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.
No, public opinion has no place in science. The public ABSOLUTELY has a say in what is made a part of tax-funded educational curricula.
My two cents: Inquiry is not a threat to truth.
Who cares what madness they teach in their government schools?
I went to school some 40-50 years ago; I'm not sure I'd recognize much of it these days.
The DeWeese Report 2/2000 Tom DeWeese “… For those who have fought the battle to save education from the education establishment, and especially from the National Education Association (NEA), November 12, 1999, was an unexpected surprise. On that Friday evening, the ABC television program 20/20 aired an expose' of public education and its unqualified, yet protected, unionized teachers. Since its airing, the NEA has been screaming bloody murder over what it calls muck-raking journalism. Sometimes the truth hurts. The 20/20 report clearly showed that public schools have failed under a system of huge government bureaucracy and unionized teachers. Bad teachers protected by union contracts and union lawyers... 20/20 tried to recruit teachers to take a national teacher's test, but few would participate. Of the teachers who did, 15% did not know that Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas. Two thought Brazil was in Asia and five thought Shakespeare had written the story for the movie, "Shakespeare in Love." ……”
The key word here being truth.
How could anyone oppose critical analysis? The problem, as I see it, is the tools these students would have to 'critically analyze' anything. Since these selfsame students are probably not taught the skills of 'critical thinking' they aren't capable of making any such analysis. This then just opens the door to 'its my opinion against yours' which is futile, as has been so well demonstrated here with supposed adults, let alone children.
A few other things caught my eye.
What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next - as in ape to man.
Typical mis-characterization of the theory.
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.
I like this one. This leaves the door open for anything. Why I believe that little green men on Saturn took pieces of the Rings there and shot them to earth and each piece of the ring that landed here became a new species, (the rings are really made up of DNA, don't ya know). They are more intelligent than we are and that's why we have UFOs, they are checking up on their experiment!
On the other hand.
While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education.
This statement bothers me, as does,
"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence Lerner
These are dangerous viewpoints. If you don't have public review of science education then what happens when some group of scientists 'prove' that Jews are genetically inferior? Would there be any Jews left by the time anybody proves that they were mistaken?
And finally,
"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."
This gets back to the 'critical thinking' aspect of this debate. What is 'critical thinking' and has it been taught to these children as a prerequisite of the discussion? The idea here is that children would be able to 'conclude' something from 'critically analyzing' the evidence. This presupposes that children are taught logic in order to reach rational conclusions. This is the clearly not the case with a vast majority of adults, (as the comment on astrology demonstrates - Nearly every newspaper and magazine in this nation has an astrology page, despite the fact it is utterly irrational) so how could it be true for children?
So the cart is before the horse here. Children should be taught critical thinking skills before they are given subjects to critically analyze.
What this really brings into question is whether we should actually have public education sponsored by the government. Why should I pay taxes to educate the general populace when they aren't being educated, but taught opinions?
No, it's just that someone is finally noticing other than Michael Behe.
Thanks for the story. Reading Behe's book now. Of course he (as an evolutionist) is only so far saying things I have thought all along. Evolution can explain the differentiation of species, e.g. perhaps originally there was only two or three different kinds of deer which diverged. I think most Creationists would concede that. But a reptile never changed into a bird changed into a mammal. Likewise Darwin always avoided trying to explain the origin of actual *life* - he started a step later, once life was begun.
Another book I had skimmed at one time was _From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo_ by Harold Hill.
Exactly the point. And the unions are an incredible source of fleeced money, coerced manpower, and miscast votes for the liberal democrats and they will oppose any possible competition with the last ounce of their socialist breath. Kill it, kill it now!
Hiya PH! When I told you I wasn't a creationist, I suspected you didn't believe me. The above excerpt is an excellent description of my position in this never-ending dispute between evos and crevos. It's clearly not an observation from the creationist position. (So there! :^P) :^)
IMHO neither side has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Reality continues to unfold, and there is still much for man to learn. 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. Or so it seems to me.
Real advances in human knowledge and human progress, IMHO, require that we keep our minds open to the idea that we as humans do not know what God knows. FWIW.
Thanks so much A-G for the bump; and thanks to you, xsysmgr, for the marvelous post.
BB, you are always in my dreams! It's nice that we agree on something, like the above sentence. Of course, no one in the biology field would ever make such a statement, so you can relax. No point getting worked up over a position that no one has ever taken.
Very astute observation, VR. Can you imagine why that might be the case?
As far as "mainstream science" goes, I'd feel a whole lot happier right now if I had reason to believe that "mainstream science" was still operating as "mainstream science."
Sorry for the apparent redundancy. Just taking liberties with common English usage to make the point.
If it's any comfort, BB, I agree that the so-called "social sciences" are virtually all hogwash. But I can't believe you have issues with astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. (And, believe it or not, they're all consistent with evolution.)
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.