II. Secondary Problems

       C. Problems of Missing or False Information in Text: Appendix

This material is consistent with the high school audience for whom it is intended.

Parents reviewing this textbook enjoyed the visual aids, the overall content, the clarity of the text's layout. Although none of the non-evolutionary material was being checked for problems, we found much of it interesting and well-written. At least one reviewer appreciated very much the text's treatment of human reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases. The text is clearly of high quality overall.

No.

All parts directly pertaining to, or addressing the concept of evolution were taken into consideration in this review.

Obviously, the theme is the teaching of biology. Under the teachers’s section (p. T6), it states that the text has a two-fold purpose. The first is to present conceptual development and thinking processes behind scientific discovery. The second is to provide a conceptual outlook toward science making "sure that the book would take an evolutionary approach to biology." The philosophy section concludes with, "Rather, evolution is presented as a unifying concept that interrelates all other areas of biology...."

1. We recommend that no religious material be presented in this context, but that religion and philosophy be kept out of the science classroom.
2. We recommend that future textbook selection committees look for a text that incorporates the clearer definitions, the non-doctrinal presentation of evolutionary theory, and the more complete information about anomalous scientific evidence which we have provided on attached worksheets for the interim.
3. We recommend that students with the curiosity to explore diversity of opinion be provided with ample resources to research a wide variety of scientific thought in the area of evolutionary theory, and that they not be 'protected' from the controversy by indoctrination, or censorship.
4. We recommend that the district adopt the following statement formed by the Science Education Commission of the American Scientific Affiliation:

"The State Board of Education and the local boards of education shall encourage teachers to make distinctions between the multiple meaning of ‘evolution,’ to distinguish between philosophical materialism and authentic science, and to include unanswered questions and unresolved problems [regarding evolution] in their presentations."

This review did not involve a particular school, or teacher.

When the term 'evolution' is used in this sense, it refers to small changes within a species, such as finch beak variations and peppered moth adaptations to environmental changes. This process is observable and can be considered scientific fact. The reviewers consider presentation of this material to be appropriate and likely to be fascinating to students - possibly interesting them in careers in scientific research, or in making their own scientific observations of the natural world. The problems we find, with this usage of the term 'evolution', are instances in which scientific evidence for minor changes within a species are reported as evidence for the development of higher taxa from lower, or for major structural innovations requiring new DNA for plausibility.

Examples of Case 1 Problematic Usage:

P. 272, "Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves that evolution has occurred."

(There is a vast amount of evidence that microevolution has occurred, but the evidence for macroevolution has not been accumulated. Good science fobids the use of the term "prove" outside the mathematical deductive proofs. The term "evolution" in the text here should be identified as microevolution for this statement to be accurate.)

P. 291, "Observing that evolution has occurred is relatively simple."

(Observation of microevolution may be simple, but macroevolution has not been observed. In fact, scientists have noticed that species such as bacteria and flies do not evolve into higher order life forms throughout hundreds of thousands of observable generations. This type of statement implies that anyone questioning the proof of macroevolution is ignorant.)

P. 303, "Evolutionary change occurs around us constantly. Scientists today have observed many examples of evolutionary change that have occurred in living organisms."

(Scientists have observed microevolutionary change, and the remainder of the article on this page gives as an example of such change the development of insecticide resistance in insects. This is a valid example of microevolution. The problem with the text is that, once again, the fact that microevolutionary change has been observed is used to imply that 'evolution' is obvious and unquestionable when used interchangeably to convey the concept of micro- or macro- evolution.)

P. 304, The student is directed in the guide for reading to learn from section 14-4 "How do new species develop from existing species?" Examples are given of fish which differentiate into fish with different characteristics, but no examples are given of fish which develop into a higher order life form. In this way, students are led to believe the process of microevolution has resulted in macroevolutionary leaps to entirely new taxa.

P. 308, Figure 14-20 is another example of the above use of observed microevolutionary change to convey or imply the idea that macroevolutionary change is proven. The picture of many species of finch could just as well be used to convey the idea that, after millions of years of adaptive radiation and evolution, these finches are still demonstrably finches despite their variations and, contrary to macroevolutionary expectations, have not become different life forms. This is a good example of editorial bias within the book which extends to all chapters on animal development which assume common descent and macroevolution of all life forms.

