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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 4,381-4,387 next last

1 posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
2 posted on 07/09/2003 12:09:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

I agree. If there is scientific evidence that creates problems for the Theory of Evolution, I'd like to hear it. I won't hold my breath waiting for someone to present what amounts to genuine scientific (as opposed to pseudoscientific or nonscientific or, as is most common, non-sequitur) evidence, though.
3 posted on 07/09/2003 12:11:14 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

What a bunch of liars. "Liars for Christ", I call 'em.

4 posted on 07/09/2003 12:11:41 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
We're On A Mission From God
Help us make our 3rd quarter fundraising goal in record time!

5 posted on 07/09/2003 12:13:39 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
INTREP
6 posted on 07/09/2003 12:14:09 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I noticed this in the article:
The institute [Discovery 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.


7 posted on 07/09/2003 12:17:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists,"

There is disagreement on specifics, no doubt about that at all. But the number who question the basic idea are going the way of the dodo bird. Perhaps those who question the basic idea of evolution have a political agenda, and if so, they ought to be upfront about it because right now they simply appear to be irrational.

8 posted on 07/09/2003 12:22:53 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I don't understand the attitude around here that crevo threads add nothing to the purpose of this forum. This article is a case in point. Creationism is a religious/political movement which threatens to marginalize the conservative movement and is thus fair game for any political discussion.

That said, I am officially declaring certain posters herein (or soon to be herein) on my "virtual ignore" list. You know who you are; my not answering you has nothing to do with the accuracy of your arguments but rather with my desire to avoid flame wars which will can never result in any good.

9 posted on 07/09/2003 12:25:00 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
But don't forget that communists like the theory of evolution because it supports laze-faire capitalism   supports Nazism   supports Marxism   supports whatever you want it to support.
10 posted on 07/09/2003 12:26:23 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

They need to try keeping up.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is as obsolete as "Newton's theory of Gravity".
Today science has moved on to much more precise theorums, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution and General Relativity.

So9

11 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:04 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
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.

Only liberals and other evolutionists are allowed to do that!

12 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:24 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
communists like the theory of evolution

Nobody doesn't like Sarah Lee.

13 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:39 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
You must, one day, explain your codes. Curiosity is killing me...
14 posted on 07/09/2003 12:27:48 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Perhaps those who question the basic idea of evolution have a political agenda, and if so, they ought to be upfront about it because right now they simply appear to be irrational.

Perhaps those who refuse to question the basic idea of evolution have a political agenda, and if so, they ought to be upfront about it because right now they simply appear to be irrational

15 posted on 07/09/2003 12:29:07 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You must, one day, explain your codes.

He did a couple weeks ago. Just some kind of quasi-military jargon for bookmarks of an already awesome and still growing database.

16 posted on 07/09/2003 12:29:53 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Project Steve (if you think scientists are abandoning evolution)
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 21].

17 posted on 07/09/2003 12:30:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska made changes that, to varying degrees, challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.

This is untrue, at least as regards Nebraska. The Board of Education voted 5-3 last year to uphold evolution-only science teaching.

State science standards:

12.4.3  By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an understanding of the theory of biological evolution.

Example Indicators


18 posted on 07/09/2003 12:32:44 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Creato-rationalism serves no purpose. Many scientists would find their work impossible without a working hypothesis, and as a practical matter find creato-rationalism to be nonfunctional.
19 posted on 07/09/2003 12:34:38 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
We're On A Mission From God

Oh dear. Wrong fundraising slogan for a crevo thread!

20 posted on 07/09/2003 12:34:44 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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