Houston Chronicle Op-Ed Columns, Letters, and Editorial Schafersman's Reply to Don McLeroy
Science textbooks are best if written by scientists, not by State Board of Education members
by STEVEN SCHAFERSMAN
October 26, 2003
[sent to the Houston Chronicle but not printed]State Board of Education member Don McLeroy of Bryan is one of the extreme anti-evolutionists on the Board who has been agitating to force biology textbook publishers to include bogus "weaknesses" of evolution so that the books' treatment of this important topic will be misrepresented and damaged. He claims this is required by state law, but this is true only if the alleged weaknesses are based on scientific information and if they truly exist. The "difficulties" of evolution he describes in his Oct. 22 guest column don't exist and have no basis in scientific knowledge.
Stanley Miller's classic 1950's experiment showed that organic molecules--the building blocks of living organisms--can be produced by abiotic chemical reactions, as they must have been produced early in Earth's history for life to begin. Contrary to McLeroy, since that famous experiment, scientists have conducted thousands of new experiments, made significant theoretical advances, and discovered new chemical pathways that have only strengthened Miller's original conclusion that the organic components necessary for the origin of life on Earth can certainly be formed by natural chemical processes operating early in Earth's history and were therefore certainly available when life first appeared. There are several hypotheses of how these chemicals combined to actually form living organisms. The distinctive strengths and weaknesses of each of these hypotheses are fully treated by the biology textbooks.
Even more wrong-headed is McLeroy's dislike for the concept of common descent, a feature of biology that has not been disputed since the 1860's. Contrary to McLeroy, common descent is not "beset with a myriad of difficulties." It is completely accepted today by all biologists. Linnaeus and Cuvier lived in a pre-Darwinian age and did not have the wealth of evidence and sound theory that scientists had in Darwin's day and thereafter, so it is extremely disingenuous for McLeroy to name these two historical scientists as supporters for his idiosyncratic views.
Common descent does not rely on an appeal to authority, as McLeroy claims. Nothing in science relies on an appeal to authority, and it is dishonest for him to claim anything does. The empirical evidence for common descent is overwhelming: evolution by genetic change is observed and inferred to occur between species through thousands of generations; lineal descent of one species from another is therefore verified; evidence shows that there has never been a break in the genetic continuity of each species population throughout the entire ancestral-descendant sequence of a lineage, and--lacking evidence of such a break--this continuity of genetic connectedness can be inferred for all lineages; thus, common descent is inferred from observation, experiment, and models and explained by theory. It is true that common descent is not directly observed, but McLeroy doesn't understand that reliable knowledge in science is not directly observed, but indirectly inferred from hypothesis testing (the observations, experiments, and models) and explained by theory.
McLeroy falsely claims that the eminent philosopher Karl Popper doubted that "historical science is science at all." Popper strongly affirmed precisely the opposite: historical science makes post-dictions just as physical science makes predictions; both can be tested and corborrated and result in reliable scientific knowledge. Next, he quotes Niles Eldredge to the effect that gradual change is not supported by the fossil record, but this is pretense on McLeroy's part, since Eldredge's statement says nothing against the reality of common descent, only about the pattern of descent. McLeroy follows this distortion with others about thermodynamics and embryology. These creationist tricks may confuse and mislead readers who are not knowledgeable about science, but they are dishonest in serious scientific and scholarly discussion, and McLeory should be ashamed for indulging in them.
I support Don McLeroy's final conclusions: "Scientific dogmatism about origin of life and common descent has no place in Texas biology books. Our state's scientific educational system must not be corrupted." The best way to accomplish these is to ensure that anti-scientists such as Don McLeroy keep their hands off the science textbooks used in our state. If McLeroy were truly serious about keeping science uncorrupted and dogmatism out of science textbooks, he would let scientists and science professionals determine the content of the books, not creationists on the State Board of Education.
Steven Schafersman is president of Texas Citizens for Science.
Keep good science in, dogma out of textbooks
By DON McLEROY
Oct. 22, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2173751THE State Board of Education is required by law to adopt textbooks that are factually correct and adequately cover the state curriculum. In the case of biology books, there is no place for dogma (the teaching of an opinion as a fact); science books must present good science.
The state curriculum, the future educational opportunities of Texas students, the strong general consensus of biologists, and intellectually stimulating teaching require that evolution be taught. However, evolutionary hypotheses that life spontaneously arose billions of years ago, and that all life since then is related by descent from a common ancestor -- for example, that we share a common ancestor with a tree -- raise tremendous difficulties. To fulfill the requirement of Texas law and good science, textbooks must adequately present these difficulties. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, this is the issue.
What, if any, are the major difficulties? Are they presented in the textbooks? Will our Texas children be given the opportunity to hone their critical thinking skills on this controversial subject?
The spontaneous origin of life is beset with the most extreme difficulties. In the 50 years since Stanley Miller's first scientific experiment that semi-randomly produced organic molecules from inorganic molecules, scientists have vigorously pursued the study of the origin of life. How has it progressed? According to Steve Benner, as stated on the International Society of the Study of the Origin of Life Web site, it is now clear that Miller-like experiments create too many biological molecules, in mixtures that are too complex to self-organize in a way rationally likely to lead to replication. The intrinsic reactivity of organic material under the influence of energy is to create tar, not life. If this up-to-date analysis from the premier scientific origin of life organization is not reflected in our modern textbooks, they violate state law.
Common descent is likewise beset with a myriad of difficulties. A cogent argument makes its appeal to authority, utility (it works), and empirical data to prove its point. How cogent is the common descent argument? The appeal to a qualified authority is the strongest argument for common descent; it is incredibly strong! This was readily apparent at our public testimony. Common descent's critics are likewise highly qualified; they include, historically, the founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, Cuvier, and the founder of modern taxonomy, Linnaeus.
Common descent's appeal to utility is incredibly weak; adaptive variation has been empirically demonstrated, but it cannot be extrapolated as evidence for common descent. As for empiricism, common descent must be inferred historically and philosopher Karl Popper doubts if historical science is science at all.
Also, a good theory displays the qualities of coherency, adequacy and consistency. How good a theory is common descent? Common descent is a completely naturalistic explanation for life, but does it adequately explain all the facts -- for example, the fossil record? At first appearance, common descent explains the fossil record with old rocks with simple life and young rocks with more complex life. Yet a leading paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has stated that: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual change) all the while knowing it does not. Also, common descent is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics and, many discoveries in the field of embryology."
In spite of many scientific experts' opinions, there is plenty of scientific evidence that demonstrates common descent difficulties; these are required by law to be presented in our children's textbooks.
Scientific dogmatism about origin of life and common descent has no place in Texas biology books. Our state's scientific educational system must not be corrupted. Teach evolution? Yes, warts and all!
McLeroy is a member of the Texas State Board of Education.
-------------
Corrections
Oct. 24, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/corrections/2178225A misplaced quote mark in an Outlook article written by Don McLeroy, a member of the Texas State Board of Education, in Thursday's Chronicle incorrectly attributed part of a quote to paleontologist Niles Eldredge. Only this sentence was attributable to Eldredge: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual change) all the while knowing it does not."
Schafersman's Reply to Teri Leo
October 20, 2003
[sent to to the Houston Chronicle but not printed]Readers should be concerned about diametrically conflicting statements in my Outlook op-ed column (Oct. 8) and Teri Leo's Viewpoints reply (Oct. 18). I said that every scientist who testified at the Sept. 10 State Board of Education public hearing wanted the biology books to remain free of the bogus pseudoscientific changes asked for by the anti-evolutionist Discovery Institute and creationist members of the State Board, including Teri Leo herself. Leo claimed this was false. We both referred readers to the transcript on the Texas Education Agency website (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/adoptprocess/). Readers are invited to read the transcript for themselves to see which of us is telling the truth.
Perhaps Leo is confused about who among the testifiers was a scientist. Some engineers, mathematicians, and philosophers testified in favor of the changes, but these individuals are not scientists. Some individuals with scientific training and even science degrees testified in favor, but these individuals work for creationist organizations (Discovery Institute, Probe Ministries, etc.) and do not practice legitimate science; they acquired scientific training only to learn the terminology and indulge in credential mongering to impress those they wish to persuade. Finally, one science professor testified in favor, but he has abandoned real science and now devotes his time promoting intelligent design in scholarly and popular articles. Not one of these individuals has published anything in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that casts doubt on modern evolutionary theory, and all consistently indulge in the same pseudoscientific arguments against it--arguments that have been repeatedly refuted by legitimate scientists. This controversy is a battle between science and pseudoscience, and Leo supports the latter. Pseudoscience is false science--it masquerades as real science--it intends to confuse and deceive the reader, and Teri Leo is one of these deceivers.
