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 ... 1,541-1,5601,561-1,5801,581-1,600 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: BMCDA
Gosh! There's quite some suspending and banning going on on that thread.

I'm surprised that Apes is still in there slugging away.

1,561 posted on 07/12/2003 10:02:56 AM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1560 | View Replies]

To: ALS
"The Moderator is our friend". I don't care if this thread goes to one more post or 10,000. The rules of FR are clear: no personal attacks, verbal abuse or what have you. I have a short fuse where boorish bullying behavior exists. Moreover, I don't care if I get banned for upholding the principles for which FreeRepublic was created in the first place
1,562 posted on 07/12/2003 10:17:16 AM PDT by JesseShurun (The Hazzardous Duke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1559 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
amen bro

for some mysterious reason they think christian bashing and personal attacks are welcome here

odd lot they are
1,563 posted on 07/12/2003 10:29:24 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1562 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
If evolution were correct, it should be quite simple to tell the descent of species through their DNA. The differences in DNA should gradually build up as the pruported tree of life grows in time with species at the higher levels being approximately equidistant in DNA differences to those lower down the tree.

Did you forget something? You're always posting that "Genetics has disproven that Neanderthals are ancestral to humans." The entire basis of this claim is in mtDNA studies, whose supposed total discrediting you reaffirm. So I guess there's room after all to wonder if humans aren't descended from Neanderthals?

The Duke study affirms that nuclear DNA in particular generates the same trees of relatedeness as morphological studies, a statement which exactly contradicts your claim above. mtDNA also tends overall to do the same but--the Duke researchers claim--is far less statisticlally reliable.

You don't seem to understand, and yet you cite and link the article repeatedly.

For the lurker:

Convergence of independent phylogenies.

1,564 posted on 07/12/2003 10:43:50 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1549 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Not sure I get your point. I thought you were arguing that creation could be taught in schools if Christians would get their act together? Are you thinking of theistic evolution? Because the fundamentalists on this thread think that's as bad as athestic evolution.

It appears to be an article of faith among those pushing the creationist agenda that evolution is not only wrong, it's a lie being pushed by atheists to fool good Christians into falling astray.

"Good Christians" means people who believe as they do.

They've danced around it without coming right out and saying it but implying that Catholics aren't Christians, and I expect that they feel the same way about liberal Protestants.
1,565 posted on 07/12/2003 10:51:04 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1467 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Maybe all she needed was a nice little rest. Rest is good.
1,566 posted on 07/12/2003 10:54:58 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1542 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
These people have to be catatonic to be arguing the patriot act with Southack, he's a smart cookie, and CJ got Goodseed by her conservative ideals BIG time.

Not sure what she was trying to pull, but as soon as she wrote that note to Jim, she was outta here.

It's her own fault for arguing with CJ.

She was outclassed and outmaneuvered, she needed to get out of that thread and stay out, unless she wanted to lurk and learn.

She took it WAY too personally.

I just watch those threads, because Southhack will tear you to pieces if what you say is legal fiction.
1,567 posted on 07/12/2003 10:55:50 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 1560 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The "sweet old Aunt Bee" mask not only kept falling off, it kept cracking.
1,568 posted on 07/12/2003 10:58:59 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1566 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I just watch those threads, because Southhack will tear you to pieces if what you say is legal fiction.

But don't believe a word he says about physics or anything else in science. He has his OWN science.

1,569 posted on 07/12/2003 11:00:29 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1567 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The Duke study affirms that nuclear DNA in particular generates the same trees of relatedeness as morphological studies

No, the Duke study and the one in my post at Post 1532 show the dishonesty of evolution 'science'. They reject experiments when they do not fit their theory. They change methods until they find one that fits their agenda. If evolution were true, the findings of ALL genetic comparisons would show pretty much the same tree. They do not. That together with convergent 'evolution' (a total joke - wishing - which is what the explanation amounts to - does not make it so - regardless of what the Wizard of Oz might say) and the exposure of Haeckel's fraud show pretty well that evolutionist assumptions are not confirmed by genetic evidence.

1,570 posted on 07/12/2003 11:00:49 AM PDT by gore3000 (Intelligent people do not believe in evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1564 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Political Correctness is an exercise in ... truth suffocation – nothing more.
1,571 posted on 07/12/2003 11:00:57 AM PDT by f.Christian (( bring it on ... crybabies // bullies - wimps - camp guards for darwin - marx - satan ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1568 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I know that, but bring up legal theory and I watch and learn, the man is ruthless!! LOL
1,572 posted on 07/12/2003 11:03:54 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 1569 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
That looks like it was a fun party.

