OHIO ANTI-EVOLUTION MODEL CURRICULUM CONTROVERSY The Ohio Department of Education Model Curriculum or Lesson Plan,
"Critical Analysis of Evolution--Grade 10,"
discussed in many of the news articles below is available at
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/sciencesboe/pdf_setA/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis_of_Evolution_Mar_SBOE_changes.pdf
or HERE.Please read the Texas Citizens for Science Analysis of the
Ohio "Critical Analysis of Evolution--Grade 10" Model Curriculum (ready soon).Science standards set, but the teaching is still evolving
Scott Stephens
Cleveland Plain Dealer
December 29, 2002
(No URL available)To Ron Stewart, the new standards for teaching science in Ohio's schools offer an endorsement of evolution and a rebuke of intelligent design.
"I feel very strongly that we need to teach evolution in the biology classroom and that we probably do not need to talk about intelligent design," said Stewart, a biology teacher at Stow-Munroe Falls High School in Stow.
"If we were to teach a controversy, it would be a controversy about such things as the pace of evolution, rather than whether evolution did occur."
To Bryan Leonard, those same science standards give him the green light to teach ideas critical of Darwin's theory.
"The idea is to increase students' knowledge of evolution," said Leonard, a biology teacher at Hilliard Davidson High School near Columbus.
"Showing them the controversies of evolution can help us achieve this goal. "I've often found that students are more interested in the controversy."
Two high school biology teachers. Two interpretations.
Despite the State Board of Education's Dec. 10 adoption of the new set of science standards, the question of how best to teach Ohio's 1.8 million public-school students about the origin and development of life on Earth is far from settled.
It took the board 12 months to fashion a compromise that strikes a delicate balance between teaching evolution and teaching concepts that are opposed to the scientific theory. Wary that their words would be misread, the board members added a caveat stating that they did not endorse intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have developed by chance and must have been guided by a higher power.
But it may take a little longer to see how those carefully crafted words play out in Ohio's classrooms.
It's true that the state's standardized academic-proficiency tests, including the new Ohio Graduation Test students will soon take in 10th grade, are predicated on uniform academic standards statewide. But it's important to remember that schools are controlled locally, and the 612 individual boards of education have great say about what is taught, how it is taught and what textbooks are used in classrooms.
"It's a local-control state, and local districts reflect their community," said Lynn Elfner, who heads the pro-evolution group of educators and scientists called the Ohio Academy of Science.
The standards identify subjects that students should learn and establish the grade levels at which those subjects should be taught. The state board's adoption of them was the first step in revamping classroom instruction.
The next step -- writing a science curriculum -- will give teachers guidelines on how to teach those subjects in accord with the demands of the standardized tests. A committee appointed by the state Department of Education will begin that process early in the coming year.
"This will be very controversial -- maybe even more so [than the standards]," predicted state board of education member Martha Wise of Avon.
Some of her board colleagues said they will keep a sharp eye on the team that is assembled to write that curriculum.
Among them is Michael Cochran of the Columbus suburb of Blacklick. Cochran favored including ideas contrary to evolution in the science standards and said the team put together to write the science standards was stacked with pro-evolutionists. He wants to see more diversity of opinion on the curriculum team.
As the state board wrestles with the next step, students and teachers are already beginning to examine how the new standards will affect them. Just before Christmas, scores of student debaters from across Northeast Ohio gathered at Shaker Heights High School for a two-day tournament. This year's debate subject: intelligent design.
Earlier this month, Case Western Reserve University sponsored a workshop for high-school biology teachers on teaching life's origins in the classroom.
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, told the teachers not to be fooled by anti-evolutionists who have attacked science textbooks as being biased and factually incorrect.
"They want to deprive teachers of some of the best teaching tools," Scott told the group. "Don't hesitate to use them."
Intelligent-design advocates are also encouraging teachers to exercise academic freedom and challenge the tenets of evolution.
Already, the American Civil Liberties Union has said it is prepared to take to court local districts that teach intelligent design because it is a form of creationism, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled can't be taught in public schools because doing so blurs the separation of church and state.
"They don't have a leg to stand on," retorted Bruce Chapman, founder and president of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the nation's leading intelligent-design proponent. "There's no religion in this. But it's easier to tell a teacher not to teach this kind of thing than to have a lawsuit. That's called intimidation."
The debate, of course, will not end in Ohio. In 2003, Texas will be ordering a half-million new biology textbooks. Pro- and anti-evolution forces are expected to duke it out this summer over what those textbooks say about teaching origins of life.
Then there is Kansas. The state made headlines across the world in 1999 by largely deleting evolution from its science standards. Although a state education board later restored evolution, anti-evolution forces reclaimed several board seats in the last election.
As was the case in Ohio, educators and policymakers in those states will have to wrestle with the ageless balance between science and religion, faith and knowledge.
"I believe that God created life," said Wise, the Ohio board member who strongly opposed including intelligent design in the standards. "But there is also a set of processes identified with the study of science. I can meld the two theories."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: sstephens@plaind.com, 216-999-4827
OPINION
Ohio faces a new challenge in intelligent-design debate
Lawrence M. Krauss and Patricia Princehouse
Cleveland Plain Dealer
November 24, 2003
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1069583465270033.xml?ocothTwo weeks ago, the Texas State School Board decided to leave biology texts alone. It won't require that textbooks in the state be altered to include discussions of intelligent design. Scientists and teachers throughout the country were heartened by the decision. "Intelligent design" is an ill-defined and thus far unscientific notion that somehow, via unspecified supernatural mechanisms, living things must have been designed to be the way they are.
We in Ohio are, of course, familiar with this debate. Organizations that oppose modern evolutionary biology on religious grounds attempted to alter new proposed life-science benchmarks; they wanted the intelligent design concept inserted into the state science standards. Note that the Supreme Court had already ruled that ID's ancestor, "creation science," is not science but religion. The 1987 ruling also included the concept of creation by an "intelligent mind."
It was a great victory for science education in this state that instead, for the first time ever, the word evolution appeared in the standards in the context of biology. There is no requirement to teach intelligent design creationism.
There was a snag, however. The following "indicator" was inserted into the standards: "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Taken literally, this statement would require teaching of cutting-edge evolutionary biology. Yet many, including us, were concerned that those who are trying to force intelligent design creationism into the curriculum would claim this statement opened the gate.
So, the board clarified: "The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design."
One might have hoped the matter would have ended there. Unfortunately, this issue has come back with a vengeance. A copy of a draft curriculum approved for field-testing and public comment in the state has been leaked. The Department of Education board approved this draft in September but withheld it from public scrutiny. We now understand why.
Consider the lesson plan associated with "allowing students to critically analyze nine aspects of evolutionary theory." One might have hoped that the students would be presented with, say, a rousing discussion of the vigorous controversy over how closely related dinosaurs are to birds.
They could then understand how predictions of evolutionary biology produced by the scientific community through decades of hard work and research have met all apparent challenges and led to substantial scientific progress.
Instead, students are required to "debate" each "challenge" as if they were in a government or English class, with some students required to take a position contradicting the results established by decades of sound science. There is little pedagogical value in requiring students to take positions that evidence has shown to be incorrect. Indeed, it is not clear that it is ethical. At the very least it would demoralize any students who took the debate seriously. Imagine forcing some young person to debate that the Holocaust never happened or that certain racial groups are inferior as a way of teaching them the fallacy of these notions.
Equally important, this process sheds no light on how "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze" evolution. Science does not convene debates about well-established results. Rather, predictions of a theory such as evolution are compared to the data. If apparently anomalous data is uncovered, different groups of scientists will analyze and even debate it to judge if the results really are discrepant. But if they have been shown not to be, as is the case with all nine challenges promoted in the proposed curriculum, we don't waste our time rehashing old issues. We move on. That's how science works!
What's more, the nine supposed "challenges" to evolution come straight out of intelligent design creationism. A main source listed in the curriculum is the discredited book "Icons of Evolution," by the Rev. Jonathan Wells, one of the Discovery Institute authors who came to Ohio to promote teaching intelligent design.
Especially ridiculous is the ninth so-called "challenge" on the natural selection of peppered moths. This is Dr. Wells' favorite hobbyhorse in his self-declared war on Darwin. Particularly ludicrous is the claim that the well-supported observations of moth populations darkening over time in response to selective forces (a.k.a. microevolution), somehow represent a challenge to macroevolution (the formation of new species, called speciation). But no evolutionary biologist claims that the peppered moths did speciate. There are, however, well-documented cases of speciation in the laboratory that support macroevolution.
It is unfair to our children to waste their time in science classes on unfair and disingenuous debates in which one side is guaranteed to lose on the basis of existing data - debates that seem interesting only if one is ignorant of this data.
Why insert such red herrings into the curriculum?
The answer can only be that special-interest groups want to sneak intelligent design in the back door, because they cannot enter it the honest way, by submitting their ideas to critical analysis by otherwise disinterested scientists. These individuals are violating the express intent of the Ohio Board of Education that voted on the state standards.
Appropriate action must be taken now to ensure that they do not continue their attempts to subvert science education. Texas, West Virginia and many other states have successfully fought back these attacks. Ohio must too.
Krauss is Ambrose Swasey Professor and chair of physics at Case Western Reserve University. Princehouse teaches evolutionary biology at Case.
Science standards debate continues evolving in Ohio
Scott Stephens
Cleveland Plain Dealer
November 27, 2003
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1069936295100340.xml?nohioSome scientists say Ohio is still monkeying around with how it teaches Darwin's theory of evolution.
The state found itself under a national microscope last year while it debated, and later adopted, a set of science standards that included evolution -- the theory that living things descended from common ancestors. Those adopted standards specifically discounted "intelligent design" -- the concept that the history of life cannot be explained by natural law alone.
This fall, a select group of Ohio teachers field-tested numerous model lesson plans that grew from the standards. Schools do not have to use the lesson plans, but state proficiency tests will be based on the information they cover.
Some teachers and scientists complain that the lessons were developed without adequate public scrutiny and could not be reviewed during field testing, which ended last week. They also say that some language in the plans sounds an awful lot like intelligent design.
"If the process had been open to the public and to the scientific community, we'd have a better product," said Ohio Academy of Science Chief Executive Lynn Elfner, who battled with state education officials for weeks before getting complete copies of the lessons. "It's not the quality we expected."
The present flashpoint for debate flows from one requirement in the standards for 10th-graders: "Describe how scientists today continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
Some worry that the requirement, as implemented in the lesson plans, will give teachers and students the green light to debate and challenge bedrock scientific principals as if they were discussing "soft" disciplines such as political science or philosophy.
