The N.C. approved biology textbooks were evaluated to determine if they contain errors, inaccuracies and bias. The exaggeration, untruths and questionable evidence appearing in the textbooks which we have examined are rivaled by the lack of information and stimulating knowledge which is left out of the texts. None of the texts present the very interesting and mentally stimulating instincts of the various animals. Nest building, courtship rituals, hunting methods, social and child rearing activities are seldom mentioned. Physical differences of organisms are ascribed to evolution, with no explanation of how the organ or part evolved. The material presented would not appear to be designed to stimulate a student to undertake a scientific career.
The differences between the eggs of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals are ascribed to evolution in most of the texts with no description of the intricacies of these eggs, and the wonder of how respiration, nutrition and management of excreta are carried out. Furthermore, there is generally no effort made to explain just how this change occurred, and the stages through which the process had to have undergone. If the author does not understand how evolution resulted in these wondrous events the student should be so advised in expectation that he or she might want to seek to know, or to recognize the flaws in the theory. The material presented in most of these textbooks suggests the intent more of indoctrination than education.
There are several very serious deficiencies in all of the texts examined. Some of these deficiencies involve the origin of life, and it is difficult to imagine that the authors are ignorant of the facts. In discussing the possibility of life arising from non-living chemicals, all of the textbooks claim that some of the amino acids of life are formed when an electric current is passed through the atmosphere free of oxygen, but it is not emphasized that
1) 20 special amino acids are necessary, and only a few are ever found;
2) the amino acids formed must be separated immediately from the watery mixture or they decompose rapidly;
3) the amino acids formed are a mixture of levorotary and dextrorotary forms whereas the amino acids of living organisms are 100% levorotary. Proteins made of a mixture of levorotary and dextrorotary would not function. These forms are called racemates, and this is an absolutely vital issue, yet the word "racemate" is not included in the glossary or index of any of the approved textbooks of North Carolina! !
4) If there was no oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no Ozone shield, and the ultraviolet radiation would rapidly destroy any life. Again, this difficulty is not addressed in any of the textbooks which we have examined.
It seems of some interest that throughout most of the textbooks considerable discussion is given to the possible explanation of extinction, but no effort is made to explain steps by which new physical forms, new biochemical or immunological functions, or new organs develop. The new characteristics are simply ascribed to "evolution", never "how" or by what route. Science demands such explanation to be accepted by inquiring minds, and North Carolina students are not receiving this knowledge or inspiration.
The North Carolina Approved Textbooks of biology appear to be copying each other's dogma because all of them include the same or similar misinformation. North Carolina students and teachers deserve better.
Biology, Third edition. Campbell, Neil A. Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co. N.Y. 1993.
p. 435 Just a Theory?
"Some people dismiss Darwinism as 'just a theory'... Arguing about evolutionary theory is like arguing about competing theories of gravity; we know that objects keep right on falling while we debate the cause."
Response : This statement is an attempt through unscientific comparison to equate the Theory of Evolution with the Law of Gravity, by denigrating the law of gravity to "just a theory". This is an obvious attempt to establish in the minds of students that evolution is fact. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London), in the keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY on 5 November 1981 stated that he had asked a simple question to various groups: "Can
you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?" He received only silence from the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago), and from the prestigious body of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago until one person said: "I do know one thing-- it ought not to be taught in high school."
p. 511 "We do know that prokaryotes (bacteria and blue-green algae) were already flourishing at least 3.5 billion years ago, and that all kingdoms of life descended from those ancient prokaryotes." [Emphasis Added]
Response: There is no proof that any kingdom descended from another. The fossil record fails to show any descent from transitional forms. See what Dr. Clark and Dr. Gould say. Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum who spent many years investigating the relationships of various groups of animals to each other, both fossil and living, affirmed in The New Evolution Zoogenesis: "No animals are known even from the earliest rocks which cannot be at once assigned to their proper phylum or major group. A backboned animal is always unmistakably a backboned animal, a starfish is always a starfish, and an insect is always an insect whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present day".
Stephen J. Gould of Harvard has written in Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly -- it [gradual evolution] was never 'seen' in the rocks."
p. 651 "Birds (class Aves) evolved from a reptilian ancestor during the great reptilian radiation of the Mesozoic era."
Response: This statement represents faith in the theory of evolution, yet there is no proof. W.E. Swinton of the British Museum of Natural History wrote in Biology and
Biology, Campbell (cont'd)
Comparative Physiology of Birds: "... there was no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."
p. 655 "Mammals evolved from reptilian stock even earlier than birds."
