North Texas Skeptic - Vol 17 No 10 - 2003

Magazine Overview

Title: The North Texas Skeptic
Issue Date: October 2003
Volume: 17
Issue: 10
Publisher: The North Texas Skeptics
Country: USA
Language: English
Cover Headline: Don't mess with textbooks

This issue of The North Texas Skeptic delves into the heated debate surrounding the review of biology textbooks by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE). The publication highlights the efforts of the Texas Freedom Network and other science advocacy groups to counter the influence of creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute, which advocates for the inclusion of 'intelligent design' in textbooks.

Don't Mess With Textbooks

The lead article details a public hearing held by the SBOE in Austin, where over 160 people testified regarding biology textbooks. The hearing, which lasted twelve hours, saw supporters of science education, including members of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and the Texas Freedom Network, as well as scientists and educators, advocating for the teaching of evolution. Opponents, associated with the Discovery Institute, sought to introduce 'intelligent design' by citing curriculum guidelines that they interpreted as requiring discussion of 'strengths and weaknesses of evolution.' The article notes the presence of creationist fellows from the Discovery Institute and quotes Mac Deaver, who suggested a correlation between evolutionary theory and moral degeneration.

Samantha Smoot, president of the Texas Freedom Network, is quoted stating that the arguments against evolution are based on ideology, not science, and that there is no scientific debate on the matter. The article also mentions that the SBOE would vote on proposed biology textbooks on November 7.

Board of Education Textbook Reviews

This section provides context for the textbook review process, explaining that Texas and California are significant purchasers of textbooks, influencing industry standards. It highlights the creationists' efforts to leverage this process. NTS Board of Directors member Greg Aicklen attended the hearing and provided a recount of the events, noting he was speaker number 96 out of over 160. The NTS is presenting transcripts of the presentations in this issue, with corrections made for obvious errors.

Testimony of Steven Weinberg

This section features the testimony of Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at Austin. Weinberg, who has a Nobel Prize in physics, not biology, asserts that evolution through natural selection has reached the status of a scientific consensus. He explains that scientific understanding progresses through observation and theory verification, and that while absolute certainty is unattainable, evolution is as well-established as any scientific theory can be. He argues against the notion that the existence of unexplained phenomena constitutes a 'weakness' in a theory, drawing parallels to physics. Weinberg emphasizes that the question is not whether there are things beyond our current theories, but whether the theories we have work and explain observations. He criticizes the idea of letting students 'judge' the validity of evolution, comparing it to a judge allowing testimony on witchcraft in a court of law, arguing that certain scientific facts, like evolution, should be taught as accepted consensus.

Editorial

NTS Board member Greg Aicklen provides his remarks from the Texas Board of Education hearing. He criticizes the Discovery Institute, stating its goal is to replace scientific materialism with Christian and theistic convictions. Aicklen argues that intelligent design is not a scientific alternative to evolution and is cloaked in pseudo-scientific jargon. He emphasizes the importance of a strong science education for Texas's future, warning that allowing anti-evolutionists to pressure textbook providers will result in 'dumbed-down' Texas editions of textbooks, putting students at a disadvantage globally. He stresses that an understanding of evolution is critical for medical research, epidemiology, and environmental sciences.

Test of Astrology: A No-Show

This article by John Blanton details an attempted test of astrology proposed by Jagdish C. Maheshri, who holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. Maheshri proposed a double-blinded test methodology to provide astrology-based readings for unknown subjects. The NTS, which offers a $10,000 award for demonstrated validity of astrology, was eager to conduct the test. However, the effort failed due to the critical requirement for documented birth information (time and location), which proved too difficult to obtain from volunteer subjects. The NTS states that the hypothesis remains untested and makes no claim regarding its validity.

What's New

This section, by Robert Park, presents several brief news items:

• FDA: Is Salmon a Food or a Dietary Supplement? The FDA plans to revise food labeling regulations, allowing companies to make health claims with less scientific evidence, moving from 'generally accepted' to 'you can't be serious' grades for claims.
• Magnetic Therapy: Have We Got News for You! It Doesn't Work. A randomized, double-blind study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found no significant difference in outcome between active and sham magnets for plantar heel pain, highlighting the societal cost of disproving unsubstantiated claims.
• Polygraph Roulette: DOE Has Mastered "The Expectation Game." Despite a National Academy of Sciences study showing polygraph testing to be less than worthless, the Department of Energy (DOE) reissued its policy, subjecting about 4,500 employees with top-secret clearance to random character assassination. Senator Pete Domenici praised the DOE's policy.
• Intelligent Design: Who Designed the State of Texas? A petition movement in Montgomery County, Texas, seeks to require equal time for teaching Intelligent Design in science classes.
• Evolution: Weinberg Defends Rights of Texas School Children. Scientists from the University of Texas met with the SBOE to support the teaching of evolution, with Steven Weinberg defending the right of students to learn natural laws.
• Missile Defense: APS Boost-Phase Study - It's About Time. A 3-year study by the APS concluded that attacking ballistic missiles during their boost phase is infeasible due to the short duration and ease of countermeasures, rendering the technology obsolete.
• NASA: Could an Astronaut Learn to Survive by Photosynthesis? A report on Hira Ratan Manek's claim of surviving on sunlight and water for eight years, with NASA reportedly verifying a 130-day survival period. A subsequent correction notes NASA denied contact.
• Junk Science: Medical Societies Review "Expert" Testimony. The article notes that medical societies are imposing sanctions on doctors whose testimony does not meet scientific standards, following the Supreme Court's 'Daubert' decision instructing judges to act as gatekeepers against scientific nonsense.

Skeptic Ink

This cartoon by Prasad Golla and John Blanton humorously depicts a creationist holding a press briefing, claiming evolution receives too much emphasis and is mere speculation, while suggesting the parting of the Red Sea as an example of good science documented by observation.

Events Calendar

The October program includes a debate with a creationist, Jason Gastrich, by Skeptic John Blanton, and a social dinner/board meeting.

Application for Membership

This section provides details for applying for membership in The North Texas Skeptics, outlining membership levels, benefits, and contact information.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the defense of scientific consensus, particularly regarding evolution, against challenges from creationism and intelligent design. The editorial stance is clearly pro-science, emphasizing critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the importance of accurate science education. The publication actively debunks pseudoscience, such as astrology and magnetic therapy, and critiques governmental or institutional policies that appear to undermine scientific integrity or promote non-scientific viewpoints. The NTS positions itself as a defender of rational inquiry and a skeptic of unsubstantiated claims, advocating for a clear distinction between science and ideology.