Others say criticisms of the model science curriculum are neither fair nor accurate. State Board of Education member Deborah Owens Fink of Peninsula said the process being used in science is identical to the one used in English, math and other subjects. Teachers, parents and others can attend meetings and provide input, she said. She added that the committee that wrote the lesson plans received specific orders to follow the intent of the academic standards.
"Lynn Elfner's own group said these were some of the best standards in the country," said Owens Fink, who had fought to include intelligent design in the standards. "Yet still this group chooses to whine about students participating in an open inquiry about evolution."
Robert Lattimer, a member of the team chosen to write Ohio's science standards and an ardent supporter of intelligent design, agreed that the evolution-only forces appear intent on stifling all debate on the issue.
"If the evidence is so strong for evolution, then why are they afraid if students debate it?" Lattimer said. "Their implication that evidence against evolution cannot be considered is just inaccurate."
When it meets next week, the 40-member committee that wrote the lessons will begin to sift through the initial feedback from teachers and decide what needs to be reshaped or eliminated. But Elfner remains skeptical about whether Ohio will end up with a solid science curriculum for its public school students.
"I hate to say it's dead in the water, but it's a wounded duck," Elfner said.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: sstephens@plaind.com, 216-999-4827
PROPOSED LESSON ON EVOLUTION UPSETS SCIENTISTS
10th-graders would debate the theoryBy Mike Lafferty
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Thursday, December 4, 2003
(No URL available)Ohio scientists are angry that a proposed lesson for the state's new science curriculum calls for high-school students to debate evolution.
The lesson, "Critical Analysis of Evolution,'' is one of 10 about evolution in the 10th-grade curriculum being prepared for the 2004-2005 school year.
Critics say the lesson suggests that students debate the overall idea of evolution -- instead of parts of it -- and provides ideas to challenge the theory. It also lists several intelligent-design and creationist Web sites.
Intelligent design is the concept that the complexity of living things required intervention by an intelligent designer, possibly God. Critics say including this concept is a way to slip biblical creationism into schools.
Many thought the fight over intelligent design would have eased when the State Board of Education last year mandated teaching evolution. It was a compromise of sorts because the decision allowed local educators to include intelligent design if they wanted to.
"The debate will never go away,'' said John Neth, who taught science at Groveport-Madison High School for 30 years and is a former science adviser for the state Department of Education.
"It will just be hashed back and forth.''
Neth said scientists don't think that every part of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is exact, but they argue that certainly doesn't mean the alternative is intelligent design.
A state school board member, however, defended the proposed lesson.
"I don't see how anyone could infer anything but science in there,'' said Deborah Owens-Fink, a marketing professor at the University of Akron.
The 35-member writing committee will meet at 9:30 a.m. today and Friday at the University Plaza Hotel, 3110 Olentangy River Rd., to review comments and consider changes.
In its December 2002 announcement, the state school board also required that students be taught how scientists critically analyze all aspects of evolutionary theory.
While the board did not say that intelligent design must be taught, it also did not forbid it.
Some proponents, including Owens-Fink and fellow state board member Michael Cochran of Franklin County, wanted the standards to include intelligent design.
"I would have preferred that we include in the lessons and the state benchmarks that some scientists are doing work in intelligent design,'' Owens-Fink said. "That did not happen. Most Ohioans wanted it.''
Cochran said last year that the state board intended that students critically examine basic evolutionary theory.
Scientists, however, say that goes too far.
They insist that students should understand that Darwin's theory has been tested and revised over time. For instance, the idea of whether evolution occurs gradually or in rapid bursts is still debated.
This sort of debate, they say, doesn't mean the entire theory should be called into question.
"There are outstanding issues where we can't understand things. Those aspects are useful for students to understand,'' said Case Western Reserve physicist Lawrence Krauss. "But (this lesson) involves direct attacks on the theory that have long ago been discounted.''
This lesson does not reflect the board's science standard, according to Lynn Elfner, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Science.
"The current suspect lesson plan that asks teachers to 'teach the controversy' still goes back to the nature of the controversy. Is it science or religion?'' he said.
The state board will vote on the proposals that include evolution lessons in March. A total of 200 science lessons for K-12 must be ready by July.
The department also parceled out the lessons, a few to each reviewer, a method Owens-Fink said was necessary because the entire lesson plan involved thousands of pages.
Elfner said he was given several evolution lessons but had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the entire draft lesson plan.
"The department has pretty much hidden these documents from the public,'' he said.
mlafferty@dispatch.com
Creationism back in state science lessons, critics say
Evolution dispute reignites on state boardCatherine Candisky
The Columbus Dispatch
Thursday, February 05, 2004
(No URL available)State school board President Jennifer L. Sheets denies that intelligent design is creeping into new science lessons. Debate has again erupted about what public-school students are taught about Darwin's theory of evolution, with some scientists saying that creationism has found its way into state guidelines. The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote Tuesday on lesson plans to complement grade-by-grade science standards enacted more than a year ago. Schools don't have to follow the guidelines, but state proficiency tests will be based on them.
Ohio attracted international attention in 2002 when the state board debated whether science standards should include "intelligent design," the concept that certain life forms are too complex to be explained by evolution and that some unknown intelligence must have been involved. Ultimately, the board chose to include only evolution with a disclaimer that the standards do not "mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." Some scientists and board members say the proposed lesson plans ignore that requirement and include the nonscientific views of supporters of intelligent design.
"It's junk," said Sam Schloemer, a Cincinnati board member who called for the resignation of Michael Cochran, co-chairman of the board's standards committee. That panel is working on the lesson plans.
Last week, Schloemer asked Gov. Bob Taft to intervene, saying the committee has ignored the concerns of numerous scientists who have complained that the lesson plans are "faulty." "Most people who have a relationship with God will not disagree with the concept of an intelligent designer, but will strongly disagree when it is incorporated into a science curriculum," Schloemer wrote in a Jan. 26 letter to Taft.
Cochran, of Columbus, did not return a message left at his office yesterday seeking comment. James L. Turner, a board member from Cincinnati, responded in a letter to Schloemer earlier this week, criticizing him for taking the issue to Taft and defending the work of the standards committee.
"We had settled this," said Martha W. Wise, a board member from Avon and leading critic of intelligent design. "We agreed that (the standards) would not mandate the learning and testing of intelligent design, yet here we are with a document that includes all the arguments of the intelligent-design advocates." Wise said she believes efforts to get intelligent design into the classroom have been re-energized as the 19-member board "has shifted to a more ultraconservative view." Board President Jennifer L. Sheets of Pomeroy disagreed, saying the board remains "absolutely" committed to the science standards adopted in December 2002, which state that schools are not mandated to teach intelligent design.
The debate appears to stem from a requirement in the standards for 10 th-graders to "describe how scientists today continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Patricia Princehouse, a professor of evolutionary biology at Case Western Reserve University, said there's nothing wrong with the requirement. The problem is that intelligent design gets support in parts of proposed lesson plans, she said. Deborah Owens Fink, a board member from Richfield and supporter of intelligent design, said "some of these scientists are so paranoid, they don't understand it."
"It's ridiculous," she said. "There is nothing about intelligent design in the lesson itself. I wish there had been, but the board didn't take that perspective."
ccandisky@dispatch.com
OPINION
Creationists seeking subtle entrance to science classes
Steve Rissing
Columbus Dispatch
February 6, 2004
http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/02/06/20040206-A11-00.htmlCreationists again are trying to push their views into Ohio's public school science classrooms -- this time, through the back door.
number of Ohio science teachers, myself included, were asked recently by the Ohio Department of Education to review lessons it is developing to assist teachers and their students to prepare for the Ohio Graduation Test.
That test and the model lessons for review are based on the Ohio sciencecontent standards that were passed by the State Board of Education 13 months ago. Some board members advocated inclusion of intelligent-design creationism in those standards, a move eventually rejected by the board.
But such creationism nonetheless is alive in the model lessons. Attempts to again slip such nonscientific ideas into the science curriculum and the graduation test itself should raise concerns about the science education of our children.
Of the lessons I reviewed, one in particular is associated with a standard forged in 2002 as a supposed compromise requiring students to describe how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. The state board even included reassurance that this indicator did "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." But, somehow that hasn't stopped some lesson writers from trying to teach our children nonscientific, nontestable hypotheses in science classes.
Intelligent-design creationism was conjured as early as 1691 by the Rev. John Ray. In its current manifestation, adherents argue that some traits of organisms are so complex that they occur through the intercession of some nonphysical, mindful being, such as God or some other supernatural entity.
One of the lessons requires "critical analysis discussion" of evolution by 10 th-grade students. Such a debate format implies incorrectly that only two sides exist in research analyzing such questions in science. A debate format suggests incorrectly that alternate arguments are of equal weight and that public-school teachers should mentor students by providing them unscientific "alternatives" to good science. Further, students are to find data challenging evolution. That's a guaranteed failure for a 10 thgrader, given that no such data or experimental results exist in the scientific literature, though such red herrings abound in creationist information.
The lesson includes grading rubrics, including points assigned for courtesy and group participation during debates. But no points are assigned for authenticity of content. If extended to all sciences and the graduation test, then a hollow but wellpresented Earth-centered solar-system argument might pass, while a well-reasoned but poorly presented sun-centered one might fail.
Familiarity with current science content should count for something in a science grade. The lesson comes with a prepared script for students to follow in their debate regarding evolution. A student, for example, is to recite that in classic studies of the British peppered moth, "no new species emerged." Cool. But no one ever suggested they did.
Students are to read aloud under the guidance of their teacher that "scientists have not observed (bacterial) cells changing into organelles, such as mitochondria or chloroplasts." Of course no scientist has observed it. The science standards themselves indicate such cellular changes occurred about a billion years ago. Scientists never have observed SARS viruses entering human cells, either, but we accept those as part of an infectious-disease theory supported by other strong inference.
Given that the lesson attacks or ignores centuries of scientific endeavors and results, it is surprisingly silent about offering alternative hypotheses, especially any that are testable or have predictive power, the hallmarks of good science.
The lesson never mentions intelligent-design creationism explicitly; rather, it guides teachers and students to references and Web sites where they can discover such creationism on their own. The aspects of evolution chosen for challenge come from one of those references, an intelligent-design creationism book written by a disciple of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
In the freshman biology course I teach at Ohio State University, I link my topics to the board's science standards. Recently, I spent two class sessions on the standard that reads: "Recognize that bias affects outcomes. People tend to ignore evidence that challenges their beliefs but accept evidence that supports their beliefs. Scientists attempt to avoid bias in their work."