Response: "the [evolutionary] transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one of, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma" (Roger Lewin, "Bones of Mammals' Ancestors Fleshed Out", Science, vol.. 212, 26 June, 1981, p. 1492.).
Biology: A Journey Into Life -- Karen Arms, Pamela S. Camp, Janann V. Jenner, Edward J. Zalisko Saunders College Publishing Harcour Brace College Publishers, NY 1994.
p. 285 "....we can trace the origin of mammals from reptiles in great detail in the fossil record."
Response: This statement is simply not so. "... Gould (Stephen J.) and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. You say that I should at least
show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived! I will lay it on the line--- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water-tight argument" [emphasis added] (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland, B.S. as quoted in Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Luther D. Sunderland, B.S., Master Books, San Diego, USA 1984. p. 89.).
Biology: A Journey Into Life -- Arms, Camp, Jenner, Zalisko (cont'd)
p. 285 "The classic case of fossil genealogy is the story of horse evolution, published by Othniel C. Marsh in 1879."
Response: Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum in New York, N.Y. has been quoted as saying: "I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem" [emphasis added] (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984.).
Despite Dr. Eldredge's disclaimer, the exhibit remains on display in the American Museum.
"The real origin of horses is unknown" (T. Storer, zoologist, General Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957. p.216.)
p.285 "Whales have bony flippers because they evolved from land mammals with bony forelimbs."
Response: There is no proven evidence that whales evolved from land mammals. "Like the bats, the whales ...appear suddenly ...fully adapted ...for a highly specialized mode of life ...they stand quite alone" (E.H. Colbert, Evolution of the Vertebrates, First ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1955. p. 303.).
p.288 "...embryos of mammals, including humans develop a row of gill slits... This suggests that these groups of animals descended from the fishes..."
Response: This teaching is found primarily in school textbooks, although it was proved to be a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His, Sr., a famous comparative embryologist at the University of Leipzig in Germany. Professor His accused Ernst Haeckel of falsifying his drawings of embryos to "prove" evolution. Haeckel confessed and reputable evolutionists acknowledge that this teaching is utterly false.
The embryos of mammals, including humans, have visible folds in the region of the neck at a particular stage in the formative period, but these folds produce varying structures such as the Thyroid gland and ear -- not gills. This claim, which is found in one form or another in all of the North Carolina Biology School Books, was shown to be false over 100 years ago, yet it is still claimed because it makes such a convincing story for evolution. Those who claim it as fact are either ignorant of biological fact or deceitful. It should be stricken from the textbooks and disclaimed by our teachers.
p. 661 Australopithecines: The First Humans
Response: "Nebraska Man", which was featured in the Scopes Trial, and was ballyhooed with drawings in the press of a cave-man and his mate, but was based on a single tooth, later turned out to be an extinct pig. "Piltdown Man", which was acclaimed for 31 years, was found to be a hoax. Others, such as "Java Man", were finally declared as misrepresentations, or denigrated to just apes, as Ramapithecus.
Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, professor of anatomy and anthropology at the University of Chicago, after extensive studies regarding relation to form and function, concluded "that these fossils (of Australopithecines) are uniquely different from modern man in many major respects". These findings support the contention of Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A., M.D., D.Sc. (Anatomy), that "...students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all" (Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1970. p. 64.).
p. 663 "The first hominid to migrate out of Africa into Asia and Europe was Homo erectus ('upright man'). The fossils known as Java Man and Peking Man are examples of this species."
Response: The word hominid suggests that man evolved from apes, for which there is no real evidence. "Java Man" was found by Eugene Dubois, a Dutch physician who had determined that he would be the person to discover the "missing link". Sure enough, he found a skull cap, three molar teeth, and a thigh bone, which he named "Pithecanthropus erectus". After many evolutionists accepted this specimen as manlike, Dubois later admitted finding true human skulls in the same rock formations in which the bones of his specimen were found. Still later he changed his opinion about Pithecanthropus erectus, and considered the skull cap that of an ape or gibbon. Some textbooks still refer to this find as an example of man's evolution from apes, but there is no real evidence.
Biology, Campbell (confd) .
p. 416 - 670 (170 pages) - The Evolutionary History of Biological Diversity -- 170 pages out of 1190 (13.4%).
Response: Much of these 170 pages is pure conjecture. This much rhetoric would have the potential of suggesting to students that there is scientific authenticity in the theory of evolution. Biological diversity is acceptable as fact, but proof is lacking for evolution. This division heading suggests evolution as fact.
p. 676 "Basic Morphology of Flowering Plants: An Evolutionary Perspective."
