The Ohio science
standards controversy of 2002 attracted national and even international
attention. The goals and achievements of this "Ohio Firestorm" were
rather modest. Whether the progress that was made towards the objective teaching
of biological origins was significant or not remains to be seen. (Biological
origins, as we shall use the term, is the study of the origin and
development/diversity of life on earth.)
The purpose of this
report is to describe, more or less chronologically, the major events and
activities in this process. It is hoped that this account will be helpful to
citizens in other states who may be in the process of updating standards and
curricula for use in public school science instruction.
The Ohio debate
really began in 2001. Thousands of citizens made significant contributions to
this effort – for example, by contacting state officials, giving testimony at
government hearings, and writing letters to newspapers. While the 2002 Ohio
science standards are by no means perfect, they do substantially implement the
"teach the controversy" approach to instruction in biological
origins. The Ohio experience is only a small part of a long-term effort to
implement objective instruction in biological origins nationwide. We believe
Ohio made, and will continue to make, important contributions to this process.
We also hope that other states in the future will be able to accomplish even
more.
Impetus
for new standards.
Senate Bill 1, passed
in 2001 by the Ohio General Assembly (legislature), was enacted as part of the
state's response to the DeRolph court
case on school funding. While the DeRolph case
has no direct connection to the science standards issue, it is of critical
importance to the general theme of public education "reform" in Ohio.
In 1991 a coalition of about 550 (out of a total of 612) school districts in
Ohio sued the state over the "adequacy and equity" of funding for
K-12 education. The first DeRolph decision
by the Ohio Supreme Court (1997) said that the state's funding system was
indeed "unconstitutional," and the state was ordered to do a
"complete and systematic overhaul" of the system.
Senate Bill 1 was a
key part of the state's response to the court. The bill emphasized
"standards-based" reform and the financial and academic
accountability of local school districts to the state. The bill called for an
extensive state testing (assessment) system for students, and it implemented a
ranking system for districts and individual schools. S.B. 1 also called for new
state standards in several academic areas. New language arts and math standards
were required by December, 2001, and new science and social studies standards
by December, 2002.
In Ohio the State
Board of Education (SBE) is responsible for implementation of state K-12
education law, and the State Board oversees the Ohio Department of Education
(ODE). Ohio's State Board is a hybrid body, with eleven members elected by
geographic districts and eight members appointed by the Governor. Members serve
four-year terms and are limited by law to two consecutive terms in office.
Ohio's previous
science standards were adopted in 1996 (Science: Ohio's Model
Competency-Based Program). The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation rated state
academic standards in 2000 (The State of the State Standards 2000), and
Ohio received a "B" in science. Fordham said the document was a
"fine basis for learning but could well use a companion document devoted
to detail...." In other words, the performance objectives were good, but
Fordham felt that the list should be more extensive and more explicit.
The study
complimented Ohio for the initiation of "quantitative study" in grade
3, and for the progression/elaboration of material in the upper grades. Fordham
was also pleased with a strong emphasis on the history of science. The main
criticism by Fordham was the lack of specifics in such areas as the laws of
science, descriptions of certain natural phenomena, and the use of mathematical
analysis.
A second Fordham
report, Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States (Lawrence
S. Lerner, 2000) was less kind to Ohio. It gave an
"F" to Ohio's standards in the area of biological evolution,
saying: "Evolution [is] treated here as if it were not proper
conversation in polite company. The E-word is avoided and the evolutionary
process occupies a near-negligible part of an extensive document."
Indeed, there is some
validity to these claims. The "E-word" was used only once in Ohio's
1996 Standards; the term in which it appeared was "stellar evolution,"
which of course has nothing to do with biological evolution. The Ohio document
described numerous evolutionary concepts, but different words were used – for
example, "change over time," "natural selection,"
"punctuated equilibrium," "speciation," "change
phenomena," "historical development," and "diversity at
different periods of geologic time." In Good Science, Bad Science,
avoidance of the E-word was sufficient to warrant an "F" rating for
Ohio, even though the content was there.
Good Science, Bad
Science was a highly biased
report with a very narrow scope. Its purpose was to discredit states that
failed to give dogmatic and exclusive support to the teaching of biological
evolution (neo-Darwinism, descent with modification from a common ancestry) in
science classes. That's what Fordham's "F" rating really reflects – that
Ohio's 1996 evolution standards were not deemed strong enough in their support
of the theory. Good Science, Bad Science is one reason the Ohio
Department of Education (ODE) decided to strengthen its coverage of biological
evolution in the new science standards.
The
writing process.
The Department of
Education decided to form two committees to work on the new science standards.
The Science Advisory Committee (SAC) started meeting in April, 2001. This group
of 32 people consisted mostly of high school and college science
teachers/professors, representatives of some scientific and educational
organizations, and a few people from the business community. Most of these were
"high profile" individuals who would be considered part of the
science and education establishment in the state.
The Advisory
Committee put together some general principles for the standards writing
process, and they composed part of the "Front Matter" (introductory
portion) of the standards document. They also developed a set of
"organizers" (major topics, themes, or strands) for the Writing Team
to follow. The Advisory Committee discussed how biological origins should be
treated in the Standards, but no one on the Committee served as a proponent for
an objective, unbiased treatment of the subject.
The second committee,
the Science Writing Team (SWT), started meeting in June, 2001. Their mission
was to compose the draft "standards," of which there are two
categories: "indicators" and "benchmarks."
(Indicators are statements of what a student should know and be able to do, i.e, learning
objectives. Benchmarks are broader statements that may include several
indicators. Benchmarks form the basis for questions to be asked on state
assessments of students.) The Writing Team consisted of 41 people from around
the state; most of the members were elementary, secondary, and
post-secondary science teachers/professors. A few team members were from
industry/business. The members were selected by the Department of Education
following a written application process.
"Balance"
vs. "bias" in the writing process.
The Department of
Education gave the public the impression that the science standards writing
process was a fair and open endeavor. A May 2001 ODE document (Process for
Developing Ohio's Academic Content Standards) stated the following: "Writing
teams will be balanced to include representation from geographic areas
of the state, as well as ethnic diversity and philosophical points of view."
(emphasis added) There were a number of indications
early in the writing process, however, that suggested that philosophical
balance in the area of biological origins would not be forthcoming.
Initial indications
of philosophical bias (rather than "balance") came from the Science
Advisory Committee. The SAC discussed the biological evolution issue at some
length in the April-July 2001 time frame. Committee members Dr. Steven Rissing and Dr. Mano Singham gave presentations on this subject at the May 3 SAC
meeting. (Both of these SAC members are university professors who come from a
naturalistic, evolutionary perspective.) Neither speaker – nor anyone else on
the SAC – advocated for the inclusion of evidence against evolution, or
evidence supporting alternative theories like intelligent design, in the
standards. No one with any in-depth knowledge of alternative positions
participated in the discussion.
The Advisory
Committee decided to single out biological evolution for special emphasis. They
issued a "Draft position statement on teaching evolution" on June 14,
2001. Not surprisingly, their recommendation was that only biological
evolution should be taught in the area of biological origins. After mentioning
several "forces" of biological evolution (mutation, immigration,
emigration, genetic drift, and natural selection), the statement said: "Given
that these forces of biological evolution act on all life forms, they are [to
be] included in the Ohio Science Academic Content standards." Among the
"concepts, processes and principles" listed by the SAC for inclusion
in the Life Sciences area were "biological evolution and the diversity of
life" and "human biology including disease and evolution." The
SAC also selected "Evolution of Life" and "Biological Evolution"
as standards organizers under the Life Sciences category. (More inclusive
organizers would have been "Biological Origins" and "Origin and
Development of Life.")
