Don't dilute

Regarding "Battle over Texas' science textbooks gearing up anew" (Page B1, Wednesday), in 1965 I took biology in Houston at Memorial Senior High School. We had a wonderful teacher, Mrs. Wukasch, and a new text which taught biology as a science in place of the traditional exercise in memorization. I think Sputnik and the Russians provided the impetus for the modernization of the science curriculum at the time.

Evolution was included because then as now it's the foundation of modern biology, not to mention the prominent role it plays in Earth science.

The people best qualified to evaluate high school science and math textbooks would be the professors who teach the introductory courses in those fields. Why not get some Texas A&M and University of Texas professors to check potential texts for errors and content? If parents have religious objections to any course of study, let their children substitute another course just as, on religious grounds, they can get exemptions from required vaccinations.

Virginia A. Clark, Houston


Personal belief

Whatever happened to the scientific method - observation, hypothesis, testing, theory and law?

Evolution cannot hold up as a theory under this method. Compare it to the law of gravity or first and second laws of thermodynamics or laws of motion. It doesn't even compare to the particle, wave or quantum theories of light.

Evolution is a belief system for the humanist religion just as creation is a belief system for Christianity. I would never call my belief in creation a theory. Why can't the humanists read their own manifesto or all of Darwin's writings and admit that they are simply promoting their religion? I guess we who believe in creation have more intellectual integrity.

R.H. Brockwell, Houston



The controversy over Texas science books is in the news again and, as usual, it is depicted as a battle between scientists and religionists. However, it should be presented as a contest between poorly educated or highly prejudiced people with science credentials and objective scientists who understand the theory of organic evolution, the evidence consistent with it and the evidence against it.

First, many of the most influential people on both sides don't even understand the word "evolution," which means significant change accomplished in a series of tiny steps. The very mention of the word conjures up thoughts of religion versus atheism and becomes emotional. True science, which we should be teaching our children, must be objective.

The general theory of organic evolution requires that animals with four-chambered hearts, mammals and birds, evolved from animals with three-chambered hearts, amphibians and reptiles. If so, sometime along the way there would have been animals with three-and-a-half chambered hearts. Now, every oilfield roughneck, as I was, knows that a three-and-a-half cylinder pump would not work. It does not require science credentials to know that. Those who want our children to be taught that the theory is proven are either sadly ignorant of basic anatomy, don't understand the theory or are blindly prejudiced by their emotional attachment to the theory.

In my opinion, our children should be taught the theory of organic evolution because of its profound influence on our society. They should be taught some of the facts consistent with it because its proponents such as Darwin were very intelligent people. However, they must be thoroughly aware of some of the facts inconsistent with the theory, only one of which I have mentioned here.

I am of the opinion that if the facts and the theory are presented in an objective manner, then the theory of intelligent design, which Darwin advocated, will take care of itself without even being mentioned.

Lee Harvill, Meadows Place