Educate students via Worksheet #1 (attached) to use the term 'micro-evolution' to refer to relatively minor variations and adaptations. Encourage them to notice when the term 'evolution' is being used ambiguously, or when evidence for microevolution is presented as proof that evolution accounts for the development of new species, organs, structures and body plans.

When used in this sense, 'evolution' refers to the belief based on inference from scientific evidence (rather than the directly observed, experimentally verified scientific fact of microevolution) that evolution (gradual, or punctuated equilibrium) accounts for the appearance in the fossil record of drastically different life forms, and the remarkable innovations of variant structures, organs and body plans in different life forms. It is factual to say that many scientists view this idea as plausible. What is not factual to say, or imply, is that all true scientists believe it, or to lead a student to believe it by implying that evidence for microevolution is sufficient to prove that such evolution has occurred.

Examples of Case 2 Problematic Usage:

P. 266, "The small furry creatures chasing one another among the bones and squabbling over the last scraps of dinosaur meat may not seem all that impressive. However, they and their relatives were the ancestors of elephants, horses, whales, and other mammals. Some of their descendants became intelligent enough to contemplate the extraordinary diversity of life, theorize about the processes that formed many kinds of creatures from a single original kind, perform experiments to test theories, and imagine events that occurred millions of years ago."

(In this case, the theory that humans descended from small furry creatures, and that all life proceeded from a single kind of organism is dogmatically presented as fact. It may be the case that this occurred, but while so many scientists are skeptical of the evidence for macroevolution, it is not just to present this as an irrefutable fact. This type of conjecture discourages the student from considering legitimate evidence to the contrary, that is, from thinking scientifically.)

P. 271, "If you look back far enough in time, you will see that all species have shared, or common, ancestors. Since species have descended from common ancestors, Darwin called this principle common descent."

(One way to 'look back in time' is through the fossil record. Paleontologists are aware that this evidence does not demonstrate the continuous record of common descent, which is presented as fact in such statements as these. Darwin himself believed that a lack of fossil records of transitional species would undermine his theory, yet now, when that lack is patently clear, our modern text is presenting his theory as proven fact. This is poor science. It may still be true that common descent is the reality, but this is presented dogmatically and another example of poor science. Students should be made aware of the tenuous and theoretic nature of the fossil links between bacteria and man.)

P. 284, "Snakes, for example, evolved from four-legged ancestors."

(This is given as a fact, when there are credible scientists who see reason in the available evidence to doubt it. It may be cumbersome to continually qualify such statements, but it is more accurate. The students are led to accept this without question, and are not given the opportunity for critical thinking that might be introduced at this point. Scientific questions about why there are no fossil records of snakes with partial legs, or how intermediate life forms could have survived with the encumbrance of partial legs are not addressed, or alluded to. Once again, this may have been the case, but to introduce it as a fact teaches students to think dogmatically instead of scientifically.)

P. 309, Figure 14-21 introduces dogmatically the concept that the bear, bird, dolphin, snake, alligator, and turtle evolved from the cotylosaur. The student must be taught to challenge this presentation, learning to ask how much of this is based on irrefutable fossil evidence and how much on conjecture, extrapolation, and artistic license. This figure presents as fact a series of hypothetical links between modern and ancient organisms without encouraging students to search for the scientific basis for the 'family tree.' As is the case throughout the book, it is implied that irrefutable scientific evidence exists for the presentation, but students are encouraged to trust in that evidence without questioning. They are shielded from knowledge that there are eminent scientists who regard such extrapolations from available evidence as implausible. It may be the case that such macroevolutionary leaps have occurred, but students being taught scientific literacy must be encouraged to evaluate the plausibility of the idea, not taught it as fact. This is known as an "ad hoc" hypothesis, which is poor science.

P. 312, Punctuated equilibrium is introduced by way of explaining relatively rapid evolutionary changes. It should be pointed out that punctuated equilibrium theory developed in response to the utter lack of fossil evidence for transitional species (jumps, for instance, from cotylosaur to dolphin). It is a way that believers in macroevolution have reconciled their belief with the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Since the evidence shows a wide range of animal types exploding into the fossil record in a 'geological blink of the eye', punctuated equilibrium may be the more up-to-date theory. Students should be made aware that it is a theory which contradicts the notion of Darwinian gradualism.

