Draft outline for ASA THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN TEXAS - - PDF document

Draft outline for ASA THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

Ide P. Trotter, Ph. D

ASA 2014 Annual Meeting

This paper starts with reactivation of interest in the press, covers the review process, the review of the review and asks the obvious questions as to where we go from here that are raised by this.

THE BOOK

Peareson’s Miller Levine is one of the most popular high school biology texts. Where it is good it is really quite

good….but where it is not it’s outdated. Or that is what I contended in my review. Each reader can reach their own conclusion.

THE PRESS

The March 2014 Texas Monthly headlined “The Textbook Wars Are Over.” The article was titled “The Evolution of the Specious” which should give an unmistakable impression of the balance of its treatment. So, if in the mind of the writer, Tom Bartlett, the war was over let’s look at what NSCE and TFN fed him that led to him to that conclusion. He attributed the end to “three experts…” who ”struck down an attempt to insert doubt about evolution into a high school biology textbook” by ”preventing CREATIONISTS from having any voice in how the origin of life is presented.” In Bartlett’s understanding ”Science didn’t just win. It crushed.” It was a good old Texas SMACKDOWN! Is that what it was? The balance of this presentation is intended to let each reader draw his own conclusions. First, let’s look at the implicit logic of these assertions. Note first, the focus is on CREATIONISTS who were

• prevented. The reader is expected to accept the implication that the motives and competence of

CREATIONISTS are suspect from the outset. In circles where the term CREATIONIST is used in this way it is understood to be an all-purpose derogation. Second, the mechanism the CREATIONISTS chose to insert doubt abut evolution was somehow related to addressing the origin of life. Coincidentally, Origin of Life was my focus when I first got involved with TX Biology textbook issues in 2004 but not this time.

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

• THE BOOK

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

THE TEXTBOOK WARS ARE OVER

By Tom Bartlett

• THE PRESS

March 2014 Texas Monthly

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

• Texas Monthly Article “Evolution of the Specious”
• What ended the war?
• According to Texas Monthly it was, “three experts….”
• What did they do?
• ”struck down an attempt to insert doubt about

evolution into a high school biology textbook”

• How did they do it?
• ”preventing CREATIONISTS from having any voice in

how the origin of life is presented”

• ”Science didn’t just win. It crushed.”
• Let’s See

Texas Monthly’s article averred that “three experts” ”struck down an attempt to insert doubt about evolution into a high school biology textbook” by ”preventing CREATIONISTS from having any voice in how the

• rigin of life is presented.”

That seems peculiar since origin of life was not among the 20 “errors” in

• dispute. Indeed, the Miller Levine text in the section on Origin of Life quotes

Harvard Nobel Laureate Jack Szostak as follows, -“the exact circumstances of the origin of life may be forever lost to science.” Certainly creationists should have no problem with that statement. However, the text avoids touching on any of the scientific barriers that have to be crossed before a chemical path to life can

• identified. In that respect Pearson’s Campbell Reece is a little better in that it does touch on some of the

critical issues; chirality, polymerization and protein folding.

OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION

I will outline the SBOE textbook review procedures, provide background on the

reviewers selected to critique the errors I identified, cover a few

• f the errors and the way the publisher and the lead reviewer attempted

to refute them, the lead reviewer’s interestingly qualified final smackdown email and conclude with a quick look at some issues deserving additional thought. Before proceeding I think it will be helpful to quickly review our Executive Director, Randy Issacs, thoughts on a reasonable review of textbooks with which I am in complete agreement.

Scientific textbooks need to be reviewed/revised to remove aspersions on religion and on metaphysical speculation presented as science. Textbooks should reflect the dominant scientific understanding at the time of writing appropriate to the level. “Controversial” perspectives need to be addressed only when a substantial portion of the scientific community acknowledges a real controversy; minority views will always exist and need not be covered in textbooks.

BACKGROUND - SBOE History

Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) had in various standards required that the strengths and weaknesses of all theories, not just evolution, be covered. In 2009 the misnamed National Center for Science Education and Texas Freedom Network, orchestrated a campaign to replace Texas’ “strengths and weaknesses” requirement, but only with regard to evolution. After some embarrassing criticism the campaign was expanded to all theories. As a result the SBOE adopted new standards in 2009 (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, TEKS) essentially replacing “strengths and weaknesses” with a requirement to “Analyze and Evaluate “all theories. The evolution lobby subsequently attacked the 2009 standards. If they were followed questions as to the adequacy 20th century thinking that some form of random process could explain the origin and diversity of life would be appropriate. I covered that in detail in a previous ASA paper. Interestingly, Ken Miller, one of the authors of the text I reviewed, had previously used the terminology, “strengths and weaknesses.” When criticized for this by NSCE he responded that he only mentioned it in the prior edition to meet “the literal standard requiring strengths and weaknesses.” This is the “scavenger hunt” approach to TEKS compliance. If the

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

• Texas Monthly Article “Evolution of the Specious”
• Texas Monthly asserted CREATIONIST’S concern was
• ”how the origin of life is presented”
• Texas Monthly completely missed the target
• Origin of Life was not even one of the errors cited
• Miller Levine text on Origin of Life Quotes Harvard Nobel

