MAKING EVOLUTION RELEVANT AND EXCITING TO BIOLOGY STUDENTS

Abstract

Several years ago, the Texas State Board of Education (BOE) undertook its periodic review of biology textbooks for use in Texas high schools. This is a regular event that most educators in the state have come to dread. The supposed intent of these reviews is for the BOE to determine if textbooks meet the standards set for the Texas high school curriculum, and to determine if the books contain any errors. Books that are approved for use in the public schools are purchased by the state and are available for adoption by individual school districts. Few members of the BOE have any academic background in science, and the process of book review typically is dominated by various political agendas. However, the curriculum is recommended by individuals with backgrounds in the respective disciplines. Because modern biology courses make no sense without a thorough coverage of evolution, the state standards for the biology curriculum do include coverage of evolutionary biology. Thus, all the textbooks must have thorough coverage of evolution to meet the state curriculum standards. Some members of the BOE, however, are elected on an antievolution agenda, and they attack the coverage of evolutionary biology in the textbooks. A favorite strategy is to pick on particular examples and classic experiments in the textbooks, bring in a supposed “expert” to criticize the example, and then argue that the book is factually incorrect and should be rejected. It will come as no surprise to many readers that these “experts” are rarely academic biologists, but rather staff from antiscience organizations with an antievolution political or religious agenda. Fortunately, Texas state law prohibits the BOE from rewriting or editing textbooks, and also fortunately, the antiscience members of the BOE have been in a minority in recent years. However, several members of the BOE are viewed as swing voters, and have in the past either voted in support of strong science textbooks, or against them, depending on the political climate and the testimony at the BOE textbook hearings. Thus, it has become increasingly important for academic biologists throughout the state to come to the public hearings and testify about the biology textbooks. Otherwise, the only testimony the BOE hears is from people with an antiscience agenda, many of whom claim to have expertise in biology. For the 2003 hearings, I obtained copies of all of the biology textbooks that were up for consideration. This was quite a long list, and included virtually all the textbooks that are used from ninth-grade biology up through the textbooks used in university courses for biology majors (these latter books are used in the high school advanced placement biology courses). I reviewed the evolution coverage of all these textbooks. I also asked my son Erec, then a sophomore in high school, to read the evolution sections of the books. We also both read the written criticisms to the BOE from various antievolution groups about supposed errors and weaknesses of the books. We then sat down together and compared our rankings of the books and notes on the criticisms. All the books we reviewed were, almost without exception, factually accurate. They all covered the basics of evolution at a level that was understandable for high school students. We each testified (at two different hearings) that the books should be approved for use in Texas high schools, an action that was eventually taken by a majority vote of the BOE. Erec’s testimony (one of a few by high school students) undoubtedly carried more weight than mine did. One of the criticisms of the books had been that they did not cover alternatives to evolution by natural selection. He impressed some BOE members by citing specific page numbers from his notes about where other evolutionary mechanisms (such as drift) were discussed in the books, and by providing specific details about the books under consideration in response to other criticisms. In contrast, most professional biologists (including myself) who testified tended to focus more on the general issues (e.g.,