The Science Writing
Team first met in June, 2001. At their first meeting, the Team was introduced
to two sets of nationally-developed standards (or templates) that were to be
used as models for the Ohio benchmarks and indicators. These were the Benchmarks
for Science Literacy (Project 2061, from the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1993) and National Science Education Standards (NSES,
from the National Academy of Sciences, 1996).
Both sets of
standards are highly biased in favor of biological evolution. Neither set contains evidence not supportive of evolution, and
neither set promotes the inclusion of alternative theories (like intelligent
design). These are two typical examples from these documents:
"Life on earth
is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years
ago. During the first 2 billion years, only single-cell microorganisms existed,
but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly
complex multicellular organisms evolved." (Benchmarks, p. 125)
"The millions of
different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth
today are related by descent from common ancestors." (NSES, p. 185)
These are rather
typical statements that describe the theory of macroevolution (unguided common
descent). Benchmarks and NSES assume Darwinian evolution to be true,
and they leave no room for other alternatives.
At the July, 2001,
meeting of the State Board of Education, a question was asked by a Board member
regarding the treatment of evolution and design in the new science standards.
ODE Science Consultant Eydie Schilling (the
Department person responsible for the writing process) responded that only
evolution would be included. This statement was made at a public meeting before
the Writing Team had even started to compose the draft indicators. When Ms.
Schilling was later asked about the reasoning behind her statement, she replied
it was based on (a) recommendations in the Benchmarks and NSES documents,
and (b) conclusions reached on this subject by the Advisory Committee.
Almost all of the
biological evolution indicators are at the Grade 10 level (introductory high
school biology). The initial draft of the Grade 10 biological evolution
standards was written by the Life Sciences subgroup during the July 30 - Aug. 2
Writing Team meetings. All members of that group (seven individuals) favored
teaching "evolution only" in the area of biological origins. There
was no evidence that the Department of Education had made any effort to provide
philosophical balance on the Writing Team in the critical area of biological origins.
Only one member of
the Writing Team (Robert Lattimer) expressed concern to the Department of
Education about the draft biological evolution standards. In memos to ODE
officials Dr. Daniel Good (July 26, 2001) and Dr. Robert Bowers (Aug. 6, 2001),
Dr. Lattimer recommended that formal presentations on the alternative theory of
intelligent design be scheduled for the Writing Team and/or the Advisory
Committee. The objective of this would be to introduce a measure of fairness
and balance into the standards writing process. No such presentations were ever
scheduled.
Dr. Lattimer, an
industrial chemist, was not a member of the original Grade 10 subgroup that
wrote the first draft of the biological evolution standards. At his request,
Lattimer was transferred to the Life Sciences subgroup in October. At the Oct.
16-18 and Nov. 29 - Dec. 1 Writing Team meetings, he participated in this
subgroup. This gave him the opportunity to express concerns with regard to the
draft indicators. These discussions were cordial, but the subgroup did not
change even one of the pro-evolution indicators in response to Lattimer's concerns.
Formation
of an advocacy group.
In the fall of 2001,
it became apparent to many observers in Ohio that the writing of the new Ohio
science standards was not going to be an objective process. Instead, the draft
standards relating to biological origins seemed preordained to be
"evolution only" in nature. Consequently, a group of fourteen Ohioans
met on Nov. 16, 2001, for the purpose of discussing the formation of an
advocacy group to promote objective science standards.
The name chosen for
the new group was Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO). Barry Sheets,
State Director of the American Family Association (AFA) of Ohio, was chosen as
Moderator. SEAO described itself as "a network of concerned citizens,
educators and organizations who support excellent
state science standards that are fair, reasonable, and unbiased." SEAO
wanted "to ensure that clear, objective and philosophically neutral standards
are written in such controversial areas as environmentalism, cosmology
(study of the origin and development of the universe), and biological
origins (origin, development, and diversity of life on earth)." SEAO
noted that while "the draft standards in the areas of environmentalism and
cosmology seem reasonable to us, the draft biological
origins standards are quite one-sided in their exclusive support of Darwinian
evolution."
SEAO was never
intended to be a highly structured "organization." Rather it was a
"coalition" or "network" that sought to coordinate the
efforts of many individuals and advocacy groups. Initially SEAO affiliated
itself with AFA-Ohio, but later developed an informal affiliation with the
national Intelligent Design network (IDnet). SEAO set
up a website (www.sciohio.org), which went on-line the first of
December, 2001. The group also printed a brochure and set up a speakers bureau.
SEAO's first public
event was a two-part lecture on Dec. 14 at The Ohio State University by John
Calvert and Jody Sjogren (managing directors of IDnet). Over the next several months, numerous
presentations on the evolution-design issue were made around the state by SEAO
spokespersons Jody Sjogren (a zoologist and artist),
Douglas Rudy (an information technology professional), and Robert Lattimer (an
industrial research scientist). In the spring of 2002, Mr. Rudy was named SEAO
Director.
The
"first draft" of the standards.
The Ohio Department
of Education published the first draft of the science standards on its website
on Dec. 1, 2001. Public comments were invited during the December-January time
frame. This first draft contained only indicators (benchmarks came later), and
the key section with respect to biological origins was in the Grade 10
"Evolution of Life" section. This section contained eight indicators,
most of which dealt with "microevolution" (minor genetic variation,
adaptation). However, two indicators (#20 and 21) supported the controversial
"macroevolution" theory (descent from a common ancestry). A third
indicator (#2), in the Grade 10 "Characteristics and Structure of
Life" section, also endorsed macroevolution:
(#2) "Know that
biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms
are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities
which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the fundamental unit
of classification."
(#20) "Analyze
how natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific
explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in
the fossil record and present life forms."
(#21) "Know life
on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one celled organisms about 4
billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth only single celled
microorganisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion
years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved."
SEAO's principal
objection to these indicators was that they portrayed macroevolution as fact,
rather than theory. The SEAO group was not opposed to the teaching of evolution;
they just wanted biological origins to be presented objectively – that
is, in a fair, reasonable, and unbiased manner. Specifically, SEAO said that teachers
and students should be permitted to (a) criticize the weaker aspects of
evolutionary theory, and (b) discuss alternative theories that have been
proposed. The group said the "first draft" of the standards lacked
objectivity in three specific ways:
The
beginning of the Firestorm.
The Standards
Committee of the State Board of Education is the group who had responsibility
for oversight of the new science standards. The Jan. 13, 2002, meeting of the
Standards Committee was most extraordinary. Attorney John Calvert, Director of
the Intelligent Design network, was invited to give a 30-minute presentation on
the subject of biological origins and its place in public school standards and
curricula. Calvert explained that there are essentially only two scientific viewpoints
about our origins – the naturalistic and design hypotheses.
The naturalistic
hypothesis contains two parts, the origin of life (chemical evolution)
and the origin of the diversity of life (biological evolution, or neo-Darwinism).
The design hypothesis (intelligent design) holds that natural (material)
processes alone are not sufficient to produce the kind of complexity we see in
life. Mr. Calvert said that the scientific evidence supports the design
hypothesis better than it does the naturalistic hypothesis.