Laureate Jack Szostak

• “the exact circumstances of the origin of life may be

forever lost to science”

• Should “Creationists” have a problem with that?
• Text does gloss over science behind Szostak’s thought

OVER VIEW OF PRESENTATION

• BACKGROUND
• Texas SBOE Textbook Review Procedures
• Reviewers of the Reviews
• 20 Errors: Only time to cover a few identified and

some of Pearson’s and Reviewer’s Defense

• Regression-Backward from 2004 Edition
• Stagnation-Behind 20th Century Understanding

Molecular Systematics and the “Tree of Life” Evolutionary theory The Cambrian Explosion

• Obfuscation-Internal Inconsistency
• THE SMACKDOWN

EVALUATING MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY -2015 Edition

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

• BACKGROUND - SBOE Procedures
• Adopts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
• Strengths and Weaknesses- NSCE, TFN Fought
• Contained in standards for Two Decades
• 2009-TEKS Analyze, Evaluate & Critique vs. S&W
• New Legislation – Only 50% of TEKS Required
• Retained Requirement - No Factual Errors
• Scientific textbooks need to be reviewed/revised to

remove aspersions on religion and on metaphysical speculation presented as science.

• Textbooks should reflect the dominant scientific

understanding at the time of writing appropriate to the level.

• “Controversial” perspectives need to be addressed
• nly when a substantial portion of the scientific

community acknowledges a real controversy; minority views will always exist and need not be covered in textbooks. A Reasonable View of Textbook Critiques

By Randy Isaac

words in the TEKS can be found in the text the standard is met. This was reported in the June 12, 2009 issue of Science where he was asked how he would cope with the new standards. The need to follow the TEKS was essentially eliminated when the Texas legislature adopted a new requirement that texts need not meet more than 50% of the TEKS. So, as far as the TEKS are concerned there is no reason for a beginning high school text be consistent with current understanding. However, the requirement that texts not contain factual errors remained. For this reason I identified and documented from the scientific literature 20 factual errors in my review. It will help in following the entire story to look at the intended SBOE textbook review process and how it actually worked out. The plan was to have multiple, independent reviewers who would convene for a week in Austin to thoroughly compare the reviews and harmonize a consensus evaluation. It turned out that there were more items to review than reviewers so the bulk of the time in Austin was devoted to a quick review of previously unreviewed materials. My team had about two days to work on Miller Levine and harmonize a position on TEKS coverage. As a result my factual errors were quickly looked at and largely passed though in the team report. Now let’s turn to the subsequent step, the reviewers of the review, primarily the factual errors. In the previous cycle the Texas Education Agency let a contract to the Texas A&M Dept. of Biology to evaluate the challenges to the textbook content. In this cycle the SBOE, which had a roughly two thirds liberal to one third conservative composition decided to let each camp pick reviewers in proportion to their representation. The “experts”

• Arturo De Lozanne, Dept of Biology, Univ. of TX
• Asso. Prof., Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology
• Dr. Lozanne is an expert on the cells garbage disposal system, the
• lysosome. He and I are well acquainted, having participated in hours of

taping for the documentary on the Texas biology textbook review process, “The Revisionaries”

• Vincent Cassone. Prof and Head, Biology, Univ of KY
• Supervised TAMU contract that supported some changes in 2004 Biology Texts
• Dr. Cassone is well known for his outstanding work on biological clocks.

He and I are well acquainted, having served on a committee together at Texas A&M

(Many ASA members will remember the movie with Ben Stein, “No Intelligence Allowed” that covered how Dr. Richard Sternberg was forced out of his position for having allowed publication of an honest assessment of the evidence. So you can see how a desire for professional reputation or job security might cause the any biologist to think twice before being seen to support revisions suggested by “outsiders.”)

• Ron Wetherington, Professor of Evo Anthropology,
• Author - Readings in the History of Evolutionary-Theory Selections from Primary Sources
• Author - Understanding Human Evolution (1992)
• Received NCSE’s 2010 Friends of Darwin award along with Univ. of Texas Biology Prof

David Hillis, for among other things, their efforts before the SBOE. Prof. Hillis is noted for his testimony before the SBOE as to the unassailability of the “Tree of Life” the same week that the New Scientist cover story was, “Darwin is Dead: Cutting Down the Tree of Life.”

• THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK

SMACKDOWN

• BACKGROUND - SBOE Procedures
• Solicits reviewers for in depth reviews of texts
• Convenes reviewers for a week to harmonize reviews
• More books than reviewers-assigned to convened teams
• Left only two days to critique and harmonize reviews
• My more fully documented “factual errors” retained

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

• Texas Monthly Article “Evolution of the Specious”

Who were “three experts….” who “crushed?”

• Arturo De Lozanne, Dept of Biology, Univ. of TX
• Asso. Prof., Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology
• Vincent Cassone. Prof and Head, Biology, Univ of KY
• Supervised TAMU contract vetting 2004 Biology Texts
• Ron Wetherington, Professor of Evo Anthropology, SMU
• Author - Readings in the History of Evolutionary Theory
• Recipient- NCSE Friends of Darwin award 2010
• As quoted in the NY Times, "Ronald Wetherington, …who has

already looked over Mr. Trotter’s complaints, described them as “non sequiturs and irrelevant.” “It was simply a morass of pseudoscientific objections,” he said."

