Texans to Debate Pro-Evolution Science Textbooks Criticized By Christian Reviewers

textbook pdAUSTIN — The Texas Board of Education is holding a public hearing today over proposed science textbooks that have caused controversy among Christian reviewers due to their overwhelming promotion of evolutionary theory.

“Every scientific test has supported Darwin’s basic ideas about evolution,” one textbook reads.

“Life on Earth is continually evolving. The history of Earth can be traced back about 4.5 billion years to an Earth that was very different to the one we know today,” another declares. “All life now found on Earth is related to these early forms of life.”

Therefore, some reviewers of the proposed high school biology textbooks state that language should be included to present the Biblical account of Creation, or at least leave room for students to question the theory of evolution.

“I understand the National Academy of Science’s strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory,” Texas A&M nutritionist Karen Beathard told reporters. “As an educator, parent and grandparent, I feel very firmly that creation science based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every biology book that is up for adoption.”

But a number of others think that the Bible should stay out of biology classrooms.

“Almost every religion has a creation story. That can be taught in a comparative religion class or philosophy class. But it’s not science,” Dr. Srini Kambhampati, the chairman of the biology department at University of Texas at Tyler, told local television station KETK. “Science has nothing to say about religion or the existence or non-existence of God. Science is basically, explaining everything we see around us in terms of natural phenomena, natural causes.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Additionally, professors at the University of Texas at Austin and Southern Methodist University have praised the textbooks for avoiding what they called “pseudoscience.”

“Our reviews reveal that creationists on the State Board of Education have failed to pressure publishers into including ‘junk science’ that questions evolutionary theory in the new high school biology materials,” they wrote in a report about the matter.

However, Board of Education Chair Barbara Cargill has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed textbooks, which she believes clearly have an evolutionary bias.

“Our intent is to teach all sides of scientific explanation,” she declared, according to Dallas News. “But I couldn’t find anything that might be seen as another side to the theory of evolution. Every link, every lesson was taught as: ‘This is how the origin of life happened. This is what the fossil record proved.’ That is all fine. But that is only one side.”

A number of reviewers agree, contending that important information has been left out of the lesson plans.

“Text neglects to tell students that no transitional fossils have been discovered. The fossil record can be interpreted in other ways than evolutionary with equal justification. Text should ask students to analyze and compare alternative theories,” one identified reviewer wrote. “The statement that there are hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils is simply not true. Moreover, those fossils that are considered transitional are often subjects of disagreement among biologists.”

Others stated that the authors of the textbooks are behind the times in terms of scientific discoveries, asserting that the lessons fail to note the value of DNA and RNA studies, and the discrediting of peppered moth examples used to promote evolutionary theory.

Therefore, today’s meeting will allow the public to express their views over the matter, which are anticipated to be diverse and heated.

The Board of Education will make its final decision about the textbooks in November.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Raymond

    The word ‘theory’ in a scientific setting, such as this, is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. It is not a guess. It has proof to it. To not know, or apparently, in Beathard’s case, to not understand this, in a scientific manner, is to dilute this debate with falsehoods. The hypotheses has been proven, making it a theory, like the theory of gravity.

    • Just an Idea

      Actually, it’s the Law of gravity.

      • Raymond

        It is actually both, so I am not incorrect. My point is the misuse of the word ‘theory’. Since theory and law are almost synonymous in science, you merely prove my point.

  • joshuaism

    What about rainbows? All I ever see is talk about light refraction which is clearly just one side of scientific explanation. Why don’t any of these science books talk about the alternative theory of God-induced rainbows?

  • Bruce Russell Sr. Ph.d.

    What is observable is the subject of the sciences, and those observables tell a story, usually of how things happen in human existence. It is not about why or about faith in something unobservable. Those who wish to substitute faith for observables in their lives make a worthy choice but they do not make a scientific choice, and to insist their choice belongs in a science textbook simply reveals their misunderstanding of how one goes about implementing scientific methods and goals. To incorporate missunderstandings in a science textbook for the young is a sure way to discourage their capacities in inductive and deductive methods for subsequent research, and inhibit potential careers in the sciences. So, a school’s answer to the question, “What is being taught here?” should be very clear. If the course is labeled ‘a science’ then only science is taught in the textbook for that course. To do otherwise misrepresents what the learning is about and teaches duplicity to our youth. Not a good thing.