Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Femme Savante · 05-29-2002, 10:02 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23887-2002May28.html" target="_blank">Here's the link to tthe Washington Post article.</a>

Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed Ohio Lawmakers Cite Reform Legislation
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 29, 2002; Page A03

Quote:

Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.

In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.

"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," the lawmakers wrote in aletter to the Ohio board, quoting the conference report language.

That language was crafted with the help of a leading proponent of "intelligent design theory," which contends that the very complexity of life is evidence that the world was organized by a guiding intelligence.

The growing movement behind that theory, which does not attribute the world's creation to God, is supported by conservative Christian groups, whose drive to include the teaching of Bible-based "creation science" in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987.

David Schnittger, a spokesman for Boehner, stressed that the conference report language cited in the March13 letter to Ohio's state board "does not endorse the teaching of any particular topic or philosophy or curriculum."

While conference report language does not have the force of law, it has in the past been used as the basis for regulations that guide how laws are enforced.

But many officials from science and education groups, most of whom back teaching only evolution, call the language part of a wider campaign to force intelligent-design theory into the nation's science classrooms. They fear that the congressional language will be used to challenge the teaching of evolution across the country. "When language like this is included on the national level, it provides ammunition that people use in local battles," said W. Eric Meikle, outreach coordinator for the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that defends the teaching of evolution.

Similarly, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and a supporter of the conference report language, said he opposes the teaching of intelligent design. "I believe that public school classes should focus on teaching students how to understand and critically analyze genuine scientific theories. Unlike biological evolution, intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory, and therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation's public school science classes," he said in a statement.

The Ohio school board has been embroiled for months in a controversy over whether to include intelligent-design theory, along with evolutionary science, in a revised science curriculum scheduled to be approved later this year. Evolutionary science holds that all existing organisms developed from earlier life forms through natural selection.

Proponents of the intelligent-design theory have cited language in the federal law as the basis for including lessons on the theory wherever evolution is taught. The letter from Boehner and Chabot was written in an attempt to clarify how federal law affects the debate in Ohio. Still, the head of the Ohio Board of Education is not sure what impact the House members' letter may have. "[It] seems to suggest that science should be taught in the spirit of free inquiry, including the discussion of the pros and cons of theories," said Jennifer L. Sheets, the board's president.

Other board members say, however, that the letter could be interpreted as supporting intelligent design. "Supporters of that viewpoint will use that letter to bolster that point of view," said Virgil E. Brown, a Cleveland lawyer who sits on the state panel.

"I look at the letter as misleading," said Cyrus B. Richardson Jr., the board vice president. "It makes it sound like the law says you have to teach intelligent design, when that isn't in the law."

For that reason, science groups had opposed the conference report language, which was approved late last year. "The apparently innocuous statements in this resolution mask an anti-evolution agenda that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts," said a joint letter signed by 80 educational and scientific groups, from the American Anthropological Association and the Society of Protozoologists to the National Association of Biology Teachers.

The nation's leading science organizations generally view intelligent-design theory as a pseudo-scientific way to teach creationism, the latest front in a battle that dates to the well-known 1925 conviction of Tennessee science teacher John T. Scopes for teaching evolution.

But intelligent-design theory apparently resonates with the public. In their letter to the Ohio board, Boehner, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Chabot cited a 2001 Zogby poll that found that 71 percent of those surveyed supported offering students the "scientific evidence against evolution." The two lawmakers suggested that the exclusion of such evidence would amount to a "censorship of opposing points of view."

While Ohio is now the main battleground, in recent years legislatures or school boards in such states as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Kansas have also been wrestling with the issue.

Intelligent-design proponents -- such as Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California at Berkeley law professor whose 1991 book "Darwin on Trial" lifted the fledgling intelligent-design movement from obscurity -- hope to bring the concept to other state curricula. "If you are going to teach the Darwinist view that organisms may look like they were designed but weren't, then you have to allow for the possibility that they look like they were designed because they were designed," said Johnson, who helped draft the language that was eventually distilled into the conference report.

Johnson's writings make clear, however, that his aims extend into the realm of religion. "When people are taught for years on end that good thinking is naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the picture only leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense not to get the point that God must be an illusion," he wrote in another book, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds."

The language that Johnson helped craft was originally introduced as a nonbinding resolution by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). The resolution passed the Senate last June in a 91 to 8 vote. Eight Republicans,who considered the measure an unwarranted intrusion into local curriculum matters, voted against it.

Senate supporters shrugged off the concerns of science groups, calling the measure an innocuous statement of the elements of good science education. "We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them," said Kennedy, who backed the Santorum measure.

Federal law has long barred Washington from controlling state and local school instructional content -- a prohibition that has been guarded by GOP lawmakers through the years. With little attention, however, that outright prohibition was weakenedby Congress in 1994 when it barred the federal government only from controlling "specific" state or local instructional matters.

The education bill enacted earlier this year also suggested that Washington could exercise some general control over state and local curricula but not require the teaching of specific subjects. Federal education officials, however, said they have no intention of interpreting the language as requiring local school systems to teach alternatives to evolution.

