Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[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."

[f.Christian]

Yeah ... evo oj science // evolution --- on the golf course (( cheats )) !

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a lack of thinking - honesty problem !

[Right Wing Professor]

IIRC, I posted a criticism of the post you are now reposting. However, there's a much simpler problem. Whatever errors there may be in radioactive dating, and those errors are really only serious in very old rocks of the Proterozoic era, none of the data are consistent with an age of 6000 years. You can say the error bars on a rock of 1 billion years ought to be 100 million or even 200 million years; you can't argue they're consistent with 6000 years. There is in every case thousands of times too much radioactive daughter material to be consistent with that age.

[f.Christian]

Liberalism // evolution is just the anti's (( hate )) to get the power (( free golf pass )) !

Cults and ... I wouldn't even call it ideology --- weird intellectual bigotry - ELITISM - superiority over lies - pretenses !

What happened to class - manners - hospitality - common decency // sense ?

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm impressed.

[Condorman]

EVOLUTION: ARE YOU WILLING TO BET YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL ON IT?

Which of 1) genetic variation, 2) selection pressure, and 3) heredity are a threat to anyone's immortal soul?

[f.Christian]

LL hasn't done his home work over ... there !

# 1 ... theology (( truth )) can trump false science !

# 2 ... Isn't that the definition of schizophrenia --- two opposite competing ' unintegrated ' entities in the same body ?

# 3 ... Shooting from the hip --- mindless unexplained contradictory --- see # 2 above !

[Skywalk]

So scientists from more than one field say the earth is old, using the same scientific method that has produced the West's great achievements, both technological and knowledge-base, but YOU don't think it's accurate?

Are you willing to give up your television, air conditioner, computers, medical advances, medicine, etc?

[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm impressed.

Not nearly as impressed as I am with your knowledge of science.

I come from an Orthodox (though not ultra-Orthodox) Jewish family, and spent grades 1-12 in a Jewish day school in which we studied the Hebrew Bible and the Hebrew language. The secular science curriculum (taught by different teachers than the religious curriculum) included evolution; the religious teachers were, for the most part, untroubled by the concept of theistic evolution. (Even Orthodox Jews are rarely Biblical literalists in the same way that Protestant fundamentalists are.)

[whattajoke]

Good Afternoon,

As my dear mother used to say, "If Jimmy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" It seems to me if Kent Hovind tells you that Darwin was a lazy satanist, that there are unicorns in the book of Job and that there are living dinos today, you'd believe it. Oh wait, you already do!

As for your absurd contention (this is more than a mere opinion) that verbal debates with folks like Hovind are somehow more productive than written ones, I seriously urge you to check out some of the former posts regarding that. Would you like it if I called your home on live tv, quickly fired off 20 unrelated and untrue things about your family and hometown, only to give you a few minutes to respond? you'd get to dispel maybe one of two things, and I "win." OR, would you rather I write on Op-Ed in your local paper with those same 20 unrelated and untrue things, to which you could reply with 20 reasoned rebuttals and truths? Do you see the difference? I know that you do.

And finally, you state: "If origins is discussed in the classroom, wonderful, but equal time for all." Do you really mean that? I mean REALLY?! Of course not. Once you open the door for YOUR own idea of creation, surely you must realize then that little Ali, Ragnathan, Chen, Mbuto, and Running Bear will then need "equal time" for their religion/culture's myths as well, right? Believe it or not, their ideas are just as credible as yours and Hovind's.

Again, I KNOW you understand this. The question is, why do you choose to pretend you don't?

Have a good day.

[RightWhale]

Leviathan and behemoth

There is another huge creature, not specifically named in the Bible but popular elsewhere. It has a name, but it's a big bird. A really big bird. So, you have a sea creature, a land creature, and a flying creature. All of these will be mightly good eatin' one day.

[VadeRetro]

Sad little exercises in naysaying like your 1277 have no place in science. It couldn't be more obvious that you have nothing to offer anyone trying to learn how the world works.

[whattajoke]

Are you willing to give up your television, air conditioner, computers, medical advances, medicine, etc?

Of course not. She's been busy making peach and blueberry jam this week. What are the chances those blueberries have been bred to be relatively short bushes with big, juicy berries that grow in close bunches and come off readily at the stem. What are the chances those peaches have been bred to ward off various insect species that damage the fruit in it's more feral state? What are the chances that those very same insects, after several generations, will have evolved to the point that the current insecticides used on those peaches will be rendered useless, at which time chemical companies will roll out a new and improved insecticide?

Evolution is a constant, happening every second of everyday in some capacity or another.

[f.Christian]

Technological --- derivatives of physical science --- progress ... has nothing to do with evolution that won't even recognize design - DESIGNER in anything ... just sneakily try to co opt - hi jack it !

