Posted on 10/18/2002 11:16:06 AM PDT by xsysmgr
COLUMBUS, OHIO — In what could turn out to be a stunning victory for opponents of evolution, the Ohio Department of Education voted 17-0 on Tuesday to pass a "resolution of intent" to adopt science standards that would allow students to "investigate and critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution. With additional hearings scheduled for November and a final vote to be held in December, Ohio is likely to become the latest battleground in the never-ending debate over how life began.
"The key words are 'critically analyze,'" said Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that promotes alternative theories to evolution.
"The new language is a clear victory for students, parents, and scientists in Ohio who have been calling for a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution,'" he added.
Meyers said, "The board should be commended for insisting that Ohio students learn about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory as a part of a good science education. Such a policy represents science education at its very best, and it promotes the academic freedom of students and teachers who want to explore the full range of scientific views over evolution."
"Darwin's dike is finally breaking down," he said.
The vote drew ire as well as praise, however.
"It's clear that the motivation is anti-evolutionist," said Eugenie Scott, director of the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that monitors school districts that run afoul of the "evolution only" approach to science education. And Patricia Princehouse, a history professor at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, warned: "The American Civil Liberties Union will find it unconstitutional."
In recent years, a handful of renegade scientists and academics have launched a revolt against Darwinism. Unlike creationists, they accept that the Earth is four billion years old and that species undergo some change over time. What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next — as in ape to man. Scientists in the "intelligent design" community don't advocate any particular religion, but they do believe that some higher intelligence — though not necessarily the God of the Bible — created life in all its forms. Proponents of intelligent design agree with the scientific establishment that students should be taught evolution, but they think students should be made aware there is some controversy over the theory.
Ohio is hardly alone in its "teach the controversy" approach. Last month, Cobb County, located in the suburbs of Atlanta, stunned the scientific community by allowing (though not requiring) teachers to present "disputed views" about evolution. Though the federal government has no authority over science education, the conference report accompanying this year's No Child Left Behind Act notes that, "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."
The language adopted by the Ohio board falls short of that pushed by three anti-evolutionist members, who last week circulated an amendment that was more forthright about allowing students to be exposed to theories that contradict Darwin's theory of evolution — including the theory of "intelligent design." But what the adopted language does do, according to board member Mike Cochran, is to "allow students to understand that there are dissenting views within the scientific community" regarding evolution.
"The earlier language was more clear cut," concedes Deborah Owens Fink, a board member from Richfield and one of three on the board who support intelligent design, "but this language gives some leeway" about how evolution is taught.
Those in the scientific mainstream say there is no genuine dispute over evolution — at least not within scientific circles. They cite such phenomena as antibiotic-resistant bacteria as proof that species change in response to environmental stressors, with nature weeding out the weak and favoring the strong. They hold that students in public schools should be taught evolution — and evolution only — and that religious views on such matters should be restricted to the home and the church.
But the public disagrees.
According to a June poll conducted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 82 percent of Ohioans said they believed teachings on the origins of life should not be restricted to evolution. The board received 20,000 letters urging that multiple theories be taught and, in a packed room on the day of the vote, the overwhelming majority of public speakers urged the board to be open to theories that challenge Darwinian evolution.
Ohio's numbers mirror the national consensus. A recent Zogby poll showed that 71 percent of Americans supported the proposition that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Nationally, 160 scientists recently signed a statement calling for "careful examination" of Darwin's theory.
While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education. They compare intelligent design to such "fringe" crazes as astrology, noting that intelligent design has never been presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence Lerner, professor emeritus at California State University and author of a 2000 report from the Fordham Foundation which showed that 19 of this country's states were remiss in how they taught evolution.
"Science is not a viewpoint," said Eugenie Scott. "There's an objective reality about science. If the Discovery Institute is really interested in convincing scientists that their reality is false, then they would be attending scientific meetings rather than selling their ideas in the marketplace of political ideas."
Most members of Ohio's scientific community have argued for an "evolution-only" approach to science education. "Intelligent design is not based on scientific evidence," said Lynn E. Elfner, director of the Ohio Academy of Science. And Steven A. Edinger, a physiology instructor at Ohio University, commented: "I'm concerned that they've opened a loophole to allow intelligent design in."
Board members conceded that the vote was "political." But, said Mike Cochran, "if it's politics, this is in the best tradition of politics because it's a compromise."
Conspicuously absent from the debate was Republican Governor Bob Taft, who faces a close race this November against Democratic challenger Timothy F. Hagan. Though Taft has reportedly been working behind the scenes for a compromise, both sides have criticized him for refusing to take a public position.
Taft has reason to lay low. When the Kansas State Board of Education voted three years ago not to require public-school students to learn about Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory, Kansas became the laughingstock of the world. Newspapers as far away as South Africa mocked America for being backward and religiously fundamentalist, and editorialists at Kansas's own newspapers worried that businesses would refuse to locate there because students were so "poorly educated." In a much-publicized Republican primary that drew attention from such liberal groups as People for the American Way — which flew in Ed Asner to read from Inherit the Wind — three board members were voted out of office; and the newly elected "moderate" board last year voted to include both Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang in the Kansas science standards.
Whether Ohio will go the way of Kansas remains to be seen.