• Dr. Wetherington and I know each other very well and have been involved on these issues for more than a decade. He is

regularly involved in proclaiming the validity of a “theory of evolution” he never discusses in molecular terms. I was involved in a three-hour interview debating these issues with him for National Public Radio. At that time he seemed to be at a loss to answer challenges from molecular biology that are becoming more frequent in the peer reviewed literature that I presented in the interview and included in my critique of the book in question.

As quoted in the NY Times he made his views quite clear. "Ronald Wetherington, a professor of evolutionary anthropology at Southern Methodist University

who has already looked over Mr. Trotter’s complaints, described them as “non sequiturs and irrelevant.” “It was simply a morass of pseudoscientific objections,” Dr. Wetherington said."

Wetherington appeared to take the lead in coordinating and transmitting the “consensus” of the trio’s “unanimous support for the original Pearson text with no recommendations for changes.” Therefore, I’ll focus on his detailed comments on the errors I identified. As I will confirm later, I find it illuminating that Wetherington’s wording of the consensus report avoided stating explicitly that there were no factual errors in the textbook.

During Prof. Wethereington’s 2009 testimony during SBOE hearings on standards he:

• Testified - regarding human origins "arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of

any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils”

• Testified- “we know…Sahelanthropus tchadensis….qualifies as a transitional form leading to

humans”

Some places Miller Levine seems better than the “expert”

In contrast to Wetherington’s testimony the Miller Levine Biology presents a more up to date understanding of the fossil record leading up to our species.

• Text – “human evolution...once …simple hominine

“family tree” with single main trunk…now more like shrub with multiple trunks”

• Text – There are, “several competing hypotheses about how these species are

related.”

And it doesn’t stop there. Recall Wetherington’s testimony that “we know…Sahelanthropus

tchadensis….qualifies as a transitional form leading to humans”

Miller Levine’s Figure 26-19 clearly shows a several million year gap between the fossil group including Sahelanthropus tchadensis and the fossil group now recognized to be more closely associated with homo sapiens. This depiction appears to be much more representative of the current consensus than Dr. Wetherington’s “expert” testimony. Having established the qualifications of the review team let’s return to the specific

THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN

• Texas Monthly Article “Evolution of the Specious”

Some places Miller Levine seems better than the “expert”

• Ron Wetherington-testifying on human evolution in 2009
• Human origins have "arguably the most complete sequence
• f fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No

lack of transitional fossils”

• Text – “human evolution...once …simple hominine “family

tree” with single main trunk…now more like shrub with multiple trunks”

• Text – There are, “several competing hypotheses about how

these species are related.”

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Approach to Specific “Factual Errors”

• What problem did the reviewer cite?
• How did Pearson defend Miller Levine treatment?
• support Pearson’s defense?
• Compare better treatment in Pearson’s Campbell Reece

“Factual Errors” to be addressed. 1) What were some of the errors were identified for the SBOE? 2) How did Pearson respond in defense of the Miller Levine treatment? 3) How did Wetherington respond in defense of Pearson’s defense? 4) How was the same matter treated in Pearson’s Campbell Reece? 5) What supporting material might appropriately bear on the matter?

RETURNING TO THE BOOK

Mostly well written, illustrated and up to date with regard to biological function. However, the treatment of evolution in particular is limited to outdated views at the expense of current understanding.

Regression

Where is the 2015 Edition is a step backward from the 2004 Edition? Definition of Evolution 2004 Edition: ”Change in a kind of organism over time” 2005 Edition: ”Change in a kind of organism over time” Pearson did not defend this change. Weatherington did not defend this change. Pearson’s Campbell Reece “Descent with modification” Molecular and Taxonomic Conflict 2004 Edition: student is instructed to see that, “The anatomical and molecular data do not agree.” 2005 Edition: student is told to “conclude how closely related organisms are.”

• Specific Error cited:

– Stating Molecular Analysis “improves accuracy” – Accuracy of what? Degree of Relatedness Declines – Clades ad nauseam without cladistics – Ignores Cladistic Consistency Indices, Likelihood

Pearsons’s 2004 Edition includes an exercise showing a comparison of “Amino Acid Sequences of Cytochrome C” for six animals including humans. The teachers edition states the student is to see that, “The anatomical and molecular data

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Change in Glossary Definition of Evolution

• 2004 Edition’s Definition of Evolution

– “Change in kind of organisms over time”

• Proposed 2015 Edition’s Definition of Evolution

– “Change in kind of organisms over time”

• Pearson – no defense offered for change
• Wetherington – no comment
• Pearson’s Campbell Reece “Descent with modification”

Where the 2004 Edition was superior

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

• 2004 Edition

– Compared Amino Acid Sequences of Cytochrome C – Student instructed to see, “Anatomical and molecular data do not agree”

