Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 09-20-2002, 05:00 PM

I got an email today indicating that the "Intelligent Design" crowd are making another push to get their "it's only fair to present all views" tripe considered for inclusion in the Ohio high school education standards. <a href="http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/" target="_blank">Ohio Citizens for Science</a> has some background, though it doesn't seem terribly up-to-date.

The Ohio Board of Education has agreed to consider changes in the current biology standards at their October 13-15 meeting in Columbus. The OCfS is appealing for letters, particularly from scientists, requesting that evolution be taught in more detail than presently, rather than being diluted with unscientific philosophical musings. The website linked above has some tips on letter writing, as well as email addresses for board members. An old-fashioned paper letter is even better, though, on letterhead if you have it:

State Board of Education
Ohio Department of Education Building
25 S. Front St., 7th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-4183

A little more detail is available to any (well, with a couple of possible exceptions) of you by email if you're interested - I don't have permission as of yet to put the mail I received out for the public. Letters from non-Ohioans seem to be encouraged, BTW.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]

Richiyaado · 09-20-2002, 05:41 PM

Just want to mention that if you go to the OCFS site, you can sign their petition opposing the teaching of intelligent design as science.

Not sure if this is accurate, but last I heard, the Ohio pro ID forces have shifted their effort away from changing the science standards to include the teaching of ID (perhaps thinking they won't succeed), and have proposed including ID within the context of social studies instead (wedge it in any way they can, I guess).

Blinn · 09-20-2002, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richiyaado:


Not sure if this is accurate, but last I heard, the Ohio pro ID forces have shifted their effort away from changing the science standards to include the teaching of ID (perhaps thinking they won't succeed), and have proposed including ID within the context of social studies instead (wedge it in any way they can, I guess).

Yes, that's the angle they're taking now. Here's a recent editorial from the
<a href="http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/news/editorials02/sep02/1489296.html" target="_blank">Columbus Dispatch</a>:

Quote:

Intelligent Design 2

Backers of religious viewpoint shouldn't use schools as soapbox

Wednesday, September 18, 2002

Advocates of intelligent design, the religion-based idea that life is too complex to have evolved through natural processes, apparently recognize that they cannot pressure the State Board of Education to make this nonscientific idea part of the science curriculum in Ohio's public schools.

But they still hope to have such speculations included in the social-studies curriculum, perhaps as part of a comparative-religion requirement.

While this is a legitimate place for discussion of such ideas, specifically mandating the teaching of intelligent design is a bad idea.

The point of teaching comparative religion is to expose students to the broad sweep of religious thought, history and practice from around the world. It might be appropriate for the state to mandate that religiously based ideas about the origin of life be included in this discussion, as long as the range of ideas was truly broad.

But the state board would be stacking the sectarian deck to include intelligent design, by name, as part of the mandate.

To do so would be to give this single approach prominence over the other origin ideas derived from Christianity, not to mention over those springing from the many non-Christian belief systems around the world.

Of course, this sort of ecumenism is not likely to appeal to intelligent-design advocates. Their interest is not in exposing students to the broad sweep of religious thought regarding the origins of life, but to promote a single viewpoint, their own.

This is why the State Board of Education should continue to resist the pressure intelligent design promoters are bringing to bear in the hopes of gaining a privileged position for their viewpoint somewhere in the public-school curriculum.

In a meeting of the state board's Standards Committee last week, board member Michael Cochran of Blacklick noted that of 17,000 public comments received about state science standards, 12,000 favored inclusion of intelligent design.

"How are we to react to that beside what we are doing -- ignoring it?'' Cochran asked other members of the committee.

No one answered Cochran, but here is the answer he should have gotten:

Choosing public-school curriculum should not be a popularity contest, based on the ever-changing currents of public opinion. No doubt 12,000 people could be found who despised algebra or geometry in school and see no use for it in their lives. Should algebra or geometry be dropped?

Probably 12,000 people could be found who think astrology has some validity and who would like to see it incorporated into the school curriculum. Should they be obliged?

While the views of parents and voters should be considered in the making of public-school curriculum, those views should not trump common sense or the U.S. Constitution.

Common sense dictates that public-school students should have the broadest education possible. The Constitution prohibits public schools from engaging in religious indoctrination, even if 12,000 people favor it.

The State Board of Education should ignore the continuing pressure. Requiring the teaching of intelligent design would be a mistake.

Starboy · 09-20-2002, 05:59 PM

Has religion become so disreputable that it is just too shameful to admit that ID is religion? Or is it just a dirty trick to introduce religion in a context where other religious points of view would not be considered? Only a Christian could be so righteous (deceitful)!

Starboy

Coragyps · 09-20-2002, 06:04 PM

Wow. From the Columbus Dispatch, you say! They've made a little progress since 1978! That is a damn good editorial.

