The Ohio Firestorm of 2006:
State Board of Education Rejects Critical Analysis
SUMMARY. On Feb. 14 the State Board of Education voted 11-4 to remove language in the 2002 Ohio Science Standards calling for the critical analysis of evolution (Grade 10 Life Sciences, Benchmark H and Indicator 23). In the same motion the Board also removed the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson plan from the 2004 Science Model Curriculum.
In our view this action by the State Board on Feb. 14 was both ill-conceived and inexplicable. It shows a lack of respect for past precedent as well as a callous disregard for public opinion on the teaching-of-evolution issue. As a result of the Board’s decision, evolution (especially macroevolution) loses its status as a scientific theory and will be taught as dogma in Ohio schools. When any theory becomes immune to criticism, the student’s education ceases to be objective and instead becomes indoctrination.
We urge Ohio citizens to contact State Board of Education members and Gov. Bob Taft on this issue. (Four of five Taft-appointed Board members present on Feb. 14 voted to remove critical analysis.) Ask that the Board’s policy calling for the critical analysis of scientific theories – particularly macroevolution – be reinstated.
* * * * * * *
The Dover case.
As you probably know, the teaching of evolution in Ohio’s public schools is back in the news again. The current flap really began on Dec. 20, 2005, when District Judge John Jones ruled on the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design (ID) case. The Dover school board adopted a policy in October of 2004 that reads: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught.”
In January of 2005, the board followed up on this policy by requiring that the following statement be read to ninth grade biology students: “Darwin’s theory is not a fact. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. Of Pandas And People [a supplemental textbook] is available [in the school library] for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.”
Subsequently, the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the policy violated the so-called “separation of church and state.” The suit was brought on behalf of a group of Dover parents who wanted the policy removed.
After a long, well-publicized trial last fall, Judge Jones ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach alternatives to evolution in public school classrooms. He equated ID to creationism, writing that “ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God.” Judge Jones sharply criticized “the breathtaking inanity of the [Dover] board’s decision,” and he accused the board of lying to the community about their motives.
January State Board Meeting.
Using the Dover decision as an excuse, Ohio State Board of Education member Martha Wise introduced a motion at the Jan. 10, 2006, Board meeting to eliminate the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson from the state’s Science Model Curriculum. She repeated her earlier belief that the lesson contains thinly-disguised ID arguments. The Board was coerced into making this an “emergency” motion, which meant the members could vote on it the same day – even though it was not an agenda item. After much animated debate, the Board (thankfully) defeated the motion by a close 9-8 vote. Voting to keep the lesson were Baker, Cochran, Craig, Grady, Owens Fink, Ross, Sheets and Westendorf. Voting to remove the lesson were Harrold, Hovis, Millett, Okerson, Schloemer, Sonenscheim, Stewart and Wise.
February State Board Meeting.
Unfortunately this was not the end of the story. Using the excuse that a Board member (Mr. Brown) was absent in January, the issue was brought up again at the Feb. 14 Board meeting. Brown was present, but three members who had voted to retain the lesson in January were absent (Baker, Ross, and Sheets). Sensing an opportunity, Mrs. Wise introduced a motion (Resolution 31) that would remove the lesson plan as well as the “critical analysis of evolution” language from the Science Standards (Grade 10 Life Sciences – Benchmark H and Indicator 23). With absolutely no justification, this was declared an “emergency” motion, and the Board adopted the new policy by a vote of 11-4. The text of Resolution 31 is appended to this report. Members voting to remove critical analysis were Brown, Craig, Harrold, Hovis, Millett, Okerson, Schloemer, Sonenschein, Stewart, Wick, and Wise. Members voting to retain critical analysis were Cochran, Grady, Owens Fink, and Westendorf. (Note that Board member Griffin missed both meetings due to illness.)
Reaction to Resolution 31.
As one would expect, science establishment and liberal activist groups applauded the State Board’s adoption of Resolution 31. Proponents of a balanced presentation of evolution, on the other hand, were quick to condemn it. John West (Discovery Institute) called the Board’s action “an outrageous slap in the face” to Ohioans. “Most people want students to learn the evidence critical of Darwinism, as well as the evidence that supports it, rather than just teaching Darwin’s theory as if it were sacred dogma.” John Calvert (Intelligent Design Network) agreed that evolution has now been “made into an Ohio dogma.” He said that the “Ohio Board effectively established materialism [or naturalism] as the official state-endorsed account of origins by rescinding a science standard that would encourage evolution to be taught objectively.”
Roddy Bullock (IDnet of Ohio) said: “Now any criticism, any challenge, any contrary view is officially censored from Ohio’s public school classrooms. No longer will Darwinism be treated like a scientific matter open to investigation; it is now carefully ensconced as a dogma behind a state-erected wall of separation.” David Zanotti (American Policy Roundtable) blamed the Board’s decision on lobbying by a group of “radical evolutionists.” For several months, he said, these “radicals have been stalking, threatening and intimidating Board members. They have threatened legal action against the Board… They promised to tear down the standards by litigation if the Board did not surrender… And rather than fight – or even get a competent legal opinion – the Board ran from the bullies and caved in to the pressure.”
