Our organization, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (or SEAO) wishes to respond to this resolution because in the recent dialog over the proposed new standards for science in Ohio, our organization has been the most prominent local voice of critique of the new standards. As such, SEAO is likely to be identified with the unnamed "creationists" mentioned in the OAS resolution, even if our group is not the particular group the OAS had in mind. This fact, coupled with the substantial difference between our viewpoint and that viewpoint criticized by the OAS resolution, causes us to wish to clarify the positions on this issue we hold.

- Definition of Science. Paragraph two of the OAS resolution defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation ... which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena...." This definition is notable in that it differs substantially from that provided in the proposed new standards for science education. Whereas the new standards restrict science to "naturalistic" explanations, the OAS definition correctly (in our view) merely restricts the domain of what is to be explained to "natural phenomena". While some of its language is unclear, we welcome this superior, and more traditional, definition of science, and invite the OAS to join us in lobbying the Ohio Board of Education and Science Writing Team to amend the proposed new standards accordingly.

- Creationism vs. Intelligent Design. In the title, and in paragraph six of the resolution, the two terms "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are used interchangably. As the authors of the OAS resolution were almost certainly well aware, "Intelligent Design" is substantively different from what is generally meant by "Creationism". Most importantly, whereas some people who would call themselves "Creationists" might seek to introduce explicitly religious notions into science curricula (e.g., references to the creation account from Genesis), Intelligent Design is a purely empirical notion, completely detachable from any philosophical viewpoint, and in fact held to by those with widely varying philosophical views. A closely related distinction between "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" is that whereas "Creationism" often considers such topics as the age of the earth and flood geology, "Intelligent Design" has nothing to say about such issues, and is focused on evidences that some aspects of bio-complexity and information content are best explained by intelligent agency.

- Imposing Religious Beliefs in the Guise of Science. In paragraph five of the resolution, the claim is made that "some Creationist groups" seek to impose religious beliefs on the public by means of injecting them into the public schools' science curricula. While we would join in opposition to such an attempt, and explicitly reject them in our position statements, the failure of the OAS resolution to distinguish legitimate scientific challenges to the adequacy of Darwinism from such attempts (as discussed in the preceding paragraph) is most unfortunate. We believe it will have the practical effect of supporting the current unscientific insulation of Darwinism from substantive scientific critique. If any scientific critique of Darwinism is to be lumped in with religion, and in particular with a covert attempt to inject religion into science, then this will have the result of continuing the current situation in which competing hypotheses are censored. To repeat: SEAO does NOT want religious notions, including biblical religious notions, injected into the science curriculum of the State of Ohio. However, it does want to alter the proposed new standards so as to allow presentation of evidence contrary to, as well as supportive of, the theory of biological evolution, and to provide academic freedom for science teachers who wish to discuss scientific (and non-religious) alternatives.

- Inclusion of Evolutionary Theory. In paragraph eight, the resolution urges legislators to "include explicitly" the various concepts of evolution. This implies that groups such as ours wish to exclude such concepts. We hereby correct this inaccurate implication. What our group wishes to alter in the proposed new standards is the gap between the dogma regarding the theory of evolution in the standards, and what actual research shows. While some areas of evolutionary theory ("microevolution") are well-substantiated by experimentation (e.g., minor genetic variation and the efficacy of natural selection), others ("chemical evolution" and "macroevolution") are quite speculative (e.g., the naturalistic origin of life, the capability of random genetic mutation to generate new information, and descent from a common ancestry). We want the standards to be altered to reflect these differences in the quality of scientific support for the various aspects of evolutionary theory, including the serious difficulties faced by evolutionary theory in those and in other areas.

In summary, while there is much we can agree with in the OAS resolution, some of which we would wish to see incorporated into corrections to the proposed new standards, the overall impression of the resolution is misleading and, we think, counter-productive in the effort to provide objectivity in teaching the important scientific issue of origins.

Doug Rudy, Director, SEAO

Bob Lattimer, Co-founder, SEAO

* * * * * * *

A Resolution by The Ohio Academy of Science

WHEREAS, is a responsibility of The Ohio Academy of Science to preserve the integrity of science, and

WHEREAS, 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, explanations that are open to further testing, revision, and falsification, and while not "believed in" through faith may be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence; and

WHEREAS, the theory of evolution, as presently defined, fully satisfies these criteria, especially when its teaching considers the remaining debates concerning its detailed mechanisms; and

WHEREAS, the Academy respects the right of people to hold diverse beliefs about creation that do not come within the definition of science; and

WHEREAS, some Creationist groups are intent on imposing religious beliefs disguised as science upon teachers and students to the detriment and distortion of public education in the United States;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that because "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" have no scientific validity, they should not be taught as science, and further that the OAS views legislation requiring such religious views to be taught in public schools, as though these were legitimate arguments against evolution that should be included as part of a so-called balanced treatment approach, to be a real and present threat to the integrity of education and the teaching of science; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the OAS urges citizens, educational authorities, and legislators to oppose the compulsory inclusion in the curricula, the state competencies or proficiency tests for science education of religious beliefs that are not amenable to the process of scrutiny, testing, and revision that is indispensable to science.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the OAS urges citizens, educational authorities, and legislators to include, explicitly, cosmic, geological and biological evolution in the curricula, state competencies and proficiency tests for science education.

_____________________

Revised and Approved February 28, 2000 by the Executive Committee of The Ohio Academy of Science, based on a similar resolution adopted by the Academy on April 23, 1982.