P. 725, "one thing is certain - birds evolved from ancient reptiles."

(In this and in every section on animal development, the text states or implies that such macroevolutionary changes are proven, unquestioned, and irrefutable. Meanwhile, students are dissuaded from considering that many scientists see gaping holes in such logic, and that there are challenges posed by many scientific disciplines that bring into question whether or not such innovations are possible. As noted above, punctuated equilibrium provides a frame of reference which negates the need for such fossil evidence, but which leaves open the issue of mechanism. Still to be resolved, is the concept of the mechanism at work in the causation of rapid acquisitions of wholly new and innovative body plans, organs, and systems of interrelated organs. As Socrates might have pointed out, real learning comes from considering real questions.)

Worksheet #1 (attached) will help teachers encourage students to use clearer terms to distinguish between microevolution and 'Case 2' usage of the term 'evolution' which may be called macroevolution. Students can be taught all the same elements of evolutionary theory as are currently considered foundational to their college studies in biological science, but at the same time, can be prevented from confusing inference with scientific evidence. Where scientific evidence for micro-evolution is extrapolated to show grounds for the majority opinion that macroevolution is plausible, students will understand the presuppositions involved in making this inference, and can make their own evaluations. This clarification of terms will in no way prevent them from learning what are the commonly held beliefs about evolution in the scientific community. It will help them consider science in the light of the scientific method.

Worksheet #2 (attached) detailing some of the reasons not all scientists accept the evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution will help students see science as a field open to people of diverse ideas and opinions, and help stimulate them to do their own research into these ideas before making evaluations. It will fit in nicely with the text's presentation of evolution as a theory which has itself undergone "a process of change," by broadening the students' understanding that evolutionary theory is not a field closed to controversial ideas. We have deliberately excluded references to authors who base their arguments on the validity of macroevolution as the overarching explanation for development of all life on religious presuppositions. It is our opinion that such arguments have no place in an effort to teach objective science.

In this case, the philosophical belief that undirected natural processes account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist is presented as the necessary conclusion to be drawn from scientific evidence for microevolution, or from the predominance of belief in the occurrence of macroevolution. There are, in fact, scientists who hold evolutionary beliefs, but consider them consistent with theistic presuppositions, or consider the evidence clear that some sort of intelligent direction must have been at work in the process of evolution. There are many parents who hold unclear ideas about evolution itself, but who are content that whatever mechanism operated to produce the panorama of life forms must have been directed by supernatural intelligence. There are believers in modification through descent who hold to belief in some sort of cosmic intelligence which they consider a guiding and directing force behind the formation of complex life forms. Many scientists honestly throw up their hands when it comes to explaining what the source of the information guiding genetic change might have been, but do not rule out what they cannot know. For every such person involved with the public schools, indoctrin- ation of students in naturalistic philosophy is unacceptable. The fires of prejudice are fueled by implications that belief in supernatural guidance of natural processes, or intelligent design of organisms is inconsistent with scientific fact.

Examples of Case 3 Problematic Usage:

P. 269, "In science, you will recall, observation, questioning, and constant testing of hypotheses must replace belief."

(This statement could be construed as a demand that beliefs will necessarily be upstaged by scientific discoveries.

Rather than dwell on this philosophical issue, the reviewers simply point out that the statement represents our own position in a nutshell: that we must teach students to differentiate between ideas confirmed through observation, experiment and testing and that which is, by its nature, a matter of belief - nonobservable, untestable theory. To confuse the two is to close hypotheses to questioning and to brand as skeptics, quacks, heretics, or ignoramuses anyone who dares defy what has become a quasi-religious dogma of presuppositions. Let us not imply that scientists are capable of operating in a vacuum of belief, but admit that everyone brings a combination of philosophical bias and fact to the table of investigation and discussion of the origins of life.)