SEAO’s Assessment of Resolution 31.
In our view the action by the State Board on Feb. 14 was both ill-conceived and inexplicable. It shows a lack of respect for past precedent as well as a callous disregard for public opinion on the teaching-of-evolution issue, as explained below:
1. The Board spent the entire year of 2002 debating how to teach evolution, and they spent another three months in 2004 discussing the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson. Compromise language was carefully crafted and adopted that addressed the public’s overwhelming support for providing a balanced coverage of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses. To negate that history in one hastily conceived motion is both presumptuous and unconscionable.
2. The Board declared this to be an “emergency” motion with absolutely no justification. The Science Standards have been in place for over three years, and the Model Curriculum has been in place for two years. During that time there was no serious discussion of removing or altering portions of either document. The declaration of an “emergency” merely served to (a) irresponsibly deny the public a chance to provide input and (b) rush the Board into a major policy change without allowing time to consider the consequences.
3. The Board had already voted on an “emergency” motion on the same subject at its Jan. 10 meeting. The issue was resurrected on Feb. 14 in part because a key Board member (Mr. Brown) was absent on Jan. 10. However, four Board members were absent on Feb. 14, and all four of these members had previously supported the Board’s policy on critical analysis of evolution. Thus to bring the issue up again in February and vote on it, with even fewer Board members present, was clearly unwarranted and manipulative.
4. The Board used an irrelevant legal decision from Pennsylvania as an excuse for action. The Dover ID case has no legal standing in Ohio. The ruling by Judge Jones negated a policy that mandated an introduction to intelligent design (ID) in Dover biology classes. Neither the Ohio Science Standards nor the “Critical Analysis” lesson deal with ID, and in any case, the Ohio Standards and lesson are voluntary – not mandatory.
5. The Board was persuaded by input from a few dogmatic evolutionists, apparently ignoring the 2002 polling data and massive input from citizens that overwhelmingly favored the critical analysis of evolution. As a result of the Board’s Feb. 14 action, evolution (especially macroevolution) loses its status as a scientific theory and will be taught as dogma in Ohio schools. When any theory becomes immune to criticism, the student’s education ceases to be objective and instead becomes indoctrination.
6. The Board failed to seriously consider the alternative (suggested by Gov. Taft) of a legal review of the standard and lesson dealing with the critical analysis of evolution. This would have delayed possible Board action for a month or two, but in the end the Board would have had a reasonable basis for making a decision – either to keep, remove, or modify the policy. Waiting a few weeks would be of little consequence for an issue of such importance.
7. The Board justified its quick action, at least in part, because of the threat of a lawsuit. If opponents of the Board’s policy truly wanted to sue, they could have done so at any time during the past three years. The fact that no suit was filed should suggest something – namely that the Board’s policy will pass legal scrutiny. If the opposition wants to sue, many of us would welcome it. The Board’s policy is quite defensible and would stand up in court.
8. The Board allowed itself to be intimidated by a small group of radical evolutionists with their specious arguments, such as: (a) the lesson plan contains ID material; (b) the Board’s policy violates the “separation of church and state”; (c) the policy will lead to the teaching of creationism in the classroom; (d) evolution is a “fact”; (e) there is no scientific evidence that challenges macro-evolution (descent from a common ancestry); and (f) there is no controversy in science over evolution. All of these arguments are demonstrably false. These are scare tactics designed to intimidate and mislead the public and government officials.
March State Board Meeting.
On March 13 the Board’s Achievement Committee met to discuss the possibility of restoring some form of “critical analysis” to the Science Standards. Committee Co-chair Michael Cochran was quite optimistic about the Committee developing alternative language that would be acceptable to the Board as a whole. It was clear at the meeting that some committee members agreed with Cochran’s assessment, while others did not. It was also clear that the Committee’s deliberations on this issue could continue for a few months before a decision is made. Committee members are Cochran (Co-chair), Craig (Co-chair), Brown, Grady, Millett, Okerson, Owens Fink, and Ross.
Resolution 31 was not discussed at the full Board meeting on March 14. However, seven people gave testimony in favor of critical analysis during the Public Participation period. Their comments focused on several aspects of the issue:
*The Board was condemned because it acted hastily on Resolution 31 before obtaining public input.
*Public opinion on this issue has been strongly in favor of presenting both sides of the evidence regarding macroevolution.
*The Board’s action has not ended the controversy.
*Students need to learn critical analysis skills.
*Critical analysis of evolution needs to be restored to the curriculum.
Citizen action.
It is clear at this point that the Board has no intention of rescinding Resolution 31. The matter has been referred to the Achievement Committee to develop a recommendation. We urge you to contact State Board of Education members and Gov. Bob Taft. The Achievement Committee especially needs to be encouraged to follow through on this matter. Ask that the Board’s policy calling for the critical analysis of evolution be reinstated. Be polite but firm. Use your own words, but feel free to get ideas from the talking points listed in this report.
