subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Texas Professors Urge State Board to Fully and Completely Teach Evolution
Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest
Discovery Institute Challenge
By Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
September 2, 2003 [Revised:
September 18, 2003]
Posted September 22, 2003
The Discovery Institute recently published a press
release (reprinted below) about 24 Texas university professors who signed
an open letter to the Texas State Board of Education urging it "to ensure that
biology textbooks present both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of
biological and chemical evolution," as required by the Texas Essentials of
Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) science curriculum requirements. In the letter,
the professors state that, "In recent years, a growing number of scientists
have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian
theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with
both 'the strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory." The press
release quotes Francis Beckwith: "Contemporary criticisms of neo-Darwinism are
borne of rigorous scholarship, published in respected venues, and offered by
credentialed scholars who hold academic appointments at leading institutions
of higher learning. They can't be dismissed as being based on religion."
On September 5, the Discovery Institute published a second
press release (reprinted below) about a statement opposing the modern
theory of evolution signed by 40 Texas "scientists" of various specialties.
Some of the signers are overlapping with the first open letter. The statement
says, in part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation
and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The
Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the
strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that's just bogus,"
said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science
& Culture. "There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but
around the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random
mutations alone can explain the development of life."
There are a number of ways to respond to the Discovery Institute press
release and letter. First, creationist propensity for argument from authority
is only equaled by their propensity for credential mongering and quotes out of
context. It is a fact of logic that the number of professors or other
authorities that advocate a position is irrelevant to its truth or
desirability; rather, one must evaluate the reasons and evidence that support
the position, not the "authorities" who advocate it. In this case, the
"authorities" are a group of almost entirely non-biologists, and include
philosophers, engineers, journalism, law, and business professors, and other
academics whom no one would normally assume know anything about the issue at
hand. In this case, they assuredly do not. Remember, all the real
biologists, scientists, and science educators who have testified about this
issue (and who will testify) have opposed modifying biology
textbooks in the way that the DI wishes (saying this, I point out that their
number is not the relevant factor, but rather their informed and reasoned
arguments and evidence, which hopefully can be competently judged by the
appropriate public officials). Next, all of the professors whose
reputations are known to me from the DI letter are notorious advocates of
extreme religious right-wing public policies or intelligent design
creationism; these include Profs. Beckwith, Bradley, Dembski, Olasky,
Budziszewski, and Koons. I assume the others believe the same (I do not
recognize their names, especially Emeritus Prof. Villa of Southwestern
University, the sole biologist on the list). I claim that the 24 academic
signers are biased in favor of extreme religious doctrines or right-wing
political causes, and are not neutral and disinterested observers of
scientific education and knowledge in Texas. As I have said before, all
legitimate biology professors in Texas strongly resist changing the
biology textbooks by adding bogus "weaknesses" or "criticisms" of evolution,
since these additions are scientifically unwarranted, misguided, and--in most
cases--inaccurate or false.
Second, the claim that, "In recent years, a growing number of scientists
have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian
theory" and "Contemporary criticisms of neo-Darwinism are borne of rigorous
scholarship, published in respected venues, and offered by credentialed
scholars who hold academic appointments at leading institutions of higher
learning [and] can't be dismissed as being based on religion" is true but
irrelevant. Scientific theories are always being challenged by scientists who
work at the frontiers of research, but this is not the level at which science
is taught in high school biology classes. Textbooks written for and used in
such classes contain mostly reliable knowledge that does not have "weaknesses"
or "criticisms" associated with it. Darwin's original theory has already been
much revised and strengthened (and weaknesses removed) since his lifetime, and
the modern theory--the one presented in textbooks as reliable knowledge--has
been abundantly corroborated and is extremely well accepted.
The true "challenges" and "criticism" of "neo-Darwinian theory" are
presented by specialists to specialists in the field, and involve concepts and
evidence that simply cannot be understood by anyone learning at the level of
high school students. Forcing this material into textbooks will confuse, not
educate, students, and would diminish, not improve, their science education.