• 2015 Proposed Edition

– , “Analyzing Homology in .” – – instructed to “conclude how closely related .” Where the 2004 Edition was superior Anatomical and Molecular Comparisons

do not agree.”(p865) Pearson’s 2015 textbook replaces that with an exercise, “Analyzing Homology in Hoxc8.”(p470) The exercise has been selected to show an instance of concordance rather than the discordance the student was instructed see in the 2004 Edition. The student is instructed to “conclude how closely related organisms are.” Reviewer’s specific comment.” The introductory paragraph in 16.4 "Evidence of Evolution" titled, "THINK ABOUT IT" is quite misleading. It does mention molecular biology but by and large the implication from molecular biology insofar as "evidence" is concerned is missing from this text. As discussed elsewhere, issues raised by discordance in molecular and taxonomic trees at least got acknowledgement in the 2004 Editon, see p 865. This specifically contrasts with the treatment of the "Molecular Homology of in Hoxc8" which attempts to support the factual error that molecular systematics fully support previously developed taxonomic trees. Given this omission and the degrading of definition of evolution from that in the 2004 Edition it is not just misleading but dishonest to say in this introductory paragraph that, "Astonishingly, every scientific test has supported Darwin's basic ideas about evolution." What is astonishing is that this text that does so well in presenting recent molecular understanding of the design and function of so many complex biological systems goes so far to

• bscure the evolution of evolutionary theory after mid 20th century. This is really an indirect

denial of the point which TEKS 2 (C) (v) is asking to be covered.”

Where the 2004 Edition was superior

Anatomical and Molecular Comparisons

• Pearson’s Response

– Did not address the switch between the editions – “Not a contradiction of basic ideas about evolution”

• Wetherington

– Did not address the switch between the editions – “another rant that is irrelevant to the referenced page”

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Pearson ignored the primary problem of a reversal in what the student was expected to see. Pearson, “The reviewer seems to take issue with our statement that “every scientific test Has supported Darwin's basic ideas about evolution,” and claims that we have been both “misleading” and “dishonest.” The reviewer’s observation of discordance between molecular and taxonomic trees is not a contradiction of “basic ideas about evolution,” but merely a reflection of the fact that newer, more powerful tools have altered our understanding of the relationships of living organisms by making them more accurate.”

In a related response regarding page 521, Pearson’s response notes that the text describes “a specific situation in which DNA characters were used to produce a more accurate taxonomy of American and African vultures.” No

• ne would dispute the relatedness of American and African

vultures, and the notion that DNA can be used to construct a more accurate tree in that case is uncontroversial. But the text fails to discuss the numerous instances where the DNA evidence could not be resolved into the classical tree, or where the data had strong non-treelike signals that led to conflicting trees. Wetherington didn’t get the reversal point either: “This is still another rant that is irrelevant to the referenced page and certainly is no “factual error”! Wetherington somehow appears to argue that if I didn’t specifically mention the page (470) on which the “Analyzing Homology in Hoxc8” discussion appears he’s not obligated to defend the regression.

DNA Classification and the “Tree” Page 521: My original critique

Pearson’s response:

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

• Specific Error cited:

– States Molecular Analysis “improves accuracy” – Accuracy of what? Likelihood of Relatedness Declines – Fig. 18-18 Tree of Life; “Latest Hypothesis” with sequential branches – Elsewhere presents clade after clade, but without cladistics – Ignores Cladistic Consistency Indices, Likelihood

• Pearson’s response: Citing a lone example from the text

– Molecular analysis led to more accurate placement of American and African vultures

• Wetherington – “another rant”
• Campbell Reece –”Systematists can never be sure of finding the

most accurate tree” –”Trees with Different Likelihoods” Anatomical and Molecular Comparisons -Analysis

. “ Eroneously states "use of DNA characters…..has helped to make evolutionary trees more

accurate." Actually in many cases systematic DNA analysis has failed to conform to prior taxonomic trees and suggests further work is required to establish evolutionary sequences. An acceptable statement would be "use of DNA characters…..has indicated a need to rethink some previously developed taxonomic trees." To quote from Philip Ball in "Nature" 496, 419–420, (25 April 2013) 1 "in molecular evolution, old arguments, for instance about the importance of natural selection and random drift in driving genetic change, are now colliding with questions about non-coding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory. It is not yet clear which new story to tell...When the structure of DNA was first deduced, it seemed to supply the final part of a beautiful puzzle, the solution for picture has proved too alluring.”

I provided a rebuttal that cited over 10 supporting references that were apparently not provided to the “experts.” I particularly liked The way New Scientist put it: “For a long time the holy grail was

to build a tree of life … But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” “ Pearson’s own Campbell Reece “Biology” provides a much better presentation of the scientific

• status. See page 553 “Some scientists have argued…….the early history of life should be represented

as a tangled network of connected branches – not a simple, dichotomously branching tree. Others have suggested that relationships among early organisms are best represented by a ring, not a tree.” And they provided a ring figure Campbell Reece –”Systematists can never be sure of finding the most accurate tree” –”Trees with Different Likelihoods”

Similar to Keith Miller’s statement in addressing the “metaphor” of the Tree of Life noted in PCSF for June this year2, “two sister groups commonly resemble each other more than the descendant relatives resemble the ancestors of their clade. As a result, placing these organisms in their correct monophyletic groups can be very difficult.” Stagnation– Seen where the 2015 Edition presents an

