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 ... 3,841-3,8603,861-3,8803,881-3,900 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: All
Two interesting links:

Is Evolution only a theory?. (Pretty basic stuff, but unknown to creationoids.)
The Creationist Holy War. (Good piece on ID.)

3,861 posted on 07/17/2003 9:51:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Idiots are on "virtual ignore," and you know exactly who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3860 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Good articles. Thanks for posting.
3,862 posted on 07/17/2003 9:56:45 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Something we all should consider is the founding fathers did not escape tyranny to perpetutae another ... we were founded upon God AND religious liberty and defending it is our obligation --- liberals have made God and right and wrong a thought crime and themselves ACLU whacks - our overlords - us slaves !

Watch those senate confirmation hearings and if you publicly state your beliefs and sincerity you are vetted - crucified ... there is supposed to be no religious - ideological special interest test or PLEDGE for office and now the supreme court has established them ... abortion - pornography - evolution - gun control - racial - sexual preferences especially !
3,863 posted on 07/17/2003 10:13:02 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
JR ...

How about abortion? Or Guns? Or National Security? Or homsosexual marriage? Or homosexual perversion forced down your kids throats? Or God being ruled unconstitutional? Or subjection to environmentalists? Or subjection to the United Nations? Or constitutional amendment by the courts? Or wealth redistribution through taxation? Or tax increases rather than tax cuts. Or national defense, etc, etc, etc. If you don't see any differences between the two parties standing on these issues then you are totally clueless.


3,864 posted on 07/17/2003 10:14:57 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3862 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Guess who ...

Free Republic was never intended to be a liberal debating society. It has a purpose and goals. The long term goal is to promote the cause of conservatism and to work for a return to the constitutionally limited republican form of government as established by our founders. If these are not your goals then I don't want you here. I am defending my first amendment right to freedom of association. I only want to associate myself and FR with people who will work with me to achieve my goals.
3,865 posted on 07/17/2003 10:19:26 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3860 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A level playing field for evolutionazis is pushing God and all his believers in a hole made by liberals and the USSC !
3,866 posted on 07/17/2003 10:21:59 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
guess who ?

Argue for constitutionally limited government all you want. That's what we're ALL doing here. But join in with the liberal/marxist/communist Democrats? Never! That's where I draw the line.

3,867 posted on 07/17/2003 10:24:09 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."
3,868 posted on 07/17/2003 10:28:34 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Sheesh, so not ALL of them are. Big deal. I guarantee you that ALL Democrats are precisely what they advertise themselves as being and even itemize on their party platform: abortionist/homosexualist/gun-grabbing/UN loving/America hating/corrupt/cowardly godless traitors."
3,869 posted on 07/17/2003 10:38:56 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
To: Jim Robinson

There is no doubt that the Dims need to be taken down. You'll not get an argument from me.

My heartburn comes from so called Republicans in Dim clothing who pander to the electorate rather than lead.

Power corrupts, absolutely.

They haven't downsized the gummint one bit. They're a disappointment and they are in charge.


84 posted on 07/16/2003 10:04 PM PDT by Fred Mertz


To: Fred Mertz

Well, other than the fact that they are totally opposite on the issues of abortion "rights", homosexual "rights", family, God, gun-control, universal heathcare, strong national defense, national sovereignty, high taxes, (and usually spending), etc, there's probably not a whole lot of difference. I mean they're all men and women living on the planet Earth, are engaged in politics and they all (except Hillary) put their pants on one leg at a time. I guess you could say that makes them pretty similar.


also ...

Well, don't write them off. There's no way that I would settle for abortionist/homosexualist/gun-grabbing/UN loving, Godless Democrats running the government much less choosing the next several rounds of federal judiciary and Supreme Court picks.


89 posted on 07/16/2003 10:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

3,870 posted on 07/17/2003 10:43:58 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3861 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The quote is attributed to Harold Pinker not Stephen Pinker, but I’m sure it is the same guy.

It's actually Steven Pinker. But that's ok. His writing was misrepresented and his name was mistaken. Sometimes it helps to go to the original source!

3,871 posted on 07/17/2003 10:45:35 AM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3763 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Universe is ordered: Scientific, false

Laughable statement since you could not function in this world if it wasn't. There is an ORDERED and rational subject-object relationship between you and the universe. To deny that is to live a hopeless insane dichotomy. The leaf on the tree is green and if it separates from the tree, it will fall to the ground 100% of the time. There are many constants and laws that apply universally, and these are only discoverable becuase they are rational and ordered. You can start quoting QM, but these don't apply to you - you function well in the subject-object relationship, and the laws of physics are reliable and measurable, regardless of what is going on at the quantum level.

Universe is rational, understandable: Unscientific

Is that so? According to your definition of science (which you are not able to divulge)? If the universe were not rational, then human beings would not be able to understand anything about it at all! Go to your dictionary and look up the word "rational." Humans beings use REASON to understand the universe and, quite obviously, reason has been used quite effectively to understand many things about the universe. That makes it rational. I don't know what you are trying to pull here, but your statements are wildly NON-RATIONAL.

Creator is rational, ordered: Unscientific because premise is unscientific.

Define "unscientific" or stop making arguments that use the term.

3,872 posted on 07/17/2003 10:57:41 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3466 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The leaf on the tree is green and if it separates from the tree, it will fall to the ground 100% of the time.

Want to to come clean out my gutters?

3,873 posted on 07/17/2003 11:06:41 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3872 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
We've been through this. Stop repeating the same lame arguments. They've been debunked once.
3,874 posted on 07/17/2003 11:07:47 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3872 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Why do you argue semantics with scientists?

Do you ACTUALLY think you know more about science then they do?

Come on Exmarine, please, you need to figure out what is going on in your head.

I don't argue with an electronics engineer about what electronics is, I don't argue with a geneticist over what DNA is, why? Because they actually have the education to know what that is, where as I do not.

Are you a scientist? If you are not, then you shouldn't argue about what science is with a scientist. It makes you look silly, and ignorant.

You want to argue about what science is, then go get a science degree, I guarantee you will be a bit upset that your definition is WAY off.

Again, never argue science with a scientist, it makes you look foolish and the scientist thinks your a buffoon!!
3,875 posted on 07/17/2003 11:12:33 AM PDT by Aric2000 (If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3872 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The leaf on the tree is green and if it separates from the tree, it will fall to the ground 100% of the time. There are many constants and laws that apply universally, and these are only discoverable becuase they are rational and ordered. You can start quoting QM, but these don't apply to you - you function well in the subject-object relationship, and the laws of physics are reliable and measurable, regardless of what is going on at the quantum level.

So you agree with the central hypothesis of science, that the laws of nature, both discovered and yet to be discovered, are uniform over time?

3,876 posted on 07/17/2003 11:15:16 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3872 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Very interesting! Thank you so much for the information! Hugs!!!
3,877 posted on 07/17/2003 11:19:07 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3816 | View Replies]

Enthusiastic symphony of creationoid postings, like explosive diarrhea, placemarker.
3,878 posted on 07/17/2003 11:23:34 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Idiots are on "virtual ignore," and you know exactly who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3877 | View Replies]

To: scripter
I have a four-way, side-by-side study Bible at home. Until we got it, I'd never realized the range of differences between various translations.

I'm with you in that I prefer the NIV. However, being Catholic I do a lot of my reading from the New Jerusalem Bible, as it has the apocrypha.

3,879 posted on 07/17/2003 11:26:52 AM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3854 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
orphan needs to do a reality search placemaker !
3,880 posted on 07/17/2003 11:30:07 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3878 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,841-3,8603,861-3,8803,881-3,900 ... 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