2011 Texas Biology Supplemental Instructional Materials
These three major publishers' regular high
school Biology programs are already under
Texas adoption. Their 2011 supplemental
materials ranked below are interim updates
(in electronic format only) pending Texas' next
regular Biology adoption, which budgetary
constraints have delayed for a few years.
Here we rate how well these submissions
meet Texas Biology rule 3(A)* by including
evolutionary theory's manifold naturalistic
weaknesses – first sampled in one of these publishers' regular Texas 2004 print versions –
that DO NOT IMPLY intelligent design,
scientific creationism, or a young Earth.
BEST     McGraw CINCH Science for Texas: Biology  © 2011
  • Acknowledges that comparative anatomy and comparative biochemistry sometimes conflict over "close common ancestry;" student exercise cites myoglobin amino acid sequence differences as an example of this.
  • Presents evolutionary scenarios on early Earth history before life appeared
    as tentative/debatable hypotheses, not as "proven" facts.
FAIR     Prentice Online Learning Exchange: Texas Biology  © 2011
  • Admits that anatomical and biochemical evolutionary trees may not correlate with each other; promises to specify cases of this but never does.
FAIR     Holt Texas Integrated Biology Online TEKS Update  © 2011
  • Concedes that anatomical and biochemical similarities do not always agree
    on patterns of evolutionary descent.

* Texas Biology rule (3)(A) requires:

"(3) Scientific processes. The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom. The student is expected to:

(A) in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." [emphases added]

Publishers tout teaching aids. We stress subject-matter content. Publishers hype their strengths. We also tell their weaknesses. No textbook entity funds us at all. Unlike publisher sales reps, we have no financial interest in any textbook adoption, nor have we any monetary stake in the textbook industry. Our support comes from individuals and a small foundation, none of which to our knowledge have any ties to any textbook company.