Top
- TEKS 3A -
HS vs. AP -
Book Errors -
Polling Data -
Officials
-
Links
Darwin's Finches
- Macro vs Micro Evolution -
Peppered Moths -
Miller-Urey Experiment - Haeckel's
Embryos - Fossil
Record Problems
TEXAS
TEXTBOOK SELECTION ISSUES
TEKS 3A
The Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills (TEKS), adopted by the State Board
of Education, (SBOE) states that:
“The
student is expected to analyze, review, and
critique scientific explanations, including
hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and
weaknesses using scientific evidence and
information.”[1]
This rule, which carries the force of
law, was specifically adopted so that
publishers and teachers would be
encouraged to present students with
strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary
theory, without necessarily mandating the
teaching of what has been called
intelligent design or creation
science. However, the Texas
Education Agency (TEA) has largely ignored
this rule, and some reports have indicated
that the TEA instructed citizen review
panels to consider the strengths and
weaknesses criteria to have been met if a
single example could be found in the
textbook anywhere that discussed a
weakness of any theory, rather than the
intent of having most theories and
hypotheses, particularly those dealing
with biologic evolution, so treated.
Evolution, contrary to the sound bites
of groups like the National Center for
Science Education, has numerous critics,
even within the evolutionist
community. A list of forty-four peer
reviewed articles detailing some of the
weaknesses of the theories (there isn't
just a single 'theory of evolution'), is
located here.
This list was presented (July 9th) to the
Texas State Board of Education.
Additional information is coming soon.
References
Top
- TEKS 3A -
HS vs. AP -
Book Errors -
Polling Data -
Officials
-
Links
HS vs. AP Books
There are two different classes of
books being considered this year.
These are referred to as 'high school' and
'advanced placement' textbooks, which are
intended for college credit courses being
taught in the high schools. The HS
books, which constitute most of the book
sales in Texas schools, are the ones that
the TEKS 3A refers to.
Book Errors
Numerous examples of known errors can
be found in today's textbooks, and many or
most of these errors can be found in the
new books being considered for
adoption. Some of these errors are
the result of additional research and
science showing the original results were
in error or were no longer relevant to
origin of life and life's diversity
issues. Some were simply bad science
at the time they became entrenched in
textbooks. Still others were
outright frauds.
A summary
article about numerous common errors is located here.
Some Common Errors--------------------------------------
Peppered Moths article here
Miller-Urey Experiment
The widely reported experiment by Miller
and Urey, sometimes referred to as the
"Miller Experiment", was
conducted in the 1950's. At that
time, under 'just so' assumptions made in
order to make the chemistry work, the
early earth's atmosphere was assumed to be
essentially free of oxygen. In the
well known experiment, that Carl Sagan
popularized as having produced the 'stuff
of life', gases of the assumed early earth
atmosphere were put in a closed apparatus,
electrical discharge arcs were passed
through the circulating gases, and
products were trapped out and
analyzed. Some organic molecules
resulted, including a few amino
acids. Most products were similar to
tar.
However, geochemical evidence dating
back at least two decades now confirms an
abundance of oxygen in the early
atmosphere. Practically speaking,
this alone relegates the Miller Urey
experiment to an interesting chemical
demonstration, but being irrelevent to
chemical origin of life discussions, since
the oxygen would not permit the reactions
to take place and survive.
Amino acids cannot be formed and
survive in an oxygen rich environment.
Hence, Miller and Urey forced their
experimentally designed 'atmosphere' to
contain no free oxygen, as was the common
belief of their day. However, evidence
from the geologic record now confirm that
the early earth contained significant
amounts of oxygen, and that the earlier
accepted model of a reducing atmosphere
(oxygen poor) was false.
The experimental design, while at the
time praised as innovative, incorporated
an amino acid 'trap'. The function of this
'trap' was to try and preserve any
possibly created amino acids before they
would be destroyed by the various
chemicals in the apparatus. While
successful in trapping some amino acids,
this is now recognized as not being
analogous to the real natural world -
there are no known or even hypothesized
protective traps observed in nature.
Last, the amino acids produced by the
experiment, most of which were non life
relevant tars, were racemic, or an
approximately equal ratio of dextro- and
levo- (right and left handed) molecular
arrangement, called chirality. However,
amino acids in living organisms are 100%
left handed. Racemic mixtures of amino
acids are actually toxic to life, not the
'stuff of life' as originally announced.
Evolutionary biologists and origin of
life researchers now recognize the Miller
Urey experiment as an interesting but
largely now unimportant experiment.
