San Angelo Standard Times

Biology Textbook Controversy Letter Exchange

Evolution opponents are at it again

by Terry Maxwell

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_columnist/article/0,1897,SAST_10316_2143446,00.html

July 30, 2003

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, developed by the Texas Education Agency, requires that ''the student knows the theory of biological evolution'' and that students ''analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.''

The language is clear, but it was painfully evident that agreement ended on that point at the July 9 State Board of Education hearing. Textbooks selected by TEA for SBOE review included the standards in the field used by the scientifically literate faculty at high schools, colleges and universities across this land - a land that is a world leader in science and technology.

Some of us testifying in defense of the professional, undiluted coverage of evolution in the texts were surprised to find ourselves defending a couple of photographs of moths. One might have expected to hear claims of a fossilized human inside a Tyranosaurus, which would have been a serious problem for current evolutionary thought about the history of life. Instead, we responded to contrived confusion about a publication's photos.

British ecologist B. Kettlewell had demonstrated in the 1950s that peppered moth populations were altered by natural selection. Light-colored moths resting on trees were no longer so well hidden from bird predation now that the trees were soot-covered by industrial air pollution. Logically, dark-colored moths increased proportionally.

To illustrate the moth/tree surface color issue in his publication, Kettlewell took the rational approach. He photographed, side by side, light and dark moths that he had affixed to differently colored tree surfaces. They were the same moth colors and tree bark colors found in his investigation. He did not waste his time waiting interminably for two individual moths representing color extremes to alight side by side on a tree in front of his camera.

Incredulously, some members of the SBOE agreed with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank, that Kettlewell's photographs were a weakness of evolution theory.

The Discovery Institute is currently the best-funded pusher of intelligent design creationism, and seemingly never argues points about any other subject in science except that which might contradict their particular religious view. Clearly, the Discovery Institute approaches such opportunities as the SBOE hearing with a political and religious agenda.

The Discovery Institute's critique of the textbooks under consideration for Texas students was based on Rev. Dr. Jonathan Wells' ''Icons of Evolution.'' In it, Wells claims several well-known experiments, observations and working concepts in evolutionary biology are invalid. The Discovery Institute singled out for textbook criticism four of Wells' so-called ''icons,'' including the peppered moth case. Wells' criticisms are more extensive than the moth photograph example, but all of his objections have been exposed as junk science, at best. For one detailed dismissal of Wells' ''Icons,'' go to www.ncseweb.org/icons.

It is the function of public school science textbooks to present hypotheses and theories that have been extensively tested and are generally accepted in science. The National Academy of Science and numerous other science and religious organizations have made public statements about how teaching evolution as it is understood by mainstream science is critical to the scientific literacy of our children.

Evolution is the organizing principle of biology, and although it is a treasured freedom in this country to level criticisms at the establishment, it is not good science education policy to allow criticisms based on religious or political ideology to be allowed into science textbooks. Surely, that is self-evident. Where would that end?

Another SBOE hearing on biology textbook content will be held Sept. 10 and the board's decisions will be made in November.

Terry C. Maxwell, Ph.D., is a biology professor at Angelo State University.

Institute supports accurate science

by John G. West

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_columnist/article/0,1897,SAST_10316_2168058,00.html

August 8, 2003

When students study Darwin's theory of evolution, should they learn only about its strengths, or should they also hear about its weaknesses? And should they learn about the best current evidence for evolution, or should they study outdated examples that have been discredited by the scientific community?

Those are the real issues Discovery Institute has raised with the Texas State Board of Education, which over the next few months will be considering the adoption of biology texts for use in Texas schools. Contrary to the preposterous rhetoric of Terry Maxwell (''Evolution opponents are at it again,'' July 30), Discovery Institute is not a ''creationist'' organization, nor do we support the teaching of religion in science classes.

Instead, we favor two modest proposals that everyone concerned about good science education should be able to embrace.

First, we believe students should be exposed to legitimate scientific (not religious) controversies over evolutionary theory. Peer-reviewed science journals are filled with articles raising issues about various aspects of neo-Darwinism, the prevailing theory of evolution taught in textbooks. In 2000, for example, an article in the journal Cell noted that there is a ''long-standing question of the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms observed at or below the species level ('microevolution') to account for the larger-scale patterns of morphological evolution ('macroevolution').'' Yet this ''long-standing question'' about neo-Darwinism isn't covered in most textbooks. Why not?

