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 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: Junior
Recently, the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for its stance on slavery in the 19th century. This page has several references for you.

That a subset of nominal, or sinfull Christians organized in the South because of slavery, does not show the good professor's orginal contention that entire mainline Christian churches were racist. That is, of course, nonsense.

781 posted on 07/10/2003 9:25:05 AM PDT by HalfFull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The primary mainline protestant denominations aren't anti-evolution.

and those denominations are on which planet???

782 posted on 07/10/2003 9:25:46 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
No, that is what YOU would conclude from your naturalist presuppositions which tell you that science has nothing whatsoever to do with God.

Science = natural world
God = supernatural world.

Seems pretty simple to me.
783 posted on 07/10/2003 9:26:38 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
I do not believe he said that all, or even most, mainline Protestant churches were racist.
784 posted on 07/10/2003 9:28:08 AM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I totally lack a belief in astrology. I have no problem at all with the phenomenon of belief in astrology being taught in a history class, for instance. But if there were a concerted effort by astrologists to get astrology added to HS psychology classes as an actual viable theory, you couldn't keep my mouth shut about that either, and for exactly the same reason: There's no scientific evidence of the truth of astrology.

Astrology is not a foundational belief. God is. One's belief or non-belief in God shapes the entire worldview of a human being. All other belief systems flow from one's view of God. For example, one does not become an atheist AFTER becoming a rationalist or a neodarwinist or a materialist. One is an atheist first and that shapes all of their other philosophical beliefs which then become the foundation for their view of the world and science. Behind science is philosophy, and behind philosophy is one's view of God.

785 posted on 07/10/2003 9:29:39 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Junior
... "living cells" would have a very hard time of things if it weren't for their symbiotic relationship with mitochondria.

That would be true if archaea were not living or not cells.

786 posted on 07/10/2003 9:29:50 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: js1138
>> It's wonderful to have peer pressure working for you instead of against you.<<

Agreed. My kids don't even have to interact with kids who use drugs or dress like gangstas, except for non-IB electives, and gym. After 10th grade, no non-IB electives and no gym = no riff-raff who don't know how to behave.
787 posted on 07/10/2003 9:29:51 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Placemarker
788 posted on 07/10/2003 9:30:24 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 772 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Sorry jennyp, but to consider God, His devine power, His creation that was done out of LOVE...to consider that a 'useless side issue' is more than a political embarassment...it is a condemnation of our Lord and His majesty, His holiness...and of your place in eternity.

I continue to fail to see how this sidewalk bible thumping has anything at all to do with evolution, science, or politics.

So we don't take the bible literally. Therefore we're now liberals? Sheesh, your narrow view of christianity as well as conservatism will not get you very far. Please think about what you're saying here... And then, think about why you choose to read Genesis literally, but Daniel and Revelations so allegorically. Must be nice to have it both ways, no?
789 posted on 07/10/2003 9:33:24 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
Methinks you are conflating conservatives with Christians. Not all conservatives are Christians and not all Christians are conservatives. There is, of course, a bit of overlap, but the two words are not synonymous.
790 posted on 07/10/2003 9:34:52 AM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
When explaining the world to the rest of us, please be sure to refer to the God you speak of as the "Bible literalist's Christian God." Otherwise, 99% of the world won't understand or appreciate your sentiments.
791 posted on 07/10/2003 9:35:44 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Indeed, by your definition, they would be considered the only such living cells, as the mitochondrial-dependent variety could not survive, let alone replicate on their own.
792 posted on 07/10/2003 9:36:41 AM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Junior
There is evidence of evolution throughout the fossil record and the genome. That you pass these off with an airy wave of your hand as "wild speculation" is evidence of a personal bias and a willful inability to see the forest for the trees.

If that is what you are comfortable with, fine. However, your shortsightedness should not be foisted upon our school system as is evidently happening in places like Texas.

Now, now, Junior....Never said I wasn't biased toward the view of a Creator...at least I am honest about my view. What you fail to see (and will not admit), however, is that you are just as biased as I am. Until evolution can be proven, it is just another religious point of view and should not be taught as fact in our school system.

BTW, the fossil record does not support evolution. You are just to set in your personal bias, to see this fact.

793 posted on 07/10/2003 9:38:20 AM PDT by HalfFull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
All other belief systems flow from one's view of God. For example, one does not become an atheist AFTER becoming a rationalist or a neodarwinist or a materialist. One is an atheist first and that shapes all of their other philosophical beliefs which then become the foundation for their view of the world and science.

ergo all creationists are first christians and creationism is a byproduct of christianity and therefore has no business meddling in secular public highschools?

thanks for clearing that up!
794 posted on 07/10/2003 9:39:16 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Junior
as the mitochondrial-dependent variety could not survive, let alone replicate on their own.

Well then is the nucleus alive, or the cell wall?

795 posted on 07/10/2003 9:39:59 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
(BTW, yes, of course there are non christian creationists, as all cultures and religions have their very own creation story. But for the purposes of this so-far-civil FR thread, I narrowed things down in my previous post)
796 posted on 07/10/2003 9:40:53 AM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
Not necessarily. Paleontology and genetics are forensic sciences. Much like a criminalist can draw correct (and obvious) conclusions from evidence, so can paleontologists and geneticists. Doing so does not equal a bias, but rather a logical conclusion. Please note, the evidence in these fields has a tendency to reinforce the conclusions from the other fields; if the conclusions were based upon bias, one would expect wider discrepancies between conclusions.
797 posted on 07/10/2003 9:42:07 AM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
"I continue to fail to see how this sidewalk bible thumping..." ...with that kind of start, don't even bother with the rest of your nonsense.
798 posted on 07/10/2003 9:44:11 AM PDT by NewLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I'm not certain what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Mitochondria are basically bacteria dragooned into doing work for a cell (the first case of domestication). It would be like comparing a horse with human skin or gonads.
799 posted on 07/10/2003 9:44:41 AM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I do not believe he said that all, or even most, mainline Protestant churches were racist.

Here is the exact quote by the professor:

"And it is certainly true that a number of Christian denominations which are currently the most vocally anti-evolution were in the past segregationist and even racist."

The implication here is obvious. Still waiting for all those written platforms by "a number" of mainline protestant churches, that embrased slavery and racism. I do believe I'll be waiting a long time.

800 posted on 07/10/2003 9:44:45 AM PDT by HalfFull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 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