Furthermore, such high-level criticisms, challenges, controversies, and
problems exist for all topics in biology, not just evolution, and all must be
treated the same way to be seen as fair and neutral. In most cases, the
"challenges" and "criticisms" of "neo-Darwinian theory" that creationist
constantly allude to are about specific issues and mechanisms that have never
been settled and remain uncertain today. These topics are just not treated in
high school biology textbooks. Sometimes various hypotheses must be presented
for a specific topic, such as for the origin of life; but here the textbooks
all treat the hypotheses as tentative and properly subject to revision.
Third, the most important point is this: there is no legitimate
scientific challenge to the process of evolution of all species by common
descent from a primitive original ancestor. The evidence for this is so
overwhelming that the fact of common evolutionary descent is accepted by all
legitimate biologists in the world. Aspects of the theory of
evolution--details of the mechanism, tempo, mode, and history--have indeed
been challenged by real scientists, but this is normal high-level science and
is not appropriate for high school biology textbooks, where it is usually
omitted. In reality, the Discovery Institute fellows and sympathizers advocate
a challenge to--not just the theory of evolution--but to the
fact of evolution itself--by proposing the occurrence of intelligent
design creationism, a non-evolutionary process. At the present time, no
evidence exists to support this hypothesis, and there is no reason to believe
it in the absence of such evidence. The frequent claim of the Discovery
Institute supporters that they want students to "learn more about evolution,
including weaknesses" is highly disingenuous. The DI supporters really object
to the most fundamental processes of evolution that require genetic continuity
from the first functioning organism that formed from abiotic chemicals by a
completely naturalistic process. DI supporters believe that an intelligent
designer inserted biologic complexity somewhere in this process, an event or
process for which there is no scientific evidence, no scientific
justification, and no support by the scientific community.
Many of the same criticisms and more can be leveled at the statement signed
by the 40 "scientists" from Texas. Most of the 40 signers are not scientists;
this includes William Dembski, Walter Bradley, Forrest Mims, Ray Bohlin, all
the medical doctors, engineers, mathematicians, and philosophers, and many
others whose specialty is unidentified. This leaves only 11 identifiable
scientists on the list of signers, a significant reduction (although I agree
that many of the others--such as Dembski, Mims, and Bohlin--are certainly
knowledgeable about science; also, others may be scientists, but their names
are not known to me and the DI does not provide sufficient identification).
Once again, the Discovery Institute is indulging in credential mongering and
appeal to authority, both highly characteristic of the creationist movement.
Of these 11 legitimate scientists, only a generous four work in the field of
biology and might be expected to really understand evolutionary theory and the
evidence that supports it.
However, it is questionable whether any of these 40 individuals actually
understand evolutionary theory, including the presumed biologists. Here's why.
The DI signed statement of "scientists" contains these remarks:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation
and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
There are growing numbers of scientists, not just in Texas but around
the world, who are skeptical that natural selection and random mutations
alone can explain the development of life.
The number of scientists who dissent from Darwin's theory is growing
despite their coming under unprecedented personal
attacks.
These statements betray either a colossal misunderstanding or a willful
misrepresentation of modern evolutionary theory, probably both depending on
the individual. Although this statement will surprise many, "Darwin's theory"
or "Darwinian theory" has never been fully accepted by the biological
community. Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for evolution was natural selection
operating on natural genetic variation, which itself was the result of a
number of processes, one of which is random mutation. Darwin had no reliable
knowledge of genetics, which is essential for any reliable understanding of
the operation of natural selection. As a result, while Darwin convinced all
the biological scientists of his day of the occurrence of evolution and the
mutability of species, he convinced only a minority of biologists that his
theory of natural selection was responsible for the origin of species. Natural
selection has been overwhelmingly accepted only since about 1940, after the
advent of the Modern Synthesis, which was the combination of Darwinian natural
selection, classical Mendelian genetics, population genetics, systematics, and
paleontology. More recently, molecular genetics has contributed significantly
to this synthesis. Modern evolutionary theory, termed the "Modern Theory of
Evolution" or the "Synthetic Theory of Evolution" (and never termed
"Darwinian Theory" or "Darwin's Theory"), is widely accepted today by
biologists throughout the world. Of course, as is the case with any scientific
theory, researchers disagree about specific details, and they are
investigating nature to understand and solve these problems. As a result,
biologists continue to slowly modify this theory, which is incomplete due to
the fact that nature is subtle and scientists are not omniscient.
