Biology texts, state teaching policies criticized, defended;
Science groups downgrade courses for uncorrected errors, confusion

Larry Witham

    The teaching of biology is getting poor grades this year amid criticism
of confusing textbooks and lackluster state science standards.

    Despite the complaints about materials, biology teachers are doing a
fine job, said the president-elect of the National Association of Biology
Teachers.

    "Our teachers are just excellent, and they work with what they have,"
said Ann Lumsden, professor of biology at Florida State University.  "This
is a hard time to be in education because of all the pressures."

      In June, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) issued a grim report card on the nation's high school and middle
school biology texts, saying they lacked focus on a few main concepts.

    Biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences,
blamed the textbook marketplace because it "requires that they cover the
entire range of facts about biology, thereby sacrificing . . . depth."

    Nationwide, 93 percent of high school student take biology, and 98
percent of teachers use a textbook, the AAAS said.

    On Sept.  26, biology education will receive another salvo when the
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a private D.C.  group, gives low grades to
how state science standards treat biological evolution, the foundation
told The Washington Times.

    The standards, adopted by lawmakers and educators in each state, list
what must be learned and tested.  They also determine what kinds of
textbooks a state buys.

    Fordham research director Marci Kanstoroom said "sins of omission," or
leaving out parts on evolution, has "affected all of the 'historical sciences.' "

    Lawrence Lerner, a veteran science educator, has compiled the review,
"Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States."

    What the states set as standards influence how publishers design
biology textbooks, said Stephen Driesler, executive director of the
Association of American Publishers' school division.

    "Conforming to the state criteria is the highest priority," he said,
"and not every state looks for the same thing."

    Textbooks tend to feature as much material as possible so they are
useful in several states, he said.  The publishers took seriously the AAAS
call to simplify, he said, "but it's not the only perspective."

    Another view is that textbooks must be visually stimulating to focus
students.  "People learn in different ways," Mr.  Driesler said, adding
that textbook publishers also struggle to meet state needs as states face
controversies on topics ranging from evolution to a new kind of math.

    The place of evolution in state standards has stirred debates in
several states in recent years.  But another biology textbook review last
week has claimed the books are "lying to students" about evolution by
using obsolete photographs, captions and texts.

    The report, issued by a science and culture program at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle think tank that promotes "the free market and
individual liberty," cites seven "icons of evolution" that stay in
textbooks even after evolutionists questioned errors in them.

    The report cites the popular photo of white and black peppered moths
on tree trunks.  The texts use the moths to show how "natural selection"
eliminates the moth that hungry birds can see, while the camouflaged moth
has more offspring and evolves.

    "All the peppered-moth pictures were staged," said biologist Jonathan
Wells, a senior fellow at the institute.  "Scientists have known since the
1980s that the moths do not normally rest on tree trunks."

    Other icons, the report said, are the look-alike embryos of back-boned
creatures, "Darwin's finches," and a 1953 laboratory experiment to create
primitive life in a round glass beaker.

    "Scientists have known for over a century that the embryo drawings
were faked," Mr.  Wells said.  The report also said the finches did not
influence Darwin's thinking, and that the 1953 experiment made no progress
since then.

    The report gave 10 popular biology texts nearly all Ds and Fs for how
they featured the seven "icons."

    Mr.  Wells said, "Textbooks have failed to change with the times."

    Though the textbooks give false evidence for evolution, he said the
review "is not trying to ban the teaching of evolution, we're trying to
improve it."

    Mrs.  Lumsden, the Florida teacher, has heard the moth criticism but
still finds it useful to teach natural selection.  "That is not one of the
proofs of evolution," she said.  "It's an example teachers use for
students."

    An occasional shakeup of textbooks, standards and "icons" can be
helpful, she said.  "Sometimes we need to get shocked into saying, 'Oops,
we better improve this.' "

    But she said teachers generally are happy with the textbooks and with
the state standards, especially when teachers write them.

    "The standards are not just pulled out of the blue," she said.  "They
come from the teachers."

POWRÓT