I've been saying for years that a lot of people vote Republican, not because they are Republican in their hearts, but because of Roe v. Wade. If the Democrats were anti-abortion and anti-gay, they'd vote Democrat. I say that because I grew up in the Deep South and knew many, many a Dixiecrat.

The Michigan case is driving them nuts, but Lawrence vs. Texas is the biggest bombshell to drop into the lap of social conservatives since Roe v Wade. If O'Connor and Kennedy are Republicans, then as far as they are concerned the party is over.

Social conservatism is their only agenda. They don't believe in limited government. They want a theocracy.
1,573 posted on 07/12/2003 11:07:07 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1543 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
That together with convergent 'evolution' (a total joke - wishing - which is what the explanation amounts to - does not make it so - regardless of what the Wizard of Oz might say)...

Thanks for repeating that, as I forgot to deal with it. Convergent evolution was recognized long before molecular studies were possible. Many cases--such as the thylacine (tasmanian "wolf") and the placental wolf--show convergent evolution unambiguous even at the purely morphological level. Molecular studies are useful precisely because they are blind to convergence. (When two populations have speciated, their molecular clocks go separate ways no matter how the environment shapes their subsequent adaptations.) Thus, where the morphological evidence is ambiguous, molecular studies make a wonderful tiebreaker.

1,574 posted on 07/12/2003 11:10:11 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1570 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
So I guess neanderthals might be the ancestor of humans after all, since you utterly reject the only scientific basis for rejecting them as such.
1,575 posted on 07/12/2003 11:13:04 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1570 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Social conservatism is their only agenda. They don't believe in limited government. They want a theocracy.

That is the frightening part about it.

I see these guys say how they are conservative, but they want government to tell us what to believe and how to live, evolution is NOT science to them because if it was, then their whole house of cards as far as creationism and ID would come tumbling down.

They don't want limited government, they just want a different kind of BIG government, one that would snoop into everyones bedroom, everyones minds etc, indeed, a theocracy.

I am a constitutionalist, NOT a conservative, and NOT a liberal, I believe the constitution says what it says, nothing less, and nothing more, but to watch these guys in action is downright frightening to contemplate.

A theocracy, ugh, that is just SCARY!! but if they had the opportunity, the constitution be damned, they know what's good for you, and you will obey!!
1,576 posted on 07/12/2003 11:14:15 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 1573 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
The Michigan case is driving them nuts, but Lawrence vs. Texas is the biggest bombshell to drop into the lap of social conservatives since Roe v Wade. If O'Connor and Kennedy are Republicans, then as far as they are concerned the party is over.

I hope this doesn't lead to Al Gore, John Kerry, or [shudder!] HRC in the White House, Jan 2005.

1,577 posted on 07/12/2003 11:14:28 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1573 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
evo-liberal agenda coming out of the closet placemarker



To: VadeRetro

That looks like it was a fun party.

I've been saying for years that a lot of people vote Republican, not because they are Republican in their hearts, but because of Roe v. Wade. If the Democrats were anti-abortion and anti-gay, they'd vote Democrat. I say that because I grew up in the Deep South and knew many, many a Dixiecrat.

The Michigan case is driving them nuts, but Lawrence vs. Texas is the biggest bombshell to drop into the lap of social conservatives since Roe v Wade. If O'Connor and Kennedy are Republicans, then as far as they are concerned the party is over.

Social conservatism is their only agenda. They don't believe in limited government. They want a theocracy.


1,573 posted on 07/12/2003 1:07 PM CDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
1,578 posted on 07/12/2003 11:14:44 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1573 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000; gore3000; Dataman; f.Christian; JesseShurun; NewLand; bondserv; unspun; LiteKeeper; ...
"I am a constitutionalist, NOT a conservative"

bingo

1,579 posted on 07/12/2003 11:16:42 AM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1576 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Have you guys given some thought into forming your own political party? Because if you think Republicans must be fundamentalists I don't see how ya'll really like the Republican party.
1,580 posted on 07/12/2003 11:18:00 AM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1563 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,541-1,5601,561-1,5801,581-1,600 ... 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