Creationists in general and the Discovery Institute officials and Fellows
in particular consistently and repeatedly confuse "Darwinian theory" with the
modern theory of evolution. The two are not the same. One never knows
for sure--when they use the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory" or
"Darwin's theory," as the Discovery Institute authors do in their
statement--whether they are referring to Darwin's original theory or to our
modern theory of evolution. In context, it is the latter, so their willful
confounding of the two theories is deliberately confusing and thus mendacious.
They engage in such deception for rhetorical reasons: to personalize their
arguments by using the name of their antagonist (Darwin); to suggest in their
listeners and readers minds an equation or similarity of Darwinism to Marxism
and Freudism--Marxism has been repudiated and Freudism has been scientifically
discredited--so creationists believe and suggest that "Darwinism" will be
next!; to create ambiguity or confusion about the true status of evolutionary
theory and thus persuade listeners and readers more easily; and to mislead
their opponents who might normally see through their debating tricks and
reveal them for the sophists that they are. Such tactics are disreputable and
are never indulged in by legitimate scientists.
It is correct to interpret creationists' references to "Darwinism" and
"Darwinian theory" as references to modern evolutionary theory, and I always
choose to do this. Why is this the case? First, because if the creationists
are trained in modern biology, as a few of them are, then they should
understand the difference and are thus being deliberately deceptive, as
described above. However, it is also possible that creationists who make this
mistake are actually so ignorant that they are unaware of the important
distinction. To them, "Darwin's theory" really is the modern theory of
evolution. Thus, in either case--mendacity or ignorance--it is correct to
assume that creationists are referring to the modern theory of evolution
whenever they use the term "Darwinism" or "Darwinian theory." But even if they
really mean Darwin's original theory, it is possible and equally destructive
of the creationists' arguments to take them at their word, as shown below.
Let's examine one of the statements above: "The number of scientists who
dissent from Darwin's theory is growing despite their coming under
unprecedented personal attacks." In fact, as described above, most biologists
have historically dissented from the original "Darwin's theory," so this
statement is literally nonsense. If the authors really mean the modern theory
of evolution (as they probably do), then it is nonsense for different reasons:
first, modern evolutionary theory--one that includes Darwin's major
contribution, natural selection, to some extent--is accepted by all biologists
in the world today, so the statement is false; second, some legitimate
biologists "dissent" from some details of the modern theory, but not from its
primary tenets of natural selection, ancestral-descendant relationships,
universal species descent from an original common ancestor, completely
naturalistic and mechanistic processes of species formation, etc., so the
statement is misleading; third, some non-biologist scientists have dissented
from evolutionary theory, but their arguments have always been unsound, based
on an ignorance of the facts of nature and the tenets of the theory, or based
on personal ideological biases, and thus easily rejected by biologists, so the
statement is deliberately misrepresentative; fourth, only
pseudoscientists--such as those associated with the Discovery Institute--have
been attacked, and the attacks are not personal but methodologically
substantive, so the statement is overly defensive and insulting to their
critics.
Now let's focus on the other major claim in the DI statement: "We are
skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
to account for the complexity of life [and] are skeptical that natural
selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of life."
These statements are deliberately misleading because biologists today (indeed,
even those in Darwin's time) do not believe that only random mutation and
natural selection account for the complexity or development of life: many
other factors and processes are involved, including crossing over, random
mating, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, founder effect, developmental
constraints, neutral evolution (neutralism), gene duplication, macromutations,
mass extinctions, sexual selection, historical contingency, heterochrony,
neoteny, parallelism, convergence, emergence, possibly group selection,
species selection, or species sorting, etc. Why omit mention of these?
Biologists today would indeed claim that all these factors and
processes account for the complexity and development of life (but there would
be disagreement among specialists about which factors are most important,
e.g., the activity of natural selection as the dominant or less dominant
process). What most of the writers and signers of the DI statement are really
saying is that they believe that intelligent design is a factor in the
complexity and development of life, but they don't want to actually use the
term "intelligent design" in print because it would reveal their true
intentions. This rhetorical trick is deliberately misleading and
mendacious.
