Darwinism to Face Scrutiny in Ohio and Minnesota

family ^ | 02.26.04

[Coleus]

State News

February 26, 2004

Darwinism to Face Scrutiny
by Sonja Swiatkiewicz, state issues analyst

Ohio and Minnesota have the opportunity to make a difference in how Darwinism is taught to schoolchildren.

Ohio made history in December 2002 when its state Board of Education approved changes to public school science standards requiring students to be tested on their understanding of evidence for and against Darwinism.

Just over a year later, Ohio again stands at a crossroads of sorts, while its school board seeks to establish a model curriculum to implement 2002's changes. Minnesota, likewise, has come to a place of decision — whether or not to follow in Ohio's footsteps in the teaching of Darwinism.

The Ohio school board voted 13-4 on Feb. 10 in a preliminary vote to accept "Set A" of the model science curriculum -- the curriculum that will be sent to each district to guide teachers in how the new science standards should be implemented in the classroom. "Set A" includes 42 individual lessons that deal with potentially "controversial" topics; nine of them (those slated for grade 10 life sciences) discuss evolutionary theory.

Only one of the 42, however, seeks to include the "critical analysis" of Darwinism that is now required to be taught — and that's where the rubber meets the road.

Fiercely protective pro-Darwinists are attempting to derail the new science standards before kids in the classroom ever reap the benefits of this dramatic change in policy. Critics have claimed that the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson mandates the teaching of Intelligent Design.

In fact, the "Critical Analysis" lesson supports the new requirement that students be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Students will be taught that theories are tentative explanations that are subject to modification as continued experimentation demands; the differences between microevolution and macroevolution; and guided to examine the various lines of evidence for and against the theory of a common ancestry (macroevolution).

While the board had already indicated its support of "Set A" in its entirety, Darwinists are applying pressure to the board members to convince them to remove their support. A final, binding vote will be taken during the board's meeting March 8-9.

A few states away, Minnesota's Legislature is grappling with making initial changes to the state's science standards. Four members of the science standard writing committee have submitted a "minority" report, urging the Legislature to accept two standards that mirror Ohio's.

These two standards will lay the groundwork for Minnesota's schoolchildren to be taught critical analysis of evolution — which has been specifically encouraged by the No Child Left Behind Act conference report.

But first, the "minority report" must be accepted into the recommendations to be sent to the full House and Senate.

Those who support a balanced presentation of Darwinism, the evidence for and against macroevolution, must make their voices heard. The type of science education Ohio and Minnesota's kids receive is dependent on board members and legislators knowing concerned citizens care about the unbiased teaching of evolution.

TAKE ACTION

Ohio

Please contact the board members who voted in favor of the "Set A" curriculum to thank them for their support and encourage them to vote in favor of "Set A" on Mar. 8 or 9. Please contact them by March 5.

Richard E. Baker (Hollansburg), 937-548-2246

Virgil E. Brown, Jr. (Cleveland Heights), 216-851-3304, Virgil.Brown@ode.state.oh.us

Michael Cochran (Blacklick), 614-864-2338, ota@ohiotownships.org

Jim Craig (Canton), 330-492-5533, Jim.Craig@ode.state.oh.us

John W. Griffin (West Carrollton), P.O. Box 49201, West Carrollton, OH 45449-0201

Stephen M. Millett (Columbus), 614-424-5335

Deborah Owens Fink (Richfield), 330-972-8079, deb@uakron.edu

Emerson J. Ross, Jr. (Toledo), 419-248-8315

Jennifer L. Sheets (Pomeroy), 740-992-2151, Jennifer.Sheets@ode.state.oh.us

Jo Ann Thatcher (McDermott), 740-858-3300

James L. Turner (Cincinatti), 513-287-3232, jturner@cinergy.com

Sue Westendorf (Bowling Green), 419-352-2908, sue.westendo@ode.state.oh.us

Carl Wick (Centerville), 937-433-1352, carl.wick@ode.state.oh.us

Please politely urge the four board members who voted against "Set A" to reconsider and vote in support. Please contact them by Mar. 5.

Robin C. Hovis (Millersburg), 330-674-5000, Robin.Hovis@ode.state.oh.us

Cyrus B. Richardson, Jr. (Bethel), 513-734-6700, Cyrus.Richards@ode.state.oh.us

G.R. "Sam" Schloemer (Cincinnati), 513-821-4145, Sam.Schloemer@ode.state.oh.us

Jennifer Stewart (Zanesville), 740-452-4558, Jennifer.Stewart@ode.state.oh.us

Two members were absent for the Feb. 10 meeting, and should be politely contacted as well.

Virginia E. Jacobs (Lima), 419-999-4219, Virginia.Jacobs@ode.state.oh.us

Martha W. Wise (Avon) 440-934-4935, Martha.Wise@doe.state.oh.us

In addition, please contact Gov. Bob Taft and tell him you support the teaching of critical analysis of evolution. For contact information for Gov. Taft, visit our CitizenLink Action Center.

