All lessons may be accessed on the Department of Education website (www.ode.state.oh.us). Upon entering the site, click in succession on the following links:

*Under "Quick Links," click on "Academic Content Standards."

*Click on "Science."

*Click on "Model Curriculum Update."

*Click on "Science Lessons Set A."

*Select the lesson you want.

NOTE: The updated version of the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson may be viewed at this site.

On March 9, 2004, the State Board of Education adopted lesson Set A of the Science Model Curriculum. This set contains a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" (CAE) module that presents evidence both supporting and challenging macroevolution (the theory of descent from a common ancestry). The vote on March 9 was 13-5, which is excellent for such a contentious issue. With this action, the Board has implemented the Science benchmark: "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Science teachers and school districts around the state are now free to use the critical analysis approach to teaching evolution. By this action, the Ohio Board has made a very positive statement in support of objectivity in the teaching of biological origins.

New Science Standards for Ohio schools were approved on Dec. 10, 2002, by the State Board of Education. The next step in the state’s process for Academic Content Standards is the development of a Model Curriculum, which is a series of model lesson plans for use by teachers. These are based on the benchmarks and indicators in the new Science Standards. Lessons in the Model Curriculum are optional, but most districts will make use of them (at least to some extent) since state assessments are based on the Standards.

Two Model Curriculum committees in Science were formed during the Spring of 2003. The Science Writing Team consisted of about 40 people, most of whom were Ohio K-12 science teachers. The Writing Team’s task was to compose the lesson plans that form the basis of the Model Curriculum. A second group of about 20 people, the Science Advisory Committee, provided guidance and feedback to the Writing Team.

The two committees started meeting in June of 2003. About 200 lessons were prepared, and these were subjected to a teacher Field Test and citizen Review process from November 2003 through January 2004. Five "sets" of lessons were compiled for review and final approval by the State Board of Education. According to state law (Am. Sub. Senate Bill 1), the Model Curriculum is to be in place by the end of June 2004. (This means that the "framework," or basic structure, of the Model must be in place by June 30; additional lessons may be added after that date.)

The first set of 42 lessons (the "A" set) was submitted to the Standards Committee of the State Board of Education on Jan. 12, 2004. These lessons deal largely with potentially "controversial" issues in science. In particular, ten lessons (Grade 10, Life Sciences) dealing with evolutionary theory were included in this set. One particular lesson entitled "Critical Analysis of Evolution" (CAE) drew a lot of attention. This lesson addresses the "critical analysis" Benchmark H and Indicator 23.

We are quite pleased that the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson is included in the Model Curriculum. It has several features that very nicely support the standard in Benchmark H and Indicator 23: "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

*The lesson allows students to examine the nature of theories in science. Theories are tentative explanations of natural phenomena; as such they are always open to "critical analysis" and possible modification as a result of continuing scientific research.

*The lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. This allows students to explore the differences between these two concepts. Microevolution is well accepted, while macroevolution is much more tentative.

*The lesson provides an opportunity for students to explore how the scientific method works in a practical and interesting application.

*The lesson engages students in a critical analysis activity. This allows students to develop and present arguments as to how five "aspects" (or lines of evidence) either "support" or "challenge" macroevolution. This develops critical thinking skills and allows students to formulate their own viewpoint on universal common descent.

The Standards Committee of the State Board of Education met on Feb. 9, 2004, to consider Science lesson Set A. Most of the discussion focused on the CAE lesson. Martha Wise made a motion that the lesson be removed from Set A. She claimed that the lesson is (a) inconsistent with scientific inquiry, (b) not totally scientifically based, (c) full of errors, and (d) inconsistent with the Standard (Grade 10, Benchmark H). Mrs. Wise said she was uncomfortable with "all" of the lesson, and she claimed that the lesson reflected intelligent design (ID) theory – which is not mandated by the Standards.

Committee Co-chair Michael Cochran refuted the claims made by Mrs. Wise and defended the process that was used to develop the lessons. He said the CAE lesson was not just written by one or two persons, but many people gave input. He added that the credibility (of any specific lesson or author) is in the eye of the beholder. Deborah Owens Fink noted that there is no mandate for a teacher to use any particular lesson.

The motion to eliminate the lesson was defeated by a 2-6 vote (YES – Richardson, Wise. NO – Brown, Cochran, Craig, Millett, Owens Fink, Ross).

