Texas Citizens for Science Responds to
Latest Discovery Institute Challenge

by Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
September 2, 2003
[Revised: September 8, 2003]

The Discovery Institute recently published a press release (reprinted below) about 24 Texas university professors who signed an open letter to the Texas State Board of Education urging it "to ensure that biology textbooks present both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution," as required by the Texas Essentials of Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) science curriculum requirements. In the letter, the professors state that, "In recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with both 'the strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory." The press release quotes Francis Beckwith: "Contemporary criticisms of neo-Darwinism are borne of rigorous scholarship, published in respected venues, and offered by credentialed scholars who hold academic appointments at leading institutions of higher learning. They can't be dismissed as being based on religion."

On September 5, the Discovery Institute published a second press release (reprinted below) about a statement opposing the modern theory of evolution signed by 40 Texas "scientists" of various specialties. Some of the signers are overlapping with the first open letter. The statement says, in part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that's just bogus," said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but around the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life."

There are a number of ways to respond to the Discovery Institute press release and letter. First, creationist propensity for argument from authority is only equaled by their propensity for credential mongering and quotes out of context. It is a fact of logic that the number of professors or other authorities that advocate a position is irrelevant to its truth or desirability; rather, one must evaluate the reasons and evidence that support the position, not the "authorities" who advocate it. In this case, the "authorities" are a group of almost entirely non-biologists, and include philosophers, engineers, journalism, law, and business professors, and other academics whom no one would normally assume know anything about the issue at hand. In this case, they assuredly do not. Remember, all the real biologists, scientists, and science educators who have testified about this issue (and who will testify) have opposed modifying biology textbooks in the way that the DI wishes (saying this, I point out that their number is not the relevant factor, but rather their informed and reasoned arguments and evidence, which hopefully can be competently judged by the appropriate public officials). Next, all of the professors whose reputations are known to me from the DI letter are notorious advocates of extreme religious right-wing public policies or intelligent design creationism; these include Profs. Beckwith, Bradley, Dembski, Olasky, Budziszewski, and Koons. I assume the others believe the same (I do not recognize their names, especially Emeritus Prof. Villa of Southwestern University, the sole biologist on the list). I claim that the 24 academic signers are biased in favor of extreme religious doctrines or right-wing political causes, and are not neutral and disinterested observers of scientific education and knowledge in Texas. As I have said before, all legitimate biology professors in Texas strongly resist changing the biology textbooks by adding bogus "weaknesses" or "criticisms" of evolution, since these additions are scientifically unwarranted, misguided, and--in most cases--inaccurate or false.

Second, the claim that, "In recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory" and "Contemporary criticisms of neo-Darwinism are borne of rigorous scholarship, published in respected venues, and offered by credentialed scholars who hold academic appointments at leading institutions of higher learning [and] can't be dismissed as being based on religion" is true but irrelevant. Scientific theories are always being challenged by scientists who work at the frontiers of research, but this is not the level at which science is taught in high school biology classes. Textbooks written for and used in such classes contain mostly reliable knowledge that does not have "weaknesses" or "criticisms" associated with it. Darwin's original theory has already been much revised and strengthened (and weaknesses removed) since his lifetime, and the modern theory--the one presented in textbooks as reliable knowledge--has been abundantly corroborated and is extremely well accepted.

The true "challenges" and "criticism" of "neo-Darwinian theory" are presented by specialists to specialists in the field, and involve concepts and evidence that simply cannot be understood by anyone learning at the level of high school students. Forcing this material into textbooks will confuse, not educate, students, and would diminish, not improve, their science education. Furthermore, such high-level criticisms, challenges, controversies, and problems exist for all topics in biology, not just evolution, and all must be treated the same way to be seen as fair and neutral. In most cases, the "challenges" and "criticisms" of "neo-Darwinian theory" that creationist constantly allude to are about specific issues and mechanisms that have never been settled and remain uncertain today. These topics are just not treated in high school biology textbooks. Sometimes various hypotheses must be presented for a specific topic, such as for the origin of life; but here the textbooks all treat the hypotheses as tentative and properly subject to revision.