The SBOE has received no peer-reviewed scientific literature that documents problems of textbook coverage of evolution and origin of life topics. The original analysis was written by the Discovery Institute and derived from a misleading, unscholarly book by one of their in-house pseudoscientists. The additional peer-reviewed scientific literature they submitted in support misrepresented the views of the authors, most of whom have publicly repudiated the misuse of their papers by the Discovery Institute. There is no scientific evidence critical of evolution, and Leo is mendacious in claiming there is.
Leo claimed my prior testimony was inconsistent, but her description is erroneous. Readers will have to visit the Texas Citizens for Science website (http://www.txscience.org) to read my testimonies. They consistently distinguished between the occurrence of evolution and the theory of evolution, and clearly say only the theory has problems that advanced research must deal with. [The problems, of course, involve the incompleteness of the theory, not any part that has been tested and verified; only such corroborated aspects of evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory can be considered reliable knowledge, and only this material is included in introductory textbooks.]
Contrary to Leo, the Santorum Amendment does not oblige schools to teach both sides of any scientific argument where controversy exists. And even if it did, it would not apply to evolution, because its occurrence is not controversial among scientists. Furthermore, the creationist zealots on the SBOE want to force weaknesses only about evolution and the origin of life into biology textbooks, not about other biological topics, and that is illegal, because federal court decisions have ruled that state officials focusing only on evolution is an establishment of religion that violates the First Amendment.
Readers should know that Teri Leo is the most radical, anti-evolutionist zealot on the SBOE who has been working tirelessly--to the exclusion of other important issues--to push her creationist agenda and dumb-down science education in Texas public schools. Every Texas citizen who has school-age children should be angry about her efforts and oppose them for the sake of accurate science education in our schools.
Steven Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science
Teach both sides on evolution
Houston Chronicle Viewpoints [Letters] October 18, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2163953
Steven Schafersman's recent Outlook article, "Truth won out on debate," was just like many [school] textbooks: filled with factual errors. Schafersman contended that every scientist who testified at the State Board of Education's Sept. 10 public hearing on biology textbooks wanted the books to remain unchanged, that none of the books contain factual errors and that all of them conform to Texas standards.
This is false, and it can be verified in the transcript or reviews, which are available on the Texas Education Agency's Web site.
Leading up to and at the Sept. 10 hearing, the SBOE received volumes of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that documents textbook problems relating to origin of life research, embryology, the Cambrian Explosion, the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution and peppered moth research.
Some of these errors have been acknowledged by evolutionists for years; one even dates back to the 1800s.
Faced with undeniable scientific evidence critical of evolution, Schafersman is left only to criticize the messengers. Schafersman considers all credentialed scientists who disagree with him as pseudo-scientists, religious zealots and anti-science proponents. Rhetoric such as this is often used by those who would advocate censorship of well-known scientific facts.
Schafersman's position has done plenty of evolving. When he submitted written testimony in July, he said the textbooks did not omit information critical of evolution because there isn't any such information.
In his oral testimony, however, he qualified that statement, and said there are no weaknesses about the theory at the level it is presented in these textbooks.
At his Web site, he further revised his statement and acknowledged there are weaknesses concerning evolutionary theory, but they are only appropriate for researchers and graduate students.
Then, after his SBOE testimony on Sept. 10 his Web site version states there are in fact many disagreements among scientists about evolution and it might be expanded to include upper-division undergraduate students.
He writes that it would be better for high school students to simply accept existing theory and not question it because it is far too complex to understand and would just lead to confusion and frustration.
What he is really saying is that students are smart enough to study the strengths of evolutionary theory, but not smart enough to understand the weaknesses.
Texas standards are very clear about about what students need to learn. [The guidelines] clearly state that students must "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypothesis and theories, as to the strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
In addition, the Santorum Amendment on how science instruction should be taught states that where controversy exists (such as with evolution) schoolchildren should be taught both sides of the argument.
Schafersman believes the textbooks conform to TEKS standards and contain no errors because the Texas Education Agency said so. It has been demonstrated, however, in TEA documents, as well as by textbook review panelists, that panel members were not instructed properly on TEKS standards and were given misleading information on what constitutes an error and what counts as conforming. With flawed instructions, the recommendations to the SBOE have been discredited.
Review panelists merely make recommendations to the State Board of Education. The final decision and authority on textbook adoption rests with the SBOE.
While Schafersman may think that the TEKS standard has "little or no educational value," it remains part of Texas law.
[Charles] Darwin said that a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. This fair result is what we should expect in textbooks adopted for use in Texas.
