Posted on 12/11/2002 3:19:35 PM PST by jennyp
Columbus - The State Board of Education yesterday unanimously adopted a set of science standards that makes Ohio the first state to require students to examine criticisms of biological evolution.
But board members also agreed to a last-minute disclaimer stating that their action should not be construed as support for the controversial concept of intelligent design, the idea that life had to be guided by a higher power.
Without the disclaimer, at least a half-dozen board members had intended to vote against the standards because they feared it would give schools a green light to bring religion and philosophy into science classes.
The compromise effectively ends a tumultuous, yearlong debate on how to best teach the origin and development of life.
That debate made Ohio the flashpoint in a battle between supporters and critics of Charles Darwin's theory that life evolved through natural processes - a battle that has raged since the "monkey trial" of biology teacher John Scopes 77 years ago.
"Clearly, it was being misrepresented by adults fighting their own battles and using these standards to fight their own battles," said board member Joseph Roman of Fairview Park, who introduced the disclaimer the board adopted yesterday.
The state academic standards don't dictate what local school districts teach, but they provide a powerful incentive by outlining what students must know by the time they graduate. While intelligent design will not be on the new 10th-grade graduation tests, evolution will.
Local districts that decide to teach intelligent design also could face a legal challenge, said Christine Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. She said intelligent design is a form of creationism, and courts have ruled that teaching creationism is unconstitutional in public schools.
"If any school district implements the teaching of intelligent design, the ACLU will act swiftly," Link said. "Our concern is this gives local districts a false green light."
Board members traveled here Sunday sharply divided on how to come to grips with the issue. The disclaimer that emerged resulted from an 11th-hour compromise fashioned by board members Martha Wise of Avon - a staunch evolutionist - and Deborah Owens Fink of Richfield, who led the charge to bring evolution alternatives to Ohio classrooms.
"Neither side got what they wanted, totally," Wise said. "But this is a win-win."
Stephen Meyer of the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute in Seattle, called the board's action "historic." Already, intelligent design organizers have set up shop in New Mexico, which will soon be drafting its own science standards.
"This represents an important milestone in the effort to ensure that students learn the full range of relevent scientific evidence," Meyer said.
But the disclaimer satisfied most evolutionists.
"The board made a clear statement and said 'no' to pseudo-science," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University professor and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science.
The new standards will help Ohio recover from the black eye it received two years ago when a national study gave it a failing grade for not even mentioning evolution in its science standards. Retired California physicist Lawrence Lerner, who headed the study, said Ohio would have received an 'A' this time had it not made a point of singling out evolution for critical analysis. Instead, it will get a 'B' or a 'C,' " he said yesterday.
"Ohio has the opportunity of leaping from the bottom of the heap to a par with excellent state standards," Lerner said. "The compromise would place Ohio in the mediocre middle."
Here are some other articles, as reported by Creation/Evolution: The Eternal Debate:
1 2002-12-11 [Ohio] Evolution challenge muted 2 2002-12-11 Evolution advocates hail vote 3 2002-12-10 Ohio School Board OKs Science Standards 4 2002-12-10 Ohio Praised for Historic Decision Requiring Students to Critically Analyze Evolutionary Theory 5 2002-12-10 School board approves science guidelines that include evolution 6 2002-12-09 Theory of evolution will face test in vote 7 2002-12-09 New standards may change little in classroom 8 2002-12-06 State board split on science standards
"Judge, and prepare to be judged."
- Ayn Rand
Well I'm releaved. That ought to remove any ID or creationism from the classroom.
I used to support Christians, because I think the lifestyle of most of the Southern Baptists I grew up with is superior. But this argument about creationism, which I was taught in church to be inaccurate, has hardened me against christians in general. Mainly because of the bull-headedness and un-Christlike attitude of many ID and creationism supporters.
I just wonder how Christians would like it if "criticisims of religion", like criticisims of evolution, were taught in school. It's easy to come up with bogus arguments against things. The flat-earth people have some pretty good arguments that can convince someone who doesn't know much about the subject.
Well, I let them use the soccer field and playground.
Just so long as they pay the teachers and administrators no attention whatsoever.
I've been participating in these evolution threads for more than three years, and I pretty much know the people on the evolution side. Not one is a liberal. How do you account for that? Do you think it's possible -- maybe -- that your beliefs about evolution are wrong?
It's amazingly dumb. If I were inclined to apply evolution to politics -- which is a goofy idea -- I don't think I could make it jibe with the welfare state. But let the creos make their wild accusations. It only reinforces the perception that they don't do too well in the abstract reasoning department.
Nobody who believes in God could conduct themselves the way Klinton and many of the democrats do.
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.