This looks like another attempt to force Creationism into the public school curriculum. A "nonbinding resolution" can go a long way toward shaping public opinion, especially if the state legislators and school board administrators support it. And Johnson clearly wants his pseudoscientific theory to be taught in other states.

In my opinion, teachers should stick to what Kennedy said -- teaching students to think critically about scientific theory, not introducing pseudo-theories (ID) as valid theory, simply because of a misguided belief that all opinions deserve equal respect.

M.L.

hezekiah jones · 05-29-2002, 10:35 AM

Here is William Dembski's reply to Edward Kennedy:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/kennedyexpertonscience032102.htm" target="_blank">Edward Kennedy -- Expert on Science?</a>

Quote:

Actually, it is possible for the average woman or man on the street to see that intelligent design is a genuine scientific alternative to evolutionary biology.

Apparently however it is not possible for Edward Kennedy to see that it is not.

Likewise mathematician/philosopher/theologian Dembski clearly has the credentials, which so many evolutionary biologists lack, to refute evolutionary biology.

hezekiah jones · 05-29-2002, 10:39 AM

Also here is an illuminating article from the NCSE detailing the Discovery Institute's latest quote mining expedition in front of the Ohio Board of Education on March 11:

<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank">Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography</a>

Toto · 05-29-2002, 10:48 AM

The underhanded <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000510&p=" target="_blank">Santorum amendment</a> again.

Oresta · 05-30-2002, 11:52 AM

Two Either Intellectually-Challenged or Duplicitous Ohio House Republicans:

Quote:

"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," the lawmakers wrote in aletter to the Ohio board, quoting the conference report language.

I'm sure the point I want to make here has been said many times before on this an other related threads and boards, but it never can be said too often to these charletans:

ID is not a theory. Calling it "intelligent design theory" doesn't make it one. If it were, scientists would be able to generate testable hypotheses from it. (Are the guys who orchestrated this stuff the same ones who earlier were scoffing that evolution is "just" a theory?) And since ID purports to explain a final cause for the evolutionary process that can't be empirically knowable, it isn't a science. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
I get nearly as upset by the "balanced" media coverage of this issue as I do by the Santorums.

Buffman · 05-30-2002, 12:06 PM

For those interested in the scope of this latest effort to introduce superstition back into the public schools, this is an excellent place to start.

<a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/links.htm" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/links.htm</a>

GaryP · 05-31-2002, 12:28 PM

Ohio has been besieged by several C/S issues recently.

Even though the state was recently ranked as one of the very worst as far as school buildings' conditions are concerned, the state has invested in the Cleveland voucher program. The state already spent about $600 million a year on parochial schools (mostly transportation costs).

They have hired Kenneth Starr as one of the lawyers to defend the Cleveland program before the Supreme Court.

The state motto, "With God All things are Possible" has been enshrined in the sidewalk at the state Capitol in Columbus.

The governor just signed a MOS law which wiil take effect in time for school in the Fall.

And now, this ridulous "science" of ID. someone referred to it as the "Gee, Whiz" theory. You look at something beautiful or complicted in nature and say, "Gee, Whiz! This is so great, only God could have done it!"

Buffman · 05-31-2002, 05:31 PM

Please appreciate that the ID URL I provided above is run by people who are attempting to insert ID into the public square as a "scientific" theory as valid as the Theory of Evolution.

However, IMHO, that is not the most significant concern that C-S separation folks should have. The real concern should be the fact that the religious conservatives have been able to make great strides in correcting their former public image as "ignorant fundies." For more than a decade, they have quietly gone about getting the appropriate academic credentials for devout, and intellectually qualified, true believers. Now, the Christian right wing has begun to reap the fruits of this effort. (They arm the political "know-nothings" with pro-ID witnesses who appear to be as qualified as the pro-Evolution ones.)

Too many Americans only see the letters behind an individual's name in order to consider that person qualified to speak on any of the many discplines for which the letters could represent. A PhD (in Oceanography) does not automatically qualify that individual as an expert witness in Comparative Anatomy. But the public seems oblivious to this. It is willing to accept the words of PhD (in Law) as comparable to a person with a PhD (in Anthropology.)

So, if anyone goes to that URL and reads through what is provided, take a moment to see the academic credentials/qualifications/experience of those providing and editing the remarks attached to the various references found there.

Joel · 06-08-2002, 10:56 AM

Here is some information on the current proposed changes the Intelligent Design advocates are trying to push through. I got these from an email mailing list that is mostly used by college professors and science teachers here in Ohio. These are just a sample of the proposed changes. Notice how they are trying to water down evolution and using the 'just a theory' attitude. (which goes to show they don't understand science.)

Quote:

CURRENT WORDING

Benchmark organizer, Evolution of Life, pg.130.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Evolution Theory

CURRENT WORDING

Page 127, Grades9-10, Benchmark #7
Students will explain that unity and diversity of life reflect their
evolutionary relationships.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Students will explain how evolutionary relationships contribute to an
understanding of the diversity of life.

