Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio Lesson Plan Pleases Parents, Irks Liberals
Human Events Online ^ | 03-18-04 | Schlafly, Phyllis

Posted on 03/18/2004 9:12:24 AM PST by Theodore R.

Ohio Lesson Plan Pleases Parents, Irks Liberals by Phyllis Schlafly Posted Mar 18, 2004

"Why is it important for scientists to critically analyze evolution?" That's the first question in the "student reflection" portion of an optional new 22-page section called "Critical Analysis of Evolution," which is part of Ohio's 547-page science curriculum.

How could anybody object to such an innocuous question? Newspapers report a steady stream of news that scientists are questioning such dogmas as good cholesterol vs. bad cholesterol, vaccine links to autism, the causes of breast cancer, even fluoridation for children's teeth. Isn't the nature of science to question assertions and seek the proof from evidence?

The Ohio State Board of Education approved the new curriculum by a vote of 13-5 after being persuaded by 22 Ohio scientists that the new lesson plan promotes academic freedom and that it is good for 10th grade students to have an inquiring mind about evolution. "Are we about teaching students how to think, or what to think?" asked one parent supporter of the lesson plan.

And it's all optional; no teacher will be required to teach criticisms of evolution, and no students will be tested on the criticisms. So what's the big deal?

To some people, it's a very big deal, and the ACLU is ominously threatening a lawsuit. The opposition to the new lesson was led by Case Western Reserve University lecturer Patricia Princehouse (whose academic position is philosophy not science) who said, "It's sad day for science in Ohio."

Another non-scientist, Florida State University law professor Steven Gey, flew in to warn Ohioans that the lesson is unconstitutional and would almost certainly be struck down if it reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe he is seeking an activist judge to rule that the Constitution prohibits allowing students to question anything in science class.

Gey's notions of constitutionality are unusual. He thinks that "moral relativism" is a "constitutional command," that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and that nude sunbathing should be given "constitutional protection."

There is nothing religious, or about creationism, or even about intelligent design in the new Ohio standards. What is controversial is giving students the opportunity to question evolution; it's the inquiry and debate aspect that some people find so threatening.

The new lesson encourages students to consider both supporting and "challenging" evidence for evolution. The challenges to the theory are understated and are backed up with facts.

For example, the lesson says that the fossil record supports evolution with its increasing complexity of living forms. But the lesson also observes that "transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record" and "a growing number of scientists now question that ... transitional fossils really are transitional forms," and notes that some changes in species occur quickly in the fossil record relative to longer stretches that manifest no change.

The new lesson plan presents the overused English peppered moth story found in most textbooks, which teaches that black moths survived because they rested on trees blackened by soot, while white moths were eaten by the birds. The lesson points out that "peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks," and that "no new species emerged" as evolutionists have long implied was the result of the soot.

The new lesson plan invites students to take a fresh look at evolutionary claims of common ancestry. The lesson observes that different genes and development have created similar anatomical structures, suggesting different ancestries.

Can it be that this kind of balanced information is so dangerous for high school students to hear that it must be censored out of textbooks? Or that it rises to the level of a Supreme Court case where judges might declare it unconstitutional?

The diehard evolutionists have enjoyed censorship of any criticism of their beliefs for a hundred years, and they won't willingly give up their academic turf. Their censorship demands became so irrational that the Ohio Board's vice president, Richard Baker, called them "a bunch of paranoid, egotistical scientists afraid of people finding out [they] don't know anything."

Ohio has become the cutting edge in the long-running evolution debate. Georgia, New Mexico, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Kansas have all wrestled with science standards and curricula on evolution in recent years.

The Alabama Senate Education Committee last week approved the "Academic Freedom Act," which says that no teacher or professor in public schools or universities may be fired, denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against for presenting "alternative theories" to evolution. The bill would also prohibit any student from being penalized because he held "a particular position on biological or physical origins" so long as the student demonstrated "acceptable understanding of course materials" which include evolution.

Mrs. Schlafly is the author of Feminist Fantasies (Spence Publishing Co).


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: academicfreedom; al; crevolist; education; evolution; oh; patriciaprincehouse; phyllisschlafly; science; scienceeducation; stevengey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

1 posted on 03/18/2004 9:12:26 AM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Theodore R.
YEC SPOTREP - EDUCATION - FREEDOM FROM INDOCTRINATION
3 posted on 03/18/2004 9:26:26 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
How could anybody object to such an innocuous question?

It's easy. I object since most of the topics of the objections that the creationists and ID'ers make to science aren't covered until undergraduate, and sometimes, graduate level courses. The students aren't prepared to discuss these concepts and so they learn nothing at all.

To be honest that's pretty much the case now anyway or there wouldn't be a controversy.

4 posted on 03/18/2004 9:29:41 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
How could anybody object

It is intellectually dishonest of Schlafly to evade the issue -- which is the selective undermining of the facts of evolution.

If educational standards taught the general practice of skepticism and critical thought, that would be not only proper but commendable. For obvious reasons, government schools are not interested in that approach.

5 posted on 03/18/2004 9:35:15 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
6 posted on 03/18/2004 10:09:09 AM PST by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Hmmm.. My 8 year old is being taught about Socialism everyday in school.

I think a high school student can discuss evolution.
7 posted on 03/18/2004 10:10:02 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Bury Kerry in 04! Down with Lenin Loving Lemmings....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I eagerly await Ohio's adoption of "critical analysis" in other areas of science like gravity, molecular biology, astronomy & quantam mechanics.

I mean, why limit it to just one theory? Our school kids should be taught critical analysis of many scientific theories, right?

8 posted on 03/18/2004 10:20:25 AM PST by gdani (letting the marketplace decide = conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
That was my experience. My son had an ID book for a biology textbook (private school) and one of their arguments was that the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model showed that evolution could not be true. This was in the 9th grade!
9 posted on 03/18/2004 10:26:47 AM PST by Varda (meat-eating vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
10 posted on 03/18/2004 10:27:14 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Varda
LOL!

Love your tagline.

Gotta love those publik skools.
11 posted on 03/18/2004 10:30:27 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I'm a parent from Ohio who is pleased with the new guidelines. How can anyone object to teaching students to think critically about what they're taught?

I always thought that was the point.
12 posted on 03/18/2004 10:33:29 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Varda
My son had an ID book for a biology textbook (private school) and one of their arguments was that the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium model showed that evolution could not be true.

Oh, jeez. If ID theorists are really interested in critical thinking, picking apart something as obtuse as that sounds perfect for a bright 9'th grader.

13 posted on 03/18/2004 10:37:11 AM PST by general_re (The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: general_re
He was partially home schooled, so yes, he could pick that apart. The good part of that episode (I persuaded the board to retract that book) is that he's interested in real biology and is looking forward to it in college.
17 posted on 03/18/2004 10:49:14 AM PST by Varda (meat-eating vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Varda
Good for him - sounds like you've got a winner. Score one for the good guys ;)

Just out of curiosity, do you recall which book it was? I like to keep a sort of mental rogues' gallery going, and that sounds like a perfect addition...

18 posted on 03/18/2004 10:57:06 AM PST by general_re (The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: onmyfeet
The equilibrium (no evolution) part of it occurs only in theoretical populations, never in nature. The model is used in population genetics to track evolutionary changes in defined populations. I'm sure someone on this board who has expertise in biology could tell you all it's uses.
19 posted on 03/18/2004 11:00:03 AM PST by Varda (meat-eating vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"Of Panda's and People"
20 posted on 03/18/2004 11:01:59 AM PST by Varda (meat-eating vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson