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."
Regarding my dispute with gore3000 about whether experiments that I cited from the 6th edition of The Origin of Species also appeared in the 1st edition:
gore3000 has graciously conceded, in his reply to a private email, that his search of the 1st edition text was hasty and missed relevant parallel passages. He has given me permission in a subsequent email to convey that concession here.
I accept gore3000's explanation, and I withdraw my claim that he was lying about having checked the text, or the result thereof.
Principal preceeding messages:
Gore (repeats) request for "an example of ONE (1) experiment in the Origins".
#3316
I reply with examples.
#3493
gore3000 suggests I used the 6th edition because my examples didn't appear in the 1st edition, and says he checked this.
#3698
I respond with a table laying out relevant passages from 6th and 1st editions side-by-side. I call gore3000 a liar.
#3813
gore3000 had not publicly responded to the preceeding message, but I reply to another freeper mistakenly thinking it was gore3000. I repeat and expand my charge that he was lying.
#3836
It appears to me from gore3000's email that a disagreement remains between us, but I consider it trivial. Nevertheless I should add that gore3000's concession was specifically with respect to the pidgeon experiments. He seems to take the same position as the freeper I mistakenly responded to in the last message linked, that the red clover fertilization experiments should not be said to be present in the 1st edition (presumably because of the differences I flagged in my table). I've already given my position on this in that last (mistakenly addressed) message.
I hope I've been fair to gore3000 with this summary, and request that he respond if I have not.
God of dysentery? ...I don't know about dysentery - bacteria with flagella could well cause that as well for all I know. But the article does mention this:... you are openly disgusting
live with it
Bacteria can move across surfaces in organized swarms, and quickly colonize a new food source such as your own much larger cells. When swarming, they often grow more flagella than usual and make cell-to-cell contacts with these flagella (37). Some bacteria also use their flagella to hang on to our cells as they try to break in and eat the cell contents (38. Girón JA, Torres AG, Freer E, Kaper JB. (2002). The flagella of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli mediate adherence to epithelial cells. Molecular Microbiology 44(2):361-379.).
This brings us to the dark side of design. Flagella participate in the cause of quite a few bacterial diseases, including diarrhea (38), ulcers and urinary tract infections (39. McGee DJ, Coker C, Testerman TL, Harro JM, Gibson SV, Mobley HL. (2002). The Helicobacter pylori flbA flagellar biosynthesis and regulatory gene is required for motility and virulence and modulates urease of H. pylori and Proteus mirabilis. Journal of Medical Microbiology 51(11):958-970.). If the Designer is directly responsible for flagella then he is implicated as a cause of human diseases. Diarrhea is no joke; it is a leading cause of infant death in some parts of the world. To make matters worse, one can hardly give the Designer credit for flagella without also crediting him with TTSS's in general (40). This puts the Designer solidly behind Bubonic plague (41, 42) and many other diseases (43). Happily, science makes such beliefs unnecessary.
Your hero Behe claims God the unembodied, unnamed Designer purposely designed the flagellum. This brings up the obvious question: Why? Why was God singularly interested in designing H. pylori, E. coli, et. al.?
You know, there is some off-and-on theoretical discussion being done over at ARN about Multiple-Designer Theory (MDT). This is where multiple designers are posited, each one designing organisms that are inherently in opposition to each other: flagellar bacteria vs. humans, wasps vs. caterpillars, infectious agents in general vs. hosts with immune systems, predators vs. prey, etc. Do you maybe subscribe to MDT to explain things like flagellar bacteria?
Hmm, they're coming closer. Perhaps if they allow the number of designers to approach infinity. The limit will be the Darwinian Unit of Selection!
I agree. It's not up to us to 'close the deal'. Just to open the door of opportunity, as we are called to do.
God of dysentery?
3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138
From the looks of you evo's attachment to things anal, you ALL are merely taking license to sign on to js1138's disgusting God Bashing spree.
This subject is off-topic for this thread, so I suggest we let it drop. There must be gay marriage threads where this issue can play out in all its glory, and such would be the appropraite forum to continue this conversation. (Actually, I don't care about the issue all that much, and I probably wouldn't participate in such a thread.)
It has been fair.
No, i don't think they're a tabula rasa. They obviously have an innate capacity of making inductions and for intelligence. We aren't, after all, chimpanzees; we have something they lack. My point is that infants, and adults to a great extent do not make explicit assumptions; and that the implicit assumption one might detect in the law of induction (that, in general, under the same circumstances, observations tend to repeat themselves) is one that philosophers have tended in equal parts to ignore and reject. It is clear that intelligent living organisms (not just humans) tend to look for order even in random events. Note, however, that the experiments we've done to detect that tendency are scientific; they were not unearthed by philosophy.
I therefore maintain my postion that the philosophical basis for science, as for the logic that underlies everyday life, is negligible. The formalization of logic came after its first use; the formalization of mathematics came late in its development; modern philosophical analysis of science came long after modern science itself. I won't argue that philosophy is worthless (though I won't argue the contrary either); I will argue that it is irrelevant to science, and it is largely relevant only to philosophers.
I think we are motivated by SCRIPTURE: It comes right from Scripture.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Col. 1:15-16 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Here's a great article on how these buggers work.
Here's one specifically on Shigella, the cause of dysentery and a relative of E. coli.
So back to ALS:
Your hero Behe claims God the unembodied, unnamed Designer purposely designed the flagellum. This brings up the obvious question: Why? Why was God singularly interested in designing H. pylori, E. coli, et. al.?
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.