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."
Please show me "such experiment" in the first edition because I fail to see it. I see an assertion WITHOUT a supporting experiment.
Methinks that YOU are the "shameless little liar" here. (since were back to name calling) *sigh*
I know you folks in the Church of Evolution love the Big Bang/Expanding Universe theory, but there are other possible explanations for what appears to be movement of the stars. Perhaps in past years there have been FR threads on this subject....wouldn't be surprised. Smarter folks then me, like Setterfield and others, have written extensively on some of this stuff..
Anyway, another explanation of what we think we see is the C-R theory. Here are a couple (link1 and link2) of links for your reading pleasure.
I just love God's orderly Universe...yes i do....
(Won't be able to respond to any posts until this weekend...duty calls) .
So we can quit picking on you for your fraudulent Stephen Gould bibliography? Is that what you want?
Maybe they wouldn't wander off so much if we got them fixed.
Since you lied. And now since you fail to own up to lying, or even to inadvertent error. Pathetic. (And don't play that "sighing over name calling" game, in your very next post after slinging "liar" at authors of substantive critiques of Wells.)
But let us overcome our revulsion (or pity) at your behavior and review:
You asked for ONE example of an experiment in The Origin of Species. I provided several.
I used the 6th (final) edition of The Origin, rather than the 1st, as my source for no particular reason, although it is the one normally reprinted in modern editions.
You replied (emphasis added):
Interesting that you had to go to the 6th edition to find something that was an experiment. They do not appear in the first which I checked (and am sure you did too).
I did not find "something," as in singular, I found several things, as you acknowledge with the plural "they". You said "they" didn't appear in the 1st edition, which is not true. Furthermore you said you checked this, so you knew it wasn't true, and therefore you lied (or lied about checking).
And now, simply because you are too much of an [*expletive deleted*] to say, "oops, I made a mistake," you make an issue of the trivial difference, that I pointed out to you, of Darwin adding a smattering of data in the 6th edition for one set of experiments (red clover fertilization) alluded to without the data in the 1st edition.
PLEASE! We all know damned good and well you didn't find this single substantive difference prior to my flagging it, even if you "checked". We all know that this was never the basis for your, "they do not appear". We all know that was a lie, with no basis.
Quibbling over this single difference, where Darwin tossed in a bit of data in a later edition, does not address "they," the multiple examples I provided (among many others I could have chosen). But quibble you must, and stack one lie on top of another you must, all because it is unthinkable that gore3000, Great Champion of GOD, Evo Slayer, might have made a human error, jumped to a conclusion, or just been wrong about anything.
The result: You are a clown, a buffoon, and everybody here (and I don't mean just the "evos") knows it.
You're a smart person, gore. You don't need to be a pathetic laughing stock. You can keep all your beliefs and defend them much more honorably and ably. You can turn this all around just by learning three little words: "I was wrong."
I shoulda known it was a syncophant. As Vade observes, having been caught out it's time for gore3000 to go into "pretend it didn't happen" mode. He is not apt to reply himself, but I stand by what I said to him (even though it wasn't him).
What you (in your hopeless pagan depravity) simply cannot grasp, is that when one is in full possession of -- flourish of trumpets -- The Truth, and engaged in debate with Evil, one simply cannot lie.
Furthermore, it's easily and often demonstrated. For all that, his beleagured band of fellow warriors happily salute him as one of their foremost. I used to think he was pulling them all down. I guess he was, until ALS and ConservobabeJen showed up.
Wildly squishy placemarker
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.