Response: "... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found... it would be the knell of the theory of evolution"
(E. J. H. Comer, of the Cambridge University Botany School, Contemporary Botanical Thought. eds. A.M. McLeod & L.S. Cobey. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961. p. 97.).
"We do not actually know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals" (E.L. Core: General Biology. N.Y.: Wiley, 1961. p.299.)
Thus, there is no "evolutionary perspective" of plants, and students should not be told that there is.
Biology: Visualizing Life George B. Johnson, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1994
Evolution dogma prominent throughout the text, and implied as fact rather than theory.
p. 127 "Mutations act as a source of the variation that is needed for a species to adapt to changing conditions or a new environment, and, thus, evolve over time."
Response: "Most mutations are bad. In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all as bad." H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, vol. 11 No. 9 (November 1955, p. 331). Dr. Miller is recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work with mutation.
"Mutation never produced anything new. They [mutant fruit flies] had malformed wings, legs and bodies and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies" (Theodosius Dobzhansky [world renowned naturalist and an evolutionist], in Heredity and the Nature of Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964. p. 126.).
p. 225 figure 11.6
This is an evolutionary tree claiming to show the close relationship between humans and apes. The figure depicts "common ancestor of living apes and humans".
Response: All candidates for the "ancestor" of Homo Sapiens have either proved to be fakes (Piltdown Man) or misrepresentations or apes, or fully human. Neanderthal Man was fully human, specimens of Homo erectus (Java Man and Peking Man) have been declared probable orangutans, "Nebraska Man", sonamed during the .Scopes Trial and based on the finding of a single tooth, was debunked when the tooth proved to be that of an extinct pig, and more recently specimens of Australopithecine's have failed the test when Dr. Charles E. Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, after conducting highly technical studies relating form and function concluded that, "these fossils are uniquely different from modern man in many major respects" (Fossils, Teeth and Sex -- New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987. p. 227.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology: Kenneth R. Miller, Joseph Levine. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1995
p.291 Fig. 13-15 "Horse Series"
Response: This Horse Series, which claims to depict the evolution of the horse, is a blatant falsehood, and should be so admitted by the authors. See response to "horse evolution," p.285 in Biology: A Journey Into Life.
Biology: Miller, Levine. (Cont'd)
p. 291 "But the revisions do not mean that evolutionary change itself is debatable or that evolutionary theory is merely a collection of vague hunches that are not supported by evidence. Evolutionary change is undeniable."
Response: By way of confusion, the Law of Gravity is again compared in the following paragraph, but called the Theory of Gravity, which would tend to equate the authenticity of the Theory of Evolution with the Law of Gravity. Here, again, the Theory of Evolution is declared to be fact. These textbooks should be rejected for promoting untruths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Seventh Edition. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart Wadsworth Publishing Company, NY, 1995.
p. 470 "Human Evolution: A Case Study"
Response: This textbook presentation strongly suggests to students that human evolution is fact.
Y
p. 471 "The quality of 'humanness' did not materialize out of thin air. The story as the human species began more than 60 million years ago, with the origin of primates in tropical forests . ...our uniquely human traits emerged through modification of traits that had already evolved in ancestral forms . ...certain mutations produced workable changes in traits, which proved useful..."
Response: This paragraph strongly presents human evolution as fact with no supportive evidence of "traits" that had already evolved.
It is well established that mutations are usually harmful, and "never produce anything new" (Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man. New York, 1964. p.126.). It is a stretch to claim that the unique human brain, with the ability to use language, make art, conceptualize, etc., developed through mutations, which are "usually harmful, and never produce anything new," and are not a source of new or more complex genetic material. This possibility has not been demonstrated to be within the bounds of natural selection. A science textbook should indicate the uncertainties in this hypothesis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology: An Everyday Experience, Albert Kaskel, Paul J. Hummer, Jr., Lucy Daniel. Glencoe, Division of MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, NY, 1995.
Theory of Evolution fairly limited to Chapter 29 with only 18 pages (p.604-622) of a total 719 pages. Organisms described in remainder of the book without the differences being ascribed to evolution. However, like the other textbooks the usual mistaken dogma is Biology: An Everyday Experience, Kaskel, Hummer, Jr., Daniel (Cont'd.)
included in Chapter 29, such as: p. 609, "Many new traits come from mutations." As pointed out earlier, the expert evolutionists caution that mutations are almost 100°/a harmful, and mutations are not a source of new or more complex genetic material.
Isaac Manly, M.D. 4/6/97