RufusAtticus · 09-20-2002, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:
Has religion become so disreputable that it is just too shameful to admit that ID is religion? Or is it just a dirty trick to introduce religion in a context where other religious points of view would not be considered? Only a Christian could be so righteous (deceitful)!

Proverbs 21:28 "A false witness will perish,
and whoever listens to him will be destroyed forever."

Wyz_sub10 · 09-23-2002, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:
Has religion become so disreputable that it is just too shameful to admit that ID is religion?

Good point. It certainly has become too volatile for you guys south of the border. And I think this backhanded tactic goes to show that the religious support is just not there, despite the proclamations.

On an ID note...

All I want to know is how they would teach ID without referencing evolution. Evolution can be taught on its own. ID can only be taught as a criticism to evolution (and a very, very poor one at that).

joedad · 09-23-2002, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10:

Good point. It certainly has become too volatile for you guys south of the border. And I think this backhanded tactic goes to show that the religious support is just not there, despite the proclamations.

Sure hope you're right.

Quote:

On an ID note...

All I want to know is how they would teach ID without referencing evolution. Evolution can be taught on its own. ID can only be taught as a criticism to evolution (and a very, very poor one at that).

Some IDers see evolution as a refutation of *their* beliefs, so I guess turnabout is fair play. Know thine enemy...? And religion does not accept or tolerate competition.

At one time I entertained the thought that at least some of the present anti-evolutionary sentiment was a result of our ignoring the teaching of philosophy, history and the humanities generally, at the expense of stressing science. But I don't know about that anymore.

I do think, though, that a working knowledge of World Religions and Cultural History would greatly benefit evolution in the current situation, as do many on this board.

Maybe the reason IDers change their tactics is because they realize that ID has at least as many flavors as it has different creation myths and religions, present and historical. There is, after all, a difference between ID and Biblical ID and Australian aboriginal ID and ....

joe

Wyz_sub10 · 09-23-2002, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by joedad:
Some IDers see evolution as a refutation of *their* beliefs, so I guess turnabout is fair play.

Except that their beliefs are not required to validate or strengthen evolutionary theory. You cannot discuss ID without referencing perceived problems with evolution. You can discuss evolution without referencing religion.

ID "theory" is a gap theory. You need gaps in *something* in order to have a gap theory. They see evolution as providing gaps. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on evidence that stands independent of gaps in other ways of thinking.

Quote:

I do think, though, that a working knowledge of World Religions and Cultural History would greatly benefit evolution in the current situation, as do many on this board.

I think it would benefit many people beyond its application to evolution. But such teachings do not belong in a science class. Maybe we should put more stress on the humanities in school.

If you think evolution gets the beats, though, watch what happens when you suggest mandatory classes on "humanist" subjects.

beoba · 09-23-2002, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10:
It certainly has become too volatile for you guys south of the border.

Easy to evaporate?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: alphatronics ]

09-20-2002, 05:00 PM	#1
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Ohio Board of Education, again I got an email today indicating that the "Intelligent Design" crowd are making another push to get their "it's only fair to present all views" tripe considered for inclusion in the Ohio high school education standards. <a href="http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/" target="_blank">Ohio Citizens for Science</a> has some background, though it doesn't seem terribly up-to-date. The Ohio Board of Education has agreed to consider changes in the current biology standards at their October 13-15 meeting in Columbus. The OCfS is appealing for letters, particularly from scientists, requesting that evolution be taught in more detail than presently, rather than being diluted with unscientific philosophical musings. The website linked above has some tips on letter writing, as well as email addresses for board members. An old-fashioned paper letter is even better, though, on letterhead if you have it: State Board of Education Ohio Department of Education Building 25 S. Front St., 7th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-4183 A little more detail is available to any (well, with a couple of possible exceptions) of you by email if you're interested - I don't have permission as of yet to put the mail I received out for the public. Letters from non-Ohioans seem to be encouraged, BTW. [ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Coragyps ]</p>

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

09-20-2002, 05:41 PM	#2
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Just want to mention that if you go to the OCFS site, you can sign their petition opposing the teaching of intelligent design as science. Not sure if this is accurate, but last I heard, the Ohio pro ID forces have shifted their effort away from changing the science standards to include the teaching of ID (perhaps thinking they won't succeed), and have proposed including ID within the context of social studies instead (wedge it in any way they can, I guess).

09-20-2002, 05:59 PM	#4
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Has religion become so disreputable that it is just too shameful to admit that ID is religion? Or is it just a dirty trick to introduce religion in a context where other religious points of view would not be considered? Only a Christian could be so righteous (deceitful)! Starboy

09-20-2002, 06:04 PM	#5
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Wow. From the Columbus Dispatch, you say! They've made a little progress since 1978! That is a damn good editorial.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.