P. 285, "The very complexity of life and its processes supports Darwin's conclusion."

(This statement refers to the structural and biochemical complexity of all organisms. Ironically, one of the most articulate and revealing refutations of Darwin's conclusion has been written recently by a biochemist with impeccable credentials who concludes that the irreducible complexity of organisms at the biochemical level is proof beyond doubting that natural selection is insufficient to account for the development of life forms. Whether complexity supports or refutes Darwin's conclusion is, in the absence of scientific evidence such as Behe has provided in Darwin's Black Box, a matter of philosophical presupposition. Statements such as this one step over the line between scientific information and philosophical speculation.)

P. 291, "Evolutionary theory is the foundation on which the rest of biological science is built. In fact, the biologist Theodor Dobzhansky once wrote that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

(This statement presents evolution as the unquestionable presupposition without which biological science itself would unravel and be undone. This is patently a philosophical, even a religious way of thinking about evolution. This is a faith-based approach to science. The text seems to be a catechism of evolutionary dogma when it describes evolution in such fashion. This is unacceptable indoctrination. It is especially offensive to those scientists, past and present, who have been able to make a great deal of sense of and contribution to the biological sciences without faith in evolution as the overarching principle of the natural world.)

P. 313, "Only because all living organisms are related through common descent can we talk about universal characteristics of life. ¼And only through application of evolutionary theory can we truly understand the way that organisms interact with each other and with their environments."

(As above, this statement is true only if naturalistic philosophy is accepted as given. Scientists were talking about universal characteristics of life long before evolution was seen as the First Cause of all life. There are also some potentially flawed perceptions of the way the organisms interact with each other which spring from the unquestioning acceptance of evolutionary theory, or from the application of microevolutionary concepts to human social interactions. The text states truly, to give it credit, that "the influence of evolutionary thought extends far beyond biology," but implies that all such influence is positive, whereas many philosophers trace extremely negative trends in human interaction to its influence. Students should either not be faced with such subtle philosophical argument, or should be allowed to face it with more well-rounded information on alternative perspectives.)

P. 335, "all living things - all of us- share a common past and a common destiny on this planet. If you remember nothing else from this course ten years from now, remember this."

(One of the text's authors makes explicit his vision for the students. He seems, in his letter, to be thinking of the need for students to be concerned with the interrelationships among all living things and the need for us to carefully steward the planet and its organisms. He goes beyond this commendable goal, however, in engaging in metaphysical speculation. Elsewhere on this page, he describes Darwin as having found "order in the chaos of the living world." It would surprise scientists such as Linnaeus and Mendel, who believed for vastly different reasons than his in order in the universe, to hear that Darwin had 'found' what they took as given and foundational to their profound contributions to science. The destiny of beings is a matter of philosophical and religious, not scientific, theory.)

P. 658, "it is important to keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected." (Bold as in text)

(Some students will be comfortable with the atheism at the root of evolution-as-philosophy. Others, however, will be able to accept the concept of macroevolution as plausible only as far as they can reconcile it with theistic belief systems of one kind or another. Theistic evolutionists, for example, are able to perceive a creator as the intelligent designer of the evolutionary process. Some religious beliefs can accommodate the idea of physical macroevolution, but must involve a creator at the point of the vast departure of man in rationality and spirituality from other beings. When even this much of individual faith is denied expression, however, the strong current of philosophical/religious indoctrination that runs through this text is made apparent. Naturalistic philosophy holds the natural world and its laws as sufficient to account for and explain all that exists. Meaning and purpose of life are contained within the sphere of the material world. It is one philosophical perspective, but better studied in a philosophy than a science classroom. It is possible to present microevolution as a different theory than macroevolution, and both without presenting evolutionary theory as the ground of all scientific truth, or the necessary presupposition for all scientific investigation.)

Concepts included in Worksheet #3 (attached) will help teachers and students differentiate between scientific fact, scientific theory and philosophical or religious belief.

We recommend that there be a prohibition against indoctrination in naturalistic philosophy in public schools and that as future textbook updates become necessary, texts be eliminated which cross the line between science and philosophy, or religion. Ideally, teachers help fight prejudice by teaching students to define terms clearly, refuse to use ad hominem arguments, and research opposing positions with respect before making evaluations. Public school libraries should contain non-religious, scientific reference materials which explain alternative ideas about evolutionary theory.