If we require our high-school students to recognize the blinding effects of bias in order to pass the graduation test, then we should expect the same from those preparing and adopting the curricula designed for students to pass that exam. The outcome affected by bias in lessons pending before the State Board of Education is the scientific literacy of our children and Ohio's work force.
Steve Rissing is a biology professor at Ohio State University. steverissing@hotmail.com
State board creating path for creationism
Sam Fulwood
Cleveland Plain Dealer
February 7, 2004
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/sam_fulwood/index.ssf?/base/opinion/107615855856191.xmlKnuckle-dragging creationists -- a.k.a. proponents of "intelligent design" -- are trying to crawl back into Ohio's public schools.
They reject Darwin's theory of evolution and insist that their religious beliefs are a form of science deserving serious academic study.
After much debate and international attention, the State Board of Education made clear in 2002 that state science curriculum standards were not to "mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design."
But intelligent design proponents don't listen or learn. They packed the 19-member state school board with people sympathetic to their junk science.
In September, the state school board approved a draft of the science curriculum for field-testing and public comment. That draft requires that every facet of teaching about evolution be challenged point by point -- a clear invitation to talk about creationism.
If allowed to stand, this curriculum loophole would be a back- door pass for intelligent design to enter the schoolhouse.
In true Ohio tradition, the board shielded the draft from public scrutiny. Their efforts might have gone unnoticed if some eagle-eyed scientists hadn't been on watch for the creationists to pull a stunt like this.
On Tuesday, the State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on science standards that accompany grade-by-grade lesson plans.
If the board goes along with the draft curriculum, it will be a retreat from its previous decision to keep intelligent design out of the schools. It will also encourage the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based "think-tank" to continue their state-by-state jihad against real science.
The institute believes it's on a mission from God, but what it's doing is putting ideology on par with real and accepted science. The group's ultimate goal is to discredit evolution and enshrine religious instruction in public schools.
Agents for this pseudo-science are everywhere, crusading and -- thank God -- losing more often than they succeed. State school boards in Texas, West Virginia and Georgia have rejected recent efforts to put strange science in the classroom or on standardized tests.
But it requires vigilance to keep them at bay. If former President Jimmy Carter hadn't spoken out against it, Georgia schools Superintendent Kathy Cox might have allowed creationists to win a sneaky little victory.
Cox wanted to remove the word "evolution" from all textbooks and materials distributed in the state. She justified her reasoning for this backward move as trying to eliminate "a controversial buzzword" from the classroom.
Carter slapped her down.
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by . . . Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," Carter said in a written statement. "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat earth in order to defend our religious faith."
Ohio doesn't have a Jimmy Carter to make the flat-earth forces retreat. But that shouldn't stop concerned citizens from letting their views be known.
Ohioans -- including God-fearing people like me -- ought to be intelligent enough to know that it's not a sin to keep real science in the schools.
To reach this Plain Dealer columnist: sfulwood@plaind.com, 216-999-5250
Ohio wading into debate on biology
P. Bronson
Cincinnati Enquirer
February 8, 2004
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/02/08/loc_bronson08.htmlMost of what I learned in high school biology is buried in the bottom of my mental locker. But for some reason, I clearly remember those semi-creepy pictures in the chapters on evolution.
They showed embryos -- fish, salamander, human - and they all looked as much alike as The Who and the Stones. My biology textbook said they were proof that all living critters are just different fruit from the same tree of life.
But here's something they didn't tell us in biology:
"Those drawings were faked," says Joel Roadruck, who will teach one of Ohio's first classes on intelligent design on March 1, at Forest Hills Community Education. "We know now that the differences in a fertilized embryo are as great as in a fully developed organism.''
Roadruck collects examples of "evidence" of evolution. Many have been exposed as frauds -- but they are still in textbooks, which evolve slower than flatworms.
He argues that DNA and the incredible complexity of life -- especially humans - contradict Darwin. "They're teaching evolution as truth -- microbes to man. But this is not true. If they were stockbrokers, they'd be in jail" for fraud, he said.
Roadruck got interested by looking at biology books. "I found one view of the origins of life. Only evolution was being taught, when in fact a growing number of scientists support intelligent design theory.''
The state of Ohio is wading into the primordial ooze: The Ohio Board of Education is expected to sign off on a new model curriculum that asks teachers to introduce challenges to evolution in biology classes. Ohio's approach is pretty neutral. It doesn't mandate teaching of intelligent design, or go anywhere near biblical versions of creation.
Akron University biology professor Dan Ely helped write the key lesson plans, and he says they are "very balanced'' and "absolutely'' founded in credible science. "It's ridiculous not to look at the other side,'' he said.
That's the goal of Roadruck's evening classes at Turpin High School. They will examine books by scientists such as Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and William Dembske, who dispute Darwin's theory on the origin of life and evolution. "Just take a look at the evidence and see if it's real,'' he said. "You decide for yourself.''
But that's not so easy. Ohio Board of Education member Deborah Owens-Fink of Akron says the over-reaction to even a modest challenge to evolution has been "very disturbing.'' Most of the acrimony comes from what she calls "the whiny scientists'' who oppose even a protozoa of intelligent design.
"If you support this, you are labeled a Pat Robertson, fundamentalist wacko,'' said Owens-Fink, who has taught scientific research methods at University of Akron. "What's so bizarre is that they never attack the science part, they just attack the people.''
Roadruck says evolution is the cornerstone of a worldview.
"We've been indoctrinated,'' Roadruck said. "If you teach a generation that we all evolved from pond scum, then everything is relative. There is no truth.''
In high school, I learned that in the 1600s, Galileo was forced to recant his theory that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Truth will prevail. You can't keep it buried in a locker.
E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 768-8301
Lesson plans go to Board
Changes made in biology at 10-grade levelBy Laura A. Bischoff
Dayton Daily News
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0210science.htmlCOLUMBUS -- The state Board of Education is expected to approve science lesson plans today after a committee made some changes in a controversial 10th-grade biology lesson that critics say will put "intelligent design" in Ohio's science classes. The board's standards committee voted Monday to approve the science lessons, but only after making changes to the controversial Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson. The committee deleted two citations in the lesson's bibliography one that was incorrect and another that referenced work by Jonathan Wells, a noted promoter of intelligent design.
Left intact in the lesson plans are references to Web sites that the National Academy of Sciences say include information touting intelligent design. Scientists have also complained of errors in the lesson plans that form a pattern to support intelligent design.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is so complex that a higher being must have created it. Two years ago, Ohio made headlines when it considered mandating teaching intelligent design in the science classrooms. The state board adopted standards in December 2002 that did not mandate the teaching of intelligent design but did not prohibit it either.
The standards outline what Ohio's 1.8 million students need to know for proficiency tests and graduation. The state board is in the midst of approving 160 lesson plans to guide teachers in how to cover the science standards.
Board member Martha Wise, who sits on the standards committee, wanted the entire Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson thrown out, but instead the committee settled on revising the bibliography.
Lynn Elfner, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Science, called it a small victory but "we'll never be happy until we get all the creationism out of there."
Board President Jennifer Sheets said Ohio's science standards are a national model and the lessons are simply a guideline that teachers can use or not. Although the intelligent design issue has divided the 19-member state Board of Education, Sheets said, "We've done a good job on this very emotional issue."
Contact Laura A. Bischoff at (614) 224-1624
Sciences group joins fray over lesson plans
Kaye Spector and Scott Stephens
Cleveland Plain Dealer
February 10, 2004
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1076419820131720.xmlThe nation's most prestigious science organization added its voice Monday to criticism of model science lesson plans that the state school board is expected to vote on today.
Scientists are "rightfully concerned about attempts to introduce tenets of intelligent design into your state's science curriculum and instruction," Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a letter Monday to Jennifer Sheets, president of the Ohio Board of Education.
The proposed lesson plans come from a set of science standards that drew national attention in 2002 while the state debated whether to include evolution theory and the concept of "intelligent design."
Evolution is the theory that living things are descended from common ancestors, while intelligent design holds that the history of life cannot be explained by natural law alone.
The state eventually adopted standards that included evolution and specifically discounted intelligent design.
Schools do not have to use the model lesson plans, but state proficiency tests will be based on the information they cover.
A 10th-grade biology lesson plan called Critical Analysis of Evolution is "of special concern," according to Alberts:
The lesson defines "theory" in a way that sounds less rigorous than scientists define the term.It uses the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution," which are concepts recognized by intelligent-design proponents as separate processes, though evolutionary theory makes no distinction.
It includes links to Web sites with information of a religious nature.
Intelligent-design tenets are in other lessons as well, including those dealing with the age of the Earth, the theory of continental drift and the composition of the sun, Alberts said in his letter.
"The tenets of intelligent design do not belong in science classrooms or lesson plans for science," he stated.
The state school board's Standards Committee voted 6-2 Monday to move the proposed lesson plans out of committee so the full 19-member board can vote on it today .
Martha Wise, a board member from Avon Lake, was one of the committee's two dissenting votes.
"It totally speaks to intelligent design, and intelligent design is not science," Wise said. "I would have liked to have seen the whole lesson pulled."
But other committee members who voted to move the lesson plans along - including Deborah Owens Fink of Peninsula - said the board is doing the right thing.
"Ohio has set a standard for the whole nation on how to deal with these issues," she said.
To reach these Plain Dealer reporters:
kspector@plaind.com, 216-999-3904
sstephens@plaind.com, 216-999-4827
Scientists to lobby board on biology plan
By Laura A. Bischoff
Dayton Daily News
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0211science.htmlCOLUMBUS -- Scientists said they will pressure Ohio Board of Education members to change their minds about a controversial evolution lesson plan the board tentatively approved Tuesday.
The 10th-grade biology lesson, Critical Analysis of Evolution, contains factual errors, misrepresentations and creationism, and is likely to face a court challenge, said Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biology lecturer at Case Western Reserve University.
The lesson uses information from "intelligent design" Web sites and lifts concepts and inaccuracies from material published by intelligent design promoters, Princehouse and other critics said.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is so complex a higher being must have had a hand in its creation.
"The trail is clear. There is a religious motivation for this lesson and that will be challenged in court," she told the board.
The board voted 13-4 Tuesday on a resolution that it intends to adopt a group of science plans, including the controversial lesson, at its meeting in March. The board is in the process of adopting 160 science lessons, that it has grouped into five subsets. The subset with the evolution analysis was voted on Tuesday.
On Monday, a board committee removed two bibliography citations in the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson -- one because it was incorrect and another referencing the work of Jonathan Wells, a noted promoter of intelligent design.
Two scientists -- Ted Scharf of Cincinnati and Richard Hoppe of Cleveland -- said removing the citations is tantamount to plagiarism because the lesson now uses information without crediting its source.
