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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 4,381-4,387 next last
To: Junior
I'm impressed. Many assume my nickname is from Kill a Mockingbird.
41 posted on 07/09/2003 12:57:22 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Various parts of evolution are constantly being questioned and tested for. How do you think all those biologists meet their "publish or perish" quotas? No theory ever simply stands still; once it's put on paper, every researcher and his brother in that particular field will begin to play with it -- it is, after all, simply a tool.
42 posted on 07/09/2003 12:58:07 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Empiricists work without hypotheses.

Interesting. I would assume that folks collecting data are working within a framework and guided by a hypothesis. I suspect that most researchers are guided by a rather narrow hypothesis and could certainly perform their duties without having an opinion about something as overarching as evolution.

But not having an opinion about the controlling paradigm of their profession would preclude them from noticing something new and exciting.

43 posted on 07/09/2003 12:58:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
Troll detected. Troll deflected. Resume normal operations.
44 posted on 07/09/2003 12:59:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And so it begins.
45 posted on 07/09/2003 1:00:24 PM 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 38 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"Liars for Christ" is a good one.

After watching the evolution vs. creationism debate played out many times over the years, it appears to me that the sole factor that tips the balance is the percentage of fundamentalists that are in on the decision-making process.

I don't think very many school board members are coming to the table without already having an opinion on the matter.

I haven't labored in the trenches as long as some on this thread have, but it's crystal clear to me that the vast majority of creationists are fundamentalist literalists who believe that the fossil record is due to one of the following:

1. Put here by the Devil to fool mankind; OR
2. Put here by God to test mankind; OR
3. Can be explained entirely by the Noachian flood.

Of evolutionists, I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods, and a minority are agnostics or atheists.

In the Red Zone, creationists outnumber evolutionists. In the Blue Zone, evolutionists outnumber creationists.

The "swing votes" are theistic evolutionists who are persuaded by the "arguments" of Intelligent Design, namely, that some things are too complicated to be explained by present day scientific knowledge and therefor MUST NOT have happened by chance and therefore are ipso facto evidence of Intelligent Design.

These tend to be the same type of people who subscribe to Biblical Archeology and are fascinated by attempts to prove that biblical events actually happened.

In other words, they want science AND the Bible to be compatible, and don't question the fallacious arguments advanced on behalf of Intelligent Design.

46 posted on 07/09/2003 1:03:24 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
That's right. She was the maid, right? I read that book (twice) in High School, but that was more than 20 years ago.
47 posted on 07/09/2003 1:03:29 PM PDT by Junior ("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: js1138
folks collecting data are working within a framework and guided by a hypothesis.

That's one kind of empiricist. The other works without hypothesis and is deservedly shunned by the first.

48 posted on 07/09/2003 1:04:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Amazing. If, as the trolls proclaim, they are innocent of all misconduct and we are the ones trying desperately to get these threads pulled, then ... why do we bother to create these threads in the first place?

Again, I urge everyone to ignore the trolls. Let's have a thread that Jim Robinson will be proud of.

49 posted on 07/09/2003 1:05:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A good science textbook should present, in a fashion that schoolchildren can comprehend, the current principals and theories of the scientific establishment, period. Parents who wish to teach their children that the Bible has a different explanation are free to do so. Parents insisting that their children be entirely ignorant of actual science are free to place their children in schools that teach no real science. Once we have school choice, that will be a fiscally-neutral move, but, for now, that may cost 'em.

Anything else, regardless of the motivation, is simply a recipe for further devestating the state of American science and technology education, where there are fewer native-born B.S.'s every year, and where 50% or more of graduate students are imported from abroad.

And those of you who complain about H1Bs and outsourcing -- do you think that the elite prep schools and engineering colleges in India devote much time to life-giving breath of Vishnu or whatever else the Hindu theory of creation might be?
50 posted on 07/09/2003 1:05:41 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Don't tell the Penguin.
51 posted on 07/09/2003 1:06:38 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
What trolls? I didn't see any trolls.
Oh, and did anyone notice the odd number-skipping in this discussion? I saw a post #37 and a post #39, but no post #38, like it just skipped over that. I wonder why that is...
52 posted on 07/09/2003 1:07:52 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Various parts of evolution are constantly being questioned and tested for.

My very point. "Parts" are questioned. The whole is not. There is a "thought police" in academia that will not allow serious questioning of the whole due to fear of the only other suspected option.

Men have gone hundreds (or thousands) of years knowing things to be true only to find that they weren't when allowed to actually question them.

The Catholic Church of the Middle Ages exacted a significant price from people who dared to question their currently accepted beliefs. The liberal academic world is today's equivalent of the Middle Ages Catholic Church.

You, my friend, are a bishop!

53 posted on 07/09/2003 1:07:52 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods...

I don't think the way (of creation) can be explained. I would say that a universe was created that has consistent natural laws, which we can study and approximate to varying degrees of precision.

54 posted on 07/09/2003 1:09:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
One of these days, the ID kooks will get their way with some dim-witted school board. The end result will be with the issue before the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS will then declare that ID has no more place in public schools then does the Ten Commandments.

Until then, a few kooks will continue to cause various amounts of public education funding to be flushed down the toilet rather than used for education.

Sad.

55 posted on 07/09/2003 1:10:11 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
OK, but can we agree that the universe wasn't created, fully formed, in 4004 BC? And that the process from the beginning of the universe to the arrival of mankind took more than 6 days of 24 earth hours?
56 posted on 07/09/2003 1:14:54 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
ID has no more place in public schools then does the Ten Commandments.

In a secular (government run) school system, the Ten Commandments can have a very real place as part of a course teaching our cultural history. ID, however, belongs only in a catalog of misguided fringe movements.

57 posted on 07/09/2003 1:15:25 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
>>>Of evolutionists, I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods, and a minority are agnostics or atheists.

....other words, they want science AND the Bible to be compatible, and don't question the fallacious arguments advanced on behalf of Intelligent Design.

BUMP!!!!
58 posted on 07/09/2003 1:17:42 PM PDT by Calpernia (Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; Responsibility for all your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
>>I urge everyone to ignore the trolls.<<

The definiton of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting the outcome to be different.

So, I may be late in coming to my senses, but I intend to ignore the trolls.
59 posted on 07/09/2003 1:17:56 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
What can we, as evolutionists, do to assist the evolutionary side in Texas with this struggle?

Suggestions, anyone?
60 posted on 07/09/2003 1:18:50 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Never voted for a Democrat in my life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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