CURRENT WORDING

Page 116, Grade 10, Indicator #5. Know how the evolution of life n earth has
changed the oxygen composition of the earth's atmosphere.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Know how the development of living organisms contributes to the change in
oxygen composition of the earth's atmosphere.

CURRENT WORDING

Page 158, Grade 12, indicator #1. Know that stars and other objects in space
emit electromagnetic radiation which we can detect and from which we can infer
information about the age, size and origin of the universe.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Know that stars and other objects in space emit electromagnetic radiation which
we can detect and from which we can infer information about the age, size and
DEVELOPMENT of the universe. [emphasis mine]

CURRENT WORDING

Page 170, Grade 11, Indicator #5. Describe how the evolution of life has
changed the physical world over geological time.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Describe how the process of evolution has changed the physical world over time.

CURRENT WORDING

Page 180, Grade 12, Indicator #10. Explain how information about the age, size
and origin of the universe is inferred by understanding that stars and objects
in space emit electromagnetic radiation which we can detect.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Explain how information about the age, size and DEVELOPMENT of the universe is
inferred by understanding that stars and objects in space emit electromagnetic
radiation which we can detect. [emphasis mine]

CURRENT WORDING

Page 170, Grade 12, Indicator #10. Explain other mechanisms for evolutionary
change, including genetic drift, immigration, emigration and mutation.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Explain additional components of evolutionary theory including genetic drift,
immigration, emigration and mutation.

Please see the Ohio Citizens for Science's web page at:

<a href="http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/" target="_blank">http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/</a>

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Joel ]</p>

Stephen Maturin · 06-08-2002, 07:06 PM

Quote:

GaryP:
Ohio has been besieged by several C/S issues recently.

Ain't it the truth! We've got an unduly high percetange of state legislators who are amenable to tearing down the wall of separation a brick or two at a time, and that makes us an inviting target. Fortunately enough, <a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=89" target="_blank">Rex Damshroder</a> gets term-limited out at year's end, but he'll probably be replaced by someone just like him.

Quote:

Even though the state was recently ranked as one of the very worst as far as school buildings' conditions are concerned, the state has invested in the Cleveland voucher program. The state already spent about $600 million a year on parochial schools (mostly transportation costs).

They've also spent tons of money to sidestep the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling that our method of funding public schools is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it looks like the governor and the legislature are going to win that war by attrition.

Quote:

They have hired Kenneth Starr as one of the lawyers to defend the Cleveland program before the Supreme Court.

Looks as though Starr didn't manage to pocket enough of the $50 million he got to piece together the gruesome details of Hummergate.

Even so, it's a good choice. Starr was once the U.S. Solicitor General and thus has extensive experience with briefing and arguing Supreme Court appeals.

Yep, it's not a good time to be a nontheistic Ohioan.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2002, 10:39 AM	#3
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Also here is an illuminating article from the NCSE detailing the Discovery Institute's latest quote mining expedition in front of the Ohio Board of Education on March 11: <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank">Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography</a>

05-29-2002, 10:48 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The underhanded <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000510&p=" target="_blank">Santorum amendment</a> again.

05-30-2002, 12:06 PM	#6
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	For those interested in the scope of this latest effort to introduce superstition back into the public schools, this is an excellent place to start. <a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/links.htm" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/links.htm</a>

05-31-2002, 12:28 PM	#7
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	Ohio has been besieged by several C/S issues recently. Even though the state was recently ranked as one of the very worst as far as school buildings' conditions are concerned, the state has invested in the Cleveland voucher program. The state already spent about $600 million a year on parochial schools (mostly transportation costs). They have hired Kenneth Starr as one of the lawyers to defend the Cleveland program before the Supreme Court. The state motto, "With God All things are Possible" has been enshrined in the sidewalk at the state Capitol in Columbus. The governor just signed a MOS law which wiil take effect in time for school in the Fall. And now, this ridulous "science" of ID. someone referred to it as the "Gee, Whiz" theory. You look at something beautiful or complicted in nature and say, "Gee, Whiz! This is so great, only God could have done it!"

05-31-2002, 05:31 PM	#8
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Please appreciate that the ID URL I provided above is run by people who are attempting to insert ID into the public square as a "scientific" theory as valid as the Theory of Evolution. However, IMHO, that is not the most significant concern that C-S separation folks should have. The real concern should be the fact that the religious conservatives have been able to make great strides in correcting their former public image as "ignorant fundies." For more than a decade, they have quietly gone about getting the appropriate academic credentials for devout, and intellectually qualified, true believers. Now, the Christian right wing has begun to reap the fruits of this effort. (They arm the political "know-nothings" with pro-ID witnesses who appear to be as qualified as the pro-Evolution ones.) Too many Americans only see the letters behind an individual's name in order to consider that person qualified to speak on any of the many discplines for which the letters could represent. A PhD (in Oceanography) does not automatically qualify that individual as an expert witness in Comparative Anatomy. But the public seems oblivious to this. It is willing to accept the words of PhD (in Law) as comparable to a person with a PhD (in Anthropology.) So, if anyone goes to that URL and reads through what is provided, take a moment to see the academic credentials/qualifications/experience of those providing and editing the remarks attached to the various references found there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.