Terri Leo, State Board of Education
Truth won out in debate on Texas textbooks
By Steven D. Schafersman
Oct. 8, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/2145890At the Sept. 10 State Board of Education public hearing on textbook adoption, scientists, educators and students overwhelmingly supported leaving the evolution content in biology textbooks unchanged, since none contained factual errors or omissions about evolution and all contained the necessary material to comply with the Texas science curriculum. Indeed, every Texas scientist who testified not only supported the biology books, but also objected to efforts by creationists to confuse the public and State Board members about supposed "weaknesses" of evolution. In addition, the Texas Education Agency soon after reported that the biology textbooks all totally conformed to the TEKS, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, as required by law.
All the scientific evidence presented in the hearing strongly supported the scientists' evaluation of the textbooks. Speakers representing the Discovery Institute, a Seattle, Wash., organization that promotes intelligent design creationism, relied on misinformation to support their unwarranted claims that the biology books were inaccurate and incomplete. Scientist after scientist from the University of Texas at Austin spoke to the board, dissecting each creationist claim in detail and showing why each was illogical and unsupported by the evidence. Thus, the overwhelming effect of the testimony was to support the accurate scientific evolution content in biology textbooks and to leave them unchanged. Nevertheless, there is concern that some State Board members will try to change the textbooks or place them on the nonconforming list.
My own written testimony was misrepresented when I compared the current crop of anti-evolutionists on the State Board to Stalinists and Nazis. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany both had long and unfortunate histories of political interference and control of specific scientific topics for ideological reasons (genetics in the USSR, anthropology in Germany). Such interference and control of biology is precisely what some State Board members are trying to do in Texas, and scientists and educators have had to organize to stop them. While not similar in scale or murderous consequences, the motivation is identical and will result in "only" the corruption of our state's science education system.
The same tired litany of scientifically discredited support for intelligent design, such as arguments of anti-evolutionist Michael Behe, has been put forward as reliable science. However, readers are never informed of the dozens of reviews and essays by prominent scientists, including my own, that closely examine Behe's claims and show why they are illogical and unscientific. Today, there is zero scientific support for intelligent design and overwhelming support for modern evolution; indeed, evolution has never been stronger as an active scientific research topic. All the "weaknesses" that anti-evolutionists wish to have forced into biology books are illegitimate: They have already been corrected, are educationally unwarranted, or never existed in the first place.
Organized creationists, in their entire existence, have never conducted a single science experiment or made a single scientific observation. They just don't practice real science. Instead, their strategy is to use rhetorical and marketing techniques to persuade politically powerful non-scientists of the truth of their arguments, and convince them to force changes in science textbooks and curricula using the power of the state. This is what the creationist supporters tried to do in Kansas and Ohio, and now they are in Texas attempting to do the same thing. They failed in those two states, and they will ultimately fail here.
Houston readers should be aware that the most extreme anti-science advocates on the State Board of Education are from Houston and its surrounding counties: Teri Leo, David Bradley, Don McLeroy and Linda Bauer. Their efforts to subvert accurate science instruction are well-known and documented in the written and oral testimony available on the Texas Education Agency and Texas Citizens for Science Web sites. The first three members have publicly championed creationist speakers and their goals, and have announced their plan to place all the biology textbooks that refuse to make unscientific changes on the nonconforming adoption list, thus restricting their sale in Texas. For her part, Bauer appointed two creationists to the state biology textbook review panel, where they attempted but failed to have the books listed as nonconforming.
I have opposed such State Board of Education members since 1982, and the problems we have with anti-scientists on the board will never disappear until voters take the time to learn the true natures and beliefs of State Board candidates before electing them to office. The position is low on the ballot, and dedicated creationists run as stealth candidates to stay below the radar. I urge each reader to investigate this controversy yourself and begin to take a personal interest in Texas science education and keep ideologues and zealots off the State Board. The reason is simple: These individuals are neglecting our state's low standardized test scores, low graduation rates and shrinking Texas' Permanent School Fund, while devoting their time and energy to meddling with science textbook content. Instead of devoting their efforts to protecting and improving public school education, they appear to want to damage it. Some of them home-school their children or send them to private religious schools, so it is understandable that they have no stake in the system. Texans should demand that these public officials start to make the education of our schoolchildren their first priority, and we should expect them to begin by leaving science textbooks alone and not censor them.
Schafersman, of Midland, is the president of Texas Citizens for Science. He is a scientist, educator and writer.
Textbook debate: It's all about the evidence
By Stephen C. Meyer
Sept. 18, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2108157CYNICAL old lawyers have a maxim: When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition. That seems to be the strategy of many Darwinists now that the Texas State Board of Education has begun to evaluate whether current biology textbooks meet state standards for accuracy in their presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Consider what happened at last week's hearing of the Board of Education in Austin. There, numerous Texas scientists, educators and students asked the board to insist that textbooks comply with state law by correcting factual errors in current biology textbooks and by presenting both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory.
This seemingly reasonable request elicited a torrent of personal abuse and misinformation from those lobbying for Darwin's theory to be presented uncritically. Motives were questioned. The subject was changed. Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science even compared those asking for full scientific disclosure to Stalinists and Nazis!
Some reporters and editorialists joined the misinformation campaign, warning (falsely) that textbook critics want to teach the biblical account of creation in the science classroom. And defenders of the current texts dismissed all scientific critiques of contemporary Darwinism as religiously motivated .
Yet these claims are as irrelevant to assessing the question before the board as they are hysterical and misinformed.
First, it's not what motivates a scientist's argument that determines its validity; it's the evidence. Even if all scientific critics of Darwin's theory were motivated by religious belief (and they are not), their critiques would still need to be judged by the evidence.
Motives don't matter in science. Evidence does.
If this weren't the case, then several Darwinists who testified at last week's hearing would be sorely out of luck. Schafersman, for example, is a self-described secular humanist who has written that supernaturalistic religion and naturalistic science are and will remain in eternal conflict. Does Schafersman's anti-religious motivation invalidate his support of Darwinian evolution? Of course not.
The same standard should apply when considering scientific critics of Darwinism. True, some scientists critical of contemporary evolutionary theory also favor a new alternative theory called intelligent design. Darwinists say such religious-based ideas cannot be science. But the theory of intelligent design is not based on religious doctrine. It's based on scientific evidence. For example, the leading advocate of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, bases his case for design on intriguing new evidence: the miniature motors and complex circuits now found in cells.
Some may decide that Behe's conclusions lend support to their religious beliefs. But that does not mean that his theory is based on religion, only that it may have theistic implications. But so what? Many Darwinists, and even some Darwinist textbooks, openly state that Darwinism has anti-theistic implications. Implications don't decide the truth of theories either. Evidence does.
In any case, design theorists are not the only scientific critics of Darwinism, and those asking for more accurate biology textbooks are not asking for the theory of intelligent design to be taught. Instead, they are asking that students learn all the evidence they need to assess Darwinian theory, not just the evidence that happens to supports it.
Peer-reviewed scientific literature now documents the existence of many problems with current evolutionary theory and with the textbook presentations of that theory. For example, at least three of the texts currently used in Texas use discredited 19th century diagrams of embryos as support for Darwin's universal common ancestry thesis. These now infamous Haeckel embryo drawings allegedly demonstrate the similarity of the early embryological development of fish, chickens, pigs and humans. Yet scientists have long known that these different vertebrate classes do not strongly resemble each other during early embryological development. Why must this inaccuracy persist in Texas textbooks?
The law of the land also supports this approach, as does our national education policy. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard, the controlling legal authority on how to teach about origins questions, that state legislatures could require the teaching of scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. Last year, in the No Child Left Behind Act Conference Report, Congress expressed its support for greater openness in science instruction, citing biological evolution as the key example.
Teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory will engage student interest and teach them to weigh evidence -- a key skill in scientific reasoning.
As Charles Darwin himself wrote in the Origin of Species, a fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and argument on both sides of each question.
Distortionist
Evolution, creation fight will hurt students, state
Houston Chronicle Staff
September 10, 2003Dozens of religious activists are expected to testify at a Texas Board of Education hearing today on proposed new biology texts. They want publishers to insert claims that Charles Darwin's theory of the origin of life is but a flawed hypothesis. In their view, it would be best if references to evolution as the scientific explanation for the origin of life were removed altogether. If successful, their efforts would undermine students' knowledge of science and make a mockery of Texas' science education improvement initiatives.
The high interest in the contents of biology textbooks would be helpful if its true object were to promote Texas schoolchildren's understanding of science and ensure Texas adopts the highest-quality books for that purpose. Advocates for changes in the proposed books say, innocuously enough, that they want students exposed to the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. These efforts should be seen for what they are: a well-organized, well-funded movement to replace the science of evolution in public school classrooms with some Christians' beliefs about creation.
There's nothing reasonable about that. The Bible is not a scientific document, and public schools are not for teaching religion.