Mr. Calvert stated
that the "rule" of naturalism had been used to censor the
evidence for design in the draft Ohio science standards. Furthermore, he said
the use of the naturalistic rule had not even been disclosed in the
draft standards. This failure to disclose is a case of intellectual dishonesty.
Mr. Calvert said that
censoring design, the only hypothesis that competes with evolution, is not
consistent with good science or the scientific method. The only way to test a
hypothesis in the historical sciences is to rule out the competing
hypotheses. You can't rule a hypothesis out if you don't even allow it to be
considered. If you use the naturalistic rule to teach only evolution, you are
indoctrinating students in a naturalistic worldview.
After Mr. Calvert's
talk, ODE Science Consultant Dr. Janet Schilk gave an
update on the science standards writing process. First, Dr. Schilk
listed a very generic definition of evolution, namely "a change
occurring through time." A definition this broad could include essentially
any theory in origins science (e.g., Darwinian evolution, intelligent
design, or creation science). State Board member Dr. Deborah Owens Fink pointed
out that documents provided by ODE define evolution in several different ways,
which merely serves to confuse the issue. Second, Dr. Schilk
defined science as "a method of explaining the natural world using
natural processes." This definition had not previously been presented to
the Standards Committee or to the Science Writing Team.
State Board member
Michael Cochran then raised a number of concerns with the process being
used to develop the science standards. Mr. Cochran first noted that there was
very little diversity of opinion on the Writing Team. Associate
Superintendent Dr. Robert Bowers stated that there was geographic and ethnic
diversity on the Team, but "we can't do that" when it comes to
philosophical diversity. It wasn't clear from the discussion why more diversity
of opinion or philosophy couldn't have been built in to the process of
selecting the Writing Team.
There was some
discussion as to how much of the standards language was taken directly
from national "templates," and how much of the wording came from the
Writing Team. ODE Science Consultant John Neth
indicated that most of the draft standards language came from the national
documents. Dr. Bowers said there had been "vigorous debate" on the
origins standards within the Writing Team. Mr. Cochran disputed this claim,
saying that "the process is flawed."
Towards the end of
the meeting, Mr. Cochran recommended that alternative standards be
developed that would include (a) evolution "as a theory or
assumption," (b) clear distinctions between microevolution and
macroevolution, and (c) intelligent design theory. Four other committee members
concurred with this idea: Richard Baker, Deborah Owens Fink, Marlene
Jennings, and Susan Westendorf. One Board member
dissented (Martha Wise), and three committee members (Virgil Brown, Thomas
McClain, and Joseph Roman) did not offer an opinion.
When a majority of
the Standards Committee members said they favored Mr. Cochran's proposal, this
precipitated a crisis among the ODE personnel. Dr. Daniel Good, Director of
Curriculum and Instruction, indicated there could be a problem if only one
other view (intelligent design) was included. (Recall that Mr. Calvert in his
presentation stated that there were really only two alternatives – evolution
and design.)
Dr. Bowers went so
far as to suggest that Writing Team members and policy people might resign if
the ongoing process were circumvented. Board President Jennifer Sheets
suggested that the Board needed some time to consider the options. Committee
Co-chair Joseph Roman adjourned the meeting with an agreement to reconvene two
days later (Jan. 15).
The Jan. 15 meeting
resulted in a tentative plan to address the origins issue. A special Standards
Committee meeting was scheduled for Feb. 4 to discuss possible options and
formulate plans for a public forum on biological origins.
Several reporters
were present at the Jan. 13 meeting, and newspapers around the state broke the
story the next day. Newspaper editorials were uniformly critical of the
Standard Committee's intervention. The Akron Beacon Journal (editorial,
Jan. 16, 2002) said, for example, that the State Board "should stick to
science." The paper opined that the "majority consensus of scientists
and a preponderance of scientific evidence ... [supports] the theory that
living beings evolved from more simple species." It was concluded that
"explorations of intelligent design, creationism and other faith-based
theories should be left for churches, mosques, synagogues and homes." The
"Ohio Firestorm" (a term first used by John Calvert) continued for
the rest of the year.
Debate
in the Standards Committee.
The Standards
Committee met for nearly four hours on Feb. 4, 2002, to discuss the teaching of
biological evolution. Dr. David Haury, a science
education professor at The Ohio State University, met with the Committee for a
large part of their meeting. Haury promoted an
"evolution only" position on the Life Sciences standards; that
is, he said that alternatives to evolution (such as intelligent design) should
not be included.
Dr. Haury first discussed several terms that are pertinent to
the controversy. He stated that science deals only with "the
material universe or physical reality." In science, "proof is not
possible in the strictest sense of the term." He said that scientific
hypotheses or theories can be falsified or disproved, however, by
the results of key experiments or observations.
Dr. Haury acknowledged that evolution is a term with
multiple meanings. One definition simply states that evolution is a
"change over time." A second definition is a "change in the
genetic composition (gene frequency) in a population over time." This
definition encompasses microevolution (minor genetic changes), or what Haury referred to as the "fact" of evolution. The
third definition is "descent with modification," or what might be
called macroevolution. Haury did not seem to
mind the use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution, but he stated that
the mechanisms involved are the same in both cases. (This supposition
is, of course, debated among both proponents and opponents of biological
evolution.)
Dr. Haury then gave an overview of court cases dealing with the
teaching of evolution. He said that public schools (a) could not prohibit the
teaching of evolution, (b) could not teach "creation science," and
(c) could require teachers to follows curriculum requirements which specify the
teaching of evolution.
Overall Dr. Haury presented a strongly biased viewpoint that supported
the exclusive teaching of biological evolution in public schools. Some State
Board members (particularly Deborah Owens Fink and Michael Cochran) challenged Haury on a number of points. Haury
was chastised for discussing legal cases that do not pertain to Ohio. Dr. Owens
Fink and Mr. Cochran stated that no one on the State Board has suggested the
teaching of creationism or the exclusion of biological evolution.
When asked about
teaching alternative theories, Dr. Haury
seemed to imply this is unnecessary since evolution is "one of the most
robust theories in science." When pressed, however, he conceded that its
stronger points (e.g., microevolution) and weaker points
(macroevolution) could be addressed in the curriculum. Haury
conceded that evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life,
and Mr. Cochran suggested this should be stated in the standards. Haury further acknowledged that there is as yet no well
established naturalistic theory for the origin of life.
When questioned about
some of his definitions, Dr. Haury admitted that
"argument within science is common." When asked whether debate on
scientific issues should be carried out in public schools, Haury
said that this is "healthy." He cautioned about debate on certain
topics, however. He opined that "intelligent design is not a debate
that occurs in the general scientific community." Haury
suggested that topics dealing with alternative theories and the scientific
method could be dealt with under the "Scientific Ways of Knowing"
strand in the standards.
The Committee agreed
on participants for a March 11 public "forum" on the biological
origins issue. Representing the intelligent design viewpoint would be Dr.
Jonathan Wells and Dr. Stephen Meyer. Representing the biological evolution
viewpoint would be Dr. Lawrence Krauss and Dr. Kenneth Miller.
The
February Writing Team meeting.
The Science Writing
Team met on Feb. 7-9, 2002, to consider public comments on the first draft of
the science standards. (Public comments had been received during December and
January.) Not surprisingly, the topic most on the minds of the public was the
biological evolution standards. Of the comments sent in by mail (e-mail or
letter), two-thirds (68%) dealt with this topic. 54% of the respondents who
commented on biological origins requested standards with both evolution and
alternative theories (like intelligent design) included. On the Department's
internet comments website, the largest number of responses dealt with the
biological evolution standards. Roughly equal numbers of respondents favored
and disfavored the indicators.