• utdated 20th Century understanding of evolution

Evo theory The Important Issue: Does the text adequately present the current state of evolutionary theory

Is Current Understanding Adequately Presented

• 20 pages on development of early Darwinian theory
• The neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not mentioned

– Gould, 1980, neo-Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”

• Punctuated Equilibrium

– Given only two paragraphs on page 549 and some other mentions

• Epigenitics

– Not found anywhere

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Locked in a 20th Century Understanding of Evolutionary Theory

“The text on this page is correct, and does not need to be changed. The complete sentence from the text is: “The use of DNA characters in cladistic analysis has helped to make evolutionary trees more accurate.” The text then goes on to describe a specific situation in which DNA characters were used to produce a more accurate taxonomy of American and African vultures. The reviewer does not dispute the accuracy of the text, but cites a 2013 review article pointing out that non-coding RNA, epigenetics, and genomic networks should also be considered in the study of molecular evolution. We agree that these new findings are important, but they do not affect the accuracy of our description of the ways in which DNA sequences have been used to update and correct taxonomic trees.”

Specific Issue One: The statement that “every scientific test has supported Darwin's basic ideas about evolution,” Reviewers Complete Comment on p466: PARAGRAPH "The Age of the Earth" PRESENTS A VERY OUTDATED VIEW. Even up to the middle of the 20th century the available fossil record made a long drawn out and gradual evolutionary process seen to adequately fit the data. Now abundant data make it clear that evolution appears to occur in short periods of time, geologically speaking. The biggest known evolutionary event, The Cambrian Explosion, took on the order of only 10 million years or less. Following Eldridge and Gould the default understanding has become stasis followed by rapid appearance, Punctuated Equilibrium. That this book has failed to make the move to a 21st century understanding of the fossil record is made clear by statements that no longer are relevant such as an "Earth about 4.5 billion years old-which allows plenty of time for evolution." This can be seen by the elaborate treatment of the development of early Darwinian theory, almost 20 pages, pp 448 to 467, which is certainly an interesting example of how evolutionary science developed. The dated nature of the presentation is further reflected by the weakness of treatment of where evolutionary science is today. The Cambrian explosion is buried in only two paragraphs on page 753. Punctuated Equilibrium is given only two paragraphs on page 549 and these represent either an unbelievable uninformed understanding of the current view of the prevalence of stasis and sudden appearance

• r a deliberate attempt to avoid letting students know about the challenges that are making the advance of evolutionary

theory so exciting today. The Neo Darwinian Synthesis doesn’t appear in either the Glossary or the Index.

Excerpted: This issue can be seen by comparing the elaborate treatment of the development of early Darwinian theory, almost 20 pages, (pp 448 to 467, which is certainly an interesting example of that aspect of how evolutionary science developed.) with the limited treatment of only a few of later developments. To make clear how outdated the treatment of evolutionary theory is the neo-Darwinian Synthesis which dominated evolutionary theory for much of the last half of the 20th century isn’t mentioned and doesn’t appear in either the Glossary or the Index. Punctuated Equilibrium gets only two paragraphs with a very misleading figure, (Fig. 19-9) Epigenetics is nowhere to be seen.

Pearson’s response: The reviewer’s comments on the

“Neo Darwinian Synthesis” are not relevant, since this concept is not called for in the TEKS, and applies to an

• lder understanding of the evolutionary process.

Wetherington again misses the central point and does not address the absence of any mention of the Neo Darwinian Synthesis. Pearson’s response at least got the point. Interestingly, Pearson invokes the “Scavenger Hunt” defense also invoked by Ken Miller as reported in the June 12, 2009 issue of Science in justifying to

NSCE his use of “strengths and weaknesses of theories” in the 2004 Edition.

The reviewer seems to take issue with our statement that “every scientific test has supported Darwin's basic ideas about evolution,” and claims that we have been both “misleading” and “dishonest.” The reviewer’s observation of discordance between molecular and taxonomic trees is not a contradiction of “basic ideas about evolution,” but merely a reflection of the fact that newer, more powerful tools have altered our understanding of the relationships of living organisms by making them more accurate. In order to thoroughly convey here, as we have in dozens of other places throughout

• ur text, that evolutionary science is a living and breathing field of study, we are

going to modify the final sentence in this Think About It section to better illustrate that a variety of scientific tests continue to refine our understandings of the mechanisms

• f evolution. We will change the final sentence to the following: "Although it is clear

that a great deal about evolution remains to be learned, every scientific test to-date has supported Darwin’s basic ideas." Weathereington’s and Pearson’s response might have had more substance if they had actually stated exactly what they considered “Darwin’s basic ideas about evolution” to be.

The Important Issue: Should the student see how neo-Darwinism entered the developing understanding of evolution? Specific Issue Two: Neo-Darwinism, the modern synthesis, is neither mentioned nor in the Glossary

Pearson: “The reviewer’s comments on the “Neo Darwinian

Synthesis” are not relevant, since this concept is not called for in the TEKS, and applies to an older understanding of the evolutionary process.” Wetherington does not address the omission

As early as 1980 Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould’s stated his opinion that neo-Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.” While Neo Darwinism is dead it still has an important place in understanding the evolution of evolutionary theory.

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

The neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not mentioned

• Pearson –”not relevant since concept not in TEKS”

– An inverted example of the “scavenger hunt” defense – If words used in the TEKS can be found the TEKS are considered “covered.”

• Ken Miller, as reported in the June 12, 2009 issue of Science,

used the same “scavenger hunt” defense in justifying to NSCE his use of “strengths and and weaknesses of theories” in the 2004 Edition.

• Wetherington – “rant irrelevant to the referenced page”

Locked in a 20th Century Understanding of Evolutionary Theory

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

The neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not mentioned

• Pearson –”not relevant since concept not in TEKS”

– An inverted example of the “scavenger hunt” defense – If words used in the TEKS can be found the TEKS are considered “covered.”

• Ken Miller, as reported in the June 12, 2009 issue of Science,

used the same “scavenger hunt” defense in justifying to NSCE his use of “strengths and and weaknesses of theories” in the 2004 Edition.

• Wetherington – “rant irrelevant to the referenced page”

Locked in a 20th Century Understanding of Evolutionary Theory

The Important Issue: How should evolutionary theory be presented in a basic Biology text? Reviewer’s primary complaint: Text presents an outdated picture of the state of evolutionary theory although Darwin’s original thought and theory are well covered.

Specific Issue Three: Punctuated Equilibrium is misrepresented

Reviewer’s comment to SBOE:

Pearson:” We have previously explained and documented the fact

that punctuated equilibrium does not characterize the whole of the fossil record, so these criticisms are likewise misplaced.”

Pearson “Our text (ML) has accurately presented both models for the mode and tempo of evolutionary change, and no changes are necessary.” Wetherington: “ample evidence for both tempos of evolutionary change” and “The actual relative importance of one over the other remains opinion and not demonstrable fact.” Well, anthropologist Wetherington just repeated Pearson’s “ample evidence for both tempos of evolutionary change” but in "Evolution: A view from the 21st century," (2011) 3, James A. Shapiro, Prof of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Univ. of Chicago, sees the evidence differently, as do many others. See page 144, where he writes about “the kind of episodic and abrupt changes found in both the fossil and genomic record. Indeed, the punctuated equilibrium pattern of Gould and Eldridge should be the default…” The presentation in Pearson’s Miller Levine stands in stark contrast with the statement in Pearson’s Campbell Reece that there are “many episodes in which new species appear suddenly”

Punctuated Equilibrium garbled in only two paragraphs

• Specific Error as Cited

– Punctuation only “Sometimes” or “Now and then”

• Pearson’s defense

– “accurately presented both models for the mode and tempo of evolutionary change”

• Wetherington’s comment

– “no misrepresentation between Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibrium

• Pearson’s own Campbell Reece Biology

– There are “many episodes in which new species appear suddenly”

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Locked in a 20th Century Understanding of Evolutionary Theory

“Punctuated Equilibrium is given only two paragraphs on page 549 and SERIOUSLY MISREPRESENTS THE BALANCE BETWEEN GRADUALISM AND SUDDEN APPEARANCE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. RATHER THAN AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH “Gradualism” AS “sometimes” AND IN PARAGRAPH “ Punctuated Equilibrium” AS “Now and then,” AS THE FOSSIL RECORD IS EXPANDED IT IS BECOMING QUITE CLEAR THAT STASIS FOLLOWED BY SUDDEN APPEARANCE IS THE PREDOMINANT PATTERN.”

The PowerPoint presentation contrasts figures depicting the “pace and tempo” of evolution. Pearson’s Miller Levine makes gradualism look quite similar to punctuated equilibriums sudden appearance followed by and extended period of stasis.

The Important Issue: The age of the earth has nothing to do with the time scale of evolution Specific Issue Four: The pace of evolutionary processes in relation to the fossil record

Text statement challenged: “Earth is about 4.5 billion years

• ld-which provides plenty of time for evolution by natural

selection to take place.” Rreviewer’s comment: 21st Century texts should not contain “statements that no longer are relevant such as an "Earth about 4.5 billion years old-which allows plenty of time for evolution." “ Pearson’s Response at least addresses the point and presents the authors logic for the statement: “Our text properly states that Charles Darwin realized that the evolutionary processes he

• bserved would have taken a very longtime to produce the present diversity of life on Earth.

Darwin himself estimated that such changes might take several hundred million years, and therefore he was disheartened by estimates made by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) and

• thers that the Earth might be no older than 20 million years.”

Full Comments Parson:

We have previously explained and documented the fact that punctuated equilibrium does not characterize the whole of the fossil record, so these criticisms are likewise misplaced. Finally, the reviewer asserts that the rapid diversification of life in the Cambrian took just 10 million years. While such a period might be considered “rapid” in the metaphorical sense of deep time, it is worth noting that the most recent estimates of the Cambrian diversification suggest that it actually took place from 541 to 515 million years before present, a time span of 26 million

• years. (See, for example, Smith & Harper [2013] Causes of the Cambrian Explosion.

