Texas Mulls How Biology Should Be Taught

Yahoo! News ^ | Thu Sep 11,11:44 AM ET | AP

[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.

[ECM]

Congrats: in high school bio I got--count 'em--one theory for the origin and development of life, and one only...any guesses as to which that was?

[Dimensio]

Congrats: in high school bio I got--count 'em--one theory for the origin and development of life, and one only...any guesses as to which that was?

Well, we only got one theory on the origin of the species as well, because thus far no one has come up with another. I'm not aware of any theories on the origin of life, however.

[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."

That certainly sounds fair to me, too. Of course, there will be some screaming if you teach them too much about "how you were made." ;-)

[SpookBrat]

marking

[Amelia]

Of course, there will be some screaming if you teach them too much about "how you were made." ;-)

I teach big kids. I think some of them know more than I do about all that...I'm sure some of them have more children than I do. :-(

[balrog666]

Congrats: in high school bio I got--count 'em--one theory for the origin and development of life, and one only...any guesses as to which that was?

Well... IF there was a second SCIENTIFIC theory, I might have to guess. But since there isn't, it must be a rhetorical question.

[keats5]

"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."

No one is suggesting Genesis be taught in biology class, and I'm surprised people still bring this up. The fact is that there are serious scientific questions about how well the evolutionary theory answers scientific questions. I know a lot on this forum dismiss the Intellegent Design Theory, but I think if I had to learn evolution, you folks should at least read a few ID articles. If you think this is a recap of Genesis, you haven't done your homework.

[Dimensio]

I've read ID articles. The gist of them is "I can't imagine how this would have occured without a designer, therefore a designer exists."

Appeal to ignorance is not a method of scientific reasoning.

[Stultis]

So, where's the "diversity of opinion" we keep hearing about from liberals? Where's the "tolerence of ideas"?

Thankfully we've (generally) been able to hold the line against intellectual affirmative action, cultural relativism and the like in the science curricula.

Creationism, environmentalist pap, ethnic/gender-group oriented feel-good tokenism in the history curricula, etc: it's all of a piece. If we weaken our commitment to rigorous, hard-nosed academic standards in one area -- insisting that ideas are included/excluded in the curricula because they have objectively succeeded/failed in the relevant field of scholarship, and not because some ideologically motivated interest group likes/dislikes them -- then we weaken our resistance in all other areas.

IOW, you make a very good point about hypocrisy. Conservatives have traditionaly stood for no-nonesense curricula. We need to maintain that standard, even if some of us may have doubts about evolution, and challenge liberal relativism in the sciences, social sciences, and elsewhere, from that ground of consistency.

I happen to be an evolutionist myself, but for those he think that some sort of creationistic theory may one day prevail, bear in mind that this prevalence may not be reflected in future curricula if the precendence of teaching "both sides" is established now. Even though an evolutionist, I aver that if evolution should ever be supplanted by a superior theory, then evolution should be excluded, just as creationism is now.

[Noachian]

I lean toward evolution myself, and have thought it to explain quite rationally the origin of our species. Having said that I also keep an open mind, and have noticed that there are "gaps" in the evolutionary theory which IMHO means the theory itself must be flawed in ome way.

Were evolution to be labeled as a "theory" I'd be more comfortable with it, but those in the scientific community insist it is proof positive and overlook the flaws in the theory.

It's this "absolutism" mentality, that shuts out any competing idea, insists that there are no flaws, and leads to hypocrisy by those who insist, "from others", a diversity and tolerance of ideas.

[keats5]

"I've read ID articles. The gist of them is "I can't imagine how this would have occured without a designer, therefore a designer exists."

Which articles would that be?

Most I've read have used logical reasoning based on mathematical probablities. I'm sure you've read about the ridiculously low probability of stringing together two lines of a Shakespere play by randomingly picking scrabble letters, and the probability of stringing together the equivalent of a hundred pages of complex information required for the first DNA molecule, which of course would be needed to make that first cell replicate.

I just can't get past that jump of faith required to believe the first DNA randomly evolved.

I generally buy into the theory of microevolution (intraspecies adaptation). I understand how DNA would be altered via natural selection, within the species, because then new information would be there from a mate.

I just don't find the evidence for macroevolution as convincing. My "faith" in macroevolution was shook when I found out Haekle's woodcuts were known frauds, shortly after their original publication in the 1800s. Today's ultrasounds clearly shoe that a fish embryo is nothing like a human embryo. Next, I learned about the whole speckled moth scandle. I read evo- junk science more and more, like a newspaper article saying that this new generation is taller than their parents- clear proof of evolution. I learned that after DNA matching, one "missing link" turned out to be the the scull of a man, paired with the jaw of a gorilla, after DNA matching.