In addition, we favor correcting clear factual errors in textbook presentations of evolution.

Unfortunately, many biology texts contain outdated information about evolution that is no longer accepted by many scientists. For example, some books still present a 1950s experiment supposedly showing how life first arose as good science, even though more recent research has shown that the experiment doesn't work under the conditions now thought to have been present on the early Earth.

Biologist Jonathan Wells, who holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley, has extensively documented these textbook errors in his book ''Icons of Evolution.'' Contrary to Maxwell, Wells' criticisms have not been refuted, and Wells has successfully defended his book in subsequent articles that can be read at www.iconsofevolution.com.

Far from being rejected by the scientific community, Wells' criticisms of textbooks actually have been confirmed by many other biologists and peer-reviewed science publications.

Take the case of the peppered moth experiments that Terry Maxwell defends so ardently. Microevolution in peppered moths may be due to Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, but experiments purporting to prove this hypothesis have been discredited, and not just by Jonathan Wells. The same criticisms raised by Wells have also been presented in The New York Times, the prestigious science monograph series Evolutionary Biology, and the acclaimed book ''Of Moths and Men'' by evolutionist Judith Hooper. One textbook being proposed for use in Texas actually informs students about problems with the peppered moth experiments, but others continue to present the experiments uncritically.

Let's be clear about what is at stake here. No one disputes that microevolution occurs, or that natural selection can lead to microevolutionary changes. If the original peppered moth experiments had turned out to be valid, not even ''creationists'' would object. The real issue is accurate science. The original peppered moth experiments have been discredited in the scientific community, and so they should not be presented uncritically as proof for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. The same goes for other examples of outdated research used in textbooks.

Unfortunately, Darwinists like Maxwell seem willing to defend junk science rather than give up their cherished textbook icons. They are so blindly committed to Darwinism that they have lost all objectivity. Such closed-minded dogmatism is the opposite of good science, and it shouldn't be allowed to dictate what Texas students learn about biology.

For more information on inaccuracies in the textbooks proposed for Texas, I encourage readers to check Discovery Institute's textbook review posted at www.discovery.org/crsc.

John G. West, Ph.D., is associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

Guest columnist misrepresents views

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2178712,00.html

August 13, 2003

Editor:

John G. West of the Discovery Institute, in his guest column Friday, quoted an article in a leading biology journal as purported support for his view that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary science ought to be presented in biology textbooks. I am the author of the article he quoted (but did not properly cite) and I am writing to make it absolutely clear that West is gravely mistaken in taking the excerpted sentence out of its full context.

It is very misleading of West to try to derive legitimacy for his mission by scouring the scientific literature for a phrase or sentence and then attaching a meaning that was not intended and would be far different if read in the entirety of the work or related work by the same author. The intent of West and the Discovery Institute is to recast legitimate scientific inquiry into the causes and mechanisms of evolution as doubt about the process of evolution.

There is plenty more to understand about 3 billion years of life's history, but the basic fact we share common ancestors with other apes, indeed with all animal life, is not one of them.

West, citing my article, wrote, ''In 2000, for example, an article in the journal Cell noted that there is a 'long-standing question of the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms observed at or below the species level (''microevolution'') to account for the larger-scale patterns of morphological evolution (''macroevolution'').' Yet this 'long-standing question' about neo-Darwinism isn't covered in most textbooks. Why not?''

The implication West asserts is that my phrasing ''long-standing question'' implies some doubt. Rather the meaning is that this is a question being actively explored. We know, for example, that mass extinctions caused by impact events shape evolution; this is not what would traditionally be in the realm of the category of microevolution. Yet my article was actually about the genetic mechanisms underlying the evolution of large-scale differences between species (macroevolution).

Furthermore, I answered this question in the article, as well as in subsequent articles in the leading journal Nature and in a leading textbook were that indeed, the genetic processes operating at the level of individuals and species are sufficient to account for evolution of form at higher levels. West chose not to quote any of the remainder of the article or other work by me as they would completely destroy his case.

West and the Discovery Institute preach fairness, so if they are going to selectively quote a scientist it is only fair that the scientist's actual views are fully disclosed.