Ohio made international headlines two years ago when it considered including intelligent design as part of the science standards, on which graduation and proficiency tests are based. The concept did not make it into the standards, but the board did adopt language that schools should teach that scientists continue to critically analyze evolution theory.
The controversy now seems to be whether intelligent design will be part of the model lesson plans written by state education officials for teachers' use.
Supporters of intelligent design said some scientists just don't want evolutionary theory subjected to criticism.
"I think it's going to be great for science. This lesson, in my opinion, has been misunderstood. I am very familiar with intelligent design and it just is not in there," said Robert Lattimer, an intelligent design proponent and a scientist who was on the standards writing team from two years ago.
Board member James Turner of Cincinnati said, "I reject the notion that these lessons somehow advance the concept of intelligent design or even creationism."
Turner said scientists criticizing the evolution lesson were resorting to hyperbole and then likened their passion on the issue to "teenagers in the backseat" who lack perspective.
Board member Deborah Owens-Fink, another intelligent design proponent, said she expects some scientists to exert tremendous political pressure on board members through Gov. Bob Taft, scientific associations and the media.
The lessons, which are supposed to guide teachers on how to cover Ohio's standards, are due to be adopted by June.
After the vote Tuesday, Princehouse said, "It's a sad day for science in Ohio, but I do remain hopeful that we'll come to a reasonable resolution."
Lynn Elfner, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Science, and Princehouse both are optimistic the board members will change the controversial lesson before its final adoption.
Already, the National Academy of Sciences sent a letter to board President Jennifer Sheets, detailing serious concerns with the lesson plan.
"Please understand that the National Academy of Sciences and, I would contend, the vast majority of scientists, are not asking people to choose between science and religion," wrote Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy. "What concerns us is that Intelligent Design is not scientific because its ultimate tenet that life on Earth is the result of the work of some intelligent being is scientifically untestable and therefore cannot be invalidated through scientific means."
Two local board members, John Griffin of West Carrollton and Carl Wick of Centerville, voted to approve the plans.
The four votes against the resolution were Robin Hovis of Millersburg, Cyrus Richardson Jr. of Bethel, G.R. "Sam" Schloemer of Cincinnati and Jennifer Stewart of Zanesville.
State board approves evolution lesson plans criticized by scientists
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
The Associated Press [on Cleveland.com]
February 11, 2004
http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1076480944180870.xmlCOLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Opponents of the state school board's new lesson plans on evolution expect to lobby heavily for changes before a final board vote.
The state school board voted 13-4 on Tuesday in favor of lesson plans that some scientists say continue to contain inaccurate information about evolution. Proponents say the plans are some of the country's most rigorous in favor of evolution.
The state Board of Education's preliminary vote will be followed by a final vote next month. But changes could be made up to July 1.
The Ohio Academy of Sciences will contact Gov. Bob Taft, lawmakers and board members "so they understand the significance of what they did," said Lynn Elfner, the academy's chief executive.
Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote board president Jennifer Sheets on Monday to express concerns that parts of the alternative concept of "intelligent design" were being incorporated into the plans.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is so complex that it was designed by a non-specified power.
Districts could begin developing lessons from the plans this summer and begin teaching from the material this fall, said Bob Bowers, associate superintendent for curriculum and assessment for the Department of Education.
The plans are models that educators can follow, not mandates. But they contain basic information about evolution that students will be tested on next spring.
Ohio is developing lesson plans based on new standards for what students should know about a variety of core subjects. New achievement tests will be based on the standards.
Tuesday's board vote followed an unsuccessful attempt by some members to delay the plans and send them back to a board committee for more work.
Michael Cochran, an elected board member from suburban Columbus who voted for the plans, said nothing would be gained by additional study.
"People who see weaknesses in the lesson plan will still see weaknesses," said Cochran, co-chairman of the board's standards' committees. "People who see strengths, the strengths will still be there."
James Turner, a Taft appointee from Cincinnati, said the plans include some of the nation's best science standards.
"I reject the notion that the lessons advance the concept of intelligent design or creationism," Turner said. "I believe the lessons are some of the most pro-evolution in the United States."
Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist at Case Western Reserve University, said the standards include a number of errors linked to intelligent design, such as trying to define notions of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" as separate concepts.
At issue is whether processes that lead to a subspecies of animal could ultimately lead to an entirely new species, she said. Scientists believe the two concepts overlap, she said
The information is contained in a section involving a "critical analysis" of evolution, one of nine evolution lesson plans. Scientists don't oppose the information in the other eight plans, Princehouse said.
Taft, a Republican, will not get involved in the board's decision, spokesman Orest Holubec said Tuesday. Governors appoint six of the board's 18 members.
In December 2002, the board approved science standards that include the disclaimer that the standards do not require the teaching or testing of the alternate concept of "intelligent design."
On the Net: State school board: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/
Ohio board backs controversial science curricula
By JIM PROVANCE
February 11, 2004
Toledo Blade Columbus Bureau
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040211/NEWS04/102110093/-1/NEWSCOLUMBUS - The State Board of Education yesterday voted 13-4 to give preliminary approval to an Ohio science lesson plan some members argued could promote intelligent design as a theory for the origin of life.
The majority, however, countered that its model science curricula would teach 10th-grade students to analyze critically Charles Darwin's evolution theory as they would any scientific theory and does not push the idea that some intelligence, not simply chemical reaction, guided the creation of life.
"I reject the notion that these lessons somehow advance the concept of intelligent design or creationism," member James Turner of Cincinnati said. "Indeed, I believe our lessons, just as our standards, are probably among the most pro-evolution science lessons and standards in the United States."
The board rejected a motion that would have sent the life-sciences part of the plan, "Critical Analysis of Evolution - Grade 10," back to committee.
The National Academy of Sciences has objected to the language.
The writing of model curricula is the latest step in the implementation of standards for teaching science in public schools. In late 2002, the board approved standards that generally spell out what K-12 students should know and when they should learn it.
For the first time, Ohio's science standards specifically mentioned the word "evolution," a step applauded by the scientific community. But the standards also mentioned "intelligent design," albeit as part of parenthetical declarations that the standards do not mandate the theory's teaching or testing.
Yesterday's vote represented the board's intention to adopt formally this part of the science curricula next month. The board has a June statutory deadline to adopt the entire set of science standards for all grades.
"It opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule nationally and internationally," Patricia Princehouse, biology lecturer at Case Western University, said. "If Ohio can't enjoy a good reputation scientifically for its scientists, I don't understand how we can position the state in other arenas."
A board committee on Monday removed from its list of potential research sources a book titled Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells because it promotes the intelligent-design theory. The same list of resources includes Mr. Darwin's classic, On the Origin of Species.
Critics argued that, despite removal of the Wells book as a source, language of this critical analysis section mirrors that of supporters of the concept of intelligent design.
"Don't use the name and maybe the rubes won't know it's there," Dr. Richard B. Hoppe, chief executive office of IntelliTrade, Inc., of Cleveland, said. "If the board takes this action, do it honestly and openly. Don't cloak your actions in euphemisms."
Appointed at-large board members Emerson J. Ross, Jr., of Toledo and Sue Westendorf of Bowling Green were among those to support the proposed curricula. Martha Wise - elected representative of the district encompassing Lucas, Wood, Erie, Huron, and Lorain counties as well as parts of Ottawa and Seneca - left yesterday's meeting early but announced her intention to oppose the proposal when it goes to a final vote next month.
State panel backs disputed lesson, infuriates supporters of evolution
Scott Stephens
Cleveland Plain Dealer
February 11, 2004
http://www.cleveland.com/debate/index.ssf?/base/news/1076495549160490.xmlColumbus - The State Board of Education gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a 10th-grade biology lesson that scientists say could put "intelligent design" in Ohio classrooms.
Setting aside an impassioned plea from the National Academy of Sciences, the board voted 13-4 to declare its intent to adopt the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson next month.
The academy warned that doing so would give a green light to teaching intelligent design, the idea that life is so complex that a higher being must have created it.
The disputed lesson plan has thrust Ohio back into the middle of a national fight over how to best teach the origins and development of life on Earth to public school children.
That fight is between supporters and critics of Charles Darwin's theory that life evolved through natural processes, a battle that has raged since the "monkey trial" of biology teacher John Scopes nearly 80 years ago.
"It's a sad day for science in Ohio," said Patricia Princehouse, who teaches biological evolution at Case Western Reserve University. "This opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule nationally and internationally."
Board member James Turner of Cincinnati, who supported the lesson plan, said he believed some members of the scientific community were overreacting.
"I think this is a case of passion lacking perspective," he said.
"I reject the notion that this lesson somehow advances the notion of intelligent design or creationism," Turner said.
Princehouse and other scientists complained that much of the language in the lesson plan came from Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution," a seminal text in the intelligent design movement. The board's standards committee Monday deleted the title of the book from the lesson plan's bibliography, but critics complained that Wells' ideas remained.
Princehouse and others vowed to fight the measure and predicted a court challenge if the lesson plan stands. The board will take a final vote on the measure next month, although changes to the lesson are possible through June.
Board member Martha Wise of Avon, who opposes the lesson plan, said support for the measure reflects a turnover on the board that has left it more conservative than the body that approved the state's science standards 14 months ago. Supporters of the lesson plan said it simply reflects the science standards the board adopted in December 2002, which called for students to examine criticisms of biological evolution. They also argue that Ohio's curriculum will include more arguments on behalf of evolution than standards in most other states.
"I wish intelligent design were in the lesson -- then there would be something to complain about," said Robert Lattimer, a Hudson chemist and outspoken intelligent design supporter. "But it's simply not there."
Teachers are not required to use the model curriculum, but exams such as the state's new graduation test will test children on what the curriculum covers.
Debate about the lesson plan rose to such a fevered pitch this week that the board's president, Jennifer Sheets of Pomeroy, took the extraordinary step of admonishing her colleagues against attacking one another or members of the public.
Tempers continued to flare after the vote. Board member Sam Schloemer said Ohio Department of Education officials were pressured by intelligent design advocates on the board to make sure the writing team of educators and scientists came up with a lesson plan sympathetic to intelligent design. He called on Gov. Bob Taft to intervene.
"Senior level staff members at the Department of Education are ready to revolt," said Schloemer of Cincinnati. "They're totally embarrassed by this whole process. If the governor would call it off, it would be gone."