I've seen the theory of evolution be stretched into proof positive that the universe is timeless. Remember Carl Sagan saying, "The universe is all that is, was, and shall ever be." Where did he get this from? This is inconsistent with the "Big Bang" theory, which claims the universe has a definate starting point, and is slowly unwinding to some eventual end. Yet our kids are being taught both timeless evolution and the "Big Bang" theory, without critically analyzing the possibility of these two theories working together.

If evolutionists insist they're so scientific, they need to clean their oun house first.

[keats5]

"I've read ID articles. The gist of them is "I can't imagine how this would have occured without a designer, therefore a designer exists."

Which articles would that be?

Most I've read have used logical reasoning based on mathematical probablities. I'm sure you've read about the ridiculously low probability of stringing together two lines of a Shakespere play by randomingly picking scrabble letters, and the probability of stringing together the equivalent of a hundred pages of complex information required for the first DNA molecule, which of course would be needed to make that first cell replicate.

I just can't get past that jump of faith required to believe the first DNA randomly evolved.

I generally buy into the theory of microevolution (intraspecies adaptation). I understand how DNA would be altered via natural selection, within the species, because then new information would be there from a mate.

I just don't find the evidence for macroevolution as convincing. My "faith" in macroevolution was shook when I found out Haekle's woodcuts were known frauds, shortly after their original publication in the 1800s. Today's ultrasounds clearly shoe that a fish embryo is nothing like a human embryo. Next, I learned about the whole speckled moth scandle. I read evo- junk science more and more, like a newspaper article saying that this new generation is taller than their parents- clear proof of evolution. I learned that after DNA matching, one "missing link" turned out to be the the scull of a man, paired with the jaw of a gorilla, after DNA matching.

I've seen the theory of evolution be stretched into proof positive that the universe is timeless. Remember Carl Sagan saying, "The universe is all that is, was, and shall ever be." Where did he get this from? This is inconsistent with the "Big Bang" theory, which claims the universe has a definate starting point, and is slowly unwinding to some eventual end. Yet our kids are being taught both timeless evolution and the "Big Bang" theory, without critically analyzing the possibility of these two theories working together.

If evolutionists insist they're so scientific, they need to clean their own house first.

[keats5]

Sorry for the double post. I get so excited sometimes. 8-)

[CobaltBlue]

My "faith" in macroevolution was shook when Haekle's woodcuts were known frauds, shortly after their original publication in the 1800s.

Yep, so unless you are reeeeaaaaaaaalllllly old, you never learned about them in school, thus, could not have had any "faith" in them to begin with.

Next, I learned about the whole speckled moth scandle.

Oh, yawn. I wish you guys would come up with something new. Haeckle and peppered (not speckled) moths. Haeckle and peppered moths. Always with the Haeckle and peppered moths.

[keats5]

You're kidding, right? You can still find Haeckle's woodcuts in some biology books used in today's classrooms. They were typically shown in texts in the 1950-80s, and my niece had them in her biology textbook as late as the year 2000.

That's my point. Even though everyone knew these were fakes, they continued to be shown in texts as "proof" of evolution. But when people protest, they're portrayed as crazed, toothless, irrational Bible thumpers. That's intellectually dishonest. The same thing happened with the moths. You can still find thoses photos in relatively recent textbooks today.

As you can clearly see from my post, in addition to these two issues, I've also mentioned issues about DNA, taller kids being portrayed as proof of evolution, mismatched bones being portrayed as "missing links", and the impossibility of Carl Sagan's timelessness of the universe in light of the Big Bang theory.

Yet you've ridiculed me for "only" bringing up the old moth and woodprint issues.

And despite your put-down, you haven't explained why we're still seeing these photos today. Would you agree that they should be taken out of all newly printed textbooks, or do you think they should stay in? Do you think textbooks should be updated when purported evidence of evolution is later shown to be erroneous?

[CobaltBlue]

You're a Christian, so I expect you to tell the truth. You never had any "faith" in evolution to begin with, right?

Thus, you never had any "faith" to lose, isn't that right?

What I scoff at is the nimby-pimby skirt-twisting pretension that you ever were led astray by evolution. You weren't, so why pretend?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

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).

The Cephalopod Anti-Defamation Society (CADS) will be in contact with you. ;)

[Coeur de Lion]

Damn green-blooded slimes!

[keats5]

You presume incorrectly.