While the Discovery Institute's feeble challenges to the immense body of science underlying evolutionary biology presents no substantive scientific issue, its political and religious aspirations are very real issues. As happened in Kansas, Ohio and several other states, the Discovery Institute has sought to influence school science standards and textbook content in Texas. Its appeal to citizens' sense of fairness masks an agenda that would undermine the quality of science education in this country and introduce a thinly veiled religious doctrine as ''science.''

Scores of scientific organizations, the National Academy of Sciences and many school boards have rebuffed this agenda. I hope that state and local authorities in Texas will do the same.

Sean B. Carroll,
Investigator
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor, molecular biology and genetics
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wis.

Institute pushes conservative views

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2181777,00.html

August 14, 2003

Editor:

On July 30, you printed an opinion piece by Terry Maxwell, who discussed the Discovery Institute's attempt to force its views on creationism (disguised as ''intelligent design'') into Texas' high school biology textbooks.

John G. West, associate director of the Discovery Institute, responded Friday by saying Maxwell had misrepresented the institute by implying it was trying to get its religious views included in our biology classes. According to West, all the Discovery Institute wants is ''good'' science taught in our classrooms and in no way does it want religion inserted into science classes.

I attended the July State Board of Education hearings and I believe that Maxwell has accurately captured the essence of the debate. The Discovery Institute is an obvious front for a conservative religious view and, West's disclaimers notwithstanding, has no interest in ensuring that Texas high schoolers get a world class education.

Rather, from the testimony at the SBOE by the institute's representatives, it is quite clear that a conservative religious view was being pushed at the expense of good science. (If your readers really want to know what West's agenda is, all they need to do is look up his credentials posted on his very own Web site.)

What was sadder was the fact there was not one scientifically literate member on the SBOE and they paid blatant homage to the institute's spokespersons while, at the same time, ignoring the testimony of world class professors from various universities here in Texas who happened to support the teaching of evolution.

Oak H. DeBerg
Boerne

Editor:

John West complained about Terry Maxwell's discussion of the Texas textbook adoption controversy in Friday's Standard-Times.

He wrote, ''If the original peppered moth experiments had turned out to be valid, not even 'creationists' would object. The real issue is accurate science. The original peppered moth experiments have been discredited in the scientific community, and so they should not be presented uncritically as proof for Darwin's mechanism of natural selection.''

Yet scientists overwhelmingly concur that (1) colors of moths fluctuate with amounts of background pollution (dark moths are more common when high levels of pollution stains the surfaces on which they rest and light moths predominate when pollution levels are low); (2) the mechanism for this change is natural selection; and (3) the most probable cause is higher bird predation of moths contrasting against their backgrounds.

So what's going on here? Are scientists all blind to the ''original'' ''discredited'' studies? Well, not exactly.

First, note the repetition of ''original peppered moth experiments.'' West would like you to believe that all we have to go on are experiments done 50 years ago (which actually are not ''discredited'' as claimed). The conclusions listed above are based on repeated studies by scores of investigators on three continents that all point to the same conclusion: Moth color changes are an excellent, understandable example of natural selection. Textbooks present this information - and should.

Let's not get hung up on red herrings like ''original experiments'' as if that were the most important issue. The issue, to repeat, is accurate science, which the Discovery Institute is not famous for. Jonathan Wells' book ''Icons of Evolution,'' cited by West, is a particularly egregious example, as can be seen in scathing reviews it has received in Science and Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journals, and also detailed at http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/.

Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
Executive director
National Center for Science Education Inc.
Oakland, Calif.

Maxwell column had it right

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2186743,00.html

August 16, 2003

Editor:

Like many Americans, I'm interested in Texas' schoolbook choices.

I was amazed to read John West's guest column attacking Angelo State professor Terry Maxwell's sensible column on science textbooks. West, a political writer for a political pressure group, may not know that just about everything he said is wrong. But it is.

West's group is called the Discovery Institute. West praises a book attacking science, but fails to disclose that the author, Jonathan Wells, is a Discovery Institute operative too. Does West not know that the book has been thoroughly discredited, as Maxwell states?

See for instance the articles at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/ and the National Center for Science Education: http:// www.ncseweb.org.

West says the Discovery Institute does not promote creationism. The institute is known for promoting ''intelligent design,'' aka intelligent design creationism. However, intelligent design creationism has no content that the Discovery Institute will stand behind for teaching purposes.

It's bait and switch - instead they ask Texas to teach ordinary incorrect anti-science claims. That is - precisely - what used to be called ''scientific creationism.'' That term has been disowned as a political liability, but the content and intent remain. Maxwell is right again.

As Maxwell said, the Discovery Institute objected to the Texas SBOE about the photos used to illustrate certain moths, and implied this is a big scientific problem. Back in the heyday of coal, some regions were blackened with soot. The photos properly show the visibility of dark and light moths in different regions.

Maxwell is right, which is not surprising since the issue is which moths are more likely to be eaten by birds in different areas, and Maxwell is an expert in the subject.

But this is one of the Discovery Institute's pressure points. So West goes blithely on and accuses him of defending ''junk science.''

Methinks West's version is ''political science.''

Pete Dunkelberg
Orlando, Fla.

Institute known for pseudoscience

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2186741,00.html

August 16, 2003

In a recent guest column, John West has employed one of creationists' favorite gimmicks, the out-of-context quote ploy. West offered a badly edited quote to an unreferenced article to suggest that there is some sort of dark secret being hidden from Texas schoolchildren.

The article in question was in fact by Sean B. Carroll, ''Endless forms: The evolution of gene regulation and morphological diversity.'' Cell 101:577-580 (2000).

What is dishonest in West's misappropriation of Carroll's words is that Carroll is not challenging evolutionary theory at all. West is hoping that few Texans will realize that Carroll's research is focused on the different evolutionary consequences of mutation (meaning any genetic change) in genes that build parts of cells from mutations in genes that control what other genes do.

West mentions his associate Jonathan Wells, and says that that Wells received a doctorate, implying that Wells is a scientist. What he didn't mention is that Wells, like West, is a professional science denier employed by the Discovery Institute.

Nor does West tell you Wells entered the study of biology following his ordination by the Unification Church founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Under the influence of Moon, Wells determined that he should devote his life ''to destroying Darwinism,'' and not the pursuit of knowledge we commonly associate with higher education.

Wells writes, ''When Father (Moon) chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.'' 2002 ''Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.'' True Parents Organization. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm.

Readers may see for themselves why Wells is wrong about all his criticisms by consulting the following Web pages in addition to the many refutations in general science journal reviews: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/, http:/www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm and the reviews at http://www.ncseweb.org

There is an important difference between journal articles and textbooks. Journals are where scientific arguments are held. In fact, authors often introduce their work as an answer to some scientific question or other. Commonly, the authors present the magnitude of the problem as strongly as possible.

This tendency plays right in to the hands of anti-science activists like West and Wells who quote the ''problem'' and ignore the solution. Textbooks are counted on to provide the scientific consensus viewpoint and are therefore more conservative in their presentation.

Gary S. Hurd, Ph.D.
Viejo California Associate

Darwinism critics have viable view

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2190177,00.html

August 18, 2003

Editor:

In his letter to the editor Thursday, Oak H. DeBerg made the completely audacious claim that those who testified at the July 9 State Board of Education hearings on behalf of textbook accuracy in the biological sciences were pushing ''a conservative religious view . . . at the expense of good science.''

Because I am one of those who testified, I can assure you that DeBerg is making this up out of whole cloth.

In my testimony I offered the uncontroversial suggestion that textbooks that address the topic of evolution offer to their readers, the state's students, accurate portrayals of current scientific data as well as thoughtful questions that have been raised against the Darwinian paradigm by credentialed scholars whose works have been published by university press monographs and in peer-reviewed periodicals.

As I have pointed out in my latest monograph, ''Law, Darwinism & Public Education'' (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003) and three recent law review articles, in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, and San Diego Law Review, offering arguments critical of Darwinism, or even scientific alternatives to it, in a public school science classroom is not religious as long as the lesson plans rely exclusively on publicly accessible, or secular, reasons.

In fairness to DeBerg, perhaps he is suggesting that it is ''a conservative view'' for the SBOE to require that Texas schools offer scientifically accurate textbooks that include new and provocative arguments by leading scholars. But I would not say such a thing, for all decent citizens - including liberal secular ones - want to advance the cause of truth and accuracy in our school curricula and texts.