Contact information for State Board members may be found www.ode.state.oh.us; click on the “State Board of Education” icon. Note that if an e-mail address is not given for a particular Board member, you will need to phone them or else send a letter by regular mail. Contact Gov. Taft by phone (614-466-3555), mail (30th Floor, 77 S. High St., Columbus, OH 43215-6117), or e-mail at www.governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp .
Many Ohioans devoted much effort to this issue from 2001 to 2004. As the State Board continues its debate on the teaching of evolution, a new policy needs to be developed with careful deliberation and with due respect for input from Ohio citizens. Your letter or phone call can make a difference!
Appendix 1. Text of Resolution 31.
Resolved, that the Superintendent of Public Instruction be, and she hereby is, directed to take the following actions immediately:
1. Delete the model lesson plan, Critical Analysis of Evolution, from the state-board approved curriculum and remove its availability from print sources, technology sources, and any other Ohio Board of Education / Ohio Department of Education mechanism that makes it available for use;
2. Delete the following sentences from Grade 10 Life Science Benchmark H: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this Benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.),” and delete Indicator 23 in its entirety, and adjust all print sources, technology sources, and any other Ohio Board of Education / Ohio Department of Education documents to reflect the removal;
3. The Achievement Committee of the State Board of Education is charged to consider whether the deleted model lesson, Benchmark H and Indicator 23 should be replaced by a different benchmark, lesson, and indicator, and if so, to present any recommendation to the entire State Board for adoption;
4. Communicate the fact of the above actions to all public school superintendents and high school principals in Ohio.
Appendix 2. Further information on the Dover case.
1. The case applies only to one federal court district in Pennsylvania. The decision will not be appealed, so there is no chance the ruling could be extended to Ohio. If another case were brought up in another part of the country, the judicial ruling might be different.
2. The Dover policy is poorly written, and is therefore not worthy of defense. Several knowledgeable ID proponents urged the board to modify the policy or else not adopt it. The meaning and application of the policy are ambiguous.
3. The Dover decision mandated that students be introduced to ID. The Ohio Standards specifically say that the state “does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.” (Grade 10 Life Sciences, Benchmark H and Indicator 23). Use of the “Critical Analysis” lesson is totally voluntary.
4. Some Dover board members publicly expressed their religious motivations for adopting the policy. This was clearly not a wise thing to do. Ohio State Board members who supported critical analysis of evolution did a good job of keeping ID and religion out of the discussion. It was never the Board’s intent to insert ID or creationism into the Standards.
5. One can list several reasons why Judge Jones’ opinion was misguided, but that is not the real issue in Ohio. The basic fact is that the Dover case and Ohio’s situation are fundamentally different.
Appendix 3. Further information on the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson plan.
Note. The lesson may be viewed at www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf .
1. The State Board of Education previously approved this lesson three times: (1) resolution of intent to adopt lessons in science, Feb. 2004, (2) adoption of model curriculum lessons, March 2004, and (3) failed motion to remove the “Critical Analysis” lesson, Jan. 2006. Raising the issue again at the February Board meeting was clearly unwarranted.
2. The lesson does not include religion, creationism, or intelligent design. Although opponents claim the lesson contains “thinly veiled” ID concepts, this is simply not true. ID is a theory that looks at the complexity of certain biological structures and processes and makes the inference, when warranted, that these features could not have been produced by natural causes alone (i.e., by random chance and the laws of physics and chemistry). The lesson contains nothing about ID; it simply calls upon students to critically study evidence that supports and evidence that challenges macroevolution (descent with modification from a common ancestry).
3. The lesson is based on mainstream scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The references are taken from the scientific literature. Despite claims made by the opposition, neither Icons of Evolution nor Of Pandas and People is used as a reference.
4. The lesson considers “five aspects of evolution.” Two aspects, homologies and the fossil record, are typically presented uncritically in textbooks as evidence for macroevolution. Two other aspects, antibiotic resistance of bacteria and coloration in peppered moths, are also typically presented as evidence for “evolution” – but these are really examples of microevolution, not macroevolution. The fifth aspect, endosymbiosis, is often cited as a theory to explain how eukaryotic cells could have formed from prokaryotic predecessors; this is speculative and unprovable.
5. The opposition claims that the lesson was put together by people who are not knowledgeable of the subject. In fact, the lesson was drafted by a committee of Ohio science educators, including biologists.
6. This is only one of ten lesson plans on evolution. The other nine offer mainstream treatment of biological evolution. Use of any of the lessons is totally voluntary; districts can either follow them or ignore them.
7. The lesson adopts an approach overwhelmingly favored by citizens in Ohio. During the Standards adoption process in 2002, about 30,000 Ohioans contacted the State Board and/or Governor on this issue – an unprecedented number. At least three-fourths of these respondents favored the teaching of evidence both supporting and challenging macroevolution. Public opinion polls across the nation and in Ohio (including one published this year) have produced much the same results.
8. Opponents criticize the lesson because it singles out evolution for criticism. This is justified, however, by the huge public demand shown in 2002 for the critical analysis of evolution. Public schools are tax-supported; thus parents and citizens should have considerable input into curricular issues.
9. The lesson promotes critical thinking skills rather than presenting macroevolution as “fact” or dogma.