Minnesota

Please contact the chairpersons of the House and Senate Education Policy Committees, Rep. Barbara Sykora and Sen. Steve Kelley, and urge them to accept the "minority report."

In addition, please contact your own representative and senator and politely urge them to support the critical analysis of evolution when it comes to a vote.

Also, please contact Gov. Tim Pawlenty and urge his support for teaching the evidence for and against evolution. Contact information for Gov. Pawlenty is available through our CitizenLink Action Center.

[PatrickHenry]

It's the "ugly girl" syndrome ...

Yes, and the 700-pound ugly girl is the first to complain about date rape and sexual harassment.

[longshadow]

Yes, and the 700-pound ugly girl is the first to complain about date rape and sexual harassment.

I hope that's not the voice of experience I'm hearing....

;-)

[PatrickHenry]

I've never dated a girl who weighed over 300 pounds.

[Joe Bonforte]

Yet, even though Haeckel's drawings have been exposed as fraudulent, they continue to appear in Ohio textbooks.

I would point out that this is the fault of lazy textbook manufacturers and lazy educators, not the scientists who disproved the correctness of the drawings. So your point does not give you any foundation to attack the science.

[ohioWfan]

I may not be reading you correctly

You're not. And I hope the same is true about my reading you incorrectly.

The cynicism and mockery on this thread is disgusting. The power of the Evil One over some of these people's lives is palpable. I hope you sense it too.

If you are a believer, Patrick, don't forget to factor in Satan's power to deceive. There have been many lies over the decades in the name of science. I pray you haven't swallowed them all, by putting your faith in the men who have told them, and the men you are keeping company with here.

Be well, Patrick. Read the Word, and go with God.

[balrog666]

My own take is that anti-evos actually have a conscience, and it just won't shut up. That little voice that keeps saying "it really looks old, maybe it is"..."if both Martin Luther and the Pope were wrong about the solar system, maybe I'm wrong about evolution".

Could be. And then they are so afraid of their own doubting thoughts that they come here and screech as loud as possible to cover it up. Sort of like putting their fingers in their ears and chanting when they encounter inconvenient elements of reality.

[longshadow]

I've never dated a girl who weighed over 300 pounds.

Insert sigh of comic relief HERE.

[bondserv]

Had you considered that several million years IS a nano-second to God?

Yes, and considering the evidence we are led to believe otherwise.

A straightforward reading, and other ancillary data associated with the creation leads us to believe He meant six days as we perceive six days to be.

Gen 1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Here the text evening and the morning seem to imply time associated with days as we know them. When He created time via light the clock began ticking at that point. We know that there was no sun and moon to delineate evening and morning, but in reality the sun and moon don't cause seconds to pass, they are only a point of reference not the originators of time.

Exo 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Here is another direct correlation that God makes between the Jewish work week and God's creation week. There are no passages of scripture that float the idea that God used more time to create the universe than six days.

[Joe Bonforte]

There have been many lies over the decades in the name of science.

Yes, and just as many or more in the name of religion.

[Dimensio]

The Grand Canyon could have been formed in a nano second by the hand of God. You continue to leave the Creator out of His creation.

The problem is that there's quite a bit of physical evidence to indicate that the Grand Canyon is significantly older than 6000 years, but absolutely no evidence that it was created in a "nano second". If a supernatural agent is responsible for creating the Grand Canyon in such a short time, then it managed to give the work the appearance of great age in the process, and because science cannot address the supernatural, it can only draw conclusions from the physical evidence.

If you have a means by which we could test (and hypothetically falsify) the "GC was formed in a nano-second" claim, present it. It wouldn't make it scientific (because you're invoking a supernatural agent), but it would give you significantly more credibility. As it stands now, the claim is completely worthless, because there's no possible test for it, at least none for which I am aware.

[RightWingNilla]

Morbidly obese placemarker

[Dimensio]

There is a very close parallel with some of the evolutionists on this thread, and the liberal elite. They have an arrogance (that is almost stunning in some cases), and they really believe that those of us who attribute a Creator to this universe are just plain stupid.

Not everyone who accepts evolution denies the existence of a "Creator". You are equivocating lack of belief in a Creator with the specific attributes that you ascribe to it with lack of a belief in any kind of a Creator at all. This is a logical fallacy. You are wrong to do this, it shows incredibly ignorance or dishonesty, not to mention the arrogance of claiming to know exactly how everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do believes.

They dismiss out of hand the word of scientists who believe in creation, just because they are people of faith.