Committee Co-chair Jim Craig made a motion to delete Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution as a reference for the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson. Dr. Owens Fink defended the reference, saying that the book had been unfairly criticized as a "flash point." She noted that Icons does not contain intelligent design theory.

The motion to remove Icons was approved by a 7-0 vote (YES – Brown, Cochran, Craig, Millett, Richardson, Ross, Wise. ABSTAIN – Owens Fink).

A resolution of intent to adopt lesson Set A (science and social studies) was approved by a 6-2 vote (YES – Brown, Cochran, Craig, Millett, Owens Fink, Ross. NO – Richardson, Wise).

The full State Board considered the "resolution of intent" to adopt Set A at its Feb. 10 meeting. During Public Participation, 16 witnesses spoke on the science lessons. Most of the comments focused on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" module. Eight of the speakers opposed the lesson. They claimed the lesson (a) is "fringe" or "bad" science, (b) comes from non-peer reviewed literature, (c) contains intelligent design, (d) is religiously motivated, and (e) does not conform to proper science inquiry.

The other eight speakers supported Set A as a whole and the CAE lesson in particular. They said the lesson (a) is aligned with the Board’s intent in Benchmark H and Indicator 23, (b) does not contain intelligent design concepts, (c) supports public polling results and input to the Department, (d) develops critical thinking in students, and (e) represents both good science and good pedagogy. The overall theme was that this is the only lesson in the set that truly reflects the intent of Benchmark H and Indicator 23.

There was little discussion among Board members prior to the vote. The resolution of intent to adopt lesson Set A was approved by a 13-4 vote (YES – Baker, Brown, Cochran, Craig, Griffin, Millett, Owens Fink, Ross, Sheets, Thatcher, Turner, Westendorf, Wick. NO – Hovis, Richardson, Schloemer, Stewart).

The Feb. 10 vote set off a firestorm of protest from mainline science and education groups that lasted a full four weeks until the next State Board meeting. Dr. Patricia Princehouse, a spokesperson for the pro-evolution group Ohio Citizens for Science, said of the Board action: "It’s a sad day for science. This opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule nationally and internationally." In writing to the State Board, National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts described the Board’s action as an attempt to "introduce tenets of Intelligent Design into your state’s science curriculum and instruction." Alberts pointed to references and websites listed in the lesson that contain "information of a religious nature."

Various scientists and officials said the CAE lesson was "bad science" (not aligned with the scientific method) and "bad pedagogy" (a poor lesson from an educational standpoint). Some said it was "religiously motivated" and not aligned to the "critical analysis" Benchmark H. Others said the writing process was "flawed" and that Writing Team members were "not qualified" to write on the topic of evolution. Still others claimed that Ohio would lose jobs and business (particularly in technological fields) if the CAE lesson were allowed to remain.

Some said the lesson is "unconstitutional" because it contains intelligent design concepts. A Florida State law professor, Dr. Steven Gey, was brought to Cleveland on Feb. 27 to present a lecture on this aspect. Gey said the lesson is linked to ID, even if the words are not explicitly used. Gey opined that the Supreme Court would declare ID "unconstitutional" because of its alleged "religious" history. Gey said "we’ve been here before," referring to earlier court cases that had outlawed the teaching of biblical creationism in public schools.

All of these claims about the CAE lesson were untrue; the lesson merely presents scientific evidence that supports, and also evidence that challenges, macroevolutionary theory. The "bad science" claim generally means to imply that there is ID content in the lesson, which is simply not true. The "bad pedagogy" assertion seems uncalled for, since several teachers praised the lesson during the teacher Field Test phase. The same writing process was used for the Science lessons as was used successfully for every other subject in the curriculum. This is a well defined process that has numerous built-in control features. The claim of economic disaster is simply a scare tactic that has no basis in fact. The claim of "unconstitutionality" makes no sense, since the lesson merely critically analyzes scientific evidence regarding macroevolutionary theory. Even if the lesson did contain intelligent design concepts (which it does not), a good case can be made that it would pass constitutional muster.