' Mavericks ' they think and they falsely brand them -- even the fence posts - wire ... high voltage them and whack off the owners - ' trespassing - tresspassers ' !

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, I'd like to offer my "two cents" on the "age of the universe" debate:

When people say the universe is 15 billion years old, they never seem to finish the sentence, i.e.

The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from our space/time coordinates.

Likewise, when people say the universe was created in 6 days, they never seem to finish the sentence, i.e.

The universe was created in 6 days from God's space/time coordinate of inception.

God was the only observer of Creation and is the author of Genesis, so IMHO we ought to interpret the dating from His coordinate of inception, not ours looking back. Genesis changes quite nicely from God's coordinate of inception to Adamic man's coordinates on the physical earth in Chapter 4.

Inflationary theory works beautifully in reconciling the two space/time coordinates dating, Creation week v. 15 billion years, as Schroeder explains looking at from the Jewish reading of the Torah: Age of the Universe

I agree with Schroeder and extend them with my Christian reading of Scriptures.

[Aric2000]

Come on goodseed, if god left the evidence, and we work up a scientific theory to explain the evidence, we sure as heck are NOT going to hell because we understand a theory.

Come on Goodseed, that is going way above and beyond any reasonable line of reasoning.

God created the earth, ergo: He therefore left the evidence for us to find. Was it a test to fool us? Is it a test to allow those of us who look at that evidence critically to get ourselves in some kind of hotwater with god and therefore go to hell?

Please Goodseed, use some common sense here.

[js1138]

I admire your ability to attempt reconciliations. However, I see no evidence that the 6 day perspective can be tested. Nor do I see anything in the Bible to suggest a dual perspective.

[JesseShurun]

just takin a look around Jesse placesticker:

[Aric2000]

I am going to a hackjob cut and paste on your post. and show you what it looks like from our side of the fence.

You keep referring to this great "Christian community" as somehow proving creationism.

Just because individuals, brainwashed in churches with creationist religious doctrine, obtain a college degree in Theology, does not prove that what they were taught is "true".

There ya go, that is how it looks from our side, but ya see, we have an advantage, we can look at the evidence for ourselves, we can pick the fossils up, we can go into a genetics lab and talk to ACTUAL scientists doing experiments. We can SEE it.

You on the other hand have taken someones word, 4th 5th, 100th hand that A: the bible is the literal word of god and B: it is PERFECT.

Well, it ain't perfect, it contradicts itself just in the first chapter, if ANYONE other then a religious theologian took a look at your bible from a neutral viewpoint as in they have never heard of it, nor have ever seen it, you would get one shocking surprise.

There is NO evidence that creation happened the way it says in Genesis, the ONLY evidence you have is the bible. Why is it true? because the bible says so. How do you know what the bible says is true? because it is the word of god, and god wouldn't lie. How do you know that it is the literal word of god? The bible says so.

It is called CIRCULAR reasoning, you can get away with that in religion, but NOT science.

Evolution is science, whether YOU like it or not, and TENs of thousands of scientists agree with me, and 10's of thousands of fundamentalists agree with you.

Hmm, so on science, who is the authority? Scientists, or a bunch of Religious fundamentalists? Tough call there big guy.

[Skywalk]

yep.

Most crops, as we know them, were completely different before domestication, indeed before the last couple of centuries.

What really irks me, is that I can't talk about Odin and Loki in schools during science. I mean, why the Hebrew/Christian God?

Are we also going to be discussing the firmament, and which parts do we take literally. Are there literal floodgates in the sky that let in water? If she doesn't believe that, why believe the Genesis story literally?

We could go on and on, or about Horus resurrecting his father Osiris, or Krishna raising someone from the dead, or Odin hanging himself from the Yggdrasil and gaining knowledge as a result(a form of resurrection) or Ishtar and Tammuz...It's all myth, and even if there is truth(and I think there are some moral truths) in the Bible, it is really Christianity's development that made it relevant to a large number of people. Would Islam have even been invented if not for the spread of Christianity as a model for Mohammad? Probably not.

But now it forms a basis for three major religions, yet I've seen more wisdom and "grand" thoughts and intellectual endeavor in Buddhist and Taoist texts. I'm not Buddhist or Taoist, but how can one read that stuff and find the Bible intellectually satisfying with its endless "joe begat carol" and "Thou shalt not" and "smite anybody and everybody" ?? That's a primitive savage God of desert tribesmen, not a true civilization. Even the surrounding civilizations of the Middle East were, by and large, purveyors of a more civilized and sophisticated religion.

What does religion have to do with this thread? We all know, it has everything to do with it.