State Board of Education
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78701

4 November 2003

Dear members of the State Board of Education:

We are two biologists at the University of Texas at Austin, in the sections of Integrative Biology (Hillis) and Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology (Poenie). We have been portrayed (by others) as being on opposite sides of the debates about biology textbooks that are up for adoption in the state of Texas. One of us (Hillis) testified in July at the SBOE hearings on textbooks, in favor of strong biology textbooks with thorough coverage of evolutionary biology, and against the inclusion of "intelligent design" ideas (and other ideas not supported by scientific evidence and analysis) in the textbooks. The other of us (Poenie) was listed by the Discovery Institute as one of the Texas scientists on their "40 Texas Scientists Skeptical of Darwin" list (although he did not authorize the DI to include him on this list). Poenie did write a letter to the state board arguing that Darwinian (hyperdarwinian) mechanisms are not the only ones molding the evolutionary history of life and that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change. However, that letter was not intended to oppose basic evolutionary biology or to support poor teaching or coverage of that topic. It was this apparent opposition that initially brought us together. Since we both know each other, and both believe that we want the same thing for Texas school children (namely, good, accurate books for biology classes), we decided to join together and jointly review the textbooks that are up for consideration by the state of Texas.

We found that we agreed on the strengths and weaknesses of most of the books that are up for consideration. None of the introductory biology books is perfect; they could all be improved in the details of their coverage. Nonetheless, we believe that all of the books conform to the TEKS standards and should be approved and placed on the conforming list of textbooks.

We have read that one of the SBOE members intends to propose one of the introductory books, namely Glencoe's Biology: The Dynamics of Life for the conforming list, and all the other introductory biology textbooks for the non-conforming list. We can see absolutely no basis for such a decision. We both consider Glencoe's book to be one of the weaker of the proposed biology books, so if it is judged to be conforming, then certainly all of the other books that have been proposed for adoption should also be placed on the conforming list as well. Certainly it would be an injustice to consider the Glencoe book to be the only conforming biology book. We consider its coverage of biology to be somewhat superficial compared to the other books. We differ somewhat in which books we consider to be the best, but we agree that all of the books should be placed on the conforming list and that the Glencoe book is not the best of the books on the list.

Perhaps the Glencoe book is seen as the only acceptable book by at least one SBOE member because it explicitly lists "Divine Origins" as an alternative to scientific hypotheses about the origin of life (on page 388). However, we both object to the presentation of religious and scientific explanations as mutually exclusive ideas, as if choosing one requires an individual to reject the other. We believe that a science book should focus on scientific explanations, and not present religious beliefs as an alternative to scientific analyses. This is offensive to many who hold those religious beliefs, because it implicitly suggests that to understand and accept the scientific viewpoint requires rejection of the religious viewpoint. Although we acknowledge that there are individuals who hold the view that scientific and religious ideas are mutually exclusive (in both scientific as well as religious circles), we see no reason to force this philosophy on the students of Texas in a science class. Although we see this presentation as objectionable in the Glencoe book, the book does nonetheless meet the TEKS objectives for coverage of biology and we recommend that it be included in the conforming list with the other books.

In summary, we recommend that the State Board of Education place all of the biology textbooks that have been submitted on the conforming list. We strongly object to singling out the Glencoe book as the only book to conform to Texas standards, as we believe it is among the weaker of the books that have been proposed for adoption, and comes close to promoting science and religion as mutually exclusive ideas. Although we differ slightly in which books we consider be the best biology books, we see all of the AP Biology books as having very high standards, and the books by Holt (Biology, by Johnson and Raven) and Prentice-Hall (Biology, by Miller and Levine) as among the better of the introductory biology books.

Sincerely,

David M. Hillis
Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor in Natural Sciences Section of Integrative Biology
University of Texas at Austin

Martin Poenie
Associate Professor
Section of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology
University of Texas at Austin