The Writing Team as a
whole had an open discussion on the teaching of evolution for over an hour on
Feb. 8. Various perspectives were given. Several Team members expressed support
for presenting diverse views in the biological origins standards, but most
members thought that only evolution should be taught. The Team then received a
shortened version of Dr. Haury's presentation.
The Life Sciences
subgroup (seven people) discussed the disputed Grade 10 indicators for over two
hours on Feb. 8. In the end, the subgroup chose to dismiss all of the concerns
that were expressed in public comments. In particular, the main concern
expressed by the public was that the standards give monolithic support to
biological evolution with no hint that there might be an alternative
explanation for the development and diversity of life. In a rather blatant
rejection of the public comment process, six of seven subgroup members felt no
need to make any changes to accommodate the input. (Subgroup member Robert
Lattimer was the exception.) Thus the biological evolution standards remained
essentially unchanged from the first draft.
The Life Sciences
subgroup did make one significant addition to the standards. A new indicator
was added to the Grade 10 "Scientific Ways of Knowing" strand: "Scientific
knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena (material
world perceived by our senses or technological extensions)." This was a
disclosure of the use of the naturalistic assumption in the science standards.
Prior to this, the draft standards did not contain any "definition"
of science.
Panel
Presentation.
The State Board of
Education held a "Panel Presentation" on the origin and diversity of
life on March 11, 2002, at Veteran's Memorial Auditorium in Columbus. About
1500 participants (reporters, state officials, and the public) were present.
Standards Committee Co-chair Joseph Roman introduced the session, and Board
Chair Jennifer Sheets served as Moderator. Each panelist gave a 15-minute
introduction, and then several questions written by State Board members were
addressed by the panel.
Dr. Jonathan Wells (a
biologist from the Discovery Institute) was the first presenter. Dr. Wells'
main goal was to show that there is a scientific controversy over the
evidence for biological evolution. He pointed out that much of the evidence
that supports evolutionary theory is either false or misleading. Inaccuracies
in ten of the most common evidences for evolution are exposed in Dr. Wells'
book Icons of Evolution (2000). Wells gave an example from Icons – the
faked drawings of embryos made by German biologist Ernst Haeckel.
Dr. Wells next
discussed Darwin's "tree of life" (also discussed in Icons),
the concept that life started as a single organism and then "evolved"
along spreading branches to form all the species of life found today and in the
fossil record. He pointed out how the "Cambrian explosion" (an abrupt
appearance of several major animal phyla in the fossil record) essentially
turns the "tree of life" concept upside down. This
"explosion" would not be predicted from Darwin's theory of gradual
development via mutation and natural selection. Dr. Wells presented a list of
100 credentialed scientists who question some parts of evolutionary theory.
Dr. Wells described
intelligent design (ID) as a theory about detecting intelligent causes. He
described the concepts of "specified complexity" (as described by Dr.
William Dembski) and "irreducible
complexity" (as defined by Dr. Michael Behe). He
said that intelligent design draws an inference from biological evidence;
it is not a deduction from religion. ID is not creationism since it does not
address the nature of the "designer." He closed with the rhetorical
question: "Should teachers be allowed to tell students about the
controversy?"
Dr. Lawrence Krauss
(a physicist from Case Western Reserve University) attempted to discredit the
design movement by casting aspersion on its adherents and tenets. Krauss said
that ID is "an assault on science." He accused ID proponents of
"knowingly misrepresenting" the evidence. He said there is "no
disagreement in the scientific community about the fact of evolution," and
he criticized ID for avoiding the normal processes of debate in scientific
conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Krauss said ID cannot be tested and
doesn't make predictions.
Dr. Krauss'
presentation was mostly an argument against design; he talked very
little about the evidence supporting evolution. He did concede that "there
are gaps in the fossil record," but he left the impression that
evolutionists will eventually know all the details of life's development. He
said that the "scientific method" is dedicated to the use of
"methodological naturalism" - that is, only natural (material)
explanations in science are permitted. Acceptance of naturalism would, of
course, eliminate ID by fiat. He concluded it would be a "waste of
time" for students to study ID as an alternative to evolution. Overall,
Krauss' tone was derisive and dogmatic.
Dr. Stephen Meyer (a
philosopher of science from Whitworth College and Discovery Institute) said
that biological origins is a controversial subject. He
argued that the best curricular approach would be to "teach the
controversy." Students should learn various aspects and viewpoints and be
tested for comprehension of the subject – not for acceptance of a particular
position.
Dr. Meyer defined
science as "the systematic search for the best explanation of natural
phenomena, not the best naturalistic explanation." He said that the
definition of science is part of the controversy and should be taught to
students as such. He disagreed with Dr. Krauss that ID had not been through any
peer review process; he said Dembski's book The
Design Inference and Behe's Darwin's Black Box
had both been peer-reviewed prior to publication. Meyer pointed out that
historically other scientists had introduced their theories through books (not
journal articles), including Charles Darwin (On the Origin of Species).
Dr. Meyer distributed a list of 40 peer-reviewed articles containing viewpoints
dissenting from Neo-Darwinian theory.
The highlight of Dr.
Meyer's talk was the proposal of a "teach the controversy" approach
to teaching biological origins. He had four points: (1) teach the controversy
surrounding biological evolution (evidence for and against), (2) permit (not
mandate) alternative theories to be presented, (3) use no (naturalistic)
definition of science that would eliminate alternative theories, and (4) permit
(not mandate) the teaching of intelligent design. Dr. Meyer said that this
"compromise" approach is supportive of the Santorum language in the
conference report to the federal "No Child Left Behind Act" (H.R. 1),
passed by Congress in December 2001. This says (in part): "Where
topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution),
the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific
views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific
discoveries can profoundly affect society."
Dr. Kenneth Miller (a
biologist from Brown University) spent most of his time trying to refute the
arguments made by Drs. Wells and Meyer. Miller claimed that Wells had
misrepresented some of the evidence in Icons of Evolution. He suggested
that Behe's "irreducibly complex" systems
could plausibly be explained by natural mechanisms. Miller said that outside
intelligence is not required to explain the origin of biological information
(although he failed to present a feasible naturalistic mechanism).
Dr. Miller stated the
argument of dysteleology ("bad design"),
the supposition that a good designer would not have made some of the
"poor" designs we find in nature. He pointed out that nearly all of
the species that have existed on earth are extinct, which (to him) indicates
that the "designer must be incompetent." Miller concluded by saying
he "is a religious person," and he resented the implication that
evolution might be atheistic in nature.
The last hour or so
of the panel presentation was devoted to questions from State Board members. In
general the answers merely served to reinforce points made earlier. One
question asked for more detail on the definition of science. Miller and Krauss
argued for "naturalistic" science, while Wells and Meyer said that
invoking naturalism unfairly limits science inquiry.
Another question
asked for clarification of the Santorum language in H.B. 1. Miller and Krauss
said the language isn't valid since it isn't in the bill itself. Wells and
Meyer argued that the conference report, where the Santorum language resides,
is also important since it says how the law is to be interpreted. When asked
how students can become excited about science, Wells and Meyer noted that
teaching the controversy over biological origins is a great way to motivate
students to learn.
A question about
"freedom of speech" (academic freedom) drew some interesting answers.