Some proposed textbooks make statements
like, "Miller and Urey's experiments
showed that under the proposed conditions
on the early Earth, small organic
molecules, such as amino acids, could
form."
This statement, while technically
accurate, is highly misleading in that the
conditions on the early Earth were NOT as
modeled in the experiment. The caption
should be changed to read, "Miller
and Urey showed that some amino acids
could be produced under certain laboratory
conditions. However, geoscientists now do
not believe those conditions selected for
use in the laboratory are representative
of the early Earth atmosphere."
Haeckel's Embryos Fraud
here
The saga of the “Haeckel” embryos
continues.
Briefly, a German embryologist name
Ernst Haeckel, overzealous in trying to
support Charles Darwin in the late
1800’s, published what he said were
drawings of embryos.
Darwin
later said
they were the very best evidence for
evolution. There
was a slight problem.
They were faked.
Some
publishers have made substantial
improvements from prior years’ editions
regarding embryos. This fully
debunked idea of “embryonic
recapitulation” or “ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny” stems
essentially from drawings originally
constructed by Haeckel in the late 1800's.
He originally posited that as
embryos develop in the womb or egg, they
essentially retraced their supposed
evolutionary history.
Fig. H-1 - Haeckel, 1874 (top) – Starr &
Taggart, proposed 2004 (bottom)
Note
that in the late 1800’s, embryologists
were already aware of the faked drawings,
and openly accused Haeckel of scientific
fraud.
More recently, embryologists have
discovered that the idea of embryonic
recapitulation is also untrue.
Yet, Darwinian thought police still
maintain that it is OK to use embryos in
the books.
The scientists disagree.
To quote Harvard’s late atheist -
Marxist - evolutionist Stephen J. Gould,
perhaps one of the most outspoken
proponents of the ‘punctuated
equilibrium’ flavor of evolution until
his recent death, said:
"We
do, I think, have the right to be both
astonished and ashamed by the century
of mindless recycling that has led to the
persistence of these drawings in a large
number, if not a majority, of modern
textbooks."
[emphasis added]
Fig.
H-2
- From Biology Sixth Edition (2004,
proposed) by Raven and Johnson (color),
overlaid with Haeckel’s 1874 drawings
(in black)
It
is not merely the faked drawings that are
the problem, but the whole concept of
embryology ‘proving’ evolution that is
wrong.
(Most publishers have NOT yet
addressed this, even if they have removed
or changed Haeckel’s drawings).
A
second problem with the comparison of
embryos is that Haeckel selectively chose
both species and stages of the embryos
that looked most alike, before he even
distorted his depictions of them.
For the embryonic recapitulation to have
been true, the earlier stages should have
been used. There are several
recognized embryonic stages prior to what
Haeckel called his first stage!
Additionally,
it is known among embryologists that even
among closely related species, like two
frog species, the embryonic development
pathways are different. For example,
cells that might eventually develop into
one part in one frog might develop into
another part in the second species.
In
short, it was a fraud that has been
exposed by further scientific research and
scrutiny, and yet continues in even some
school proposed
textbooks over 100 years later.
Galapagos Island
Finches -- click for article
here
Macro vs. Micro
evolution -- click for article
here
Fossil Record problems --
click for article here
Some Well Known Weaknesses
There are numerous weaknesses in
evolutionary theory, such as its inability
to explain the Cambrian Explosion, the
Chemical Origin of Life, the Development
Pathways at either the molecular or
morphological level, or the Origin and
Improvement of Information in the Genetic
Code. Comments by Evolutionary
Scientists on Various Weaknesses in
Evolutionary theory are located here.
Note that these scientists still believe
in the general concept of evolution, but
recognize numerous weaknesses in and
shortcomings of the theory.
Icons
of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells is a good
reference summarizing common textbook errors.
Click
here
to order from Amazon.com
Video highlighting some of the items in
the above book, including the history of a
biology teacher who was removed for
teaching what a leading evolutionist said
about problems with evolutionary theory.
Click here
to order from Amazon.com
Much more
information can be found at the
Center for Science and Culture of the
Discovery Institute here.
Top
- TEKS 3A -
HS vs. AP -
Book Errors -
Polling Data -
Officials
-
Links
Polling Data
- Who Are Mainstream and Who Are
Extremist?
Issue Enjoys a Wide
Range
of Support Across America
The issue of teaching
weaknesses of or alternatives to
evolutionary dogma to our children is a
clear winner across the landscape of
America
.