Third, the most important point is this: there is no legitimate scientific challenge to the process of evolution of all species by common descent from a primitive original ancestor. The evidence for this is so overwhelming that the fact of common evolutionary descent is accepted by all legitimate biologists in the world. Aspects of the theory of evolution--details of the mechanism, tempo, mode, and history--have indeed been challenged by real scientists, but this is normal high-level science and is not appropriate for high school biology textbooks, where it is usually omitted. In reality, the Discovery Institute fellows and sympathizers advocate a challenge to--not just the theory of evolution--but to the fact of evolution itself--by proposing the occurrence of intelligent design creationism, a non-evolutionary process. At the present time, no evidence exists to support this hypothesis, and there is no reason to believe it in the absence of such evidence. The frequent claim of the Discovery Institute supporters that they want students to "learn more about evolution, including weaknesses" is highly disingenuous. The DI supporters really object to the most fundamental processes of evolution that require genetic continuity from the first functioning organism that formed from abiotic chemicals by a completely naturalistic process. DI supporters believe that an intelligent designer inserted biologic complexity somewhere in this process, an event or process for which there is no scientific evidence, no scientific justification, and no support by the scientific community.

Many of the same criticisms and more can be leveled at the statement signed by the 40 "scientists" from Texas. Most of the 40 signers are not scientists; this includes William Dembski, Walter Bradley, Forrest Mims, Ray Bohlin, all the medical doctors, engineers, mathematicians, and philosophers, and many others whose specialty is unidentified. This leaves only 11 identifiable scientists on the list of signers, a significant reduction (although I agree that many of the others--such as Dembski, Mims, and Bohlin--are certainly knowledgeable about science; also, others may be scientists, but their names are not known to me and the DI does not provide sufficient identification). Once again, the Discovery Institute is indulging in credential mongering and appeal to authority, both highly characteristic of the creationist movement. Of these 11 legitimate scientists, only a generous four work in the field of biology and might be expected to really understand evolutionary theory and the evidence that supports it.

However, it is questionable whether any of these 40 individuals actually understand evolutionary theory, including the presumed biologists. Here's why. The DI signed statement of "scientists" contains these remarks:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but around the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life.

The number of scientists who dissent from Darwin's theory is growing despite their coming under unprecedented personal attacks.

These statements betray either a colossal misunderstanding or a willful misrepresentation of modern evolutionary theory, probably both depending on the individual. Although this statement will surprise many, "Darwin's theory" or "Darwinian theory" has never been fully accepted by the biological community. Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for evolution was natural selection operating on natural genetic variation, which itself was the result of a number of processes, one of which is random mutation. Darwin had no reliable knowledge of genetics, which is essential for any reliable understanding of the operation of natural selection. As a result, while Darwin convinced all the biological scientists of his day of the occurrence of evolution and the mutability of species, he convinced only a minority of biologists that his theory of natural selection was responsible for the origin of species. Natural selection has been overwhelmingly accepted only since about 1940, after the advent of the Modern Synthesis, which was the combination of Darwinian natural selection, classical Mendelian genetics, population genetics, systematics, and paleontology. More recently, molecular genetics has contributed significantly to this synthesis. Modern evolutionary theory, termed the "Modern Theory of Evolution" or the "Synthetic Theory of Evolution" (and never termed "Darwinian Theory" or "Darwin's Theory"), is widely accepted today by biologists throughout the world. Of course, as is the case with any scientific theory, researchers disagree about specific details, and they are investigating nature to understand and solve these problems. As a result, biologists continue to slowly modify this theory, which is incomplete due to the fact that nature is subtle and scientists are not omniscient.

Creationists in general and the Discovery Institute officials and Fellows in particular consistently and repeatedly confuse "Darwinian theory" with the modern theory of evolution. The two are not the same. One never knows for sure--when they use the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory" or "Darwin's theory," as the Discovery Institute authors do in their statement--whether they are referring to Darwin's original theory or to our modern theory of evolution. In context, it is the latter, so their willful confounding of the two theories is deliberately confusing and thus mendacious. They engage in such deception for rhetorical reasons: to personalize their arguments by using the name of their antagonist (Darwin); to suggest in their listeners and readers minds an equation or similarity of Darwinism to Marxism and Freudism--Marxism has been repudiated and Freudism has been scientifically discredited--so creationists believe and suggest that "Darwinism" will be next!; to create ambiguity or confusion about the true status of evolutionary theory and thus persuade listeners and readers more easily; and to mislead their opponents who might normally see through their debating tricks and reveal them for the sophists that they are. Such tactics are disreputable and are never indulged in by legitimate scientists.

It is correct to interpret creationists' references to "Darwinism" and "Darwinian theory" as references to modern evolutionary theory, and I always choose to do this. Why is this the case? First, because if the creationists are trained in modern biology, as a few of them are, then they should understand the difference and are thus being deliberately deceptive, as described above. However, it is also possible that creationists who make this mistake are actually so ignorant that they are unaware of the important distinction. To them, "Darwin's theory" really is the modern theory of evolution. Thus, in either case--mendacity or ignorance--it is correct to assume that creationists are referring to the modern theory of evolution whenever they use the term "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory." But even if they really mean Darwin's original theory, it is possible and equally destructive of the creationists' arguments to take them at their word, as shown below.