Miller and Krauss both seemed to agree that teachers should be able to address
different viewpoints on origins, although they obviously didn't want
alternatives to evolution to be part of the state standards. Meyer and Wells
re-emphasized the teach-the-controversy approach, and said that teachers should
be protected when they want to present alternatives.
When asked about a
distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, Miller characterized
evolution's opponents as "pretending" that any evidence you actually
see is "microevolution." (But the fact is that no one has ever
observed macroevolution.) He said we are "only beginning to understand
body formation in relation to genes." Wells suggested it is very speculative
to extrapolate from (observable) microevolution to (unobservable)
macroevolution.
A final question
concerned the "Cambrian explosion" as evidence for design. Krauss
suggested the phenomenon was a "response to environmental factors."
Miller said the Cambrian explosion is an "exciting opportunity for
evolution," and that there must be predecessors to Cambrian phyla (even
though the fossil evidence is sparse or nonexistent). Wells nicely refuted this
contention by citing work of Chinese paleontologists that shows that any Cambrian
predecessors should have left fossil remains. Meyer concluded that the Cambrian
explosion "does support the design hypothesis."
Overall the
"debate" on March 11 was pretty even, and who won may largely depend
on one's viewpoint going in. The design proponents, Drs. Wells and Meyer, were
the underdogs, and their main objectives were (a) to show that design advocates
are serious scientists and (b) to demonstrate that there is a scientific
controversy over biological origins. Drs. Krauss and Miller represented the
pro-evolution science establishment, and their main objectives were (a) to
discredit design theory and its proponents and (b) to show that there is no
controversy over the "fact" of evolution.
By these measures,
Drs. Wells and Meyer were the winners – but not by a large margin. The panel
discussion was clearly about science – and the Wells-Meyer team certainly
demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the subject at hand and its technical
intricacies. At the end, the Krauss-Miller argument that "there is no
controversy" sounded quite hollow.
On the other hand,
the modern synthesis of intelligent design is not yet well established in the
scientific community. Its legitimacy is debated (in part because the definition
of science is debated), and ID needs further development before it can enter
the mainstream of science. But again it should be noted that Dr. Meyer took ID
"off the table" at the beginning of the forum when he proposed that
ID need not be mandated in the standards.
The Meyer-Wells
proposal to "teach the controversy" (teach both sides of the issue)
sounded attractive to many observers. It avoids making political decisions over
thorny questions like evolution vs. design and traditional science vs.
naturalism (you teach evidence for and against evolution, and you discuss
various definitions of science). It promotes academic freedom for teachers and
critical thinking for students. It is consistent with new federal law (H.B. 1)
and the neutrality of government on a matter touching on religion. Because the
controversy over origins is inherently interesting, it promotes enthusiasm for
studying biology.
The pro-establishment
duo, Drs. Krauss and Miller, ultimately failed to produce logical reasons why
the various controversies shouldn't be taught. A State Board member was
overheard after the panel saying: "You know, the
compromise proposal may be the way to go."
Ohio
legislation.
At the Ohio House of
Representatives Education Committee meeting on March 5, 2002, State
Representative Linda Reidelbach presented sponsor
testimony for two new bills, House Bills 481 and 484. H.B. 481 (introduced Jan.
23, 2002) called for origins-of-life science to be presented objectively and
without bias, and H.B. 484 (introduced Jan. 24, 2002) called for a joint
resolution of the General Assembly before new science standards could be
adopted by the State Board of Education.
The House Education
Committee met again on March 12, and this time testimony was given by Dr.
Wells, Dr. Meyer, John Calvert, and Dr. David DeWolf
(Gonzaga University law professor). Drs. Wells and Meyer briefly outlined their
proposed teach-the-controversy approach to biological origins, saying it is
consistent with the theme of H.B. 481. Dr. DeWolf
discussed the Santorum language in the federal H.B. 1, and its consistency with
the aims of Ohio's H.B. 481. If the Santorum position is adopted in Ohio, said DeWolf, "it protects federal funding" for
education. Mr. Calvert, who was instrumental in composing the language for H.B.
481, stressed that the bill would promote academic freedom for teachers,
critical thinking for students, and government neutrality on a matter
(biological origins) that touches on religion.
Unfortunately, this
is as far as the two bills progressed in the Ohio General Assembly. House and
Senate leadership (along with Gov. Robert Taft) determined that the bills would
"die" without floor votes, so no further hearings were held in the
House Education Committee. (No hearings were ever held in the Ohio Senate.) The
presence of these bills did serve to exert some pressure on the State Board of
Education to resolve the science standards debate, however. Thus they appear to
have served a useful purpose, even though neither bill became law.
Second draft and
public input.
The "second
draft" of the science standards was posted on the Department of Education
website on April 1, 2002. Like the first draft, the "revised"
standards considered biological evolution as the only possible explanation for
the origin and diversity of life.
ODE invited the
public to comment on the second draft during the months of April and May.
Science Excellence for All Ohioans led the effort to get thousands of Ohioans
to respond by sending e-mails, letters and phone calls to the Department. The April 22 Focus on the Family radio program featured the Ohio
origins standards issue. Guests on the program were Dr. Deborah Owens
Fink and Dr. Stephen Meyer. Focus on the Family also sent a letter to all its
Ohio supporters, asking citizens to contact Department of Education officials
about the science standards. A number of radio spots were also aired throughout
Ohio asking people to give input to the state.
On May 11 and 12, the
new video "Icons of Evolution" was shown by five Ohio television
stations. These broadcasts were sponsored by Discovery Institute, Focus on the
Family, and Citizens for Community Values. "Icons" is an excellent video
based on the book by the same title by Jonathan Wells.
These and other media
events in Ohio resulted in a virtual flood of e-mails, letters, and phone calls
to state officials. This massive citizen input caused the State Board of
Education to begin to realize that the objective teaching of biological origins
is very important to constituents.
Zogby Ohio poll.
A Zogby
International poll released on May 10, 2002, showed strong agreement (65%)
among Ohioans for an educational policy that "Biology teachers should
teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against
it." In a follow-up question, 78% of Ohioans polled agreed with the statement:
"When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should
also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent
design of life."
Plain
Dealer feature.
On May 12, 2002, the Cleveland
Plain Dealer published a feature story on Dr. Robert Lattimer's
role in the biological origins debate in Ohio. The article was more than two
full pages in length, with pictures. While the article contained some factual
errors, it gave a strong boost to the objective teaching of biological origins
in Ohio. The two reporters, John Mangels and Scott
Stephens, opined in the article that the teach-the-controversy side was
"winning" the debate! This was a great confidence builder at the
time.
Mason-Dixon
poll.
On June 9, 2002, the
results of an extensive Mason-Dixon poll (sponsored by the Cleveland Plain
Dealer) were released. In this poll, 74% of Ohioans said that evidence for
and against evolution should be taught, and a clear majority (59%) specifically
favored the inclusion of intelligent design. Only 13% of those polled favored
naturalistic evolution as the explanation of the origin and development of life
on earth. Almost all of the rest (83%) favored some form of design by
intelligence (either creationism, theistic evolution,
or action by an unspecified designer). The Plain Dealer, in a June 11
editorial, embraced (at least in part) the teach-the-controversy approach. The
editorial said that "the best option [for the standards] would be simply
to teach evolution honestly, explaining the theory's strengths and weaknesses,
as well as the truth that plenty of gaps exist in man's knowledge about life's
development."
The
final Writing Team draft.
