Intelligent Design in Ohio

[Strut&Rut]

To follow up on our previous thread, this is hot off the press not more than 45 minutes ago....

Ohio State School Board Approves Evolution Lesson That Irritates Science Groups

03-09-2004 09:29 PM

By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes a religious theory for the creation of life. Scientific groups objected and critics said they expected a lawsuit.

After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of "Critical Analysis of Evolution," an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.

Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life.

"I am convinced this is a religious effort cloaked as science," said board member Robin Hovis.

At issue is 22 pages out of more than 500 that schools can use to teach new science standards approved last year for all grades. No student will be tested on intelligent design, said board president Jennifer Sheets.

The vote was applauded by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent design theory, and says states should teach both evolution and scientific criticism of evolutionary theory.

The vote "is a significant victory for students and their academic freedom to study all sides of current scientific debates over evolutionary theory," said Bruce Chapman, Discovery Institute president.

Board member Sam Schloemer complained the lessons "further erode the status and the value of Ohio's public education system because it is without scientific evidence," he said.

Several scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, are opposed to the lessons.

Others predicted the plan would be challenged in court.

"They're standing in line _ high school teachers, board members, parents, the students themselves," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University philosophy professor who has led lobbying efforts against the lessons.

Board member James Turner, appointed to the board by Gov. Bob Taft, said he was impressed by the number of scientists in favor of the lessons, arguing opponents were "allowing their fear of what this lesson could lead to" to reflect their views.

The board should rely on the guidance of evolutionary biologists with experience studying evolution, argued Stephen Weeks, a University of Akron biologist.

"If someone's an expert and they're telling you they need a brain tumor removed in a certain way, that's weighted more than your mechanic's opinion," Weeks said.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Seems that intelligent design will now be taught in the classroom. For all intents and purposes, not a bad idea...

[kevin1]

If the students "aren't going to be tested on it" why include it in the curriculum ?

Creationist theory and Evolution theory only have two things in common , they both have yet to be proven conclusively, and the word theory . Evolution , however , has a preponderance of evidence to support it's theory , Creationism does not . Before the christians go nuts on me , the Bible cannot be accepted as evidence since it is anecdotal heresay at best . God didn't personally write the book , men did , and men are fallible . Whether he dictated it or not is subject to further debate .

[MattInNH]

Leaving any scientific critique of Creationism aside, I think this sets a bad precedent and will probably be stricken down by the courts. Teaching traditional Christian creationism in the schools without teaching other religion's creation theories seems to be very close to the state endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others. If they were to teach Christain, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc. creation theories they might be able to get away with it, but by trying to teach just the one version of creationism I think they're getting themselves into trouble.

[slugman]

both views should be discussed. How can a intelligent decision be made by the children if there is only one side being taught ?

[kevin1]

ORIGINAL: slugman

both views should be discussed. How can a intelligent decision be made by the children if there is only one side being taught ?

There is no shortage of churches out there who stand ready , willing , and able to teach Creationism . That is where it should rightfully be taught and learned . Creationism should not be taught in a public school since it seems to portray christianity as the only religion .

I went to a Catholic school for years , and Evolution was never taught there since it was considered sacreligious . It was only after the state threatened to revoke their accreditation that they grudgingly began to briefly cover it in class . Even then it was generally denigrated as being "just a theory , not proven." by the teachers . Much the same way that Creationism is portrayed in public schools .

[Strut&Rut]

As a supporter of evolution, I think this is actually a step in the right direction.

I think that we need to teach our children that there are multiple theories about how we, humans, have come to where we are today. I can't honestly say, that with over half the entire world believing in creation by a supreme power, that it should not be discussed in school. It is a major injustice to science and evolution to not discuss the other side of the coin, simply because that was the root of Darwin's early work---what he observed he could not simply dismiss to pure Creation, the concept he had experienced and taught his entire life before the Galapagos...

This, in my opinion, does not violate church and state separation. In fact, this may open up some strictly religious minds to evolutionary concepts as well as sway scientifically oriented students to explore religion. And isn't that what school is all about, to teach our kids how to think independently, form ideas/opinions, and to gradually transition into adulthood and the modern world??

Intelligent design is not a strictly Christian phenomenom---it merely states that everything can not be explained by science and that a higher power had input into the world we see today. I believe this will open up multiple questions about all religions and their separate creation theories, not just Christianity's views. This can only be a good thing, as students will gain insight to other cultures and religious views.

Morover, Anthropology and Sociology are pretty much basic curriculum courses at all colleges, and both teach about culture and religious views. Almost 75% of todays high school graduates are expected/will attend a secondary institute of higher learning...

[MattInNH]

ORIGINAL: Strut&Rut

whole post....

Well said. I made the mistake of thinking creationism == intelligent design, which isn't the case. If they're teaching generalized ID(intelligent design) without bias towards any one religion, I think that's a great idea. I don't personally believe in ID, but teaching students to think critically is never a bad thing. I'd imagine they teach many conflicting theories in other classes(physics for example), why should evolution be exempt from criticism? We don't fully understand our world yet, and I think it's important that students realize that.

[Tazman]

Teaching traditional Christian creationism in the schools without teaching other religion's creation theories seems to be very close to the state endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others. If they were to teach Christain, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc. creation theories they might be able to get away with it, but by trying to teach just the one version of creationism I think they're getting themselves into trouble.

Matt well said and I agree, if they just teach Christian Creationism it will be an endorsement of a particular religion by the government and it will in all likelyhood be struck down in the courts, but if they do as you say and cover all the beleifs of the major religions it will fly. I personally feel that teaching them all would be a great learning experience for our children, I will be honest and say I have no idea how religions other than Christianity beleif in the creation of the earth and would find it interesting.

As always there are many sides to the same story, why not hear them all and draw your own conclusion?

[kevin1]

That's what churches are for Taz ,
goobermint just provides a vehicle for learning the more common stuff . When it comes to theology , teaching it should be left to those who know it best .

[Strut&Rut]

Kevin,

Until evolution and the "Big Bang" theory can be proven how can there be any harm by teaching a basic theory that many people, in fact more than 50% of the earth's inhabitants, believe that a supreme power was involved in the world's and human kind's creation?? Not a single religion's belief, but just the teaching that there is another theory (observation/hypothesis, whatever us scientists want to call it) in existence.

It is just another theory for our children and students to explore. Really not much different than learning about how Watson & Crick raced Linus Pauling for the discovery of the "genetic material" of living things. Until Watson & Crick could prove and substantiate that DNA was the genetic material, most institutions taught students that certain proteins held the genetic code...

It will be a cold day somewhere if in fact, 50 years from now, scientists unearth "something" that actually indicates life came from another planet and our evolutionary theory was a crock...

We as scientists owe it to non-scientists to keep an open mind and obey the first scientific rule: assume nothing unless totally infalliable...