SC PIE - Feature Article

As I entered the State Department building on the morning of January 9, 2008 it was apparent that this was going to be a well attended meeting. The State newspaper aided in setting the tone of the meeting by printing a rather lengthy article the morning of the actual meeting entitled “SC School Board to Scrutinize Biology Text, concern about textbook focus on references to Darwin / Evolution.” The halls were full of those who had come to voice their concern to keep the biology book in question on the state approved textbook list for science. Upon entering the board room, I observed that it was full of science teachers and advocates for the textbook written by Miller and Levine. Dr. Miller, one of the coauthors of the book, was also in the mix of visitors. 24 people were signed up for the public comment time. Most of them had been encouraged to be there by the groups who were afraid the book would not receive the needed votes. A letter was also given to each State Board Member with the signature of many statewide Science teachers who did not want the book off the "approved list”.

South Carolinians for Science Education posted the following on their website following the meeting:

"Today, in a stunning reversal of votes, the State Board of Education approved the Miller/Levine Biology Textbook that was under scrutiny. The vote went from 9-7 (vote in December) in favor of dropping the Miller/ Levine textbook to 10-6 in favor of keeping the textbook on the list. This is a major victory for science education in the Palmetto State. Dr. Miller, along with approximately 20 SCSE members were on hand to offer advice, critiques and personal testimony in favor of the Miller/Levine Biology text. I’ll post more on my thoughts about the meeting when I get ready to post the video. Thanks to all those who came to Columbia and stood up for quality science education in and a special thanks to Dr. Ken Miller (and his Publishers) for making the trip down to Columbia to help us stand strong!"

Previous to the update on this site State Board members who had questioned this textbook were labeled as "Creationist," and thus the verbal battle began. Though I cannot speak for those board members who voted against the text, I can speak for myself and why I questioned the textbook. As I serve my time on the Board, I try to represent all the people of my area, not just the ones who are able to come to Columbia. Though I know there is much to learn, my main concern will always be to look out for the good of all of our "kids" regardless of their income, zip code or where they attend school. As a retired history teacher, I have learned that the "majority" may not always be right. However, my duty is to try and listen to both sides and even, strange as it may seem, allow both sides to be heard.

There were several scientific mistakes in the textbook and those were addressed by members who have a more scientific background than myself. Another text was also on the list but they removed themselves to avoid any conflict.

One of my main concerns with the textbook in question was that of not allowing young minds to be exposed to the total picture as they are being educated in this area of "science". The textbook refers to "evolution" 40 times in the index and "0" times is allotted to the word "creation". This greatly concerned me as both "evolution" and "creation" are believed by choice. I thought a true scientist "seeks the truth". To teach part of a story is to only present part of the equation and thus deprive young minds from having all the information needed to "seek the truth" in its totality. I believe that both sides of any theory must be taught and that is called "balance!!!” I am a Creationist and proud of it and believe it is time for more of "us" to speak up.

I did have the opportunity to question Professor Miller, coauthor of the text, on this issue. January 10th, I received a letter from him addressing some of my concerns. Below is part of his response.

"It was immediately apparent when we spoke that your first concern was how a biology textbook should deal with the question of Creation. As I indicated yesterday, I am very much against placing the concept of Creation in a science textbook for two reasons: 1) Because the issue of Creation is not a question that can be directly addressed by science; and 2) Because placing Creation, as though it is scientific theory, in opposition to evolution, causes students to believe that evolution is an anti-religious idea."

Needless to say, his background is totally in opposition to teaching anything other than the "theory" of evolution, which is implied in the textbook to be more of a reality than something that is not proven.

When the vote came down, several Board members who favored the textbook apologized that we were even questioning this textbook and those educators who had been on the committee to approve it. Though I am grateful for those involved and appreciate their diligent efforts, I feel the Board has the freedom and the responsibility to our "kids" to question texts, etc. before we place our approval on anything that will affect their education and the betterment of future citizens. For that reason and others that would take too long to mention, I did not vote to put on the approval list the Prentice Hall Biology Book by Miller and Levine and I stand by my decision.

This is an issue that more "citizens" need to get involved with as your "tax dollars" support the book. I could not help but wonder if part of the concern was over how much money would be lost by the publishers if the book was taken off the "list? It is time for the silent majority to become vocal. "We the people" can make our voices heard and must do so before it is too late.