Taft spokesman Orest Holubec said the governor had no intention of getting involved in the board's work. "The governor has faith in the board members and expects they will approve curriculum based on the standards they adopted in 2002," he said.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: sstephens@plaind.com, 216-999-4827
Evolution criticisms to remain
By Leo Shane III
The Advocate [Newark, OH] Columbus Bureau
February 11, 2004
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/20040211/localnews/394888.htmlCOLUMBUS -- Evolution criticisms backed by religious groups will remain in the state's model curriculum for high school science classes, after getting overwhelming support from the state Board of Education Tuesday.
The board by a 13-4 vote gave preliminary approval to the science model lesson plan, suggestions on how to handle the subject in Ohio classrooms. It includes a chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that recommends 10th-graders debate several common critiques of the theory.
Supporters of the curriculum insist that, as written, the model has nothing to do with intelligent design -- the belief that a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
But opponents said the examples and arguments included -- things like missing links in the fossil record -- bear all the marks of intelligent design teachings, and accused board members of sneaking it into Ohio schools. Several web sites listed in the model also reference pro-intelligent design groups.
"There is a clear paper trail here to intelligent design," said Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biology lecturer at Case Western Reserve University. "It's a disservice to the kids learning evolution.
"This opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule, both internationally and nationally. It's a sad day for science in Ohio."
Proponents of intelligent design pushed to have it included in the state's science guidelines in 2002, but compromised on language that required students to "investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
James Turner, a governor-appointed board member from Cincinnati, said the controversial chapter simply fulfills that analysis requirement.
"I reject the notion that these lessons advance the idea of intelligent design," he said. "There has been a lot of hyperbole about what we have done. They ignore that these are probably the most pro-evolution standards in the country."
Others on the board weren't convinced.
"I support the science standards, but I simply cannot be sure this isn't an introduction to intelligent design," said board member Robin Hovis, an elected member from Millersburg. "So I'm hesitant to put the backing of the state board behind this."
On Monday references to Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution were deleted from the model's bibliography after complaints about the authors' pro-intelligent design views were raised.
While opponents on Tuesday pushed for further scaling back the chapter, several supporters asked the board to expand the critical thinking lessons.
"The best way to handle disagreements in the classroom is to teach both sides of the issue," said Robert Lattimer, a chemist at Noveon Inc. who helped write the 2002 science standards. "In my view, too much material has been removed from this lesson."
Members of the National Science Foundation and the Ohio Academy of Science opposed Tuesday's approval. Last week board member Sam Schloemer, who represents Hamilton County, called for standards committee chairman Michael Cochran to resign for ignoring the scientific community in drafting the model.
After the vote, he called for Gov. Bob Taft to use his influence to move the board members away from the "faulty curriculum."
"The governor has been mum on this for two years," he said. "He has got to take a position on this ... and get it out of our education."
Orest Holubec, spokesman for Taft, said the governor has no current plans to intervene in the process. All eight of his appointed members voted in favor of the model curriculum.
"He has faith that the school board members will implement the curriculum based on the standards," Holubec said.
Final approval of the model curriculum will be voted on next month. Ohio Academy of Science CEO Lynn Elfner said he is confident Taft and other state leaders will step in before then.
"There are senior level staff members at the Department of Education who are ready to revolt over this," he said. "They're being politically silenced. But they're having a hell of a time living with themselves at this point."
PRESS RELEASE
Efforts to Sabotage Ohio's Science Lessons Deplorable, Claims Discovery Institute
Originally published in PRNewswire
Press Release of the Discovery Institute
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040211/sfw119_1.htmlSEATTLE, Feb. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- The tentative decision of the Ohio State Board of Education this week to approve a model lesson plan on the critical analysis of evolution was applauded today by the Discovery Institute, whose Center for Science and Culture examines scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. At the same time the Institute said efforts by Darwin-only lobbyists to misrepresent the issue by identifying it with intelligent design were deplorable.
"Intelligent design isn't even covered in this lesson," said Bruce Chapman, President of Discovery Institute. "The curriculum only examines the evidence for evolution and the scientific challenges to Darwin's theory that are under debate by scientists around the world."
The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Ohio's science standards are clear that they do not mandate the teaching of intelligent design. But Benchmark H of the science standards do require all students to be able to "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The proposed lesson covering critical analysis of evolution implements this benchmark. The lesson has students examine the evidence supporting Darwinian evolution as well as some questions that have been raised by scientists about that evidence.
"Members of the board of education are to be congratulated for making sure that Ohio students learn as much as possible about evolution, including scientific criticisms of the theory," added Chapman. "This is a win-win approach that will benefit everyone -- students, teachers, parents, and scientists."
The Ohio Board of Education is expected to vote again in March to confirm the model lesson plan on the critical analysis of evolution.
Source: Discovery Institute
EDITORIAL
Ohio's science standards
The Cincinnati Post
February 12, 2004
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/02/12/edita021204.htmlThe Ohio State Board of Education should stick with the known facts when it comes time to make a binding decision on lesson plans for science courses in public schools.
Yes, the debate over evolution is back.
A year ago, after a nine-month debate over whether or not to include alternatives to the theory of evolution, the state board of education approved a broad set of science standards. They did not mention creationism or the notion of intelligent design (the concept that the complexity of life on earth suggests the hand of a divine being or a higher intelligence), but did include language saying that teachers might encourage students to critically evaluate Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The debate has been renewed now because the state school board is nearing a final vote on detailed lesson plans that will be offered to Ohio's teachers. The lesson plans are voluntary, but will form the basis for proficiency test questions that Ohio's 10th graders will soon face.
According to reporting by the Associated Press and other news outlets, Ohio's scientific community has no objection to eight of the nine proposed lesson plans involving evolution. But scientists have complained that the ninth lesson plan includes material linked to the Intelligent Design movement.
Mind you, these aren't crackpots with too little time on their hands. The president of the pretigious National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, wrote a detailed letter to the state board of education outlining concerns "about attempts to introduce tenets of Intelligent Design into your state's science curriculum and instruction.''
It seems pretty clear that at least some members of the state board want to keep the door open for classroom discussions of intelligent design as a valid alternative to classic evolutionary theory. But it bears noting that some of the most solid board members -- among them James Turner of Cincinnati -- argue that the proposed lesson plans are among the most pro-evolution in the United States, and do not advance creationist or intelligent design arguments.
If the standards -- which were given preliminary approval Tuesday on a 13-4 vote -- are amended, it should be in a way that buttresses Turner's contention.
Certainly, there ought to be room in Ohio's public school curriculum for students to be exposed to theories about intelligent design, creationism and the like. But those discussions should be held in comparative religion, philosophy, current events courses or the like. Biology, however, should be limited to science.
EDITORIAL
The evolution debate in Ohio yet again?
Dayton Daily News
Friday, February 13, 2004
http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/0214evol.htmlOhioans may be having some difficulty figuring out just what the state Board of Education is up to on the subject of evolution. Some people are saying that the board's pending new lesson plans are an effort to promote the teaching of "intelligent design" over evolution. But the very people who are accused of making that effort insist that the guidelines are actually among the most pro-evolution in the country.
Citizens who are not in a position to read all the documentation -- or interpret all the buzz words that only the fully initiated understand -- might wonder where to turn.
Best to turn to the scientists. And not just individual scientists, but the organizations that are representative of scientists and that have people who have responsibility for looking into these matters fully.
The National Academy of Sciences has entered the debate, appalled at what the Board of Education is doing. The Ohio Academy of Sciences is also upset and says it will be contacting the governor, legislators and board members "so they understand the significance of what they're doing."
One thing is clear about the scientists: Their motives have to do with science, not religion. Their organizations are not dedicated to atheism or agnosticism or humanism. Their members are all over the lot religiously, as well as politically.
As a group, though, the scientists know the difference between science and theology.
A few people with scientific credentials speak up for creationism or intelligent design. But they are the rare scientists whose motives are clearly religious and political.
The state's policy on evolution should be to let individual science teachers decide for themselves whether and how to deal with the fact that some people reject the views of modern science. In dealing, for example, with questions that some students might pose about theories they have heard outside the classroom, teachers don't need any state guidelines. Such guidelines would be micro-management. Most teachers can be trusted to treat religious differences with respect.
State policy makers must be focused on bigger, broader issues. In that regard, it's time for the Board of Education to come to terms with the difference between science and religion, and to decide that what should be taught in science classes is science.
It's time for a dithering Gov. Bob Taft to speak up clearly in defense of that principle.
Absent political leadership, the Board of Education seems unable to dispose of this issue. The controversy keeps coming back. That needn't be. Other states have managed to dispose of it.
Ohio is getting a reputation in national education circles as benighted in this realm. That is not going to help in the recruitment of teachers.
So there is a state problem. It needs to be confronted by the state's leaders: not only the governor and those who would succeed him, but Ohio's U.S. senators. Being Republicans, they are in a position to calm some of the state's conservatives about whether their values are being trampled on.
But the governor's responsibility is greatest among statewide officials. He has pursued that responsibility. Now he has to accept it.
Guide sparks debate: 'Intelligent design' theory will be heard in classroom
By Leo Shane III
Mansfield [OH] News Journal Columbus Bureau
February 15, 2004
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20040215/localnews/419984.htmlCOLUMBUS -- After getting overwhelming support from the state Board of Education, evolution criticisms backed by religious groups will stay in the state's model curriculum for high school science classes.
By a 13-4 vote Tuesday, the board gave preliminary approval to the science mod- el teaching guide. It includes a chapter titled "Critical an- alysis of evolution" that recommends 10th-graders debate several common critiques of the theory.
Supporters of the curriculum insist the model has nothing to do with "intelligent design" -- the belief a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
But opponents said the examples and arguments included -- things like missing links in the fossil record -- bear all the marks of intelligent design teachings, and accused board members of sneaking it into Ohio schools.
Bryan McClelland, a biology teacher at Ontario High School, said he has concerns about school boards mandating various aspects of curriculum.
"In a science classroom, we really need to be sure what we're teaching is science," he said.
Proponents of intelligent design pushed to have it included in the state's science guidelines in 2002, but compromised on language that required students to "investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
Tim Berra, professor emeritus of evolution, ecology and organismal biology at The Ohio State University-Mansfield, said the effort was part of a bigger agenda.
" 'Intelligent design' is a buzzword for introducing a version of fundamentalist Christianity into school science classes," he said. "That's been their objective for some time and they're becoming more sophisticated about it."
But James Turner, a governor-appointed board member from Cincinnati, said the controversial chapter simply fulfills that analysis requirement.
"I reject the notion that these lessons advance the idea of intelligent design," he said. "There has been a lot of hyperbole about what we have done. They ignore that these are probably the most pro-evolution standards in the country."
Others on the board were not convinced.
"I support the science standards, but I simply cannot be sure this isn't an introduction to intelligent design," said board member Robin Hovis, an elected member from Millersburg. "So I'm hesitant to put the backing of the state board behind this."
