The Concern Goes Beyond the Textbook

A controversy is brewing over a biology textbook used at Virginia Commonwealth University. Or perhaps it is better said that an adjunct biology professor is intent on creating a controversy. Part of the article referenced at the following URL is included along with my identified comments.

http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=12429

'June 7, 2006

A Textbook Case

'When teaching evolution in college classrooms, where does creationism fit in? Some VCU professors are wondering.'

by Brandon Walters

"When biology professor Jim Sparks lectures at Virginia Commonwealth University this fall, he’ll spend plenty of time on the missing link. In this case, however, it’s his new textbook.

The 35-year-old adjunct professor is upset about the new text his peers at VCU have chosen for him to use in teaching Biology 101. Sparks says it omits critical chapters in evolutionary theory and is biased toward creationism and intelligent design, which argues life is too complex to have evolved over millions of years solely through Darwin’s theory of natural selection and must have come at the direction of a supreme being or a supernatural force.

The book Sparks faults is “Essentials of Biology” by prolific science writer Sylvia S. Mader and published by the mainstream McGraw-Hill press.

“The text is confusing and minimalist,” Sparks says. “I can’t teach a lecture based on this book.” Describing most introductory biology texts as uniform, Sparks says he first thought the book was just weak. In the beginning, he even gave his blessing when the department allowed his input. But then he actually read the text.

He also soon learned that one of his colleagues who pushed for the book has strong creationist ties and that the text has also been picked up by Oral Roberts University. And in the chapter called “Darwin and Evolution” on page 230, he found a direct reference to the California-based Institute for Creation Research, stating that the organization “advocates that students be taught an ‘intelligent-design theory.’”

[Bradford]: This smacks of academic McCarthyism. A text was "picked up by Oral Roberts University" and a colleague "who pushed for the book has strong creationist ties" is meant to do what- discredit the book? It may have that effect but if it does it runs counter to the spirit of academic freedom that should pervade Sparks's world. One's "creationist ties" should be utterly irrelevant but sadly that is not the case.

Even though the book clearly states that intelligent-design theory does not meet the test of scientific theory, despite that nearly half of all Americans believe the Old Testament account of creation, Sparks says the mention of the institute is disturbing. “It’s product placement,” he says, “like when Tom Cruise drinks Pepsi in the ‘War of the Worlds.’”

[Bradford]: Sparks's product placement charge is not backed by anything disclosed in this article. There is missing context. Evidently Sparks would like nothing better than to censor mention of the Institute for Creation Research. That's consistent with policing thought.

Some of his colleagues say he’s paranoid and making much ado about nothing. But Sparks may have a point, according to some people following the debate over how evolution is taught nationwide in grade schools and institutions of higher ed."

[Bradford]: If Sparks would confine his objections to the information contained or not contained in the book he might have a point worth listening to but he conveys an unhealthy interest in ideology when he goes beyond this.

"Sparks insists VCU and its students are getting ripped off. When he tried to use his previous syllabus to create a new one for the Mader text, he says he couldn’t because critical elements of evolution were missing from the book.

For example, the Mader book doesn’t mention a concept called abiogenesis or the Miller-Urey experiment, which posits that life may have originated from simple amino acids and nucleotides being synthesized by exposing the earth’s early gaseous atmosphere to electric charge and UV radiation. The hypothesis, now contested, remains a standard part of biology curricula."'

[Bradford]: We are better off for the absence of this unscientific belief. There is more evidence that proteins and nucleic acids do not arise outside a cellular environment than there is scientific evidence for life arising. The fact that this would be raised as an objection only reinforces the impression that Sparks's interests in the textbook go beyond legitimate scientific concerns.