Francis J. Beckwith,
M.J.S., Ph.D.
Associate professor of Church-state studies
Associate director,
J. M. Dawson
Institute of Church-State Studies
Baylor University

Evolutionist overreacts

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2190181,00.html

August 18, 2003

Editor:

Unfortunately, evolutionist Sean Carroll does not appear to have actually read the guest column by John G. West he so furiously attacked in his letter Wednesday. Carroll falsely accused West of citing an article by Carroll ''as purported support for his view that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary science ought to be presented in biology textbooks.''

In fact, West in his article never advocated that ''alternatives to contemporary evolutionary science . . . be presented in biology textbooks.'' Still less did he imply that Carroll's article advocated such a view. West merely urged that clear errors in textbook presentations of evolution should be corrected, and that ''students should be exposed to legitimate scientific (not religious) controversies over evolutionary theory.''

Carroll's article was cited on one point and one point only - to show that even evolutionists concede there is a legitimate scientific debate over whether microevolutionary processes can be extrapolated to explain macroevolution. Carroll acknowledged the existence of such a debate in the quote cited by West, and later in his article he even called it ''one of the longest running debates in evolutionary biology.''

It is preposterous to claim that West somehow misrepresented Carroll by simply pointing out Carroll's own admission. West's larger argument, to which Carroll does not reply, is that students ought to be able to read about such scientific debates in their textbooks.

Rather than answer West's real argument, Carroll invented a straw man to attack. In what has become a standard ploy among Darwin activists, Carroll tried to silence legitimate debate with an unfounded character attack. How ironic it is that Carroll resorted to a spurious charge of misquotation when he is the one engaging in wholesale misrepresentation.

Rob Crowther
Discovery Institute
Seattle, Wash.

Science depends on rigorous review

http://www.gosanangelo.com/sast/news_opinion_letters/article/0,1897,SAST_10318_2201627,00.html

August 22, 2003

Editor:

In his Aug. 8 guest column, Dr. John West indicated that the motive for the entry of the Discovery Institute into the debate regarding science textbooks to be used in Texas is purely to ensure that students are being taught good science. Certainly that is a noble goal and one that all science educators can endorse.

However, I think that the actions and motives of West and the Discovery Institute deserve a bit more consideration. Despite West's assertion regarding the motives of the Discovery Institute, the institute's Web site (http://www.discovery.org/crsc) clearly shows that the goal of the Discovery Institute is the inclusion of the theory of intelligent design in all public and private science education.

In attempting to be certain that students are taught good science, we must remember that ''science'' is not merely a body of systematized knowledge, but is also a process.

Scientific knowledge is arrived at through a process of formulating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses and presenting those results in publications that are reviewed by other scientists and are widely read by other scientists. Once a hypothesis has been published, other scientists will conduct other tests of that hypothesis and will also publish results that either support or refute that hypothesis. This process results in a dynamic body of knowledge that is subject to change as new results are presented.

However, it also results in a body of knowledge that is widely accepted (by scientists) because it consists of explanations that have been repeatedly tested and supported. Some scientific hypotheses have such broad ramifications that they are tested repeatedly and in many different forms. If these hypotheses are widely supported during that testing, they achieve the status of a ''theory'' and are generally accepted as the correct explanation for a given phenomenon.

The Discovery Institute claims that intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be given (at least) equal emphasis as materialistic evolution. However, instead of presenting this hypothesis and verifiable results to support this hypothesis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the proponents of intelligent design have chosen to advance their hypothesis by attacking the theory of evolution.

This is not the way that science works. You cannot develop a good scientific explanation by attacking someone else's explanation. You must present the evidence for your theory in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Intelligent design is not taught as a scientific theory and is not included in science textbooks because it has not been presented and supported through the process we use to arrive at scientific explanations.

In his column, West accuses Dr. Terry Maxwell of displaying ''closed-minded dogmatism'' and on this point I must agree with West. I am also going to be closed-minded and dogmatic, and so are many other scientists and educators. We are going to insist that the science taught to our children is that body of knowledge that has been achieved through the scientific process. We are going to insist information (including the theory of intelligent design) that has not undergone the trial by systematized doubt of the peer-reviewed publication process not be included in science text books.

J. Kelly McCoy
Associate professor,
Department head
Biology Department
Angelo State University