The Standards
Committee of the State Board of Education met on June 10, 2002, and assembled a
set of "Suggestions" for modifying the science standards. This list
was considered by the Science Writing Team at their final meetings on June
23-26. Many of the Suggestions proposed by the Standards Committee were incorporated
into the draft standards, but the changes were all rather minor in nature. For
example, references to the origin of the universe and the origin of life were
removed, and "evolution of life" was changed to "evolution
theory." None of the suggestions addressed any of the concerns outlined in
the teach-the-controversy approach.
At the time of the
Writing Team meetings, public input on the draft standards was still being
received and tabulated by the Department of Education. Over 9000 responses had
been compiled as of June 24, with most of them favoring the inclusion of both
evolution and design in the standards. However, when the Writing Team completed
its work on June 26, the evolution-only draft standards remained essentially
unchanged. Evidence against Darwinian evolution was not included, alternative
theories were not mentioned, and the naturalistic definition of science
remained. In short, the Writing Team basically ignored public input and polling
data which showed that a large majority of Ohioans favor the inclusion of both
evolution and design.
A
quiet summer.
The months of July
and August, 2002, were relatively quiet for the science standards debate. Some
"expert reviews" of the draft standards were obtained by the
Department of Education in July, and Department personnel put the final touches
on the draft standards in August.
Public input
continued to flow in to the Department of Education. In August, SEAO and other
concerned groups started a new campaign of citizen input, this time to the
Governor. Gov. Taft was up for re-election in November, 2002, and he was
concerned about support from conservative voters. The Governor in Ohio has
considerable influence over the State Board of Education, since he appoints
eight of the nineteen Board members. During the August-October period, the
Governor's office was inundated with thousands of letters and phone calls
asking for implementation of the teach-the-controversy approach. Gov. Taft
received more input on the science standards than he had received on any other issue
during his tenure. The Governor was instrumental in urging the State Board to
find a satisfactory resolution to the evolution-design controversy.
The Science Advisory
Committee met on August 20 to discuss the draft standards. Members of the SAC
expressed displeasure (and some anger) at the rather modest changes that were
made to the standards at the June 24-26 Writing Team meetings. The Committee
seemed especially bothered about the removal of references to the origin of
life and the attachment of the word "theory" to evolution. In the
minds of the SAC members, these changes softened the evolution-only stance of
the biological origins section.
SEAO's position on
these changes was stated by Robert Lattimer in a letter that appeared in the Akron
Beacon Journal on Sept. 1, 2002: "Proponents of
teach-the-controversy had nothing to do with the modest changes to the draft
standards made in June. Adding a couple terms ('evolution theory' and
'speciation') and removing another one ('origin of life') simply do not address
our concerns." In other words, the changes that the Advisory Committee
complained about did not affect the teach-the-controversy proposal one way or
the other. The draft standards still maintained an evolution-only stance.
In the end, the
Advisory Committee reluctantly endorsed the draft standards and did not request
any more changes. Committee member Dr. Steven Rissing
put it this way: "They are not perfect. The standards have
compromise in them. I would rate them a 'six' out of 'ten.' "
September
State Board deliberations.
The draft standards
for both science and social studies were considered by the State Board's
Standards Committee at their meeting on Sept. 9, 2002. The committee members
were aware of the strong public opinion favoring some modification of the
biological origins standards, and the committee seemed to be searching for a
way to satisfy as many people as possible. As the committee was discussing the
draft social studies standards, Board member Richard Baker brought up the idea
of including intelligent design as part of that subject area. This triggered
some discussion, but nothing definite was decided.
During the discussion
of the science standards, Board member Michael Cochran asked how the Board
should respond to the more than 12,000 Ohioans who gave input to the Department
requesting that intelligent design be included with evolution in the science
standards. Board member James Craig said that there was "nothing
scientific" about this input. Board member Deborah Owens Fink responded
that the June Cleveland Plain Dealer poll was scientific, and
that Ohioans "who pay for education" want both theories taught.
In the end Committee
Co-chair Joseph Roman asked that committee members who wished to suggest
changes to the standards get back to him with specific ideas by Sept. 27. He
said that the Standards Committee would consider modifications at its Oct. 14
meeting, and then both the science and social studies documents would be
forwarded to the full Board.
The full State Board
met on Sept. 10. The science standards were not on the voting agenda, but the
Board listened attentively to over an hour of testimony during the "public
participation" part of the meeting. Three people urged the Board to adopt
the evolution-only draft science standards without change. Ten people spoke in
favor of modifications to the standards based on the teach-the-controversy
approach. Three of these were SEAO spokespersons.
October
Standards Committee meeting.
The Standards
Committee of the State Board of Education met on Oct. 14, 2002, for the purpose
of discussing possible changes to the draft science standards. Michael Cochran,
Deborah Owens Fink, and James Turner submitted three modifications:
(1) Replace the
"naturalistic definition" of science in Grade 10, "Nature of
Science," indicator #3, with the following: "Recognize that
science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory
building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
(2) Add a new
indicator (#23) in Grade 10, "Evolutionary Theory": "Describe
how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of
evolutionary theory."
(3) Add the same
language to benchmark H in Grade 10, "Evolutionary Theory": "Describe
how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of
evolutionary theory."
In committee
discussion, a question was asked about the meaning of "aspects" in
the proposed language. Mr. Cochran responded: "I think 'analyze
aspects' of evolution means any part of it. I think this reflects that there is
still some debate in the scientific community." Another question asked why
evolution should be singled out for critical analysis. Dr. Owens Fink responded:
"From the public response to this issue [about 20,000 comments to
date, most supporting teach-the-controversy], it is clear that evolutionary
theory needed special treatment. We didn't get public response like this on any
other theory."
All three changes
were approved by identical 6-1-1 votes. Those voting "yes" were
Michael Cochran, James Craig, Thomas McClain, Deborah Owens Fink, Joseph Roman,
and Susan Westendorf. (Marlene Jennings voted
"no," and Martha Wise abstained. Richard Baker was absent.)
Committee Co-chairs
Joseph Roman and Thomas McClain proposed a change in Grade 10,
"Evolutionary Theory," indicator #25: "Explain that life
on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms approximately
4 billion years ago." This statement was originally in the draft standards
but had been removed in June. The committee approved this change by an 8-0
vote. It may be noted that this is the only reference to the "origin of
life" in the standards; the sentence says nothing about how life
might have originated.
October
State Board meeting.
The full State Board
met on Oct. 15 for the purpose of considering a resolution of intent to adopt
the science standards. In public testimony, twenty-three witnesses spoke on
this issue. Only four people supported "evolution only" standards.
The other nineteen (including seven Ph.D. scientists) called for implementation
of the teach-the-controversy approach.
During Board
discussion, Marlene Jennings proposed several changes that would have
strengthened the pro-evolution language in the standards. Theses changes were
defeated by a 7-10 vote.
Prior to the Board
vote on the entire standards, Deborah Owens Fink explained the intent behind
the new indicator calling for critical analysis of evolutionary theory: "This
is not ID [intelligent design]. ID is specifically not mentioned and will not
be tested. This is not religious perspectives. So, in summary, what does this
really mean? It means very simply, to present differing views [of evolutionary
theory] together – the scientific evidence that supports and that does not support each of these views."
Michael Cochran
followed with these comments: "I absolutely do support this
compromise. I in no way for the record believe that this at all advocates for
the teaching of creationism in school or intelligent design. I think the
standards are clearly limited to scientific controversy.... We do know from the
testimony that there are differing opinions on various parts of evolutionary
theory ... and students ought to be exposed to that."