Last Monday, references to Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution were deleted from the model's bibliography after complaints about the authors' pro-intelligent design views were raised.
Tuesday, opponents pushed for further scaling back the chapter, while several supporters asked the board to expand the critical thinking lessons.
"The best way to handle disagreements in the classroom is to teach both sides of the issue," said Robert Lattimer, a chemist at Noveon Inc. who helped write the 2002 science standards. "In my view, too much material has been removed from this lesson."
Berra disagreed.
"To teach creationism is turning science on its head, saying we must accept as science something that cannot be scientifically tested. That leads nowhere," Berra said.
Members of the National Science Foundation and the Ohio Academy of Science opposed Tuesday's approval. Last week, board member Sam Schloemer, who represents Hamilton County, called for standards committee chairman Michael Cochran to resign for ignoring the scientific community in drafting the model.
After the vote he called for Gov. Bob Taft to use his influence to move the board members away from the "faulty curriculum."
"The governor has been mum on this for two years," he said. "He has got to take a position on this ... and get it out of our education."
Orest Holubec, spokesman for Taft, said the governor has no plans to intervene in the process. All eight of his appointed members voted in favor of the model curriculum.
"He has faith that the school board members will implement the curriculum based on the standards," Holubec said.
Final approval of the model curriculum will be voted on next month.
News Journal reporter David Benson contributed to this story.
The Issue
Evolution
- Theory that living organisms adapt and change over time.
- Accepted as basis for mainstream biology.
- Research frequently published in scientific journals.
- Supported by the Ohio Academy of Science and National Science Foundation.
- Course work upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Intelligent Design
- Belief a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
- Differs from creationism, the belief in a biblical account of life.
- Considered unable to be proven by scientific critics.
- Supporters include the Discovery Institute and the Access Research Network.
- Not reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
EDITORIAL: Creation controversy
Faith-based theory on evolution has no place in science class
Columbus [OH] Dispatch
Sunday, February 15, 2004
(No URL available)Science lesson plans for Ohio's schools should be devoid of any links to the creationist theory of intelligent design.
The State Board of Education has persisted in keeping the door open to this approach, even though intelligent design represents a philosophy on the creation of the universe that is grounded in religion, not scientific research.
This newspaper repeats its call for intelligent design - which cannot be tested by scientific means - to be a topic of classes on philosophy or comparative religion, not science.
Advocates of faith-based explanations of origins stress that the latest version of the lesson plans, approved by the state board on a 13-4 vote on Tuesday, doesn't contain direct references to intelligent design. A committee of board members had deleted a reference to a leading proponent of intelligent design.
But the approved version, subject to a final vote in March, left in the lesson plans loose definitions of theory that would allow for acceptance of intelligent design. It also refers teachers and students to Web sites that contain data on this approach and links to advocates of creationism.
Intelligent-design proponents say life forms are too complex to be explained solely by evolution; thus, a higher form of intelligence must have been involved.
The Dispatch seconds the comments of board member Cyrus B. Richardson of Bethel, who said Monday, "Science is science; intelligent design is a belief."
Creationists stress that the "Darwinian thought police" don't want the prevailing theory of evolution to be challenged. In fact, scientific theories continually are challenged in labs and research projects. Experts in the field can test the latest results and theories based on natural processes and not supernatural beliefs.
This controversy is embarrassing for Ohio, which doesn't need the type of attention the debate has attracted in the past two years.
The misguided faith-based approach apparently sees a theory based on fossil records and other scientific facts as a challenge to belief in a Supreme Being. But science and religion can be complementary, not antagonistic, if what mankind can know through scientific study is left to science and what people believe about the creation of heaven and Earth is left to religion.
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." [This quote is bogus; Einstein never said this. -- SDS-TCS]
The science lesson plans approved next month should be neither lame nor blind but grounded in what can be tested and proved on Earth.
Undermining evolution in Ohio
Fort Wayne [IN] Journal Gazette
Monday, February 16, 2004
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7965530.htmOhio's Board of Education has delivered a victory for pseudoscience and failed public school students with its preliminary approval of a lesson plan on the teaching of evolution. Eminent scientists opposed to the plan deserve strong public support in their efforts to change the minds of board members before a final vote.
The board's 13-4 vote last week endorsed the teaching of evolution in studying the origin of life in biology classes. Unfortunately, the lesson plan does not stop there. Parts of it also make room for intelligent design, a competing idea rooted in religious dogma instead of scientific testing.
Evolution holds that all life began millions of years ago in simple organisms that grew more complex through the process of natural selection. Intelligent design regards life as too complex to be explained by random selection, therefore an unspecified higher power or being directed its course.
Intelligent design has almost no followers among experts on the origins of life, many of whom made their objections known to the board after the vote. The Ohio Academy of Sciences is planning to lobby board members for changes. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious science organization, described its membership as "rightfully concerned about attempts to introduce tenets of intelligent design into (the) state's science curriculum and instruction."
The tentative lesson plan appears to be a clumsy attempt to finesse public opinion following the adoption of science standards in December 2002. The standards were adopted in the midst of a bitter dispute between intelligent design advocates and supporters of prevailing scientific thought.
The lesson plans under consideration this year are officially supposed to be voluntary guidelines on how to teach the standards. But their contents will form the basis of proficiency and graduation tests, thus making them hard for teachers to ignore.
Public opinion polls showing a majority favoring the incorporation of intelligent design into the science curriculum should not rule what is taught or not taught in public schools. Schools exist to transmit knowledge reached through rigorous scholarship, knowledge that sometimes may be unsettling to much of the population.
Schools cannot educate students properly if they are forced to treat all opinions, no matter how flimsy the concrete evidence, as equally valid. Ohio's Board of Education members should listen to what scientists are telling them and keep unproven, unmeasurable claims about the origins of life out of biology classrooms.
LETTER
Politics, not learning, shaped standards
JEFFREY K. McKEE
The Columbus Dispatch
Friday, February 20, 2004
http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/02/20/20040220-A10-05.htmlCan scientists comprehend a simple lesson plan? According to State Board of Education member Deborah Owens-Fink, "Some of these scientists are so paranoid, they don't understand it."
The truth is that scientists understand it all too well: The proposed lesson plan on evolution is a thinly disguised attempt to promote creationism in Ohio's science classrooms. But the lesson is one of politics, not science. One need not be a scientist to connect the dots, as board members should know.
Did she really think that we would not notice the highly misleading statements on the fossil record of evolution, fraudulent claims about today's evolution of bacteria and direct references to creationist literature?
The proposed lesson plan must be replaced by an honest and serious portrayal of contemporary biology.
Owens-Fink's cavalier attitude is characteristic of certain board members who would rather play political games than ensure a quality science education for Ohio's young scholars. Along with board member Michael Cochran, the other main perpetrator of this fraud, Owens-Fink is pushing a desperation agenda instead of fostering understanding.
The "standards committee" of the State Board of Education needs a new chairperson with higher standards. Owens-Fink and Cochran should resign.
McKee is a Professor at Ohio State University, Worthington
Creationism back in the classroom
New Scientist
February 21, 2004
(URL not available)CRITICS say it is creationism by stealth. Ohio's State Board of Education is attempting to include criticisms of evolutionary theory, which include ideas from advocates of intelligent design, in an official lesson plan for public schools.
In a move that has shocked biologists, the board has given preliminary approval for the lessons to be introduced into the curriculum for tenth-graders aged 15 to 16. Intelligent design theory repackages creationism in non-religious terms to get round a US ban on teaching religion in public schools.
The US National Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Academy of Science have asked the board to purge creationism from the plan. But on 10 February the plan was given preliminary approval with only two minor changes: deleting references to the book Icons of Evolution by intelligent-design advocate Jonathan Wells, and to a non-existent paper critical of evolution that was supposedly published in Nature in 1992. But Patricia Princehouse, a specialist in evolutionary theory at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, says the revised plan is riddled with errors and should be scrapped.
The document has still to receive final approval from the state board. State officials say that the vote will come no earlier than April, and that hearings may be required first. But Princehouse points out the board is also considering introducing further creationist ideas into lesson plans, including one that promotes the notion that the sun is only 6000 years old.
PRESS RELEASE
Ohio Academy of Sciences Criticized for Scare Tactics on Evolution
Originally published in Press Release Newswire
Source: Discovery Institute
Tuesday February 24, 2004
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040224/sftu130_1.htmlSEATTLE, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- The leadership of the Ohio Academy of Sciences (OAS) was sharply criticized today by Discovery Institute for trying to censor Ohio's new science curriculum on evolution through a campaign of fear and innuendo.
"The OAS leadership's scare campaign is more science fiction than science," said Bruce Chapman, President of Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank dealing with scientific challenges to neo-Darwinism.
Chapman was responding to a letter sent Monday to Ohio Gov. Bob Taft by OAS President Robert Heath. Heath urged Taft to pressure members of the Ohio State Board of Education to kill a model lesson plan on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution."
Heath alleged that adopting the lesson plan would result in the teaching of "creationism or Intelligent Design," and further claimed that the lesson plan was part of a plot by "fundamentalist Christian organizations" and supporters of intelligent design theory "to inject fundamentalist Christian beliefs into education."
Those charges were refuted by Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "The lesson plan does not even mention creationism. And the only time it cites intelligent design is in the following disclaimer reprinted directly from Ohio's science standards: 'The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.'"
"Only in an Orwellian world could a statement about NOT mandating intelligent design be turned into the exact opposite," added West.
West urged reporters and citizens to read the lesson plan for themselves rather than rely on spin by the leadership of the OAS.
"Contrary to the OAS, the real focus of the lesson plan is to teach students more about evolution, including criticisms made in peer-reviewed science journals over major parts of evolutionary theory," said West.
For example, said West, the lesson plan has students explore debates over the fossil record and investigate different scientific views about whether microevolutionary processes (such as the development of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria) lead to macroevolution.
Regarding the OAS's hysterical claim that the lesson plan is part of a fundamentalist plot, West added: "What will OAS leaders claim next? That the lesson plan is pushed by people who want to burn witches? Such scare-tactics only serve to discredit the OAS leadership."
PRESS RELEASE
Law Professor Says Ohio Academy of Sciences Gave Gov. Taft Bad Legal Advice
Originally published in Press Release Newswire
Discovery Institute Press Release
February 24, 2004
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040224/sftu157_1.htmlSEATTLE, Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- A law professor has faulted the Ohio Academy of Sciences (OAS) for supplying Gov. Bob Taft with bad legal advice about a model science curriculum up for adoption by the Ohio State Board of Education.