Let's examine one of the statements above: "The number of scientists who dissent from Darwin's theory is growing despite their coming under unprecedented personal attacks." In fact, as described above, most biologists have historically dissented from the original "Darwin's theory," so this statement is literally nonsense. If the authors really mean the modern theory of evolution (as they probably do), then it is nonsense for different reasons: first, modern evolutionary theory--one that includes Darwin's major contribution, natural selection, to some extent--is accepted by all biologists in the world today, so the statement is false; second, some legitimate biologists "dissent" from some details of the modern theory, but not from its primary tenets of natural selection, ancestral-descendant relationships, universal species descent from an original common ancestor, completely naturalistic and mechanistic processes of species formation, etc., so the statement is misleading; third, some non-biologist scientists have dissented from evolutionary theory, but their arguments have always been unsound, based on an ignorance of the facts of nature and the tenets of the theory, or based on personal ideological biases, and thus easily rejected by biologists, so the statement is deliberately misrepresentative; fourth, only pseudoscientists--such as those associated with the Discovery Institute--have been attacked, and the attacks are not personal but methodologically substantive, so the statement is overly defensive and insulting to their critics.

Now let's focus on the other major claim in the DI statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life [and] are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life." These statements are deliberately misleading because biologists today (indeed, even those in Darwin's time) do not believe that only random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity or development of life: many other factors and processes are involved, including crossing over, random mating, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, founder effect, developmental constraints, neutral evolution (neutralism), gene duplication, macromutations, mass extinctions, sexual selection, mutualistic symbiosis, historical contingency, heterochrony, neoteny, parallelism, convergence, coevolution, homoplasy, emergence, possibly group selection, species selection, species sorting, etc. Why omit mention of these? Biologists today would indeed claim that all these factors and processes account for the complexity and development of life (but there would be disagreement among specialists about which factors are most important, e.g., the activity of natural selection as the dominant or less dominant process).

What most of the writers and signers of the DI statement are really saying is that they believe that intelligent design is a factor in the complexity and development of life, but they don't want to actually use the term "intelligent design" in print because it would reveal their true intentions. Claiming that "natural selection and random mutations alone" is not suitable for a complete evolutionary theory is a "bait-and-switch" technique, used to divide legitimate scientists among themselves (because there are certainly different understandings of the details of the evolutionary process), and thus conquer them in the popular culture war. Using rhetorical tricks such as this is deliberately misleading and mendacious.

If these 40 "scientists" desire to demonstrate that their claims are true, all they have to do is write up their research, with the appropriate evidence and arguments that show their claims are true, and publish it in the scientific literature. Why don't they do this? Why should we accept their claims until they do? Creationists and intelligent design theorists sometimes claim that prejudice prevents them from access to the scientific literature, but that's nonsense. I have seen papers published in the scientific literature that attempt to overthrow key tenets of modern evolutionary theory, such as defenses of Lamarckian evolution (inheritance of environmentally-acquired characters) or non-random mutation pressure accounting for evolution (these are, however, repeatedly discredited upon subsequent examination, but they were originally put forward by legitimate scientists with real evidence and good arguments in the peer-reviewed scientific literature). The true reason creationists and ID theorists don't publish in the scientific literature is because they have no empirical evidence and no good natural explanations for the processes they posit, and peer reviewers will quite justifiably reject papers that omit such obviously necessary information. Creationists need to understand that--no matter how convinced they themselves are with such justifications--wishful thinking and specious arguments will not be enough to convince legitimate scientists and other critical thinkers. Secretly, of course, they do understand this, which is why they never submit their writings to scientific journals, but rather publish them in their own religious presses, and instead try to convince non-scientists by using political, marketing, advertising, and lobbying techniques of persuasion in a top-down campaign rather than the traditional bottom-up scientific method.

The bottom line is this: no true or legitimate scientist would have signed their name to such a deliberately misleading, confusing, and mendacious statement (unless, of course, individuals were misled or uninformed about its true content or purpose when asked to give their personal assent). I don't know how the Discovery Institute convinced the 40 individuals to sign the statement, but I can say without equivocation that they were being unscientific by doing so. I question both their knowledge of biological evolution and their self-presumed intentions to improve science education. This statement should be rejected and disregarded by all individuals who respect the responsible use of reason and evidence in public communications.