Gallup
polls routinely show that only a small
minority (typically less than 10%) of
Americans actually believe, even after
decades of exclusive evolutionary instruction,
that a purely naturalistic materialistic
evolution is capable of explaining life.
The Zogby polling
group specifically examined whether
weaknesses to or alternatives to evolution
should be presented, or whether evolution
should be presented in public schools
exclusively.
In August of 2001, they found that
71% of those polled agreed with the
statement that “Biology teachers should
teach
Darwin
’s theory of evolution, but also the
scientific evidence against it.”
Only 15% agreed that “Biology
teachers should teach only
Darwin
’s theory of evolution and the
scientific evidence that supports it.”
[underscore added] While not the
subject of this meeting directly, that
poll goes on to examine the question of
“When Darwin’s theory of evolution is
taught in school, students should also be
able to learn about scientific evidence
that points to an intelligent design of
life.”
78% agreed with the statement,
either strongly (53%) or somewhat (25%).
Only 13% disagreed, either strongly
(8%) or somewhat (5%).[i]
Later in
Ohio
, even in the face of withering fire from
those that would censor weaknesses in
evolution from schools, Zogby found that
65% thought that “Biology teachers
should teach
Darwin
’s theory of evolution, but also the
scientific evidence against it.”
Only 19% agreed that “Biology
teachers should teach only
Darwin
’s theory of evolution and the
scientific evidence that supports it.”
Similarly on the question of
“When Darwin’s theory of evolution is
taught in school, students should also be
able to learn about scientific evidence
that points to an intelligent design of
life”, 78%
agreed with the statement, either strongly
(55%) or somewhat (23%).
Only 13% disagreed, either strongly
(10%) or somewhat (3%).[ii]
Similarly, the
Cleveland Plain Dealer conducted a poll
during their controversy.
It showed, among other things, that
only 13% of respondents agreed with a
purely naturalistic explanation of life,
only 8% would agree that teaching biologic
evolution exclusively was correct (59%
would specifically teach both evolution
and intelligent design (Ohio’s issue),
another 15% would teach weaknesses of
evolution but not intelligent design).[iii]
The
most recent confirmation of this decades
old support by the public for teaching
both strengths and weaknesses was
conducted in Texas by the Zogby
organization. It found that a
remarkable 75% agreed that "The state
board of education should approve biology
textbooks that teach Darwin's theory of
evolution, but also the scientific
evidence against it." In
another question specifically addressing
whether the board should enforce the
existing requirement to teach both
strengths and weaknesses, 82%
agreed. Yet another question tested
whether biology teachers should teach both
sides, and 76% agreed! The last
question was not specifically related to
the question before the Texas SBOE, but
asked if Intelligent Design should be
taught alongside evolution, and a whopping
84% agreed either strongly (64%) or
somewhat (20%). The most likely to
agree included 18-29 year olds and
Hispanics.[iv]
Summary
Polls
| |
Teach Strengths
and Weaknesses of Evolution
(but no I.D.) |
State
Board of Education Should Enforce
Teaching Strengths and Weaknesses |
Teach Evolution
and I.D. |
Against Evol.
and I.D. being taught |
Teach Evol. Only |
| Zogby
USA August 2001 |
71% |
|
78% |
13% |
|
| Zogby Ohio 2002 |
65% |
|
78% |
13% |
|
| Cleveland Plain
Dealer 2002 |
74% |
|
59% |
8% |
8% |
| Zogby
Texas August 2003 |
75%/76%
(Q 2b/5b)
|
82% |
64%ST
+20%SW
=84%
|
7%ST
+5%SW
=12%
|
18% |
Who
represents 'mainstream' America and who are
really the 'extremists'? (SW=Somewhat Agree,
ST=Strongly Agree)
In short,
thinking Americans, in spite of the
censorship of scientific evidence against
evolution from the classroom, in academia,
and in public television, have and continue
to reject evolution as inadequate.
Zogby further found that younger
Americans were even more likely to reject
naturalistic evolution than those over 65
years of age.
[iv]
Views of Texas Residents on
Teaching Evolution, communicated from the
Zogby International polling group to
Discovery Institute, Sept. 8, 2003, archived
at: http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/ZOGBY.Texas.2003.pdf
Top
- TEKS 3A -
HS vs. AP -
Book Errors -
Polling Data -
Officials
-
Links
Government
Officials
The Santorum Amendment
The idea of teaching
both sides of the issue, or including both
strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary
theories, is one of those rare issues that
is overwhelmingly supported by both major
US political parties. The below is a
sampling of what some influential leaders
in the US have said. Many occurred
during the debate on the "No Child
Left Behind" act. The
final conference report on the that
[federal] legislation stated in wording
taken from the so-called "Santorum
Amendment":
“The
Conferees recognize that a quality science
education should prepare students to
distinguish the data and testable theories
of science from religious or philosophical
claims that are made in the name of
science. Where topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological
evolution), the curriculum should
help
students to understand the full range of
scientific views that exist, why such
topics may generate controversy, and how
scientific discoveries can profoundly
affect society.”[1]
In the discussion of
this amendment, key Senate leaders from
both sides offered support.
