3,446 posted on 07/16/2003 11:05:42 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3440 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Not from what I have read. Many are Catholic and have stated such.

Affiliation with a church says nothing about one's beliefs toward God. Churches today are full og agnostics and even atheists.

3,447 posted on 07/16/2003 11:06:42 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3438 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
And most Christians will not tolerate such sectarian view to be taught in public schools.

Good! :-)

3,448 posted on 07/16/2003 11:07:01 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3446 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
many Christians who do believe in "darwinism."

No logical sane person can be a creationist and atheist at the same time unless you believe in evolution and therefore ... they are crazy !

Evolution is evil ... satanic --- communist - fascist !

3,449 posted on 07/16/2003 11:07:21 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3431 | View Replies]

To: js1138
As a general rule, the more personal knowledge you have of a newspaper story, the less accurate the story looks.

I'm sure that's true. What the reporter in the homeschooling piece did was outright misrepresentation of what we did say. Apparently the reporter couldn't find anybody to say what she wanted said in the article, so she twisted what we said.

We expected it, just not as bad as it was. Homeschoolers who know the law apparently aren't good copy so reporters twist what was said to sell newspapers.

3,450 posted on 07/16/2003 11:07:43 AM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3423 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Affiliation with a church says nothing about one's beliefs toward God. Churches today are full og agnostics and even atheists.

Hmmm.... I though I read a passage about not judging lest yea be judged?

3,451 posted on 07/16/2003 11:08:27 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3447 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
What right is it that would be overridden by teaching creationism alongside evolution?

How about Voodoo, pyramid power, psychic phenomena, UFOlogy, grapefruit dieting? When creationism has an active research program that publishes real information, then it can be taught as science. Until then, it will remain at the fringe with polywater, cold fusion and other "scientific" rubbish that sounds good but doesn't pan out.

3,452 posted on 07/16/2003 11:09:04 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3437 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
And most Christians will not tolerate such sectarian view to be taught in public schools.

The most intolerant bigotted sectarian view is evolution -- NAZIS !

Syllables: sec-tar-i-an
Parts of speech: adjective , noun

Part of Speech adjective
Pronunciation sehk te ri En
Definition 1. of, concerning, or typical of a sect, sects, or members of sects.
Definition 2. overly or belligerently insistent on one's group's beliefs or positions; dogmatic.
Related Words clannish , religious , party

3,453 posted on 07/16/2003 11:12:27 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3446 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Churches today are full of agnostics and even atheists.

Nothing new there. Would help if the most egregious backsliders were to sit in the front pew so they might get some of the message a little more clearly.

3,454 posted on 07/16/2003 11:15:58 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3447 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Your 24-hour-creation day Young Earth Creationism is not taught in the Bible; it is a sectarian interpretion of the Bible, and most Christians do not believe such sectarian view.

Again, for the third time, What is a Christian? You need to define your terms, otherwise, your statements about Christianity are meaningless to me. Are you afraid that if you define your Christianity, I will expose it for the heresy that it is?

By the way, what makes you think I care what you think of 24-hour creation? I don't. If you won't define your terms, don't go away mad, just go away. I have run fresh out of time for you.

3,455 posted on 07/16/2003 11:17:33 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3446 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Hmmm.... I though I read a passage about not judging lest yea be judged?

3,451 posted on 07/16/2003 11:08 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer

A LOT confused aren't you all evolutionistas !

Obviously evolutionists are ignoramouses - bots ... don't have a clue --- bias interpreyted - WHACKS !

The bible says ...

" evil people do not understand judgement ... but they that seek the Lord - Truth ---- will know all things " !

3,456 posted on 07/16/2003 11:18:19 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3451 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I think this poor fool needs to be prayed for as much as those other hate-filled, bile-spewing posters from last night.
3,457 posted on 07/16/2003 11:18:40 AM PDT by balrog666 (My tag line is broken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3426 | View Replies]

To: js1138
How about Voodoo, pyramid power, psychic phenomena, UFOlogy, grapefruit dieting? When creationism has an active research program that publishes real information, then it can be taught as science. Until then, it will remain at the fringe with polywater, cold fusion and other "scientific" rubbish that sounds good but doesn't pan out.

In this country, we have representative democracy. If my city council votes to include creationism, then you should butt out. It's none of your bees wax. My community doesn't care what your opinion of our beliefs are. Get that thru your head.

Show me how believing in special creation is inconsistent with the rational pursuit of scientific truth.

3,458 posted on 07/16/2003 11:21:16 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3452 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Isaac Newton was not a creationist.
3,459 posted on 07/16/2003 11:22:41 AM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3422 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Hmmm.... I though I read a passage about not judging lest yea be judged?

I stated a simple fact. Stating truth is not synonymous with judging.

3,460 posted on 07/16/2003 11:23:13 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3451 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,421-3,4403,441-3,4603,461-3,480 ... 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