But there's more. The DI open letter, in contrast to the DI statement, does properly refer to "neo-Darwinism" several times (as well as "Darwin's theory") in its criticism that "weaknesses" as well as "strengths" should be included in biology textbooks as required by the state's science curriculum requirements (TEKS). In my written testimony, I carefully explained in detail why inclusion of "weaknesses" of modern evolutionary theory in high school biology textbooks is scientifically unwarranted, because at that educational level the information presented is reliable knowledge, not hypotheses, and the true "weaknesses" can only be properly studied after years of university and graduate education. Otherwise, biology class would be confusing, frustrating, and non-educational. But what about the inclusion of "weaknesses" of Darwin's original theory, as seemingly demanded by the Discovery Institute creationists if we were to interpret their demands literally? Here there is another answer: all the biology textbooks already do contain such weaknesses because all point out (1) that Darwin lacked a proper understanding of genetics and (2) that there are a number of causes of evolution in addition to random variation and natural selection that Darwin did not know about. Darwin's original theory undisputedly had weaknesses, and this fact has never been hidden by either scientists or science textbooks (nor have they hidden the additional evidence and theoretical corrections that have removed these original weaknesses). Ironically, the Discovery Institute's repeated demand that the "weaknesses" of "Darwin's theory" be included in textbooks has long been satisfied by the textbook authors and publishers, since the books all discuss the importance of integrating genetics and non-selection processes into the evolutionary process, something that Darwin's original theory did not do. Taken literally, all the biology textbooks already contain both the true weaknesses and strengths of Darwin's theory.

In conclusion, the true aims of the Discovery Institute supporters are not to improve science education in Texas, but rather to irresponsibly weaken it by using the political process of science textbook adoption in Texas to (1) have scientifically-inaccurate and unwarranted "weaknesses" about only evolution inserted in biology textbooks, thus (2) weakening and damaging the scientifically-accurate presentation of evoluton in textbooks as the consensus of the scientific community, thereby (3) focusing attention on the topic of evolution so that teachers will be intimidated to avoid or diminish the topic in science classrooms, and ultimately (4) winning the opportunity to change the science curriculum later to include "intelligent design" creationism. This strategy (part of the Discovery Institute-Center for Science and Culture's "wedge strategy") is religiously and politically motivated, and totally avoids the scientific process that legitimate scientists must follow to achieve change in either scientific knowledge or science education. The evidence for this strategy is the massive push that the Discovery Institute is making to convince the Texas SBOE members of the correctness of their claims, using the open letter, statement, press conferences, debates, and transporting all the scientific fellows and major officers of the Discovery Institute to Austin to speak to and lobby the SBOE. The Discovery Institute's strategy must be resisted--and their tactics rejected--by every Texas citizen who values accurate and legitimate science education in our state's public schools.


Texas Professors Urge State Board to Fully and Completely Teach Evolution

By: Discovery Institute Staff
Press Release
August 19, 2003

Two dozen professors from seven Texas universities have signed an open letter to the State Board of Education (see below) urging it to ensure that biology textbooks present both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution. The open letter and list of signers, released Tuesday by Discovery Institute, is available upon request.

Professors signing the letter come from the faculties of the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, Rice University, Baylor University, the University of Texas at El Paso, Southwestern University, and St. Mary's University in San Antonio. Scientific fields represented by signers include biology, biomedicine, chemistry, forestry, physics and astronomy, engineering, kinesiology, computer science, and mathematics. Social sciences and humanities signers include philosophy, law, and government.

The professors cite the requirement in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills [TEKS] that students learn how to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information," and they urge the Board to apply "this requirement to how biology textbooks used in state schools present the subjects of chemical and biological evolution."

The professors also point out that "in recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with both 'the strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory."

"Darwinists claim there is no academic debate over Darwin's theory, and that the only objections are religious. But these professors show that claim is false," says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman.

Baylor Professor Francis Beckwith, one signer of the letter, agrees. "Contemporary criticisms of neo-Darwinism are borne of rigorous scholarship, published in respected venues, and offered by credentialed scholars who hold academic appointments at leading institutions of higher learning. They can't be dismissed as being based on religion." Beckwith is author of the new book, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003)

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Dear Members of the State Board of Education:

We support the requirement in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills [TEKS] that students learn how to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information," and we urge that this requirement be applied to how biology textbooks used in state schools present the subjects of chemical and biological evolution.

In recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with both "the strengths and weaknesses" of neo-Darwinian theory.