If these 40 "scientists" desire to demonstrate that their claims are true,
all they have to do is write up their research, with the appropriate evidence
and arguments that show their claims are true, and publish it in the
scientific literature. Why don't they do this? Why should we accept their
claims until they do? Creationists and intelligent design theorists sometimes
claim that prejudice prevents them from access to the scientific literature,
but that's nonsense. I have seen papers published in the scientific literature
that attempt to overthrow key tenets of modern evolutionary theory, such as
defenses of Lamarckian evolution (inheritance of environmentally-acquired
characters) or non-random mutation pressure accounting for evolution (these
are, however, repeatedly discredited upon subsequent examination, but they
were originally put forward by legitimate scientists with real evidence and
good arguments in the peer-reviewed scientific literature). The true reason
creationists and ID theorists don't publish in the scientific literature is
because they have no empirical evidence and no good natural explanations for
the processes they posit, and peer reviewers will quite justifiably reject
papers that omit such obviously necessary information. Creationists need to
understand that--no matter how convinced they themselves are with such
justifications--wishful thinking and specious arguments will not be enough to
convince legitimate scientists and other critical thinkers. Secretly, of
course, they do understand this, which is why they never submit their writings
to scientific journals, but rather publish them in their own religious
presses, and instead try to convince non-scientists by using political,
marketing, advertising, and lobbying techniques of persuasion in a top-down
campaign rather than the traditional bottom-up scientific method.
The bottom line is this: no true or legitimate scientist would have signed
their name to such a deliberately misleading, confusing, and mendacious
statement (unless, of course, individuals were misled or uninformed about its
true content or purpose when asked to give their personal assent). I don't
know how the Discovery Institute convinced the 40 individuals to sign the
statement, but I can say without equivocation that they were being
unscientific by doing so. I question both their knowledge of biological
evolution and their self-presumed intentions to improve science education.
This statement should be rejected and disregarded by all individuals who
respect the responsible use of reason and evidence in public
communications.
But there's more. The DI open letter, in contrast to the DI statement, does
properly refer to "neo-Darwinism" several times (as well as "Darwin's theory")
in its criticism that "weaknesses" as well as "strengths" should be included
in biology textbooks as required by the state's science curriculum
requirements (TEKS). In my written testimony, I carefully explained in detail
why inclusion of "weaknesses" of modern evolutionary theory in high school
biology textbooks is scientifically warranted, because at that educational
level the information presented is reliable knowledge, not hypotheses, and the
true "weaknesses" can only be properly studied after years of university and
graduate education. Otherwise, biology class would be confusing, frustrating,
and non-educational. But what about the inclusion of "weaknesses" of Darwin's
original theory, as seemingly demanded by the Discovery Institute
creationists if we were to interpret their demands literally? Here there is
another answer: all the biology textbooks already do contain
such weaknesses because all point out (1) that Darwin lacked a proper
understanding of genetics and (2) that there are a number of causes of
evolution in addition to random variation and natural selection that Darwin
did not know about. Darwin's original theory undisputedly had weaknesses, and
this fact has never been hidden by either scientists or science textbooks (nor
have they hidden the additional evidence and theoretical corrections that have
removed these original weaknesses). Ironically, the Discovery Institute's
repeated demand that the "weaknesses" of "Darwin's theory" be included in
textbooks has long been satisfied by the textbook authors and publishers,
since the books all discuss the importance of integrating genetics and
non-selection processes into the evolutionary process, something that Darwin's
original theory did not do. Taken literally, all the biology textbooks
already contain both the true weaknesses and strengths of Darwin's
theory.