— Pamela R. Winnick, a lawyer admitted to practice in New York, has been a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade. A 2001 Phillips Foundation fellow, she is writing a book about the politics of evolution.
Yes, the idea that it is in my own best self interest to have an educated populace, the original argument for public education, is becoming overshadowed by both the feeble education provided by public education today, and the indoctrination in socialist dogma that is has degenerated to. I know kids in high school who cannot read the instructions on how to put their skateboards together. It is a sad state of affairs.
Dear PH, I don't have issues with those disciplines -- not at all. But the reason for that is they are all "rigorous" in a way that biology is not, not even to mention the social sciences. The latter of which (I agree with you here) are mainly at the present time, mostly a CROCK...of something or other....
I just don't want to see biological science or any of its cognates fall into the same hole....
I see it all too often on employee applications. Anyone that can't read is incapable of doing a great many things, let alone handling dangerous machinery for fun and profit.
So force the states to give back that ~10,000 per student in taxes and we'll see if the entrepreneurs can do a better job.
I posted it as a double entendre on purpose to illustrate that inquiry is a good thing regardless of establishment prejudice. The word Truth would be capitalized from the creationists' point of view.
It seems to me that teaching kids how to critically analyze anything ought to be part of the fundamentals of a public education. Otherwise, the schools are fostering the sheep mentality.
I agree with your observation: If you don't have public review of science education then what happens when some group of scientists 'prove' that Jews are genetically inferior?
With social "sciences" being elevated (wrongfully IMHO) - and political correctness run awry - and a sheep mentality, the scenario you gave sends chills up my spine.
I also agree that education should not be publically funded unless it meets a very high standard and all forms of ideology are left at the door. I include materialism and most forms of political correctness in the ideology bucket.
And about time, with the tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution available, it is time the lie was discarded.
I agree with your statement: To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past.
My two cents was that "inquiry is not a threat to truth." I could have extended that as follows:
They should spend even less time on it. In fact they should not spend any time on a theory which with each new biological discovery gets disproven. Evolution has led science into too many false assumtions for it to be considered useful for anything.
A bald assertion which you cannot back up. That science, any kind of science is consistent with evolution is ludicrous. Science is about finding repeatable, measurable order in the Universe. Evolution denies order by postulating randomness as the source of it. So evolution cannot be science and each discovery which finds order and repeatability in nature disproves it.
Tell us how you really feel. That would be more along the lines of
"How dare anyone even dream of criticising Evolution! Anyone who criticizes Evolution is brain dead."
Evolution should not be taught period, in public, private or any schools, as it is totally worthless and adds zero value to science and has no real applicabilty.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
That there is too not enough critical analysis taught in schools is certain. However, to continue the practice by giving evolution a pass will not solve that problem. Perhaps this decision will lead to more critical analysis in the rest of education so I do not see how this decision can in any way be harmful.
Well, logically speaking, I do not think that the above can be true. If there is no God as materialistic/evolution claims, then intelligent design would be impossible. If there is a God then the ridiculous assumptions of matter changing itself by evolutionists must be false. This is not really a scientific argument at all but a theological one and therefore cannot be half true/half false.
Actually biology is pretty rigorous. Perhaps the question you have with it is that it is just fairly recently that we have been able to scientifically examine many of the assumptions which were being made about how organisms work. We have medicines and many cures for ailments which do work. We are learning every day exactly how many things in our bodies occur through very exact experimentation. We do not have all the answers, and we never will but that is true of biology as well as the other sciences.
Ah, but Patrick, that is precisely the position of those such as yourself who oppose teaching the contradictory facts and the controversy in our public schools. Can it be explained why so-called Darwinist science closes its mind at some definitive point known only to the Evolutionists?
The broader answer is that only the inattentive, continuously bombarded by the Orwellian, Leftist Media, can remain "convinced" that Atheist, Anti-Christian Darwinism is science. People are beginning to "get it".
Thanks so much for your thoughtful post, Phaedrus. That doctrine you mentioned ... I never heard of it. I don't believe in it or advocate it. As most people know, the theory of evolution is only about the development of living things, and it has nothing to say about theology.
I take your point, gore3000, but would qualify it. What I was driving at was the idea that both sides of the evo-crevo debate seem to depend on doctrinal formulations to make their respective cases. Eric Voegelin has pointed out that doctrines often operate as "reality substitutes" which, by hypostasizing truth, tend to deform it.
Dakmar...
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
fC...
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Dakmar...
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
When biology sticks to what can be directly observed, however, it can be just as rigorous as the physical sciences. I think the human genome project, for instance, is a good illustration of this.
JMHO FWIW.
I can't imagine how anyone could object to this statement! It seems so transparently clear to me....
Thank you so much for writing, A-G.
Actually I doubt it's the case of one or the other. "A pox on both their houses!" For both ideologies suffer from the same fatal fault, which is the absolute rejection of spiritual being, the denial of God. THAT is the root of evil in the world, IMHO. Both Darwin and Marx equally attacked the very root of what had come to be recognized as "enlightened, moral civilization" as it had historically evolved. Indeed, both Stalin and Hitler (among others) actually blended the two sources to create their pernicious ideologies. The rejection of God continues... and so we continue to live with the consequences, in all their variety and diversity.
JMHO FWIW
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.