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 THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN • 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 Where it is good it is really quite good….but where it is not it’s outdated.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 TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK SMACKDOWN SMACKDOWN • Texas Monthly Article “Evolution of the Specious” • THE PRESS • What ended the war? - According to Texas Monthly it was, “three experts ….” • What did they do? March 2014 Texas Monthly - ”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 THE TEXTBOOK how the origin of life is presented” - ”Science didn’t just win. It crushed.” WARS ARE OVER • Let’s See By Tom Bartlett 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 Texas Monthly’s article averred that “three experts” ”struck down an • Texas Monthly Article “Evolution of the Specious” • Texas Monthly asserted CREATIONIST’S concern was attempt to insert doubt about evolution into a high school biology textbook” - ”how the origin of life is presented” by ”preventing CREATIONISTS from having any voice in how the • Texas Monthly completely missed the target origin of life is presented.” - 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 That se ems peculiar since origin of life was not among the 20 “errors” in forever lost to science” • S hould “Creationists” have a problem with that? -Text does gloss over science behind Szostak’s thought 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 for ever 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 C ampbell Reece is a little better in that it does touch on some of the critical issues; chirality, polymerization and protein folding. OVER VIEW OF PRESENTATION EVALUATING MILLER LEVINE BIOLOGY - 2015 Edition • BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION - Texas SBOE Textbook Review Procedures - Reviewers of the Reviews I will outline the SBOE textbook review procedures, provide background on the • 20 Errors: Only time to cover a few identified and reviewers selected to critique the errors I identified, cover a few some of Pearson’s and Reviewer’s Defense -Regression-Backward from 2004 Edition of the errors and the way the publisher and the lead reviewer attempted -Stagnation-Behind 20 th Century Understanding to refute them, the lead reviewer’s interestingly qualified final smackdown Molecular Systematics and the “Tree of Life” Evolutionary theory The Cambrian Explosion email and conclude with a quick look at some issues deserving additional -Obfuscation-Internal Inconsistency thought. • THE SMACKDOWN THE TEXAS BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK Before proceeding I think it will be helpful to quickly review our Executive SMACKDOWN Director, Randy Issacs, thoughts on a reasonable review of textbooks with • BACKGROUND - SBOE Procedures which I am in complete agreement. • Adopts Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) • Strengths and Weaknesses- NSCE, TFN Fought -Contained in standards for Two Decades Scientific textbooks need to be reviewed/revised to remove aspersions on religion and on -2009-TEKS Analyze, Evaluate & Critique vs. S&W metaphysical speculation presented as science. • New Legislation – Only 50% of TEKS Required • Retained Requirement - No Factual Errors Textbooks should reflect the dominant scientific understanding at A Reasonable View of the time of writing appropriate to the level. Textbook Critiques By Randy Isaac • Scientific textbooks need to be reviewed/revised to “Controversial” perspectives need to be a ddressed only when remove aspersions on religion and on metaphysical speculation presented as science. a substantial portion of the scientific community acknowledges • Textbooks should reflect the dominant scientific understanding at the time of writing appropriate to a real controversy; minority views will always exist and need not the level. be covered in textbooks. • “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 20 th 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
Recommend
More recommend