Several Ohio organizations countered the claims of the pro-evolution camp during the February-March "firestorm" period. These groups included Science Excellence for All Ohioans, Ohio Roundtable, Eagle Forum of Ohio, and Citizens for Community Values. Hundreds of concerned citizens contacted State Board members and Gov. Taft during this critical time period, asking that the CAE lesson be approved. Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink did a feature on this subject, and the Focus radio program aired a trailer in support of the lesson. Charles Colson did two BreakPoint Commentaries on the issue, and David Zanotti spoke on the topic in two Public Square programs. Several radio interviews were aired around the state. In the end, this outpouring of support for the CAE lesson was instrumental in turning the tide.

The State Board meeting on March 9 drew a large crowd, and 42 witnesses spoke on the science issue during Public Participation. The public testimony lasted nearly six hours; the pro-evolution witnesses outnumbered the CAE lesson supporters by a two-to-one margin. The arguments presented were basically the same ones that had been heard before.

There was considerable Board discussion on the issue; at times the remarks were heated. Board member Robin Hovis moved that the CAE lesson be deleted from the Model Curriculum Set A. Hovis said that the lesson is based on ID and Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution. He claimed that ID is "not science," and that most of the support for the lesson has come from "faith-based organizations." He said "the entire scientific community rejects this [lesson]." Hovis said the Board should "wait and do a better job" by considering a substitute lesson at a later date. Cyrus Richardson, Sam Schloemer, Martha Wise, and Jennifer Stewart all spoke in support of the Hovis motion.

James Turner, Carl Wick, Michael Cochran, and Deborah Owens Fink all spoke against deletion of the CAE lesson. Turner said some "are motivated by fear of what the lesson could lead to." He said most of the input he received was not religious in nature. Wick said he believed "evolution should be critically analyzed." Owens Fink said the lesson is a good compromise (between two opposing viewpoints), and she said that "ID concepts are not in the lesson." Cochran said "more time would not help change minds" on the issue. He said many scientists support the lesson and that the writing process had "produced a lesson worthy of support." The Hovis motion was defeated by a 7-10 vote (YES – Brown, Griffin, Hovis, Richardson, Schloemer, Stewart, Wise. NO – Baker, Cochran, Craig, Millett, Owens Fink, Sheets, Thatcher, Turner, Westendorf, Wick. ABSTAIN – Ross).

James Craig moved that several changes be made to the CAE lesson. (These had been written up ahead of time and distributed to the Board. The changes were all of a minor nature; none affected the text associated with the five "aspects" of evolutionary theory.) Several Board members said they supported the changes as appropriate responses to the public input (Stewart, Brown, Owens Fink, Wick). The Craig motion passed by a 16-2 vote (YES – Baker, Brown, Cochran, Craig, Griffin, Hovis, Millett, Owens Fink, Richardson, Ross, Sheets, Stewart, Thatcher, Turner, Westendorf, Wick. NO – Schloemer, Wise).

The Science Model Curriculum Set A lessons were adopted by a 13-5 vote (YES - Baker, Brown, Cochran, Craig, Griffin, Millett, Owens Fink, Ross, Sheets, Thatcher, Turner, Westendorf, Wick. NO – Hovis, Richardson, Schloemer, Stewart, Wise).

Thus, in the end the Board rejected the firestorm of complaints and approved the Set A lessons by essentially the same margin as in the Feb. 10 preliminary vote. (None of the Board members changed their vote.) Most Board members thought the process for developing the lessons had been fair, and they realized that the CAE lesson is scientific – not religious – in nature.

The Board’s action was applauded by a number of organizations. Charles Colson (BreakPoint Commentary, March 12) called the Ohio lesson a "ground-breaking new science curriculum." Doug Rudy and Bob Lattimer (Science Excellence for All Ohioans, March 10) said: "By encouraging teachers to present evidence both supporting and challenging macroevolution, the Ohio Board has affirmed academic freedom for teachers and critical thinking for students."

Bruce Chapman (Discovery Institute, March 9) stated that "Ohio’s science standards and this lesson will stand as a beacon to other states as they review their own approach to how evolution is presented in the classroom. This is a common-sense approach that avoids the extremes and focuses on teaching students about the scientific debates over evolution."

Science Excellence for All Ohioans commends the State Board for approving this material, and classrooms around Ohio will be the benefactors. We encourage science teachers and school districts around the state to start using the critical analysis approach in teaching biological evolution. By their action on March 10, the Ohio Board has made a very positive statement in support of objectivity in the teaching of biological origins.