Science 341: 1355-1356.)4. However, on page 752 .” We use the word “suddenly” in the geological sense, because the Cambrian Explosion itself occurred over 15 million years!”

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Does the Age of the Earth Relate to the Pace of Evolution?

• Text- “Earth is about 4.5 billion years old-which provides

plenty of time for evolution by natural selection to take place.”

• Pearson – Explained: Darwin “was disheartened by estimates

made by Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) and others that the Earth might be no older than 20 million years.”

• Wetherington -

Missed the point – “This is the very current view of the age of the earth.” – “The polemic-as-commentary of the panel is just a rant.”

Locked in a 20th Century Understanding of Evolutionary Theory

Wetherington misses the point again Wetherington: “ This is the very current view of the age of the earth.” “The polemic-as-commentary

• f the panel is just a rant.”

. The Important Issue - Cambrian Explosion

Specific Issue Five: How Long Was It?

Text (p752) states “many modern multicellular phyla seemed

to appear in the fossil record suddenly during a periodcallec the “Cambrian Explosion.” We use the word “suddenly” in the geological sense, because the Cambrian Explosion itself

• ccurred over 15 million years!”

Text (p753) “animals evolved complex body plans…over

about 10-15 million years”

Review argues – 10 million years is the better estimate

Pearson’s first response: “The reviewer then lists a long series of comments and criticisms that do not apply to the information on this page. Contrary to these comments, the Cambrian “explosion” is not “buried” on a single page (p. 753). It is highlighted on page 560, (ONLY MENTIONED)defined as a period of 54 million years on page 542, (ENTIRE CAMBRIAN ON Fig 19-5) included in extinction data on page 548 (PERIOD BUT NOT EXPLOSION), discussed with respect to plant life

• n page 639 (PERIOD NOT EXPLOSION), and then treated in detail on pages 752 and 753. It is

described again with respect to the origins of Chordates on pages 757, 758, and 759 (MENTION OF PERIOD, NOT EXPLOSION). It is also included in review and discussion questions on pages 756, 775, 776. (INCLUDED BUT NOT PROPERLY DESCRIBED)” Pearson’s second response: Finally, the reviewer asserts that the rapid diversification of life in the Cambrian took just 10 million years. While such a period might be considered “rapid” in the metaphorical sense of deep time, it is worth noting that the most recent estimates of the Cambrian diversification suggest that it actually took place from 541 to 515 million years before present, a time span of 26 million

• years. (See, for example, Smith & Harper [2013] Causes of the Cambrian Explosion.

Science 341: 1355-1356.).

Wetherington - did not respond on the duration issue.

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

The Cambrian Explosion - How Long Was It?

• The text:

– “the Cambrian Explosion itself occurred over 15 million years!”(p752) – “animals evolved complex body plans…over about 10-15 million years” (p753)

• Reviewer argued – 10 million years is the better estimate
• Pearson response– “most recent estimates of the Cambrian diversification

suggest that it actually took place from 541 to 515 million years” ago – Seems a peculiar defense, suggesting 26 rather than 10 to 15

• Wetherington - did not respond on the duration issue.
• Pearson’s Campbell Reece – “535-525 million years ago”

Is Current Understanding of Evolution Adequately Presented

It is difficult to see how Pearson feels citing a reference with A 26 million year explosion supports it’s 10-15. The Important Issue: What Happened?

Specific Issue Six: Did “some” or “most” invertebrate phyla

• riginate in the Cambrian Explosion

The preceding page said “many”… “appear”…”suddenly” The Original Citation: Pearson in a further attempt to defend the text offered this: Wetherington endorses Pearson’s defense based on a 13 year old paper.

It is disappointing to see an attempt to defend a scientific misstatement in 2013 with a thirteen year

• ld citation that argued in part, “It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally

have their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable.” Well, they may have been “questionable” in a few minds 13 years ago but that is certainly not the case now. Douglas Erwin and James Valentine’s definitive 2013 book The Cambrian Explosion explains that “all or nearly all the major phylum-level groups of living animals … had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian”

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

The Cambrian Explosion-What Happened?

• The text - “some” or “many”… invertebrate phyla originate “appear”…”suddenly”
• Reviewer argued – “most” invertebrate phyla originate in the Cambrian Explosion
• Pearson’s response– “The reviewer’s statement is not correct, given the continuing

uncertainty about the nature of many Cambrian fossils.” citing Biological Reviews 75: 253- 295 (2000)

• Wetherington - Parroted Pearson’s response
• Pearson’s Campbell Reece – “Strata..535-525 MYA…half of all phyla”
• Erwin and Valentine’s definitive The Cambrian Explosion (2013) “all or nearly all the major

phylum-level groups of living animals … had appeared by the end of the early Cambrian” Is Current Understanding of Evolution Adequately Presented

The Cambrian explosion is buried in

• nly two paragraphs on page 753. THE STATEMENT IN PARA

"The Cambrian Explosion" THAT "Some Cambrian Fossils are classified as ancient members of modern invertebrate phyla" THE CORRECT STATEMENT WOULD BE "Most Cambrian Fossils....." “The reviewer’s statement is not correct, given the continuing uncertainty about the nature of many Cambrian fossils. We would direct the reviewer’s attention to Budd & Jensen [2000] “A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilateral phyla,” Biological Reviews 75: 253-295. “

