Intelligent Design in Ohio: The Return

Most of you probably know about the unsuccessful attempt in 2002 to get Intelligent Design taught in Ohio. It turns out that apparently wasn't the end of the story. The Ohio State Board of Education recently voted 13-4 to give preliminary approval to standards that include "Critical Analysis of Evolution." That statement may seem innocent, but in my experience it's just that latest incarnation of creationism ("teach biblical creationism" became "teach scientific creationism" which became "teach creationism and evolution" which became "teach intelligent design and evolution" which became "teach evidence for and against evolution.")

You can find a link to the standards at the link below. The "Critical Analysis of Evolution" section is under Grades 9-10).

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_...e_contents.asp

I haven't read through the standards in detail (I'm working on it), but I can see they were strongly influenced by Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution," which is a very poor book to get accurate information about evolution from (it used to be in the bibliography of the new standards but it was removed).

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

Here are my preliminary thoughts on the standards:

Indicator 23 on the standards (on the first page) says : "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)"

But they provide links to The National Association for Objectivity in Science (www.objectivityinscience.org), and a look at the resources page of that organizations shows that's it's clearly an Intelligent Design organization. There's also a link to the Access Research Network (www.arn.org), another ID organization. They also recommend Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", and in the draft I linked to Wells' "Icons of Evolution" - but as I said earlier that book has been removed (http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_...docchanges.asp)

The new standards included Archaeopteryx, Chapter 6 from Wells' book, but that was removed. It still includes a discussion of Homology (Wells' Chapter 4), and Peppered moths (Wells' Chapter 7). So while the standards may say they don't require the teaching of intelligent design, it seems to me they're trying to sneak it in through the back door.

I did find this in the "Geologic Time Measurement" section of the curricula: "Benchmark I: Explain how natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms account for the unity and diversity of past and present life forms." I guess the ID-friendly members of the board missed that.

Here are a couple of relevant articles:

State panel backs disputed lesson, infuriates supporters of evolution
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...5549160490.xml

State Board Approves Evolution Lesson Plans
http://www.nbc4columbus.com/educatio...29/detail.html

I signed a letter to the Ohio State Board back in 2002 against the ID proposal. I was on sabbatical and took a visiting scholar position at Ohio State and the physics/astronomy/math/chemistry/biology departments at OSU put together a letter signed by the faculty.

But this nonsense shall continue to rear it's ugly head no doubt.

Sure, limit our children's exposure to all theories and ideas that we don't endorse. That way their knowledge will more based on lack of alternatives than rational thought and observation. Good idea.

__________________
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." II Peter Ch. 3 vs. 3 & 4

"Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself, and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am." - Tom Bombadil, FotR

The religion of evolutionism is being force fed to our children.

ALL OTHER VIEWS ARE BANNED

Durango,

Do you think we should teach racial purity and eugenics on an equal level with genetics and social science?

After all by your reasoning ALL views should be given basically equal footing.

How about astrology, paranormal activity, flat earth, alchemy, reincarnation etc etc.

There is a reason we don't. They are FALSIFIED. Just like 'Young Earth Creationism'.

Durango, I saw your response on my 'Ice Core' thread and you seem like someone who needs to return to school and maybe learn the science this time around.

I presume you advocate teaching children the Buddhist Hindu and Pagan creation concepts, as well as phlogiston chemistry, proteins as the hereditary material, geocentrism, diseases caused by unbalanced humors of the body, insanity caused by demons, planets orbiting the sun due to vortexes in the ether, Lamarckism, flat earth, and all acids containing oxygen, then?

__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."

I have never studied those iissues. On the other hand I have studied both creation science and evolutionism.
From my studies I have easily concluded that creation science is demonstrated using scientific techniques and these scientific techniques should be presented to our children in our schools.
A force fed diet of your monkey was an uncle as the only position is wrong.

Has science demonstrated the Buddhist, Hindu and Pagan creation concepts?

If so why not?

To date science has been used to create models and show portions of the YEC concepts. Should they be banned just because you disagree with them?

Isn't that kind of bigoted?

Thats 'evolution' not 'evolutionism', in that context.

__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."

Durango,

I mean no offense but you haven't studied the science. What you have done is read about the debate, not studied the science itself. I always feel this is the fundamental problem with the science/YEC issue.

People like yourself have read reams and reams of material on the issue but have not actually studied the points themselves. I realise this is difficult to do - time constraints, lack of education in the areas or (and let's be honest) many people no matter what cannot handle the academic side of science from an intellectual standpoint.

But what you are left with is arguing about the debate - not the merits of the science behind the debate. This becomes argument from ignorance and what makes people like me shake their heads.