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.

[Our man in washington]

Religious people tend to have more children than non-religous people. Therefore, over the coming centuries, the genes of religious people will be more likely to be passed on. Religious people have a differential reproductive advantage.

The result will be that evolution will not be taught in school in a thousand years.

[Dimensio]

That's what needs to be taught as a theory, along with evolution which is a THEORY, taught as FACT.

What is the theory of "Intelligent Design"?

In public schools, both should be taught, so kids no longer get atheism crammed down their throats under the guise of science.

Evolution is not atheism. Only the ignorant and the dishonest proclaim as much.

[John H K]

THe point is whether people believing in evolution makes society better or worse is completely irrelevant to whether evolution is true or not.

If one could make a case that people believing the moon was made of green cheese would reduce murders, would you advocate the teaching of children that the moon is made of green cheese?

[John H K]

People just don't want darwinism taught as fact either... darwinism was by Darwin's own admission merely "theory", not fact.

But "theory" doesn't mean the same thing to scientists as it does the general public; the general public believes the term "theory" means what a scientist would call a "hypothesis."

[John H K]

The result will be that evolution will not be taught in school in a thousand years.

Eh, stupidity over the long term doesn't confer an evolutionary advantage, so I suspect you're wrong :-)

[qam1]

My point was the children who are taught that our origin was nothing but an accident of chance are far more likely to feel that their lives are without purpose and meaning.

If you look at literature, art, music in the 20th century you will see what was, IMO, the result of atheistic evolution.......meaninglessness.

I also believe the problem of abortion is an inevitable result of the lack of value placed on life due to evolution. Destruction of the weak by the strong.

Oh give me a break,

1) In essence in evolution whoever has the most surviving offspring wins so Abortion is about as anti-evolution as you can get.

2) This whole idea they people who don't believe in your God are the reason for all societies moral ills is not backed up by the facts.

From 1991 to 2001, The Number of the nonreligious doubled in number while at the same time the number calling themselves Christians declined by 10% 

yet the violent crime rate has declined through this period, as well as The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has continuously declined through the 1990s and the abortion rate dropped by about 25 percent for both married and unmarried women through the 1990s and The teen Pregnancy Rate Reached a Record Low.

If religion had anything to do with preventing the above, Why as the country becomes less religious the above is improving?

3) The current young generation Y is probably the most pro-life generation we've had in a long time and yet they are the least religious.

So religiousness and morality don't correlate. So even if Christianity was to fade away in the next 20 years it wouldn't have any effect on the overall morallity of the country.

[ohioWfan]

Please do not use name calling as an excuse for debate.

I am neither ignorant, nor dishonest. The theory of evolution began as a way to explain life without God. What passes as science, in many cases, doesn't even make sense (e.g. that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon).

The theory of Intelligent Design (without being religion) states that the intricacy of life could not have begun without some form of Creator. You know, like a watch doesn't just 'happen' just because you give it enough time. It needs a designer.

It should be taught alongside evolution.

The problem continues to be that theory is taught as fact, and it's not........it's theory.

[John H K]

I am neither ignorant, nor dishonest. The theory of evolution began as a way to explain life without God. What passes as science, in many cases, doesn't even make sense (e.g. that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon).

Errtalk about your self-contradictory two sentences :-)

So you're an actual Young-Earth Creationist, I'm guessing? Those are getting rare (fortunately.)

[ohioWfan]

It may be 'irrelevant to whether evolution is true or false,' but it is not irrelevant to a discussion about evolution, or education.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to refute the theories taught as fact, and plenty of scientific evidence to support Creation.

I believe in a young earth because I believe in the Scripture, and I know there are holes in the 'science' taught as fact, and I believe that the atheism in evolution has harmed our culture immeasurably, but that is, in the end, beside the point.

The point of this is that there are other theories as to the origin of the earth besides evolution, and they should be taught in schools.......as the theories that they all are.

[ohioWfan]

Abortion is not anti-evolution. It is the logical conclusion of the meaninglessness of life without a Creator.

[Jeff Gordon]

Anytime you see Evolution Theory called "Darwinism" you know that there is a Crevo Crapper behind it.

[John H K]

There is plenty of scientific evidence to refute the theories taught as fact, and plenty of scientific evidence to support Creation.