In conclusion, the true aims of the Discovery Institute supporters are
not to improve science education in Texas, but rather to
irresponsibly weaken it by using the political process of science
textbook adoption in Texas to (1) have scientifically-inaccurate and
unwarranted "weaknesses" about only evolution inserted in biology textbooks,
thus (2) weakening and damaging the scientifically-accurate presentation of
evoluton in textbooks as the consensus of the scientific community, thereby
(3) focusing attention on the topic of evolution so that teachers will be
intimidated to avoid or diminish the topic in science classrooms, and
ultimately (4) winning the opportunity to change the science curriculum later
to include "intelligent design" creationism. This strategy (part of the
Discovery Institute-Center for Science and Culture's "wedge strategy") is
religiously and politically motivated, and totally avoids the scientific
process that legitimate scientists must follow to achieve change in either
scientific knowledge or science education. The evidence for this strategy is
the massive push that the Discovery Institute is making to convince the Texas
SBOE members of the correctness of their claims, using the open letter,
statement, press conferences, debates, and transporting all the scientific
fellows and major officers of the Discovery Institute to Austin to speak to
and lobby the SBOE. The Discovery Institute's strategy must be resisted--and
their tactics rejected--by every Texas citizen who values accurate and
legitimate science education in our state's public schools.
Texas Professors Urge State Board to Fully and Completely Teach
Evolution
By: Discovery Institute Staff Press Release
August 19,
2003
Two dozen professors from seven Texas universities have
signed an open letter to the State Board of Education (see below) urging it to
ensure that biology textbooks present both the scientific strengths and
weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution. The open letter and list of
signers, released Tuesday by Discovery Institute, is available upon
request.
Professors signing the letter come from the faculties of the
University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University, Rice University,
Baylor University, the University of Texas at El Paso, Southwestern
University, and St. Mary's University in San Antonio. Scientific fields
represented by signers include biology, biomedicine, chemistry, forestry,
physics and astronomy, engineering, kinesiology, computer science, and
mathematics. Social sciences and humanities signers include philosophy, law,
and government.
The professors cite the requirement in the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills [TEKS] that students learn how to "analyze,
review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and
theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and
information," and they urge the Board to apply "this requirement to how
biology textbooks used in state schools present the subjects of chemical and
biological evolution."
The professors also point out that "in recent
years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that
challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best
science education will present students with both 'the strengths and
weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory."
"Darwinists claim there is no
academic debate over Darwin's theory, and that the only objections are
religious. But these professors show that claim is false," says Discovery
Institute President Bruce Chapman.
Baylor Professor Francis Beckwith,
one signer of the letter, agrees. "Contemporary criticisms of neo-Darwinism
are borne of rigorous scholarship, published in respected venues, and offered
by credentialed scholars who hold academic appointments at leading
institutions of higher learning. They can't be dismissed as being based on
religion." Beckwith is author of the new book, Law, Darwinism, and Public
Education (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003)
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TEXAS STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION
Dear Members of the State Board of Education:
We
support the requirement in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills [TEKS]
that students learn how to "analyze, review, and critique scientific
explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and
weaknesses using scientific evidence and information," and we urge that this
requirement be applied to how biology textbooks used in state schools present
the subjects of chemical and biological evolution.
In recent years, a
growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge
various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science
education will present students with both "the strengths and weaknesses" of
neo-Darwinian theory.
Sincerely,
Francis J. Beckwith
Assoc.
Prof. of Church-State Studies
Associate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute
for Church-State Studies
Baylor University
Vicente D.
Villa
Professor Emeritus of Biology
Southwestern University
James
M. Tour
Chao Professor of Chemistry
Rice University
Thomas E.
Milner
Associate Professor,
Biomedical Engineering
The University of
Texas at Austin
Walter L. Bradley
Distinguished Prof. of
Engineering
Baylor University
Emeritus Prof. of Mech.
Engineering
Texas A&M University, College Station
William A.
Dembski
Associate Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of
Science
Baylor University
Granville Sewell
Professor of
Mathematics
The University of Texas at El Paso
Stephen
Crouse
Professor of Kinesiology
Dir., Applied Exercise Science
Laboratory
Texas A&M University, College Station
W. Todd
Watson
Asst. Prof. of Urban and Community Forestry
Texas A&M
University, College Station
Pablo Yepes
Sr. Faculty Fellow, Physics
and Astronomy
Rice University
Barry Boyd
Asst. Professor,
Agricultural Education
Texas A&M University, College
Station
David McClellan
Asst. Prof. of Family Medicine
Texas
A&M University System Health Science Center
Walter C.