Senator Edward
Kennedy (D – Mass):
Mr.
President, first of all, on the Santorum
amendment, I hope all of our colleagues
will vote in support of it. It talks about
using good science to consider the
teaching of biological evolution. I think
the way the Senator described it, as well
as the language itself, is completely
consistent with what represents the
central values of this body. We want
children to be able to speak and examine
various scientific theories on the basis
of all of the information that is
available to them so they can talk about
different concepts and do it intelligently
with the best information that is before
them.
I
think the Senator has expressed his views
in support of the amendment and the
reasons for it. I think they make
eminently good sense. I intend to support
that proposal. [2]
Senator Robert
Byrd (D – W.
Virginia
):
Mr.
President, I have been interested in the
debate surrounding the teaching of
evolution in our schools. I think that
Senator SANTORUM's amendment will lead to
a more thoughtful treatment of this topic
in the classroom. It is important that
students be exposed not only to the theory
of evolution, but also to the context in
which it is viewed by many in our society.
I
think, too often, we limit the best of our
educators by directing them to avoid
controversy and to try to remain
politically correct. If students cannot
learn to debate different viewpoints and
to explore a range of theories in the
classroom, what hope have we for civil
discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors?
Scientists
today have numerous theories about our
world and its beginnings. I, personally,
have been greatly impressed by the many
scientists who have probed and dissected
scientific theory and concluded that some
Divine force had to have played a role in
the birth of our magnificent universe.
These ideas align with my way of thinking.
But I understand that they might not align
with someone else's. That is the very
point of this amendment--to support an
airing of varying opinions, ideas,
concepts, and theories. if education is
truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and
enhance thinking, varying viewpoints
should be welcome as part of the school
experience. [3]
Senator Sam
Brownback, (R – Kansas) spoke
eloquently in recounting a recent
situation in his home state of Kansas,
which while different from textbook
adoption, dealt with the same mindset of
those who would defend Darwin in spite of
the evidence.
Mr.
President, as my friend from
Pennsylvania
, and perhaps every one in the free world,
knows the issue he brings up with regard
to how to teach scientific theory and
philosophy was recently an issue in my
home State of
Kansas
. For this reason, many of my constituents
are particularly sensitive to this issue.
I
would like to take the opportunity of this
amendment to clear the record about the
controversy in
Kansas
.
In
August of 1999 the Kansas State School
Board fired a shot heard 'round the world.
Press reports began to surface that
evolution would not longer be taught. The
specter of a theocratic school board
entering the class to ensure that no
student would be taught the prevailing
wisdom of biology was envisioned.
Political cartoons and editorials were
drafted by the hundreds. To hear the
furor, one might think that the teachers
would be charged with sorting through
their student's texts with an Exacto knife
carving out pictures of
Darwin
.
However,
the prevailing impression, as is often the
case was not quite accurate. Here are the
facts about what happened in
Kansas
. The school board did not ban the
teaching of evolution. They did not forbid
the mention of
Darwin
in the classroom. They didn't even remove
all mention of evolution from the State
assessment test. Rather, the school board
voted against including questions on
macro-evolution--the theory that new
species can evolve from existing species
over time--from the State assessment. The
assessment did include questions on
micro-evolution--the observed change over
time within an existing species.
Why
did they do this? Why go so far as to
decipher between micro and macro-evolution
on the State exam? How would that serve
the theocratic school board's purpose that
we read so much about? Well, the truth is
. . . their was no theocratic end to the
actions of the school board. In fact,
their vote was cast based on the most
basic scientific principal that science is
about what we observe, not what we assume.
The
great and bold statement that the
Kansas
School
Board made was that simply that we
observe micro-evolution and therefore it
is scientific fact; and that it is
impossible to observe macro-evolution, it
is scientific assumption. [emphasis
added]
The
response to this relatively minor and
eminently scientific move by the
Kansas
school board was shocking. The actions and
intentions of the school board were
routinely misrepresented in the global
press. Many in the global scientific
community, who presumably knew the facts,
spread misinformation as to what happened
in
Kansas
. College admissions boards, who most
certainly knew the facts, threatened
Kansas
students. The State Chamber of Commerce
and Industry, and the State universities
were threatened based on the actions of
school board. All of these effects caused
by a school board trying to decipher
between scientific fact and scientific
assumption. The response to the actions of
the board, appeared to many as a response
to the commission of heresy.