Probably want to get sources other than the loon-jobs at the ICR, I suspect.

Despite you're whining about being insulted, to be a creationidiot you've either got to be ignorant or a liar, which isn't an insult, merely a statement of fact; most are simply ignorant of course, with a cabal at the top who out-and-out lie to fool the ignorant ("there are no transitional fossils" claptrap, etc.)

[ohioWfan]

Say, John. You can make fun of me as much as you like, but I do believe in a young earth.

I was raised to believe in Creation, and then as a college student thought that theistic evolution was a probability, but the more I study Scripture, the more I come back to a 24 day of Creation (as the word means in Genesis.....day/night).

None of us knows for sure, obviously, and I'm smart enough to not waste my time trying to convince you.

In the end, the only thing that matters is if you believe in the Creator as Redeemer, and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

We'll all find out some day who was right...........and I promise I won't make fun of YOU when we do. ;o)

[John H K]

Anytime you see Evolution Theory called "Darwinism"

Yes, its an interesting phenomenon I've noticed before; they're FAR more obsessed with Darwin than evolutionists are.

I attribute it to "projection"...projecting their own concepts and beliefs on to a subject and people who study the subject they frankly don't understand at all or bother to examine closely at all.

They imagine college course where everyone has a worn thumbed-through copy of the "Origin of Species" worshipping a statue of Darwin and people getting up and reading chapters of Darwin.

They can't conceive of evolution as a living, active science with people in the field digging up evidence, moving forward by publishing their own articles, etc. instead of a religion based on adherence to a single book.

Darwin is of course greatly respected by evolutionists, but really people don't spend much time studying the Origin of Species or Darwin in detail; evolution has moved on.

[BiffWondercat]

Which version?

[Nebullis]

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."

So far, so good. No specific content required. Afterall, science is always an ongoing search for better theory and scientists do 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

This is true for all of science. If only evolutionary theory is singled out for this treatment, students are unduly confused.

...the differences between microevolution and macroevolution;

What differences there are don't have any bearing on what is taught at the elementary or secondary level. This is plainly a propaganda tool for the ID/creationists.

...and guided to examine the various lines of evidence for and against the theory of a common ancestry (macroevolution).

How did the IDers wedge this into the standards? Before bunching the Ohio educators into the completely wacko group I checked out the standards here. It provides some relief; it's not as bad as the creationists make it sound in the article above. But this constant wittling away at science by ignorant politicians is a terrible trend.

[ohioWfan]

The fossil evidence does NOT support millions of years of evolution. There aren't enough of them. The Grand Canyon wasn't carved by the Colorado River. Man did not descend from apes, but was created by God out of the dust of the ground. I am neither ignorant nor a liar, and you are in need of a transformation of the heart.

btw, you're not the first one to call one who trusts God, and his Word, ignorant. I'll leave you with a few words from Scripture.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.......I Corinthians: 1:20-21

God bless you, John, in your search for truth.

[Dimensio]

Please do not use name calling as an excuse for debate.

I'm not name-calling. I'm stating a simple fact.

I am neither ignorant, nor dishonest. The theory of evolution began as a way to explain life without God.

No, it began as a way to explain why certain species had traits in common with one another, while still carrying enough different traits to be considered different species.

It has nothing to do with any gods. It was never an attempt to explain away any gods.

What passes as science, in many cases, doesn't even make sense (e.g. that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon).

Explain why this does not make sense.

The theory of Intelligent Design (without being religion) states that the intricacy of life could not have begun without some form of Creator. You know, like a watch doesn't just 'happen' just because you give it enough time. It needs a designer.

Okay, you've got a premise. Explain how the "Intelligent Design" theory can be tested. State observations that should result from these tests and state what observations, if seen, would falsify the theory.

It should be taught alongside evolution.

Not until the above criteria is met.

[BiffWondercat]

Funny that we would share much of the same genes, enzymes, behaviors....

I happen to like animals - you don't see them screwing each other over for votes or percentages.

But I would cetainly give your arguments more creedence if our cellular structures and metabolic processes where vastly different than species who have been shown to have similar genetics to our own.

Best hold that parchment tightly....

[Dimensio]

Abortion is not anti-evolution.

It's not pro-evolution either. It has as much to do with evolution as the caffeine content of Pepsi has to do with electromagnetic theory.