Daugherity
Senior Lecturer in Computer Science
Texas A&M University,
College Station
Lee Lowery
Eppright Univ. Prof. of Civil
Engineering
Texas A&M University, College Station
Michael D.
Delp
Assoc. Prof. of Health and Kinesiology
Texas A&M University,
College Station
Marvin Olasky
Professor of Journalism
The
University of Texas at Austin
J. Budziszewski
Prof., Departments of
Govt. and Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin
Daniel
Bonevac
Professor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at
Austin
Dale W. Spence
Professor Emeritus, Department of
Kinesiology
Rice University
Robert C. Koons
Professor of
Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin
Mike Caudle
Cadet
Training Officer
Office of the Commandant
Texas A&M University,
College Station
Stephen W. McDaniel
Professor of Marketing
Texas
A&M University, College Station
Charles W. Graham
Bryan N. and
Sandra K. Mitchell Endowed Professor of Housing Research
Texas A&M
University, College Station
40 Texas scientists join growing national list of scientists skeptical
of Darwin
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
Press Release
September 5,
2003
FRIDAY, SEPT. 5 -- Forty scientists from across Texas have
joined a group of over 250 other scientists from around the world in declaring
their skepticism of a central tenet of Darwin's theory of evolution and urging
that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged." The list of signers of this declaration was released today by
Discovery Institute and is available upon request.
The full statement signed by the scientists reads: "We are
skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection
to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for
Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
"The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific
debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves
that's just bogus," said John West, associate director of Discovery
Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "There are growing numbers of
scientists, not just in Texas but around the world, who are skeptical that
natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the development of
life."
Included in the national list of scientists is Nobel Prize
nominee Fritz Schaeffer. Another recent signer to the statement is
evolutionary biologist Dr. Stanley Salthe, who had this to say: "Darwinian
evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other
things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however
I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part
of modernism's origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology
students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and
limits of Darwin's theory while they are learning about the theory's strongest
claims."
"The number of scientists who dissent from Darwin's theory is
growing despite their coming under unprecedented personal attacks," said
Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "These scientists should be
commended for having the courage to stand up to Darwin-only activists who are
trying to censor them and silence this legitimate scientific
debate."
List of Texas Scientists
Bohlin, Raymond Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology
Shormann, David Ph.D. Limnology
Chen T., Timothy Ph.D. Statistics
Koons, Charles Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
Lewis, Catherine Ph.D. Geophysics
Orr, Rebecca Ph.D. Cell Biology
Missel, Paul Ph.D. Physics
Reiff, Patricia Ph.D. Space Physics
Trotter, Ide Ph.D. Chemical Engineering
Randolph, Paul Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics
Gamman-Aguirre, Jane M.D.
Schroeder, Fred Ph.D. Marine Geology
Clark, Donald Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry
Deahl, Thomas Ph.D. Radiation Biology
Gunasekera, Richard Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics
Bradley, Walter Baylor University
Dembski, William Baylor University
Harman, James Texas Tech University
Mills, Gordon, University of Texas, Medical Branch
Milner, Thomas University of Texas, Austin
Mims, Forrest Geronimo Creek Observatory
Poenie, Martin University of Texas, Austin
Tour, James Rice University
Villa, Vincente Southwestern University
Watson, Todd Texas A & M University
Yepes, Pablo Rice University
Delp, Michael Texas A&M University
Sewell, Granville University of Texas (El Paso)
Cogdell, John University of Texas (Austin)
Thompson, James Rice University
Spence, Dale Rice University
Jones, Robert University of Texas-Pan America
Overzet, Lawrence University of Texas (Dallas)
Walkup, John Texas Tech University
Bourell, David University of Texas (Austin)
Kobe, Donald University of North Texas (Denton)
Crouse, Stephen Texas A&M
Jarstfer, Amiel LeTourneau University
Ehlmann, Arthu Texas Christian University
Lee, J. University of Texas (Dallas)
Johnson, Richard LeTourneau University
First published at Texas Citizens for Science
Discussion
|
|
