English
Korean
Spanish
What if a third-grade math book printed this as a correct equation: 2 + 2 = 7? Most would probably just think it was a typographical error and most would know it was incorrect. But in science education, where factual errors are less discernable for parents, students and sometimes teachers, who might rely on information they received in college years ago, the problem is not easily resolved.
Some supporters of intelligent design and creationism are wondering if these sometimes subtle and often little-known errors are being properly addressed in public school science textbooks?if changing definitions, deceptive statements and outright factual errors are misleading students today.
Texans for Better Science Education (TBSE) is one group that would like to see all errors removed from textbooks used in Texas schools. According to the TBSE website (www.strengthsandweaknesses.org), the group would also like to see textbooks teach both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
In November, the Texas State Board of Education voted 11-4 to adopt, over the next seven years, a series of science textbooks critics said contained inaccuracies about evolution and that the board promised to fix before distributing them in classrooms. TBSE was among the critics, said one of its spokesmen, Ide Trotter, a deacon at First Baptist Church of Dallas and a Princeton-educated chemical engineer, who hopes the corrections will be implemented.
Creationists and evolutionists both claimed victory in the board decision.
Trotter told the TEXAN in November, “We don’t want intelligent design or creation taught. We only want error-free science taught.”
The TBSE website features a review by Mark Ramsey of the biology textbook “Biology, The Dynamics of Life,” published by Glencoe Science. He said many factual errors and misleading statements could be deleted or at least reworded.
According to Ramsey, page 353 of the textbook says, “the DNA from fossils has been analyzed and used to compare extinct species with living species, or even two extinct species with each other.” Ramsey said the statement is bogus.
“True fossils are mineralized and do not contain organic DNA,” Ramsey said in the review. “This sentence should be deleted.”
In another case, Ramsey points to a “Quick Demo” section of the teacher’s edition of the book that suggests a way for teachers to illustrate a point of evolutionary theory.
“Use a photo series of an automobile model that shows how that model has changed over time. Alternatively, show a picture of an early automobile and one of a modern automobile. Have students explain how automobiles are the same and how they have changed over time. Then, point out that organisms also change over time. Ask students to distinguish between the two kinds of evolution. [Answer] The changes in automobiles or a specific automobile model occur faster than changes in organisms.”
Ramsey said this example does nothing to support the theory of evolution.
“For an automobile to change over time, there is intent, direction, intelligence and designers. There are records of the design and each engineering and design transition. There are even records of failed or discarded ‘innovations,'” Ramsey said.
He said changes in automobile designs in the past are “not the result of random processes.”
The TBSE has a petition listed on their website that visitors can sign. The petition asked signers to affirm the following statement: “I agree that both scientific strengths and weaknessesin the theories and hypotheses relating to chemicalandbiological evolution should be taught andthat known errors should be either fully exposedand examined or else be removed from the textbookscompletely.”
Trotter told the TEXAN the changes the state board promised “may or may not happen; I hope it will. ? A significant number of changes have been made. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Things are moving in the right direction and there’s going to be another round down the road.”