The "resolution
of intent" to adopt the science standards was approved by a 17-0 vote
(Virgil Brown, Michael Cochran, James Craig, Virginia Jacobs, Marlene Jennings,
Thomas McClain, Deborah Owens Fink, Cyrus Richardson, Joseph Roman, G. R. (Sam)
Schloemer, Jennifer Sheets, Jennifer Stewart, Jo
Thatcher, James Turner, Susan Westendorf, Carl Wick,
Martha Wise). Richard Baker and Emerson Ross were absent.
After the vote,
Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan T. Zelman commended the Board for
their hard work on the science standards and for carefully considering the
public input. She said the new science standards could serve as a "model
to the nation."
Reaction
to the compromise agreement.
In editorials on Oct.
17, both the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Cincinnati Enquirer
praised the new standards. The Plain Dealer said "the path Ohio
education officials picked represented the best outcome possible amid this
heated debate.... The solution maintains evolution's place as the most widely
accepted scientific explanation of the origins of life, but satisfies critics
by allowing teachers to explore questions about it." The Enquirer said:
"Those supporting ID are pleased that the standards open the theory
[of evolution] to debate.... The truth is there are gaps in human knowledge
about life's beginnings and development. Let's just say that and keep striving
to answer those questions."
Dr. Stephen Meyer
(Discovery Institute), the person who introduced the teach-the-controversy
proposal in March, stated: "The new language is a clear victory for
students, parents, and scientists in Ohio who have been calling for a 'teach
the controversy' approach to evolution. The Board should be commended for
insisting that Ohio students learn about scientific criticisms of evolutionary
theory as a part of a good science education. Such a policy represents science
education at its very best, and it promotes the academic freedom of students
and teachers who want to explore the full range of scientific views over
evolution."
State Board hearing
on standards.
On Nov. 12, 2002, the
State Board of Education held a public hearing on the draft science and social
studies standards. (This hearing was required by law prior to final adoption of
the standards by the Board.) Twenty-one citizens spoke on the science
standards, and nineteen of these concentrated on the evolution-design issue.
Twelve witnesses spoke in favor of the teach-the-controversy approach, and
seven supported an evolution-only position.
Interestingly, all
seven of the pro-evolutionists objected to the language added Oct. 15: "Describe
how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of
evolutionary theory." Their main point was that evolutionary theory should
not be "singled out" with regard to critical analysis. That is, all
scientific theories should be subject to analysis as new evidence comes to
light. Their proposal was to move this indicator from the "Life
Sciences" section to "Scientific Ways of Knowing," while
changing the term "evolutionary theory" to "scientific
theories." (It may be noted that four of these speakers were leaders of
the pro-evolution movement in Ohio: Drs. Steven Rissing,
Steven Edinger, Patricia Princehouse,
and David Haury.)
As mentioned above,
twelve of the witnesses supported the teach-the-controversy approach in some
way. Melanie Elsey spoke directly against the
proposal made by the pro-evolutionists. She pointed out that their notion of
critically analyzing all theories is already largely covered by other
indicators. She specifically mentioned these: (a) Grade 10,
"Scientific Ways of Knowing" #2: "Describe that
scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation
of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that
questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the
process of science"; (b) Grade 10, "Scientific Inquiry"
#5: "Explain how new scientific data can cause any existing
scientific explanation to be supported, revised or rejected"; and
(c) Grade 11, "Scientific Inquiry" #2: "Evaluate
assumptions that have been used in reaching scientific conclusions."
Several of the
speakers supporting teach-the-controversy admonished the Board that the
"compromise language" adopted in October still left some problem
areas in the standards. Namely, (a) microevolution (minor variation within a
species) is not distinguished from macroevolution (descent from a common
ancestry), (b) experimental sciences (like chemistry and physics) are not
distinguished from historical sciences (like biological origins), (c) several
indicators/benchmarks still present macroevolution as "fact," rather
than theory, (d) the language calling for presentation of evidence for and
against macroevolution is not very specific, and (e) explicit protection is not
given for teachers who choose to discuss alternative theories. Nevertheless,
most of these witnesses said that the current draft standards provided a
workable compromise that would – if properly followed – allow teachers to
discuss the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory.
Presentation
to the House and Senate Education Committees.
On Nov. 13, 2002,
State Supt. Zelman presented the draft science and social studies standards to
a joint meeting of the Ohio House and Senate Education Committees. This hearing
was required by Senate Bill 1 (2001) before adoption of the new standards. This
was simply a presentation or review of the standards; the
legislative committees were not required by law to formally approve the
standards.
In her opening
remarks, Dr. Zelman praised all of those involved in the writing process. She
emphasized the extensive work carried out by many people on developing the
standards, and she noted the many forms of public input that were used to
develop feedback during the writing process. Over 30,000 comments were received
from the public on the draft standards. (Nearly all of these comments dealt
with the evolution-design issue – and most of these supported the
teach-the-controversy approach.) The Superintendent said "I believe these
standards will be a model for the entire country, and I am very proud to review
them with you."
The legislators asked
numerous questions to Dr. Zelman after her opening statement. Nearly all of the
science questions dealt with the evolution-design issue. Rep. Twyla Roman asked
whether biological evolution would be included on state achievement and
diagnostic tests. She expressed concern that if students are tested on
evolution, this essentially mandates that schools teach it. Dr. Zelman replied:
"There is no doubt the assessment does drive the curriculum." She
said "evolution is very much a part of science, so I do suspect that [it]
... will be in our assessments." With regard to instruction, Dr. Zelman
said "we will give in our curriculum model probably some good examples
about how to deal with some specific controversial issues [surrounding
evolutionary theory], and we hope to be able to give teachers [information
about] how to present these in an intellectually honest way."
Rep. Roman also noted
that there are several places in the standards where the wording indicates
evolution is a "fact" rather than a "theory." She said
"it's not made clear that these are theories," and "I'm
concerned with how this is presented in the classroom based on the draft standards."
Dr. Zelman essentially deferred the question to Eydie
Schilling, a Department administrator. Ms. Schilling noted that both national
guidelines and input from Ohioans are reflected in the evolution standards: "The
document tries to provide the basic foundation of what is in the current
national documents and what we have found that the experts feel is important,
as well as listening to what Ohioans thought was important." She explained
that "the overriding idea is that it [evolutionary theory] should be
looked at critically." Senate Education Chair Robert Gardner pointed out
that the "investigate and critically analyze" language "sets a
framework for everything you're going to talk about." He noted that
"you're teaching that up front first."
Rep. Linda Reidelbach asked for some assurance that "there would
be a balance of professionals who are on the writing team" for developing
the curriculum model. Dr. Zelman replied: "I will tell you that I
will make a commitment that in our curriculum model we will deal with this
controversial issue, and that we will do so in an intellectually honest way, to
protect the spirit of [indicator] #23 'to investigate and critically analyze
aspects of evolutionary theory,' and try to give examples about how to do that."
Rep. Diana Fessler asked: "Dr. Zelman, would you please
clearly reaffirm that the intent of the amendments that were offered by Dr.
Owens Fink and Mike Cochran in that 17-0 vote did require the presentation of
scientific evidence supporting and not supporting macroevolution?" Dr.
Zelman answered, ""I will certainly reaffirm the intent of the three
amendments."
The
State Board decision.