According to David K. DeWolf of Gonzaga University Law School, a letter sent to Gov. Taft earlier this week from OAS President Robert Heath contained erroneous information about the constitutionality of the proposed model curriculum.
Heath told Governor Taft that a draft lesson plan on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" was unconstitutional because it promotes intelligent design. As evidence, Heath cited comments by Florida State University law professor Steven Gey, as well as what he referred to as a "privileged document" about the legality of intelligent design that "is being made available only to" the Governor, the Attorney General, and the counsel of the State Board of Education.
"I hope they do science better than they practice law," said DeWolf, who is also a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow. "First, they're wrong about the facts. The proposed lesson plan says nothing about intelligent design, so the claim of unconstitutionality is off to a bad start. Additionally, they don't seem to understand the law. The Supreme Court's opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard made it clear that the state may require schools to teach criticisms of existing scientific theories as a part of a good science education.
"Moreover, even if intelligent design were on the table for discussion, the Edwards case also says that alternative scientific theories can be taught as part of a teacher's academic freedom," added DeWolf. "But this plan doesn't even raise that issue because it doesn't advance intelligent design as a theory. It's hard to understand how such a basic mistake could be made."
DeWolf is co-author of a leading law review article about legal issues surrounding the teaching of evolution, and his work has been cited by members of Congress in congressional debates over science education policy.
DeWolf also questioned the attempt to use a "privileged document" sent to the Governor by the OAS. "I'm assuming that's a law review article in preparation," said DeWolf. "If you aren't ready for public scrutiny of a document, you shouldn't try to use it to argue your case. No judge would entertain a lawyer's brief that is not made available to the opposing party."
DeWolf called on the OAS to acknowledge the benefits of open discussion: "If they simply wanted to find a lawyer who would argue their case, they've succeeded. But what the public wants is a fair discussion of both sides of the question. They haven't made a good impression on that score."
COLUMN
Don't Be a Savya Hata!
Christian activists plan secret push to get religion taught in public schools.BY FRANK LEWIS
frank.lewis@clevescene.com
Cleveland Scene
February 25, 2004
http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2004-02-25/news2.html/1/index.htmlOhio scientists are circulating a document they say proves that Christian activists are trying to sneak their teachings into public schools.
The discovery comes on the heels of the State Board of Education's approval of teaching "intelligent design." For decades, public educators were restricted to lessons on evolution, the theory that life began as a result of natural forces. In contrast, intelligent design holds that the universe was created by God -- only you just can't say His name, because it doesn't sound very scientific.
The board seemed to agree when it granted preliminary approval to a lesson plan that calls on 10th-grade teachers to "help students analyze theories that challenge Darwin's assertion that our ancestors were filthy apes."
Yet the document, unearthed this week, indicates that this is merely the first step of a far-reaching agenda to insert Christianity in public schools. Scientists say it's evidence that intelligent design is merely a "Trojan horse," to be followed by a push for full-fledged religious instruction.
Proponents were quick to denounce the claims, arguing that scientists are just angry because they're really smart but they can't get dates. "It's just crazy," says Douglas Rudy, professor of science at Xenos Christian Fellowship Church. "I've never seen such histrionics."
The memo describes the Board of Education's recent vote as a "victory," and calls for immediate action for the sake of the state. "We must move quickly to capitalize on this success," it reads. "God loves most of Ohio's children, and would rather not cast any more than necessary into the fiery pits of hell."
The memo goes on to describe the next push, "Smart Strategy," which will "breach the walls of the rest of the physical sciences."
"Smart Strategy" attempts to reassert the "true image" of God, who has been recast "by various special interests in recent years as black, a woman, even a transgendered sicko," the memo reads. "Just so we're all clear, God is a really big white man with long white hair. In the beginning, His hair was blond, and it was good. He could color it if He wanted to -- in fact He could have prevented it from turning white in the first place -- and that would have been good, too. But He let it turn white, so that we might recognize His supreme oldness. And so we could tell Him apart from Jesus, who has brown hair and is a little shorter, but still really tall."
The memo calls Smart Strategy "a must-win."
"Copernicus and Galileo may have had a point about the whole solar system thing, but piety hasn't been the same since," the memo reads. "So enough with the mysteries of the universe. If God wanted us to explore space, He wouldn't have made it so far away."
After successful implementation of "Smart Strategy," advocates would begin work on "Brilliant Blueprint," which reduces history to "an Old Testament-sanctioned 6000 years." For children who are disappointed by the elimination of dinosaurs, the memo suggests substituting passages from the Book of Revelations. "No child will miss T-Rex after hearing about the seven-headed beast. In fact, the marketing department is giddy over the plush toys possibilities. Think Chucky meets the Beanie Babies."
This is to be followed by "Clever Concept," which would "eliminate the study of languages other than Jesus's native tongue, English." Activists note that immigrants tend to be poor, amoral criminals because God only speaks English and doesn't understand their prayers. They further note that Heaven officially banned other languages in 1996, and that Ohio children should be trained to be productive citizens in the Hereafter.
The memo concludes with a section on "Ingenious Interruptus," which acknowledges the complexities of modern sex education: "Oy! as the Christ killers say. Kids get so many mixed messages these days, it's vital they get the straight facts in school. And we do mean straight. Heather may have two mommies, but she needs to know that they're both going to hell."
By getting Governor Bob Taft to include the religious tract Kids, Don't Be a Savya Hata! in his OhioReads program, and by requiring athletic coaches to report excessive use of hair-care products by boys, activists hope to "gouge the queer eye," according to the memo. "After that, the lesson is as plain as it gets: Who would Jesus do? No one!"
Case Western Reserve professor Patricia Princehouse, founder of Ohio Citizens for Science, said the memo proves that intelligent design is a "wedge for inserting Bible-based education into public schools."
"Nonsense," said Mark Hartwig, a psychologist who writes a column called "The Wedge Update." "That's Darwinist propaganda. They refuse to acknowledge the growing body of evidence culled from opinion polls in southern states, then accuse us of having an agenda."
Hartwig and others vowed to continue to use the science to prove their findings.
"This memo business is much ado about nothing," said Bob Lattimer, a chemist and prominent Ohio intelligent design proponent. "Who knows, the Darwinists might have written it, the same way Satan created the fossil record."
CWRU scientist threatens court fight if state approves biology lesson plan
Scott Stephens
Cleveland Plain Dealer Reporter
February 26, 2004
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1077796629165810.xmlA Case Western Reserve University scientist says he will go to court if the State Board of Education approves a 10th-grade biology lesson plan he claims will give teachers a green light to teach "intelligent design."
"I'm going to ask the ACLU to take action," Case physicist Lawrence Krauss said at a news conference yesterday at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. "It's not just a scientific question. It's become an interesting legal question."
Krauss has been a leading opponent of the plan, appearing in debates and writing widely against it.
Krauss' comments were endorsed by Florida State University law professor Steven Gey, a leading authority on religious liberties and free speech.
Gey, who will speak at 7:30 tonight at Case's Strosacker Auditorium, said he believes the les son plan, "Critical Analysis of Evolution," is a descendent of "creation science."
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 struck down creation science on the grounds that it was a religion rather than a science. Critics say the Ohio lesson is largely based on the tenets of intelligent design- the idea that life is so complex that a higher being must have created it.
"This plan is not only bad science - it is illegal," Gey said.
Backers of the lesson plan said it simply complies with the state's 2002 academic standards that urge schools to examine criticisms of evolution.
A law professor associated with the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent-design think tank in Seattle, said the lesson plan in question doesn't mention intelligent design. Even if it did, the high court ruled schools can teach alternative academic theories, he said.
"I hope they do science better than they practice law," said Gonzaga University professor David DeWolf. "First, they're wrong about the facts. Additionally, they don't seem to understand the law."
Gary Daniels, litigation coordinator for the ACLU of Ohio, said lawyers from his office are monitoring the debate and doing research to determine what - if anything - the group should do. "We're taking a keen interest in what's going on," Daniels said.
The State Board of Education tentatively approved the lesson plan last month. A final vote is scheduled for March 9.
Meanwhile, the Ohio Academy of Science formally asked Gov. Bob Taft to urge the board to eliminate the lesson plan.
Taft spokesman Orest Holubec said the governor had not yet read the letter.
"The governor supports the standards that were passed at the end of 2002, and he trusts that the school board members will pass a model curriculum based on those strict standards," Holubec said. "That's the work of the board, and the governor trusts they will do it well."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: sstephens@plaind.com, 216-999-4827
PRESS RELEASE
Ohio Darwin Groups Enlist Help of Controversial Legal Expert
Originally published in PRNewswire
Press Release Source: Discovery Institute
Thursday, February 26, 2004
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040226/sfth061_1.htmlSEATTLE, Feb. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Ohio's pro-Darwin groups have enlisted the help of a professor known for his "far out" legal views in their effort to censor a proposed science lesson on evolution.
Earlier this week the Ohio Academy of Sciences (OAS) cited Florida State University law professor Steven Gey as the authority for its claim that the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan being considered by the Ohio State Board of Education is "illegal." On Thursday, Gey will be the featured speaker at an event sponsored by opponents of the lesson.
"The choice of Gey merely underscores how weak the evolutionists' legal argument is," says Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "Gey has a track record of promoting legal views that can only be called far-out." For example:
- Gey argues that nude sunbathing should be given "constitutional protection."
- Gey claims that "moral relativism" is a "constitutional command," and judges should "require every government action to have a primarily amoral purpose and effect."
- Gey believes it is unconstitutional for the government to restrict even hardcore pornography, contrary to current legal precedents. He justifies this by claiming that Darwinian evolution has established the need for moral skepticism.
- Gey insists that the current Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
According to Gey, the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it promotes intelligent design, which he claims is religious.
"The lesson plan doesn't teach intelligent design," responds West. "It analyzes mainstream scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory. Even if it did deal with intelligent design, it wouldn't be unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. Intelligent design is a scientific theory, and the courts have made clear that alternative scientific theories can be presented as part of a good science education."
West adds that recent law review articles in the Ohio Law Journal, the Utah Law Review, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy all take a position contrary to the one espoused by Gey.
"The weight of legal authorities is against his view," comments West.
Citations for the legal materials referenced above will be supplied on request.
Source: Discovery Institute
Professors debate intelligent design
The Observer: The Student Newspaper of Case Western Reserve University
February 27, 2004
http://www.cwru.edu/orgs/observer/index/Head00.htmlCase professors Dr. Cynthia Beall, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, and Dr. Patricia Princehouse gave a press conference at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History Wednesday to discuss new biology lesson plans for Ohio high school students in the ongoing intelligent design vs. evolution debate.
One of the new model lessons, "Critical Analysis of Evolution," for the 10th grade, will be voted on by the Ohio Board of Education (OBE) on March 9. The model lesson attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory, and has been repudiated by scientists and scientific organizations including the Case Faculty Senate, the Ohio Academy of Science, and the National Academy of Scientists. It has also been dismissed as "pseudo-science" by the Ohio Faculty Council, made up of members from all public Ohio universities.
The model curricula passed the OBE vote for intent to adopt by a 13-4 margin this February, and likely will pass an adoption vote by a 12-7 vote March 9, when a public hearing will be held before the final adoption vote takes place. According to sources within the OBE, if the lesson plan is adopted it will become a part of the curricula tested on the Ohio proficiency exam, which is used to determine school success and fund allocation; it is also necessary to pass the test to earn a high school diploma in Ohio.
At the heart of "A Critical Analysis of Evolution" is what has been called "a pattern of deception" by Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist, and "an attack on science" by Krauss. The lesson plan has been criticized for lack of clarity, false historical information, incorrect or missing footnotes, footnotes directly from books on intelligent design, false definitions, using outdated scientific information, and errors of fact. For instance, the lesson plan defines a theory as a "supposition," when scientists usually define a theory as an explanation of phenomena that has passed empirical tests. The end result, critics believe, is that this is the first step in getting rid of all scientific theories that go against creationist teachings.
Richard Baker, an avowed creationist and vice president of the OBE, disagrees. "I voted for it because I think you … need to look at more than one situation as part of the learning process," he said. According to him, the plan's only goal is to "critically analyze" the theory of evolution, and that it does not violate laws that separate church and state.
Baker accused the scientific community of wasting time debating the plan. "We spend all this malarkey and baloney when 99 percent of all the people who are taught this have nothing to do with the rest of their lives … These scientists, they don't care about wasting their own time or anybody else's time. In business we don't waste time … To me, [the lesson] is not a big deal." According to Baker, the real reason scientists want to do away with the lesson plan is, as he said to a group of scientists at a board meeting concerning the lesson plan, "[They] think [they] know everything. [They're] just a bunch of paranoid, egotistical scientists afraid of people finding out [they] don't know anything."
Lynn Elfner, director of the Ohio Academy of Science, disagrees with this thinking. Noting many footnotes to creationist works and similarities of argument between creationist works and the lesson plan, she said that "the concepts of intelligent design are embedded throughout the document and they are traceable to intelligent design organizations … By using the lesson plan, we can go from the document to the pew and the church."
OBE member Sam Schoemer agreed. "When you compare the lesson plan with [intelligent design] websites, it's almost verbatim." Steven Gey, a Florida State constitutional law professor and ABC legal news analysts, added, "It's not only bad science, it's illegal."
Although the references to creationist books in the lesson plan have been removed, prompting allegations of plagiarism, the creationist websites listed as research resources are still there. However, the words "creationism" and "intelligent design" are not in the document at all.
Another issue with the lesson plan is the way it was created. According to Schoemer, the selection for the writing committee was closed and "controlled by the pro-creationist chair Mike Cochran." Martha Wise, another OBE member, said that the lesson plan itself was "written by an [intelligent design] ideologist with limited stature as a scientist." According to Princehouse, "writing committee members could not take home documents from the meeting … They collected and counted every piece of paper they gave out before they let anybody go home."
Such secrecy, Elfner believes, has "subverted" the quality of the plan. "The process to develop the model lessons was controlled concealed, especially from scientists. The result is we have a fatally flawed model lesson that is riddled with errors both in pedagogy and scientific content," she said.
OPINION
Science standards will spur critical thinking
Glen Needham
The Columbus Dispatch
March 1, 2004
(URL not available)Ohio's model science curriculum has come under intense public scrutiny in recent days, with most of the attention being paid to a proposed lesson plan titled, "Critical Analysis of Evolution."
As a biologist, science educator and father of two high-school students enrolled in science, I think the proposed science curriculum is superb in its treatment of evolution. As a member of the Science Advisory Committee, I saw firsthand the State Board of Education and Department of Education expertly guide the curriculum-refinement process.
There are nine proposed lessons that deal with evolution, much more coverage than before. These lessons were created with the input from a number of science educators and scientists and were extensively field-tested in schools last fall with overall positive review.
I support all of the lessons in the curriculum, especially the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson. It provides a corrective to the overly simplistic presentations that one often finds in high-school biology textbooks. One example is that minor genetic variation (microevolution) can produce major structural changes in organisms (macroevolution). The new lesson is good science because it encourages students to apply critical-thinking skills to analyze the evidence. Good students know there is a growing body of published criticism of evolutionary theory.
I also find in my teaching that it is good education. Students are energized by the open discussion, indicating that this approach has helped to sharpen their critical-thinking skills while engaging their interest. Evolution is so fundamental to biology that we must teach it very well. There is no hidden agenda, no reference to intelligent design or faith-based views in this lesson. Ohio and its students will be the winners when the board gives its final approval on March 9.
Glen Needham -- Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Ohio State University, Columbus
-------
[Glen Needham is a public supporter of the Discovery Institute. He is one of the "52 Ohio scientists" who "endorse objectivity." http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Polls%20with%20MN%202.pdf
He also has an "office" at "Leadership University," an arm of Christian Leaderhip Ministries, which is a long-time ally of the notorious Discovery Institute Wedge Strategy. Needham is an entomologist who, judging by his LU URL, specializes in tick spit: http://www.facultylinc.com/personal/facoffice.nsf/AllStaffbyStaffID/tickspit?OpenDocument
He shares his "Personal Story": http://www.facultylinc.com/personal/facoffice.nsf/Storys+By+Staff+ID/tickspit?OpenDocument]
Again, teach the best science
Editorial
The Cincinnati Enquirer
Thursday, March 4, 2004
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/04/editorial_science.htmlA heated issue most Ohioans thought was settled more than a year ago -- how the origins and development of life will be taught in science classes -- is again causing controversy.
At the center, again, is the concept of "intelligent design," which proposes that some higher intelligence played a role. Evolutionary scientists scoff at the notion, calling it religious creationism masquerading as science. They say it has no business in the science classroom.
Proponents of intelligent design wanted it included in the curriculum standards, but lost that battle in the fall of 2002 and settled for language that would require students to "investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
That solution, which we supported, ended the debate -- or so we thought. Last month, the state Board of Education gave a preliminary OK by a 13-4 vote for a model curriculum that included a 10th-grade science chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that would encourage students to discuss various critiques of evolution.
Some scientists cried foul, objecting that the chapter had evolved, so to speak, into a stalking horse for intelligent design. They cited a "clear paper trail" in some specific references the chapter cites. Defenders said it merely reflected the "teach the controversy" compromise, and noted that the standards specifically state they do not include intelligent design. The board is wrestling anew with the issue, and a final vote comes Tuesday.
Evolutionary scientists have a point when they say the unit opened the door to intelligent design -- a point board officials have now acknowledged by removing a controversial pro-intelligent design book, Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution, from the bibliography.
But scientists' warnings that including a critical analysis of evolution will make Ohio the nation's laughingstock seem far-fetched. One board member, James Turner of Cincinnati, says the standards as now written are "probably the most pro-evolution standards in the country."
Some now believe too much has been removed from the critical analysis section. Others seem to believe that any material that does not foster an uncritical acceptance of evolution should be removed from the standards.
Bear in mind that while the state standards specify what has to be taught, they do not limit what also can be taught. Local school districts have the option of adding other concepts to the origins discussion.
As we said two years ago, schools should teach the best science, not try to balance competing ideologies. We also argued that the best science is a science that constantly challenges its own assumptions, and teaches students to do likewise.
The book is not closed on evolutionary biology, subatomic physics or almost any other scientific discipline you care to name. There are questions for which we don't have answers. We should teach the best of what we do know - which in this case clearly is evolution - but also teach students to keep questioning and wondering.
Critics of evolution curriculum dissatisfied
Opponents claim even after changes, chapter still teaches intelligent design
By Leo Shane III
Mansfield News Journal
Gannett News Service
March 4, 2004
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20040304/localnews/8361.htmlCOLUMBUS -- Critics of the state Board of Education's new evolution curriculum hope to derail final approval of the document at the board's monthly meeting next week.
But they admit little has changed since last month, when the board overwhelmingly backed the lesson plan they say includes intelligent design teachings.
"We're trying to get some signal, but we don't know what will happen," said Lynn Elfner, CEO of the Ohio Academy of Science. "We haven't had any feedback from the governor or anyone else."
In February, the board voted 13-4 to give preliminary approval to the evolution curriculum, designed to be a classroom guideline for science teachers.
It includes a chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that recommends 10th-graders debate several common critiques of the theory.
Board member Martha Wise, who tried to have the chapter removed, said the arguments and examples used are those often put forth by proponents of intelligent design, the belief a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
"There's a reason to be upset here, because it's not science," she said. "(Intelligent design) is specifically faith-based."
But the majority of the board said the curriculum reflects compromise language, worked out two years ago when science standards were drafted, after the board considered requiring intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution.
Supporters insist, as written, the chapter has nothing to do with intelligent design, only critical thinking.
References to one specific intelligent design author have been removed from the curriculum's bibliography, and the chapter's preamble states it "does not mandate the teaching of intelligent design."
Board member Michael Cochran, head of the group's standards committee, said he will present the lesson plan to the board Tuesday without any major revisions because no compelling arguments against the curriculum have been presented.
Board member Jennifer Stewart, who voted against the language last month, said the board hasn't taken enough time to review the concerns outlined by opponents. But she is optimistic that enough revisions have been made to the initial draft that she can vote for it this time.
Wise said she and other opponents are still lobbying her colleagues to delay final approval and remove the critical analysis chapter. Neither she nor board member Virginia Jacobs, another opponent, was present for last month's vote.
"We only need four votes more, so we're trying to persuade people leading up to the meeting," she said. "There is no room for compromise."
Elfner echoed those comments.
"Our concern is that if this gets past the board it will be touted as a way to get a wedge into the system," he said. "We're not in the mood to compromise."
Elfner said faculty at Ohio State University and Case Western Reserve University have rallied against the curriculum, and he expects more academics to petition the board next week.
He has also asked Gov. Bob Taft to step in and block passage of the curriculum. Taft so far has refused to get involved.
Wise said she thinks if the lesson plan is approved it will leave the board vulnerable to legal action on the basis the state is promoting teaching religion in its public schools.
"I'm ready to file a case myself," she said.
Don't let dogma censor teaching
By Benjamin Wiker
Guest