No, we dismiss the word of scientists who are creationists because they often are not scientists within a field wherein knowledge of biology is not a requirement (the word of a nuclear physicist on matters of biology, no matter who well-trained he is, is not to be taken as advice from an expert, much the same way that you wouldn't take his advice on auto mechanics) and because, on close inspection, the claims that supposedly support creationism and/or refute evolution are based upon bad science or outright falsehoods.

Stop pretending that we don't have valid objections. It makes you look either ignorant or dishonest.

It somehow invalidates the research done by these scientists to have faith.

I don't see ANYONE here making this claim. Certainly no one disputes Issac Newton's work on physics (while his theories are largely disproved, they still work sufficiently well enough on Earth and within the solar system to be of great use) simply because he was a devout Christian. You are a liar to make such a claim, I cannot ascribe something so obviously false to ignorance.

They ridicule and mock us for our belief, several to the point of implying that we are mentally unstable (schizophrenia?? LOL!) Not even the NY Times or CNN would be that blatantly anti-Christian.

I've seen approximately two or three people link deeply held religious belief with schizophrenia. I've seen siginificantly more people than that supporting evolution. You are taking a very small sample and applying it to the group, even though the majority of the group does not exhibit that behaviour. You're seeing only what you want to see, because you are apparently too intellectually dishonest to address any real issues.

[Dimensio]

As scientific a theory as Last-Thursdayism. In fact, that basically is Last-Thursdayism.

Don't you DARE knock Last Thursdayism!

Have you pampered a kitty today? Not pampering felines make Queen Maeve cry. Well, not really cry. It just makes her treat you with significant indifference, and she won't jump into your lap and beg for attention when you sit down.

[VadeRetro]

Have you pampered a kitty today?

I would say I pamper a kitty everyday. Big Al, whom I suspect of being a Democrat, would probably say I'm not doing my fair share.

[rdb3]

You assume that Christ in his human form knew all that His father in Heaven knew...

That's no assumption. It's the truth.

Genesis 1:1 states, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

John 1:1-3 states, "In the beginning was the Word [which is Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Now, if you don't accept the Word, I can't help that. But Immanuel [meaning "God with us"] was every bit man as he was God in human form. So, again, this is not an assumption.

[balrog666]

Oh, goody, just what we need, another childish my-Biblical-interpretation-is-the-only-True-interpretation, my-imbecilic-version-is-the-only-True-Christianity, everybody-else-in-the-world-is-wrong-so-there blowhard.

[DaGman]

" It's the "ugly girl" syndrome..."

Good analogy. That's pretty much what creationists are trying to do. Piggy back on real science and be considered legitimate.

[DaGman]

I've been told this interpretation of Genesis before and I still don't buy into it for the reason you describe as " Here the text evening and the morning seem to imply time associated with days as we know them." (My emphasis). Furthermore, this description comports more with a literal interpretation of the Bible than what we know from sound natural science. Sound natural science tells us that the forces of nature (otherwise known as creation) happened over millions of years. From the slow fraction of an inch movement of tectonic plates to the gradual erosion that created the Grand Canyon, God's act of creating continues to this day. This we can quantify with empirical data versus looking for what might be implied. And, since we know the Bible is chock full of allegory and metaphor it is more likely that the biblical description of creation was the author's way of putting the concept of millions of years into terms ancient people could understand.

However, the keeping holy the Sabbath verses you cite were clearly intended to direct the faithful to set aside 24 hours out of a seven day week and dedicate it to the Lord. Your comparisons of this to concepts of time during creation amounts to comparisons between apples and oranges. These topics are totally unrelated. The setting and the context of the instructions to keep holy the Sabbath are completely different than the story of creation not to mention even being written at a different chronological point in time.

You are, without a shadow of a doubt, entitled to your beliefs as to the real meaning of time references in the Bible. My point is simply that the overwhelming body of sound empirical scientific evidence indicates that these things in creation did not just happen in a matter of a few hours. What I think is indisputable is that all creation is the work of God. Its also indisputable that God gave man a superior intellect that allows him to look at the world around him, collect the evidence and then figure out just how, and even how long, it took God to do these things.

Of course there's no doubt that God can do things like create the Grand Canyon in an instant by merely willing it. But as I said previously, millions of years are a nano-second to God and, personally, I think He does these things on his own timeline.

[Jeff Gordon]

Apparently a good many people have the same concern.

There are a good many people who are not wired for rational reasoning.

Thank God that there are enough rational and reasonable people to over rule you emotional robots. This was not always true. Emobots like you used to be allowed to burn witches, run Inquisitions and imprison men of science like Galileo.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . men of science like Galileo.

I hope you don't think you're in esteemed company such as this man. He knew how to apply science in the right way and for our benefit. As for yourself, you seem to be rather emotional about the subject, too. Is the Theory of Evoultion writing your paycheck?

Why not just answer my question: What good has the Theory of Evolution done that any Creation viewpoint could not also support? Or do you think facts are just facts and have no need of being interpreted and applied?