Specific Issue Seven: Epigenitics is poorly treated –Minor and incomplete mention on page 409,

• not originally in glossary or index

–Fails to even hint at the ontogenetic information required Obfuscation Pearson won’t fix inconsistency On page 552 Pearson’s textbook states, “About 4.2 billion years ago, Earth cooled enough to allow solid rocks…” (p552) The publisher disputed this by citing an outdated, 2000 article in Nature and argues that I cited no references. Wetherington supported Pearson stating “It is a trivial complaint. Pearson’s response is quite acceptable. In fact it was not a “trivial complaint” but identification of an internal inconsistency. On p 542 under the heading “Geological Time Scale” Figure 19-5, a chart quite similar to that presented by The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), clearly shows the Hadean did indeed end about 4mya. This simple and trivial correction apparently fell afoul of a “make no concession” policy.

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

When did the Hadeqan eon end?

• The text - “About 4.2 billion years ago, Earth cooled enough to allow solid rocks…”

(p552)

• Reviewer argued – Hadean eon ended about 4 billion years ago
• Pearson’s response– “liquid water was on the surface of the primitive earth by

4.3 billion years ago,” Nature 409: 178-181) (2000)

• Wetherington - trivial complaint. Pearson’s response is quite acceptable.
• Pearson’s Campbell Reece – “This phase likely ended 3.9 billion years ago.”(p508)
• International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) shows the Hadean end about 4

billion years ago Simple Clarification Opportunity

Is Current Understanding Adequately Presented

• 20 pages on development of early Darwinian theory
• The neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not mentioned

– Gould, 1980, neo-Darwinism “is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”

• Punctuated Equilibrium

– Given only two paragraphs on page 549 and some other mentions

• Epigenitics

– Minor and incomplete mention on page 409, not in glossary or index – Fails to even hint at the ontogenetic information required

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

Locked in a 20th Century Understanding of Evolutionary Theory

“The reviewer does not cite a reference for his/her assertion that the Earth first cooled at “about 4” billion years ago. Published studies indicate that liquid water was on the surface of the primitive earth by 4.3 billion years ago (Mojzsis et al [2000] Nature 409: 178-181). We note that several estimates exist for when the surface of the Earth first cooled enough to allow for the presence of liquid water, so the text statement that this occurred “About 4.2 billion years ago” is not an error, but just one of many such figures that may be drawn from the literature.”

THE “CRUSH”

• –Frankly, there is an interesting parallel between the thought process of 13 th Century

Pope Boniface VII who banned the practice of cadaver dissection and the collusion of evolutionary theologians to keep the latest understandings of evolutionary biology from raising questions in the minds of students who will go no farther.

Somewhere after the submission of my rebuttal Prof Worthington got Dr. Cassone to accept his view and submitted this final report of the trio to the SBOE, “Our collective conclusion, then, is unanimous support for the original Pearson text with no recommendation for changes.” Carefully worded, by Prof. Wetherington, it would appear, to avoiding stating that the text was free of factual errors which is the statutory requirement to which all texts are expected to conform. From Prof. Wetherington’s email to the SBOE:

But the publisher had already agreed to change the final sentence in the opening paragraph of the Evidence of Evolution chapter to add, “Although it is clear that a great deal about evolution remains to be learned’ but retained “every scientific test to-date has supported Darwin’s basic ideas." Subsequently the Publisher also added an inadequate definition of epigenitics in the Glossary and added an index reference to a limited mention of epigenetics on p 409.

ISSUES DESERVING ADDITIONAL THOUGHT PROCEDURAL

• Should elected state boards set science textbook standards?
• If so, should their sources of advice be constrained?

PEDAGOGICAL

• Should Basic High School Textbooks

– Be scientifically up to date? – Identify exciting areas for further investigation?

SOCIOLOGICAL

• Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – Again!

PROPOSED MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY

• Of the reviewers only Prof. Cassone acknowledged an error
• Wetherington used scavenger hunt “finding of wording” to obtain Prof.

Cassone’s agreement

• So…….Wetherington’s “collective” conclusion for the SBOE

– “Our collective conclusion, then, is unanimous support for the original Pearson text with no recommendation for changes.”

• Despite the “ no change” conclusion Pearson had already offered one

– Added "Although it is clear that a great deal about evolution remains to be learned”, before “every scientific test to-date has supported Darwin’s basic ideas.“ in one paragraph

• Pearson subsequently added an incomplete definition of epigenitics in the

glossary and index reference to the minor example on p 409

• Final Score: Pearson 3, “Experts” 0

Final Outcome

References:

1 Philip Ball, "Nature" 496, 419–420, (25 April 2013) page 8 2 Keith Miller, PSCF, 66, 2 p70 Page 9

3 James A. Shapiro, "Evolution: A view from the 21st century," FT Press Science (2011) 4 Smith & Harper [2013] Causes of the Cambrian Explosion, Science 341: 1355-1356.