Skip to comments.
Texas Mulls How Biology Should Be Taught
Yahoo! News ^
| Thu Sep 11,11:44 AM ET
| AP
Posted on 09/11/2003 2:14:01 PM PDT by yonif
AUSTIN, Texas - Scientists, teachers and religious leaders are clashing over how the origin of humanity should be taught to Texas school children in biology textbooks.
On one side, the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, is leading a campaign to change the language of biology books to include weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
"There is considerable debate in scientific circles about the mechanism of evolution, namely how it happened," said William Dembski, a Baylor research professor who agrees with the Discovery Institute.
"All the textbooks under consideration grossly exaggerate the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, pretending that its mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic change is a slam dunk. Not so."
Dembski was one of some 160 activists signed up to testify Wednesday before the state Board of Education in the last public hearing before the November adoption of Texas biology textbooks.
Scientists and public watchdog groups testified that the theory of evolution remains widely accepted in scientific communities and is a cornerstone of modern scientific research and technology. Many maintain that attempts to discredit Darwinian theory in textbooks is a scheme to later persuade publishers to include religious-based explanations for the origins of life.
The theory of evolution has been required in Texas textbooks since 1991.
Liz Carpenter, who served as press secretary to Lady Bird Johnson and was appointed to posts by four presidents, urged the board not to "water down the strength of the science curriculum."
"Texans with our wide spaces and blue skies believe in freedom, I think and resent more than anyone being throttled," Carpenter said. "And I don't want to be defined by extremists who want to curtail knowledge of any kind."
The Discovery Institute has been linked to a theory known as "intelligent design" a belief that species did not evolve by natural selection but instead progressed according to a plan or design. Institute officials, however, say they have no intentions of lobbying the state to include intelligent design.
Several officials from the Discovery Institute were on hand to testify, but the board voted 10-3 not to let the out-of-state witnesses testify during the hearing.
Critics say "intelligent design" is a dressed-up version of creationism, which the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) has prohibited from public schools as a violation of the separation of church and state.
The Board of Education has no say over textbook content, but the board can reject books because of errors or failure to follow the state curriculum.
The board will make its final decision on the biology textbooks in November. Publishers must submit final changes by Oct. 3.
Because Texas is the second largest textbook market in the country, changes made by publishers here often influence textbooks nationally. Only California buys more textbooks than Texas.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: biology; creationism; crevolist; evolution; god; school; scienceeducation; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
1
posted on
09/11/2003 2:14:01 PM PDT
by
yonif
To: yonif
Texas Mulls How Biology Should Be Taught
First teach them how to read and write!
2
posted on
09/11/2003 2:22:27 PM PDT
by
SwinneySwitch
(Freedom isn't Free - Support the Troops!!)
To: yonif
So, where's the "diversity of opinion" we keep hearing about from liberals? Where's the "tolerence of ideas"?
Seems that there're two standards being used in Biology education: "My way, Or The Highway."
3
posted on
09/11/2003 2:29:51 PM PDT
by
Noachian
(Liberalism belongs to the Fool, the Fraud, and the Vacuous.)
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: upright_citizen
I'd prolly start by teaching them that there are massive, gaping, holes in the 'theory' of evolution that need to be addressed (though the last time this was actually taught as just a theory and not as de facto, err, fact is anyone's guess).
I find it amusing that we can't just say that we don't have any really good idea as to how life started. That would seem to me to be at least as true as any other theory of life's origin.
5
posted on
09/11/2003 2:55:38 PM PDT
by
ECM
To: yonif
Science classes are supposed to teach SCIENCE!
Perhaps there are legitimate scientific reasons to question Darwin, and if so, these should be mentioned. But even if there are scientific flaws in Darwin's theory, that still doesn't change the fact that a literal reading of Genesis is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination, and it should NEVER be taught in a biology class.
Of course, I oppose public education in general. In an ideal world this would be a moot point, since those who didn't want their kids to learn science would be free to send them to schools where it is not taught.
6
posted on
09/11/2003 2:59:06 PM PDT
by
Maceman
To: yonif
Scientists don't stick their noses into theology.
Theologians shouldn't stick their noses into science.
They are two different disciplines (tools used to answer what at times are the same questions).
It's simply a matter of choosing which tool you want to use to answer the question (in this case) "where did we come from?"
Science class is for science. Religion class is for religion. Why can't people figure that part out?
To: yonif
Perfect example of one of the reasons I am homeschooling my eight year old grandson. Highly recommend ABeka Academy material.
8
posted on
09/11/2003 4:58:17 PM PDT
by
Millie
To: yonif
Why does one have to teach either evolution or creationism as part of a course in biology? One can teach a lot of biology without taking recourse to either.
I don't need to know anything about either to learn cellular biology, taxonomy, anatomy, Linnaeus's classification of species, botany, genetics, biochemistry or how many chambers a frog heart has.
I don't need either to study an ecosystem, photosynthesis, the Krep's cycle, or how the metabolism of ATP is used for energy storage in the cell or how hemoglobin stores blood and why copper based systems are highly inefficient (Sorry, no green blood for advanced organisms).
Students at this level shouldn't be even getting into debates about evolution or creationism. Concentrate on teaching them biology and allow them to make up their minds later
To: PatrickHenry; BMCDA
crevo ping
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.]
11
posted on
09/11/2003 6:43:44 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Proud to be "the main instigator" named on the DU "Worst Offenders" list.)
To: Coeur de Lion
I don't need to know anything about either to learn cellular biology, taxonomy, anatomy, Linnaeus's classification of species, botany, genetics, biochemistry or how many chambers a frog heart has.But isn't it nice that your doctor did feel the need to know a bit more than you.
To: Amelia
FYI
13
posted on
09/11/2003 6:50:08 PM PDT
by
Scenic Sounds
("Don't mind people grinnin' in your face." - Son House)
To: activationproducts
Well, because they both deal (sometimes) with the same reality and only one (or none) can be true if "scientific" speculation and religious faith contradict each other.
To: mtbopfuyn
Are you saying a good doctor needs to know/believe the theory of evolution?
To: Noachian
So, where's the "diversity of opinion" we keep hearing about from liberals? Where's the "tolerence of ideas"? Seems that there're two standards being used in Biology education: "My way, Or The Highway."
Yeah dat right man! As a Wiccan I wuz wunderin' when theyed start teechin alchemy and astrology n' stuff. We need alternatives, I wuz hoping that my kid could be taught proper acupunctureing instead of the male-patriarchy imposed, dodge-ball filled physical education.
To: mtbopfuyn
You seem to be making the assumption that I'm not a doctor! Your comment made no reference to the gist of my argument. So you obviously know very little of these subjects.
To: All
18
posted on
09/11/2003 7:03:51 PM PDT
by
Bob J
To: ECM
I find it amusing that we can't just say that we don't have any really good idea as to how life started.
Funny, that was exactly what I was taught in high school. A few hypothesis were mentioned, but it was stressed that nothing had come to the level of theory regarding life origins. Also, evolution was taught as theory, not fact -- but then, I had a biology teacher who made sure that we understood exactly how science worked and thus we were aware that nothing in science becomes more "certain" than a theory.
19
posted on
09/11/2003 7:04:26 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
To: Scenic Sounds
I heard a good one, on NPR no less, yesterday...it was a science teacher's story, but the end line was, "In science class, you learn about how you were made. In church you learn about Who made you."
Works for me.
20
posted on
09/11/2003 7:22:18 PM PDT
by
Amelia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson