*******

Cincinnati Enquirer, February 8, 2004

Most of what I learned in high school biology is buried in the bottom of my mental locker. But for some reason, I clearly remember those semi-creepy pictures in the chapters on evolution.

They showed embryos - fish, salamander, human - and they all looked as much alike as The Who and the Stones. My biology textbook said they were proof that all living critters are just different fruit from the same tree of life.

But here's something they didn't tell us in biology: "Those drawings were faked," says Joel Roadruck, who will teach one of Ohio's first classes on intelligent design on March 1, at Forest Hills Community Education. "We know now that the differences in a fertilized embryo are as great as in a fully developed organism."

Roadruck collects examples of "evidence" of evolution. Many have been exposed as frauds - but they are still in textbooks, which evolve slower than flatworms.

He argues that DNA and the incredible complexity of life - especially humans - contradict Darwin. "They're teaching evolution as truth - microbes to man. But this is not true. If they were stockbrokers, they'd be in jail" for fraud, he said.

Roadruck got interested by looking at biology books. "I found one view of the origins of life. Only evolution was being taught, when in fact a growing number of scientists support intelligent design theory."

The state of Ohio is wading into the primordial ooze: The Ohio Board of Education is expected to sign off on a new model curriculum that asks teachers to introduce challenges to evolution in biology classes. Ohio's approach is pretty neutral. It doesn't mandate teaching of intelligent design, or go anywhere near biblical versions of creation.

Akron University biology professor Dan Ely helped write the key lesson plans, and he says they are "very balanced" and "absolutely" founded in credible science. "It's ridiculous not to look at the other side," he said.

That's the goal of Roadruck's evening classes at Turpin High School. They will examine books by scientists such as Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and William Dembske, who dispute Darwin's theory on the origin of life and evolution. "Just take a look at the evidence and see if it's real," he said. "You decide for yourself."

But that's not so easy. Ohio Board of Education member Deborah Owens-Fink of Akron says the over-reaction to even a modest challenge to evolution has been "very disturbing." Most of the acrimony comes from what she calls "the whiny scientists" who oppose even a protozoa of intelligent design.

"If you support this, you are labeled a Pat Robertson, fundamentalist wacko," said Owens-Fink, who has taught scientific research methods at University of Akron. "What's so bizarre is that they never attack the science part, they just attack the people."

Roadruck says evolution is the cornerstone of a worldview. "We've been indoctrinated," Roadruck said. "If you teach a generation that we all evolved from pond scum, then everything is relative. There is no truth."

In high school, I learned that in the 1600s, Galileo was forced to recant his theory that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Truth will prevail. You can't keep it buried in a locker.

Peter Bronson (Enquirer columnist), Cincinnati, Ohio

*******

Editorial, February 14, 2004

Survival of the snit

The State Board of Education is still on course to do what it promised 14 months ago: approve a lesson plan for the teaching of biology that requires students to examine what the theory of evolution can explain and what it cannot.

The loudest critics of the standards, scientists among them, portray this as a disaster. Critics of the theory of evolution aren't happy, either, because "intelligent design" their argument that some unseen hand set the universe in motion and guided its development is not specifically granted a place in the public classroom.

Between these two extremes are the standards themselves, which under the circumstances ought to speak for themselves.

The life-sciences standards for grade 10 (when most students take biology) list five broad lessons that students should be required to learn: genetics, natural selection, diversity of life forms as explained by mutation, the history of evolutionary thought and the theory that life on earth developed from single-cell microorganisms starting about a billion years ago.

Each of these is a bedrock tenet of the theory of evolution.

Also found within the list of what 10th-graders ought to be able to do is this paragraph: "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)"

Now the standardized lesson plans are before the state board, and one in particular, "Critical Analysis of Evolution" has the critics in a tizzy. They find misrepresentation, historical errors, irrelevance and actual falsity all through it.

What they say has the ring of truth to it, at least insofar as it sounds like a modern-day textbook. A lot of what schools put in front of students as factual information is a long way from perfect.

The "critical analysis" lesson is the one in which the questions about evolution are raised. It is more than offset by the six or seven lessons of which evolution is the basis.

Ohio students are still going to be taught biology according to the scientific method. That should be the main concern.

The semantic problems of lesson plans aren't going to be "solved" to everyone's satisfaction. Since this is a political question, there are going to be winners and losers. In this case, the losers appear to be the people at the extremes of the evolution vs. creationism debate. Ohio can live with that.

Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio

* * * * * * *

Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 15, 2004

Sam Fulwood III rails against the "knuckle-dragging creationists" who would dare question the validity of evolution (Feb. 7). He rejects the silly notion that accepted scientific theories should be challenged on a point-by-point basis. Five hundred years ago, people like him belittled the "knuckle draggers" who would question the flatness of the Earth.

Luckily, there were "knuckle draggers" who were not afraid to challenge the existing science of the day. These people realized that perhaps the Earth was round after all. Albert Einstein is an excellent example of a scientist whose theories flew in the face of accepted scientific belief. The strange, unconventional theories he proposed now form the foundation of quantum mechanics, a field of science that did not even exist 100 years ago.

The theory of evolution has been widely accepted in the scientific community for at least 50 years. There is much evidence that supports it. However, there are many things evolution either fails to explain or does not explain very well. Opposing efforts to question the theory of evolution and other accepted scientific theories is an affront to all scientists, including simple "knuckle-dragging creationist" chemists like myself.

Challenging accepted scientific theory either strengthens the existing theory or exposes it as flawed and in need of serious revision. I consider both of these to be desirable outcomes.

Paul W. Kroushl, North Royalton, Ohio

Columbus Dispatch, February 15, 2004
It is too bad that biased newspapers, such as the Dispatch, continue to flood the reading public with articles that make blatantly false statements about the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" section in the proposed state science standards.
To set the record straight, intelligent design, or creationism, is not creeping into the science standards. The "Critical Analysis of Evolution" standard only addresses the scientific controversy surrounding whether macroevolution ever occurred.
Yes, no alternative theories to evolution are proposed in the lessons, but this is exactly what a majority of the State Board of Education and the dogmatic evolutionists demanded.
If, however, the evolution-as-fact supporters would like to change their minds, there is ample scientific research about intelligent design that can be added to the lessons.
Finally, if Ohio's economy is going to be the thinking economy of the future, it is imperative that critical thinking skills are a fundamental part of the overall skills that must be taught to our children.
Sadly, while there are 10 standards dealing with evolution, only the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" portion attempts to teach these skills.
Patrick H. Young, Ph.D., Canal Winchester, Ohio
*******

The Public Square, February 19, 2004

Hysterical Science - 1

You can hear the sound of scientists screaming. What are they so concerned about?

One single lesson.
One lesson in a twelve year course study.
One lesson in science class for sophomores, permitting analysis of Darwinian thought on macroevolution.

There is no dictate for religion, creation or intelligent design, just a lesson permitting students to analyze the doctrines of Darwin. You would think the world was coming to an end all because the Ohio State School Board recognizes that a vast majority of parents and taxpayers are not satisfied with a Darwin-only dictatorship in the classroom. They are not calling for an end to evolution, nor asking for the teaching of religion in public schools. They simply are permitting a single lesson in twelve years of science classes to permit, if schools choose to, a moment of analytical thinking about the evolutionary model.

A handful of scientists, testifying before the committee, are infuriated. They are testifying before committees and lambasting the media with fears that Ohio will return to the dark ages because the school board is permitting anyone to question Darwin in a public school classroom. Their rhetoric is so shrill and their antics so hysterical that many, even some who agree with them are beginning to wonder.

If Darwin is such pure, logically unassailable science, what are these people so afraid of? Are they concerned that a high school sophomore might actually ask a question that causes Humpty-Dumpty to fall off the wall?

David Zanotti, Ohio Roundtable, Strongsville, Ohio

*******

The Public Square, February 20, 2004

Hysterical Science - 2

The cries are rising from the Midwest. Circle the wagons, Darwin is being attacked again.

No matter where you live - danger is coming your way. At least that is what the National Academy of Sciences would like you to believe. They are infuriated that the Ohio State School Board overwhelmingly passed a draft for a single science lesson plan permitting a voluntary discussion on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution."
One professor lamented, "It's a sad day of science in Ohio. This opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule nationally and internationally."

How fascinating. One single lesson plan for a science class for high school sophomores and the reputation of the scientific community falls into the Dumpster around the world. No kidding? What is so amazing about all this is the vast majority of Ohioans support a much more balanced approach to the discussion of origins. Ohioans prefer to have Darwin and Intelligent Design taught equally in the classroom. The state school board is only willing to permit a single voluntary lesson-plan across twelve years of science instruction.

Hardly a revolution, yet the outspoken scientists are fearing for their very credibility and livelihood. To see and read their responses is simply amazing. They are threatening to sue to stop even a voluntary single lesson plan permitting school children to challenge the status quo.

What is it about freedom of speech that they find so scary? Do you think the ACLU will step in and protect the right of schoolteachers to permit children to wonder out loud?

David Zanotti, Ohio Roundtable, Strongsville, Ohio

*******

Columbus Dispatch, February 24, 2004
I strongly disagree with statements made in the Feb.15 Dispatch editorial on evolution. It said, "Science courses should be only science, not pseudo-science stemming from religious beliefs," and, "Classes should be based on scientific knowledge, not public opinion. The only theory affirmed by centuries of carefully analyzed data is evolution."
All that is bogus. I agree that science should be based on scientific knowledge, but there is no more analyzed data supporting evolution than there is to support the biblical account of creation. In fact, the opposite is true - the more evolution is evaluated, the more obvious it becomes that the universe could not have evolved.
Even evolutionists accept this fact. Evolutionist Richard Lewontin says in his 1997 essay published in the New York Review of Books: "We take the side of science (evolution), in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but that we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
Now that sounds a lot like public opinion to me, not scientific knowledge and fact. The only reason that thinking evolutionists could continue to adamantly support their claims that the universe evolved by random chance is because the alternative is unacceptable to them. They don't want to acknowledge that there is a Creator behind the millions of irreducibly complex structures in nature, even though all logic points to one, simply because they do not want to be accountable to him.
Religion should be separated from science except when, to separate the two, one has to fabricate a lie in substitution. I strongly encourage the Dispatch to take an in-depth look at the complexity of its world and make a decision based on fact and logic, not what makes the newspaper staff feel good or what our society has accepted as fact.
Daniel Shaw, Columbus, Ohio

*******

Akron Beacon Journal, February 25, 2004

Your Feb. 10 editorial headlined "Creating mediocrity" was a frontal attack on new science lessons being developed by the State Board of Education. Fortunately the Board circumvented such opposition and gave tentative approval to the lessons, which will become part of the state's Model Curriculum in Science.

This set of lessons contains a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" module that presents evidence both supporting and challenging macroevolution (the theory of descent from a common ancestry). The Board is to be commended for adopting this material, and classrooms around Ohio will be the benefactors.

The "Critical Analysis" lesson has several features that will support good science education:

*Students will examine the nature of theories, which are tentative explanations of phenomena. Theories are always open to critical analysis and possible modification.

*Students will learn the difference between two distinct meanings of the word "evolution." Microevolution (minor genetic variation within a species) is well-accepted, while macroevolution is much more tentative.

*Students will explore how the scientific method works in a practical and interesting application.

*Students will develop and present arguments on how five lines of evidence either support or challenge macroevolutionary theory. This will allow them to think critically and formulate their own viewpoint.

Opponents of this lesson are engaged in the censorship of ideas. They simply do not want the theory of common descent to be subjected to critical analysis. They're afraid this would show that the emperor (macroevolution) has no clothes. And on this point, they are certainly correct.

Robert Lattimer, Ph.D., Hudson, Ohio

*******

Akron Beacon Journal, February 27, 2004

Regarding your Feb. 10 editorial headlined "Creating mediocrity," in which you rail against the one lesson in the state science curriculum that dares to point out some problems with the theory of evolution:

Please cite the foundation of your claim that "wandering off into the thickets of creationism serves neither students nor economic development."

I have studied and written about economic development for years and have never seen a study that links (or even mentions) creationism and economic development.

Did I detect in the shrill tone and spurious comment a bit of desperation?

Timothy Wilkinson, Ph.D. (marketing professor), North Canton, Ohio

*******

Columbus Dispatch, March 1, 2004

Ohio's model science curriculum has come under intense public scrutiny in recent days, with most of the attention being paid to a proposed lesson plan titled, "Critical Analysis of Evolution."

As a biologist, science educator and father of two high-school students enrolled in science, I think the proposed science curriculum is superb in its treatment of evolution. As a member of the Science Advisory Committee, I saw firsthand the State Board of Education and Department of Education expertly guide the curriculum-refinement process.

There are nine proposed lessons that deal with evolution, much more coverage than before. These lessons were created with the input from a number of science educators and scientists and were extensively field-tested in schools last fall with overall positive review.

I support all of the lessons in the curriculum, especially the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson. It provides a corrective to the overly simplistic presentations that one often finds in high-school biology textbooks. One example is that minor genetic variation (microevolution) can produce major structural changes in organisms (macroevolution). The new lesson is good science because it encourages students to apply critical-thinking skills to analyze the evidence. Good students know there is a growing body of published criticism of evolutionary theory.

I also find in my teaching that it is good education. Students are energized by the open discussion, indicating that this approach has helped to sharpen their critical-thinking skills while engaging their interest. Evolution is so fundamental to biology that we must teach it very well. There is no hidden agenda, no reference to intelligent design or faith-based views in this lesson. Ohio and its students will be the winners when the board gives its final approval on March 9.

Glen Needham, Ph.D., Columbus, Ohio

*******

BreakPoint Commentary, March 1, 2004

Almost 150 years ago, Charles Darwin knew something that the scientific establishment seems to have forgotten - something that is being endangered today in the state of Ohio.

In Ohio, high school science students are at risk of being told that they are not allowed to discuss questions and problems that scientists themselves openly debate. While most people understand that science is supposed to consider all of the evidence, these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence - evidence already freely available in top science publications.

In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design. They mandate something much milder. According to the standards, students should know that "scientists may disagree about explanations . . . and interpretations of data" - including the biological evidence used to support evolutionary theory. If that sounds like basic intellectual freedom, that's because it is.

The Ohio Department of Education has responded by implementing this policy through the development of an innovative curriculum that allows students to evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.

And that has the American scientific establishment up in arms. Some groups are pressuring the Ohio Board to reverse its decision. The president of the National Academy of Sciences has denounced the "Critical Analysis" lesson - even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.

Hard as it may be to believe, prominent scientists want to censor what high school students can read and discuss. It's a story that is upside-down, and it's outrageous. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion.

Debates about whether natural selection can generate fundamentally new forms of life, or whether the fossil record supports Darwin's picture of the history of life, would be off-limits. It's a bizarre case of scientists against "critical analysis."

And the irony of all of this is that this was not Charles Darwin's approach. He stated his belief in the Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin knew that objective science demands free and open inquiry, and while I disagree with Darwin on many things, on this he was absolutely right. And I say what's good enough for scientists themselves, as they debate how we got here, is good enough for high school students.

The Ohio decision is the leading edge of a wedge breaking open the Darwinist stranglehold on science education in this country. The students in Ohio - and every other state - deserve intellectual freedom, and they deserve it now.

Charles Colson, Merrifield, Virginia

*******

Editorial, March 4, 2004.

Again, teach the best science

A heated issue most Ohioans thought was settled more than a year ago - how the origins and development of life will be taught in science classes - is again causing controversy.

At the center, again, is the concept of "intelligent design," which proposes that some higher intelligence played a role. Evolutionary scientists scoff at the notion, calling it religious creationism masquerading as science. They say it has no business in the science classroom.

Proponents of intelligent design wanted it included in the curriculum standards, but lost that battle in the fall of 2002 and settled for language that would require students to "investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

That solution, which we supported, ended the debate - or so we thought. Last month, the state Board of Education gave a preliminary OK by a 13-4 vote for a model curriculum that included a 10th-grade science chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that would encourage students to discuss various critiques of evolution.

Some scientists cried foul, objecting that the chapter had evolved, so to speak, into a stalking horse for intelligent design. They cited a "clear paper trail" in some specific references the chapter cites. Defenders said it merely reflected the "teach the controversy" compromise, and noted that the standards specifically state they do not include intelligent design. The board is wrestling anew with the issue, and a final vote comes Tuesday.

Evolutionary scientists have a point when they say the unit opened the door to intelligent design - a point board officials have now acknowledged by removing a controversial pro-intelligent design book, Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution," from the bibliography.

But scientists' warnings that including a critical analysis of evolution will make Ohio the nation's laughingstock seem far-fetched. One board member, James Turner of Cincinnati, says the standards as now written are "probably the most pro-evolution standards in the country."

Some now believe too much has been removed from the critical analysis section. Others seem to believe that any material that does not foster an uncritical acceptance of evolution should be removed from the standards.

Bear in mind that while the state standards specify what has to be taught, they do not limit what also can be taught. Local school districts have the option of adding other concepts to the origins discussion.

As we said two years ago, schools should teach the best science, not try to balance competing ideologies. We also argued that the best science is a science that constantly challenges its own assumptions, and teaches students to do likewise.

The book is not closed on evolutionary biology, subatomic physics or almost any other scientific discipline you care to name. There are questions for which we don't have answers. We should teach the best of what we do know - which in this case clearly is evolution - but also teach students to keep questioning and wondering.

Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, Ohio

*******

Cincinnati Enquirer, March 7, 2004

On Tuesday [March 10], the Ohio Board of Education will vote on final adoption of a model science curriculum that includes a lesson plan on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution." The lesson plan is intended to implement Benchmark H of Ohio's science standards, which requires students to know "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

But now shrill voices claiming to speak for science are trying to pressure the board to drop the lesson plan, which was developed with input from citizens, science educators and scientists from around Ohio.

Rather than honestly debate the merits of the new model curriculum, opponents are trying to prevail through use of a classic red herring. They allege that the proposed lesson on the critical analysis of evolution is merely Intelligent Design (ID) theory in disguise. If so, it's a pretty good disguise. Intelligent Design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of intelligence rather than an undirected natural process. The lesson plan in question doesn't even address this topic, let alone discuss it.

What it does do is explore several recognized problems facing evolutionary theory, such as the fossil record and the need for an adequate mechanism of macroevolution, that are currently the subject of debate in the mainstream science community.

When I testified before the board recently, I offered to supply board members with a large stack of scientific papers (over 40) that critique key aspects of evolutionary theory. Each of these articles comes from top peer-reviewed scientific journals and document many problems with contemporary evolutionary theory, including some that are treated in the model curriculum. Not one of these articles is authored by an advocate of Intelligent Design, nor are any that I know of sympathetic to ID theory.

I also told the board about a book just published by MIT press, The Origination of Organismal Form. This book critically analyzes many of the key claims of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, the standard textbook theory. Its two lead authors, the Viennese biologist Gurd Mueller and Yale biologist Stuart Newman, conclude that the problem that Darwin set out to solve in 1859 - namely, how fundamentally new forms of life arise - remains unsolved.

Mueller and Newman list four tables of open questions and unsolved problems in evolutionary biology. As it happens, many of these questions and problems are addressed directly in the model curriculum's lesson plan on the critical analysis of evolution. Mueller and Newman have nothing to do with Intelligent Design. I doubt they have even heard of it.

Should the board prevent students from knowing about current scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory when those criticisms are found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Should the board censor the fact that Darwin himself recognized that the fossil record was a serious problem facing his theory? Should it keep students from knowing about the way that real science works, where critical analysis is considered healthy?

Those who demand that the board censor such material are undermining the accurate and invigorating presentation of evolution in the model curriculum. In all the sciences, not just in biology, knowledge advances when scientists are free to analyze evidence critically, to offer competing accounts of how best to interpret data, and to evaluate competing hypotheses. That is how real science works, and students can understand this best if they are immersed in rather than shielded from current scientific debates and discussion.

Darwin-only activists, and spokesmen for "official science," are now pressuring the board to "let the scientists determine the curriculum," as if only committed neo-Darwinists constituted real scientists. But plenty of scientists question aspects of contemporary evolutionary theory. Over 300 scientists from institutions such as Yale, the Smithsonian, M.I.T., Rice and Ohio State have signed a statement expressing skepticism about the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.

If the Ohio Board of Education removes the critical analysis lesson plan, it will be misrepresenting the current scientific discussion about evolutionary theory. The critiques addressed in the lesson plan exist in the current peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ohio students should have the right to learn about these currents of scientific thought, free from threats of censorship by rigid defenders of an aging scientific orthodoxy.

Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D., Steubenville, Ohio

*******

Discovery Institute Press Release, March 9, 2004

Discovery Institute called it a victory for students, academic freedom, and common sense when the Ohio State Board of Education today voted 13-5 to adopt a model lesson plan on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution."

"The Board's decision is a significant victory for students and their academic freedom to study all sides of current scientific debates over evolutionary theory," said Bruce Chapman, President of Discovery Institute. "It's also a victory for common sense against the scientific dogmatism of those who think evolution should be protected from any critical examination."
Chapman added that the lesson plan is exactly the approach to teaching evolution that Discovery Institute has advocated all along, helping students learn both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory.
The lesson plan asks students to examine various debates over parts of evolutionary theory that are discussed in science journals, such as whether microevolutionary processes are sufficient to explain macroevolution. The lesson plan was created to implement a benchmark in the state science standards that requires students to be able to "Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
The lesson plan does not discuss religion or alternative scientific theories such as intelligent design. Created with input from a science advisory committee that included teachers, science educators, and scientists from across Ohio, the lesson plan was defended by a number of scientists in public testimony before the Board on Tuesday.
"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," said Chapman. "This is a common-sense approach that avoids the extremes and focuses on teaching students about the scientific debates over evolution."

Rob Crowther, Seattle, Washington

*******

Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 11, 2004

Ohio's proposed Model Curriculum in Science was the subject of The Plain Dealer's "

"LiveLines" forum on Feb. 21. Several respondents claimed that the Grade 10 lesson being debated, "Critical Analysis of Evolution," contains "intelligent design" or "creationist" concepts. This makes me wonder whether any of these people have actually read the lesson. (It's available online at www.ode.state.oh.us). You won't find the word "design" or any hint of ID or biblical concepts. The alleged "ID/creation" connection is nothing but a red herring.

One writer opined that ID cannot "be proved using the scientific method." But how do you "prove" the idea of macroevolution? No one has yet figured out how to make new body parts from scratch or turn a bacterium into a fish, for example.

One respondent claimed that evolution is a "scientific fact," as reliable as gravity. Another referred to "compelling evidence" that supports the theory. Oh, really? Even Darwin knew there were holes in the evidence for common descent - lack of transition species in the fossil record, the sudden appearance of new species, absence of a viable mechanism to provide variation. The gap between the evidence and the theory has widened with time, not narrowed, and yet the Darwinian faithful dare not break ranks.

All this fuss about one little lesson in Grade 10. One small opportunity for students to use their critical thinking skills to take a close look at Darwin.

What are supporters of evolutionary theory so afraid of? If macroevolution is so robust, shouldn't it be able to withstand a challenge by a few sophomores in high school?

It seems to me that some people fear that a close examination would show that the emperor (macroevolution) has no clothes. And on that point, they just might be correct. Robert Lattimer, Ph.D., Hudson, Ohio

*******

BreakPoint Commentary, March 12, 2004

How about some very good news, to brighten your day?

Recently, I told you that the academic freedom of high school students and teachers in Ohio was in serious jeopardy. At stake was the adoption of a groundbreaking new science curriculum, that allows for the "critical analysis" of evolutionary theory - a basic freedom that scientists themselves take for granted.

But many American science organizations oppose the Ohio curriculum and lobbied hard against it. They said - falsely - that it brought religion into the science classroom.

Well, on March 9, despite heavy pressure, the Ohio State Board of Education voted 13 to 5 to adopt the new curriculum. And that's very good news.

In fact, this good news could make a difference right where you live. People in other states like Minnesota are considering doing what Ohio did. And don't forget the Santorum amendment to the federal education law, which encourages this very thing.

Let me give you a good resource in this effort, a new book just published by Michigan State University Press, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education. It is edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, and the book promotes an educational proposal that Campbell and Meyer call "teaching the controversy."

Here's how it works. "When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject," say Campbell and Meyer, "students should learn about both perspectives. Teachers should not teach as true only one competing view. Instead, they should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views."

Rather than teach only Darwin's theory, as many in the science establishment insist, or eliminate any mention of evolution, as some well meaning (Christian) parents have advocated, Campbell and Meyer say they should teach students about Darwinian evolution and also the scientific controversies that surround it. Basic scientific literacy requires that students know both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.

And this is what the Ohio Board of Education has decided. In Ohio, science education standards mandate that students should know "how scientists critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The new curriculum implements that policy by teaching students about cutting edge criticisms of evolutionary theory that scientists themselves are discussing.

This approach has proven popular with everybody except entrenched defenders of Darwinism. Public opinion polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of Americans and of Ohioans support this policy. Nationally, there are now more than three hundred scientists who have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwinism. These scientists recommend an open and "careful examination of the evidence."

Yet, staunch Darwinists still say they are going to sue the Ohio State Board for allowing students to do that. They are unlikely to prevail, in my opinion.

I recommend that you get the book Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, which will show you how in other states we can do the same thing Ohio has done. This will not only benefit students, but it will also provide true academic freedom. The time has come.

Charles Colson, Merrifield, Virginia