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.
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! How many gods, how many creations, how many lies?
I want science ("systematized knowledge derived from observation, study...") taught in our schools. I want the responsibility for teaching religion and family traditions left to parents, grandparents, extended family, and churches.
Medved "nails it" again!!! Kudos, Medved!
I think more to the point, my definition of science excludes ID/Creationism. Where populations of fish and birds have been studied and evidence of natural selection in progress has been gathered, not one observation of God's role in creating the Universe has been noted...except of course in literature.
Hey, VR, it never occurred to me that I had to slap a label on my forehead just to make progress in life.
Does this sort of thing fall under the "truth in labeling" act?
Why do you equate the two together? I know many believers in God who also accept the theory of evolution.
p.s. From your statement:
"Might be simpler just to tell em to go to hell. In the case of evolutionists/atheists, it's pretty much the same thing."
Do you believe all people who accept the theory of evolution are doomed to hell?
On that I can agree wholeheartedly. In fact evolutionist reductionism has undoubtedly slowed down progress in the field. For example, while mendelian genetics clearly shows us that traits come from different alleles in parents evolutionists insisted for a long time that it did not apply in all cases. Of course by now we have found out that where some traits such as race seem to be a melding of the traits of the parents is due to different genes being involved in the production of the characteristics.
...and that opiate is called evolution. It is the most symplistic idea out there. Just answer 'natural selection' to any question posed. Makes even morons sounds like scientists. It shuts off thinking about how things really happen because that simple answer supposedly answers all possible questions. Of course, the proof that it is just pseudoscience for the unthinking and the unlearned is that selection can only destroy, it cannot create anything new as evolution requires.
Intelligent design is not religion. It just makes the scientifically verifiable observation that random chance cannot be the source of the order we see in our universe. In fact scientists have come around clearly to the view of intelligent design and agree with it already:
1. The laws of the universe are so exact that scientists agree they could not have occurred by chance. The only solution offered by the atheists for such exact conditions occurring is by proposing the ridiculous idea of an infinite amount of universes.
2, The random origin of life has been shown to be so impossible by scientific facts that atheists cannot even imagine a possible way in which it could have occurred.
3. The development of a human from conception to birth, from one cell to a hundred trillion cells is so unrandom that scientists call the process a program. Programs of course are only designed by intelligent beings.
So there is tremendous scientific support already for intelligent design and evolutionists and other atheists are trying to hold back the flood of knowledge with their pinky.
Sorry for any inconvenience, BB! I wasn't sure if you knew how most of the world defines creationism. The list of disbeliefs you cited would disqualify you only as a YEC.
Day-Agers still claim Genesis as literal truth, but insist that the six days of creation correspond to long periods of earth's history. Old-Earthers (OECs) often abandon literal Genesis interpretation but will insist that creation was some unspecified number of miracle events with only natural processes operating in-between. OECs still generally deny macroevolution and/or any non-human ancestry for humans. An ID-ist is any of the preceding (YEC, Day-Ager, OEC) being cagey about why he's doing what he's doing.
I tire of the obfuscations and misrepresentations from your side of the gorge, Patrick. "Atheist Anti-Christian Darwinism" tells it like it is. Evolution is all about politics and theology, cloaked in the mantle of science. Evolution purports to tell us how life began but without the crucial evidence. It's time make the plain truth widely known and fix it by telling the whole story in our public schools. When the Darwinists object to the inclusion of evidence in the classroom contrary to their pet theory, you know it's politics and not science.
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.