Anti-evolutionists try to get around this by touting "intelligent design theory" - a belief that species evolved not by natural selection, but emerged according to a plan - as having no basis in religion. They contend intelligent design ought to be included in biology books because state law requires students to analyze competing ideas.
Whether intelligent design is a subterfuge for including creation stories in schoolbooks may be open to debate, but it is clearly not science. The theory is not a topic in mainstream scientific journals. Rather, it's a fancy version of "creation science," which the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited in public schools as a violation church-state separation.
Nevertheless, some state board of education members are sympathetic to religion in public schools. They may not dictate textbook content, but they can reject books for "factual errors" or noncompliance with state curriculum. This threat could induce publishers to water down evolution lessons or include passages that pass off religious belief as science.
When Kansas' Board of Education voted in 1999 to remove evolution from its science curriculum, the state became an education laughingstock. And though several board members were ousted and the decision was reversed in part, the state's national reputation has yet to recover. A similar move in Texas would be deadly to efforts to entice new business and new talent to the state. Good schools are a top-tier consideration in corporate office and individual family decisions about relocating.
Worst of all, undermining the science of evolution and adding pseudo-scientific theories will throw a wet blanket on state initiatives to improve student performance in math and science, and it will hurt Texas students' chances to successfully master science in college.
Students need to learn about evolution in the classroom. The place to learn religious beliefs about the origin of life is in religious study and at home.
Critics of biology textbooks draw on think tank
By Polly Ross Hughes
Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
September 11, 2003
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2093105AUSTIN -- Jerry Springer and cockroaches managed to creep into Wednesday's episode of the ever-evolving textbook wars over Darwin's theory versus the biblical story of creation.
In the latest version of a decades-old fight concerning teaching the origin of humankind, homegrown critics of Darwin's theory of evolution have joined forces with a national think tank.
The Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, is trying to persuade the State Board of Education and others around the nation to adopt biology textbooks that point out "weaknesses" in Darwin's theory. Texas is the nation's second-largest purchaser of textbooks.
Defenders of the books -- particularly biology teachers -- accuse the critics of engaging in pseudoscience, trying to pass off religious explanations as scientifically valid.
"Biologists really stopped arguing whether or not evolution by natural selection occurred back in the 1800s," said Dan Wivagg, a biology professor at Baylor University. "There's no doubt that it's the central unifying concept in biology, and it must be in the textbooks if we're going to have scientifically literate citizenBs."
As it hunkered down for hours of testimony, the state board voted to allow only Texans to testify but accepted written statements from out-of-staters.
Before it was all over, Darwin's theory had been blamed as dehumanizing and even contributing to a rise in teenage depression and crime.
"In Fort Worth public schools, I learned that all of you are less than human. I was taught that maybe you came from a monkey," said Eddy Parker, adding he doesn't think the theory of evolution has ever been proved.
"All I'm asking this board to do is don't allow people to tamper with children's minds," he added. "All of you in here are human and a cut above roaches and rats and all such lies."
The Discovery Institute says several Texas scientists agree with the group that weaknesses in the theory of evolution are being suppressed.
Some testified at the hearing, many of them chemical or mechanical engineers rather than biologists.
Ide P. Trotter, a chemical engineer from Duncanville, said he believes his training is superior to that of a biologist in finding flaws in Darwin's theory and the textbooks that teach it.
State Board member Dan Montgomery of Fredericksburg quoted from a newspaper article in which Trotter said, "What is the educational problem today? It is to excite the interest of the students. This is a Jerry Springer world. Controversy is exciting."
"Are you suggesting we ought to include these kinds of Jerry Springer controversies in our classrooms, whether or not they have any scientific basis?" Montgomery asked.
"A good controversy would be a help," Trotter said.
Board member Gail Lowe of Lampasas congratulated high school junior Michelle Ramsey for her courage in weighing in on the subject, also by criticizing the teaching of Darwin.
"Evolution has been taught undisputed for a number of years now in the classroom. By the time high school is reached, many youth have been indoctrinated with it, not once learning of weaknesses in this theory," Ramsey testified.
Mac Deaver, who identified himself as a "gospel preacher," asserted that questions about the origin of life are philosophical rather than scientific.
He took Ramsey's connection to Darwin and teen violence even further, however, saying the theory leads to "ethical deterioration" in society.
"When you teach evolution as fact and don't show weaknesses, you are teaching children there is no ultimate accountability," he said.
Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said the textbooks are accurate as written and Texas biologists overwhelmingly support protecting the textbooks as currently written.
Last updated: 29 October 2003