The State Board of
Education met on Dec. 10, 2002, for final adoption of the draft science
standards. For several days prior to the vote, pro-evolution forces were
encouraging State Board members to change the "compromise language"
which says students should "describe how scientists today continue to
investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
In a Dec. 6 article
in the Akron Beacon Journal, Lynn Elfner (Ohio
Academy of Sciences) asked: "Why single out the theory of evolution
when there are dozens of other theories in science that are critically analyzed
every day?" Elfner and other pro-evolution
spokespersons proposed that the compromise language be removed or else the
phrase "aspects of evolutionary theory" be changed to
"scientific theories."
In a last-minute
effort to build their case, pro-evolution forces brought in Dr. Eugenie Scott
(National Center for Science Education) to address teachers and the public at
Case Western Reserve University (CWRU, Dec. 7 and 8). Pro-evolution Prof.
Lawrence Krauss (CWRU) then spoke at a Cleveland City Club Forum on Dec. 9.
At the pivotal Dec.
10 State Board meeting, twenty-one citizens spoke on the science standards
during the Public Participation period. Fifteen of these (eleven with doctoral
degrees) supported teaching-the-controversy over biological evolution. All
fifteen speakers urged the State Board not to remove or modify the compromise
language.
As it turned out,
Standards Committee Co-chair Joseph Roman proposed a parenthetical amendment to
the "critical analysis" indicator and benchmark: "The
intent of this indicator [benchmark] does not mandate the teaching or testing
of intelligent design." The amendment was added because some Board members
were concerned that the compromise language might be misinterpreted to mean
that students would be taught and tested on intelligent design. This was never
the intent of the Board, but the Dec. 10 addendum apparently alleviated their
concerns. Without the amendment (some called it a "disclaimer"),
perhaps half a dozen Board members would have voted against the standards.
For supporters of
teach-the-controversy, this amendment does not detract from the original
compromise language and, in fact, it actually has some positive aspects. First,
it helps to clarify the original intent of the compromise language, namely to
require students to learn about evidence for and against biological evolution
(the theory of common descent). Second, by saying that ID is not mandated, the
amendment implies that discussion of alternative theories like ID is
permissible in the science classroom. Third, by mentioning intelligent
design specifically, the amendment gives some legitimacy to the term.
The three key
supporters of teach-the-controversy on the Board (Deborah Owens Fink, Michael
Cochran, and James Turner) all spoke in favor of the amendment. Martha Wise,
who had previously advocated for a change in the compromise language, also
expressed support for the amendment. With no further discussion, the amendment
language was approved by an 18-0 vote. The Board then voted 18-0 to adopt the
entire science standards document. (Board member Virgil Brown was absent from
the meeting.)
Implementation
of teach-the-controversy.
In March, 2002,
Science Excellence for All Ohioans adopted the teach-the-controversy proposal
as its main goal for the science standards. As described by SEAO, the proposal
has these three points: (a) teach the evidence for and against
biological evolution (macroevolution – the theory of undirected common
descent), (b) permit, but not require, teachers to discuss alternative theories
such as intelligent design, and (c) adopt a definition of science that allows
for consideration of all logical explanations for phenomena in nature.
It is most pleasing
that the final standards contain all three points:
*Point (a).
"Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze
aspects of evolutionary theory." (This is "indicator #23.") It
would be better if this indicator were more specific,
but that's the strongest language that the majority of Board members would
agree to. Nevertheless, the stated intent of this language is to teach evidence
for and against biological evolution.
*Point (b).
"The intent does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent
design." (This is a parenthetical amendment to indicator #23.) Again, this
language could be more specific, but (as explained in the preceding section) it
nevertheless accomplishes the goal.
*Point (c).
"Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing
investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement,
experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations
of natural phenomena." This is an excellent definition. It replaced a
naturalistic explanation that excluded consideration of intelligent design (or
any supernatural cause). The new definition is quite satisfactory in that it
allows for consideration of all logical explanations.
Reaction
to the standards.
Predictably, most
major newspapers in Ohio failed to report accurately the potential impact of
the new standards. Some went so far as to suggest that the teaching of
alternatives to evolution was essentially banned under the new guidelines. One
exception was the Toledo Blade. Reporter Sandra Svoboda, in her Dec. 11
article ('Design' of life may be taught as science), effectively captured the
essence of the new state guidelines. Svoboda correctly stated that local school
districts will "be allowed to critically analyze that theory [biological
evolution] and consider alternative concepts such as the intelligent design
concept that life may have been designed by a nonspecified
power." The article also noted that Ohio is "the first state to
include the words 'intelligent design' in its adopted science curriculum."
A number of groups
that had advocated for the teach-the-controversy approach praised the State
Board and the new standards:
*Science
Excellence for All Ohioans commended the Board for adopting language that
"substantially incorporates the teach-the-controversy approach to
instruction in biological origins." At the same time, SEAO noted that
"the language in the evolutionary theory sections is still problematic in
numerous places." Overall, however, SEAO reasoned that the new standards
"will contribute substantially to better objectivity in biological origins
instruction."
*Dr. Stephen Meyer of
the Discovery Institute called the language requiring critical analysis
of biological evolution "historic." He said that "Ohio has
become the first state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms
of Darwinian evolution as well as scientific evidence supporting the
theory." Meyer noted that while the standards do not mandate intelligent
design instruction, they do "leave teachers free to discuss it."
*Intelligent
Design network congratulated the Board for voting "18-0 for
objectivity and academic freedom and against censorship of competing
ideas." IDnet said the "key action taken by
the Board involved the replacement of a naturalistic definition of science with
a logical definition that is consistent with the scientific method."
*Focus on the
Family (CitizenLink) said that the "recent
unanimous decision by the Ohio State Board of Education to require critical
analysis of evolution makes it clear Ohio is leading the way in changing
evolution from being taught as 'fact' to being examined as 'theory.' " CitizenLink encouraged
Ohioans to "consider contacting your local school district to urge them to
allow intelligent design to be taught in your schools."
*The Ohio
Roundtable said: "These standards, for the first time in the
nation, recognize that thinking people do not all agree on Darwinian evolution.
The standards permit the recognition of the controversy and a discussion of
Intelligent Design. This is a very small but significant first step."
Conclusion.
After the Dec. 10
vote, both pro-evolutionists and supporters of teach-the-controversy claimed
"victory" in the Ohio science standards debate. The standards are, as
everyone recognizes, a "compromise." This means that neither side got
everything it wanted. The pro-evolutionists were pleased because the standards
are in essence "evolution only." Evolution is the only theory of
origins that is mentioned, and some indicators are quite dogmatic in support of
the theory.
On the other hand,
the standards do substantially implement the teach-the-controversy approach. A
philosophically neutral definition of science is used, and the door is opened
for teaching the controversy about the evidence for and against biological
evolution. Intelligent design, while not mandated for teaching in the
standards, is mentioned for the first time in the science standards of an
American state.
During the year-long
Ohio Firestorm, thousands of citizens made significant contributions (for
example, by contacting state officials, giving testimony in Columbus, and
writing letters to newspapers.) The key to success in Ohio was motivating
public input to the State Board of Education and the Governor. Without this
massive public response, state officials would not have had the courage or
incentive to address the controversy over biological evolution.
While the 2002 Ohio
science standards are by no means perfect, they did substantially implement the
teach-the-controversy approach. A long-term goal of the "ID movement"
is to implement objective instruction in biological origins across the country.
Through its 2002 science standards, Ohio made key contributions to this
process.
This site sponsored by several Vacation Condo Rental Sites