Sincerely,

Francis J. Beckwith
Assoc. Prof. of Church-State Studies
Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies
Baylor University

Vicente D. Villa
Professor Emeritus of Biology
Southwestern University

James M. Tour
Chao Professor of Chemistry
Rice University

Thomas E. Milner
Associate Professor,
Biomedical Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin

Walter L. Bradley
Distinguished Prof. of Engineering
Baylor University
Emeritus Prof. of Mech. Engineering
Texas A&M University, College Station

William A. Dembski
Associate Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science
Baylor University

Granville Sewell
Professor of Mathematics
The University of Texas at El Paso

Stephen Crouse
Professor of Kinesiology
Dir., Applied Exercise Science Laboratory
Texas A&M University, College Station

W. Todd Watson
Asst. Prof. of Urban and Community Forestry
Texas A&M University, College Station

Pablo Yepes
Sr. Faculty Fellow, Physics and Astronomy
Rice University

Barry Boyd
Asst. Professor, Agricultural Education
Texas A&M University, College Station

David McClellan
Asst. Prof. of Family Medicine
Texas A&M University System Health Science Center

Walter C. Daugherity
Senior Lecturer in Computer Science
Texas A&M University, College Station

Lee Lowery
Eppright Univ. Prof. of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University, College Station

Michael D. Delp
Assoc. Prof. of Health and Kinesiology
Texas A&M University, College Station

Marvin Olasky
Professor of Journalism
The University of Texas at Austin

J. Budziszewski
Prof., Departments of Govt. and Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin

Daniel Bonevac
Professor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin

Dale W. Spence
Professor Emeritus, Department of Kinesiology
Rice University

Robert C. Koons
Professor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin

Mike Caudle
Cadet Training Officer
Office of the Commandant
Texas A&M University, College Station

Stephen W. McDaniel
Professor of Marketing
Texas A&M University, College Station

Charles W. Graham
Bryan N. and Sandra K. Mitchell Endowed Professor of Housing Research
Texas A&M University, College Station


40 Texas scientists join growing national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
Press Release
September 5, 2003

FRIDAY, SEPT. 5 -- Forty scientists from across Texas have joined a group of over 250 other scientists from around the world in declaring their skepticism of a central tenet of Darwin's theory of evolution and urging that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The list of signers of this declaration was released today by Discovery Institute and is available upon request.

The full statement signed by the scientists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that's just bogus," said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but around the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life."

Included in the national list of scientists is Nobel Prize nominee Fritz Schaeffer. Another recent signer to the statement is evolutionary biologist Dr. Stanley Salthe, who had this to say: "Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism's origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin's theory while they are learning about the theory's strongest claims."

"The number of scientists who dissent from Darwin's theory is growing despite their coming under unprecedented personal attacks," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "These scientists should be commended for having the courage to stand up to Darwin-only activists who are trying to censor them and silence this legitimate scientific debate."

List of Texas Scientists

Bohlin, Raymond Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology

Shormann, David Ph.D. Limnology

Chen T., Timothy Ph.D. Statistics

Koons, Charles Ph.D. Organic Chemistry

Lewis, Catherine Ph.D. Geophysics

Orr, Rebecca Ph.D. Cell Biology

Missel, Paul Ph.D. Physics

Reiff, Patricia Ph.D. Space Physics

Trotter, Ide Ph.D. Chemical Engineering

Randolph, Paul Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics

Gamman-Aguirre, Jane M.D.

Schroeder, Fred Ph.D. Marine Geology

Clark, Donald Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry

Deahl, Thomas Ph.D. Radiation Biology

Gunasekera, Richard Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics

Bradley, Walter Baylor University

Dembski, William Baylor University

Harman, James Texas Tech University

Mills, Gordon, University of Texas, Medical Branch

Milner, Thomas University of Texas, Austin

Mims, Forrest Geronimo Creek Observatory

Poenie, Martin University of Texas, Austin

Tour, James Rice University

Villa, Vincente Southwestern University

Watson, Todd Texas A & M University

Yepes, Pablo Rice University

Delp, Michael Texas A&M University

Sewell, Granville University of Texas (El Paso)

Cogdell, John University of Texas (Austin)

Thompson, James Rice University

Spence, Dale Rice University

Jones, Robert University of Texas-Pan America

Overzet, Lawrence University of Texas (Dallas)

Walkup, John Texas Tech University

Bourell, David University of Texas (Austin)

Kobe, Donald University of North Texas (Denton)

Crouse, Stephen Texas A&M

Jarstfer, Amiel LeTourneau University

Ehlmann, Arthu Texas Christian University

Lee, J. University of Texas (Dallas)

Johnson, Richard LeTourneau University


Last updated: 18 September 2003