For
this reason, I am very pleased that my
friend from
Pennsylvania
offered this amendment. He clarifies the
opinion of the Senate that the debate of
scientific fact versus scientific
assumption is an important debate to
embrace. I plan to support the amendment
and urge my colleagues to join me. [4]
Senator Rick
Santorum, (R – Penn.), in proposing
the amendment stated
:
Mr.
President, I rise to talk about my
amendment which will be voted on in
roughly 40 minutes. This is an amendment
that is a sense of the Senate. It is a
sense of the Senate that deals with the
subject of intellectual freedom with
respect to the teaching of science in the
classroom, in primary and secondary
education. It is a sense of the Senate
that does not try to dictate curriculum to
anybody; quite the contrary, it says there
should be freedom to discuss and air good
scientific debate within the classroom. In
fact, students will do better and will
learn more if there is this intellectual
freedom to discuss.
I
will read this sense of the Senate. It is
simply two sentences--frankly, two rather
innocuous sentences--that hopefully this
Senate will embrace:
``It is the sense of the Senate
that--
``(1) good science education should
prepare students to distinguish the data
or testable theories of science from
philosophical or religious claims that are
made in the name of science; and
``(2) where biological evolution is
taught, the curriculum should
help
students to understand why this subject
generates so much continuing controversy,
and should prepare the students to be
informed participants in public
discussions regarding the subject.
It
simply says there are disagreements in
scientific theories out there that are
continually tested. Our knowledge of
science is not absolute, obviously. We
continue to test theories. Over the
centuries, there were theories that were
once assumed to be true and have been
proven, through further revelation of
scientific investigation and testing, to
be not true.
One
of the things I thought was important in
putting this forward was to make sure the
Senate of this country, obviously one of
the greatest, if not the greatest,
deliberative bodies on the face of the
Earth, was on record saying we are for
this kind of intellectual freedom; we are
for this kind of discussion going on; it
will enhance the quality of science
education for our students.
I
will read three points made by one of the
advocates of this thought, a man named
David DeWolf, as to the advantages of
teaching this controversy that exists. He
says:
“Several
benefits will accrue from a more open
discussion of biological origins in the
science classroom. First, this approach
will do a better job of teaching the issue
itself, both because it presents more
accurate information about the state of
scientific thinking and evidence, and
because it presents the subject in a more
lively and less dogmatic way. Second, this
approach gives students greater
appreciation for how science is actually
practiced. Science necessarily involves
the interpretation of data; yet scientists
often disagree about how to interpret
their data. By presenting this scientific
controversy realistically, students will
learn how to evaluate competing
interpretations in light of evidence--a
skill they will need as citizens, whether
they choose careers in science or other
fields. Third, this approach will model
for students how to address differences of
opinion through reasoned discussion within
the context of a pluralistic society. “
I
think there are many benefits to this
discussion that we hope to encourage in
science classrooms across this country. I
frankly don't see any down side to this
discussion--that we
are standing here as the Senate in favor
of intellectual freedom and open and fair
discussion of using science--not
philosophy and religion within the context...of
science but science--as the basis for this
determination. [5]
[emphasis added]
By roll call vote the
amendment enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan
support, being passed by 91
ayes , 8 nayes and 1 absence. “The
amendment (No. 799) was agreed to.” [6]
References
[1]
2001-107th
Congress
-1st Session-House of Representatives
Report-107 334 No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 Conference Report to accompany
H.R. 1
Top
- TEKS 3A -
HS vs. AP -
Book Errors -
Polling Data -
Officials
-
Links
Links
Discovery
Institute here
44 Evolutionist Peer Reviewed
Articles detailing problems with
evolutionary theory here
Strengths
and Weaknesses Article: HTML here
News
Archives
Agape Press July 14, 2003 here
BPNews July 16, 2003 here
Focus on the Family Citizen Link July
17, 2003 here
Focus on the Family Citizen
Link Sept 03, 2003 here
Focus on the Family Citizen
Link Sept 23, 2003 here
Intelligent Design Resources
Excellent Video, as appearing on
PBS stations nationwide, on how certain features
in biology seem to require some sort of
designer.
Click here
to order from Amazon.com
