Impetus for new standards. Senate Bill 1, passed in 2001 by the Ohio General Assembly, was enacted as part of the state's response to the DeRolph court case on school funding. S.B. 1 calls for new state standards in several academic areas. New language arts and math standards were adopted in December, 2001, by the State Board of Education, and new science and social studies standards were adopted on Dec. 10, 2002.

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, 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 (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. (We might note that the 1996 Ohio Standards also avoided the "D-word"; the concept of design was not mentioned at all.)

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 (Darwinism) 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. Ohio's Science Advisory Committee started meeting in April, 2001. This group of about 35 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. 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 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. Not surprisingly, their recommendation was that only biological evolution should be taught in the area of biological origins (the study of the origin and development/diversity of life on Earth.)

Ohio's Science Writing Team started meeting in June, 2001, and a draft set of "indicators" and "benchmarks" was completed one year later. (Indicators are statements of what a student should know and be able to do. 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.

Almost everyone knows that biological origins is normally taught in public schools from a purely evolutionary (Darwinian) perspective. Only evidence in support of evolution is presented, and alternatives (such as special creation or intelligent design) are either not covered or else are marginalized. Our goal has been to work for fair and objective biological origins standards that are appropriate for all Ohioans. We have consulted with two national organizations, Intelligent Design network and Discovery Institute, in this effort.

SEAO's philosophy regarding the standards. Overall, most of the language in the new science standards pertaining to biological origins is satisfactory. Minor changes would be desirable, however, to ensure that evolution is portrayed as a theory with uncertainties. We are not opposed to the teaching of evolution; we just want biological origins to be presented objectively - that is, in a fair, reasonable, and unbiased manner. This is not an "either/or" situation; there is room for both biological evolution and alternative theories in good science standards. We believe 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. Ideally, we believe the following topics should be addressed in state science standards:

1. Microevolution/macroevolution. Biological evolution is defined in the Ohio standards as "a change in gene frequency (genetic composition) in a population over time." Evolutionary theory teaches that microevolution (minor genetic variation) over long periods of time results in macroevolution (descent with modification from a common ancestry). Another way of stating this theory is that changes on a small scale (microevolution) can lead to changes at the species and higher taxonomic levels (macroevolution). Microevolution is well-supported experimentally and is accepted by nearly all scientists. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is what we usually think of when we hear the word "evolution." This is "Darwinian evolution"; it cannot be verified by experiment and is controversial. Excellent standards should reflect the wide gap between microevolution and macroevolution.
2. Naturalism. Naturalism is the doctrine that all phenomena in nature must have a natural (material or physical) explanation. Modern definitions of science often state that science is limited to "natural explanations for natural phenomena." The assumption of naturalism specifically excludes any form of design (including creation) as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. Excellent science standards should state that biological evolution and chemical evolution are naturalistic theories that that are based on the assumption that phenomena result only from naturalistic processes and not by intelligent cause. Many scientists feel that naturalism should not be invoked as a guiding principle in biological origins, since it restricts the objectivity of investigations. If naturalism is invoked as a principle in biological origins, this should be disclosed and clearly explained to teachers and students.
3. Historical science. Most sciences, including chemistry and physics, are empirical (or experimental) in nature; theories can be tested by experiments in the laboratory and/or by observations of the world. Some disciplines, like biological origins, are historical in nature; that is, they attempt to explain events and processes that have already taken place in the distant past. Theories in historical sciences cannot be verified experimentally, so the explanations are always tentative. Biological evolution (like creation and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. Excellent science standards should explain the historical nature of evolution/design theory.
4. Teaching the controversy. Dr. Stephen Meyer, at a Panel Presentation in Columbus on March 11, 2002, proposed that science standards should "teach the controversy" surrounding biological evolution. Specifically, this approach calls for (a) teaching the evidence for and against biological evolution (macroevolution, the theory of undirected common descent), (b) permitting, but not requiring, teachers to discuss alternative theories such as intelligent design, and (c) adopting a definition of science that allows for consideration of all logical explanations for phenomena in nature.

The draft standards. Unfortunately, the Science Writing Team rejected language that would include any of these four aspects in the standards. The benchmarks and indicators developed by the Team exclusively supported evolutionary dogma. Although the Life Sciences subgroup of the Writing Team discussed the above four points, none of these ideas were incorporated into the Evolutionary Theory sections.

The first draft of the new K-12 science indicators was posted on the internet Dec. 1, 2001. Public input on the draft was collected in December and January. Over half of the respondents requested that the biological origins standards be modified in some way - to include evidence for and against evolution and/or to consider alternative theories. Nevertheless, in a rather blatant rejection of the public comment process, the Life Sciences subgroup of the Writing Team failed to modify the "evolution only" draft standards. The second draft remained essentially unchanged in the biological origins area.

This second draft, which included both benchmarks and indicators, was posted on April 1, 2002. Public comments on this draft (numbering over 9000 by the end of June) were overwhelmingly supportive of the "teach the controversy" approach. Nevertheless, the Writing Team again rejected the public input, and the third draft maintained the "evolution only" stance.

Fortunately, the Standards Committee of the State Board of Education added modest, but significant, changes to the draft standards at their October, 2002, meeting. An additional small change was made at the State Board meeting in December. We are pleased that the final standards substantially incorporate the teach-the-controversy approach (for details see the "Benchmarks and Indicators" page). While the compromise language developed by the State Board is not as strong or explicit as we would like, we do believe it will allow for critical analysis of evolutionary theory and permit teachers to discuss alternative theories. The language does not discuss microevolution-macroevolution, the doctrine of naturalism, the nature of historical science, or intelligent design. Nevertheless, the changes made in October and December do represent a substantial improvement compared to the original document.

Creation and design. A question that might be asked regarding biological origins standards is this: "What about creation science? Why shouldn't the alternative of special creation be included in the standards?" Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have already ruled that creation science cannot be taught in public school classes. The courts' reasoning, whether we agree with it or not, is that creation science is "religious" since it seeks to find scientific evidence supporting a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus it is pointless to try to inject creation language into state-adopted science standards, since that battle has already been fought - and won by the evolutionists.

Intelligent design theory provides a viable alternative to biological evolution. Design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living things may be designed - by a mind or some form of intelligence. Design theory by itself makes no claim about the nature of the designer. Design theory is compatible with belief in God and the Bible, but it does not require adherence to any particular faith or doctrine. (One might also say that naturalistic evolution, while not a "religion," is consistent with atheism or agnosticism.) Good science standards should permit teachers to discuss a variety of scientific theories regarding biological origins.

Another point is this. Even if creation language could be incorporated into standards, one would still have to decide which kind of creation should be covered. Committed people of faith who reject some aspects of biological evolution are divided into at least four major groups: (1) "young earth" creationists who believe the Genesis account refers to normal (24 hour) days; (2) "old earth" creationists who interpret the Genesis "days" as long "ages" or "eras," (3) "framework" creationists who believe Genesis provides only a "literary framework" for describing God's work; and (4) "theistic evolutionists" who believe God used and directed evolutionary processes over time.

Intelligent design seeks to avoid these controversies by focusing on scientific, rather than theological, arguments. Intelligent design is a valid scientific alternative to evolution that is compatible with various creation viewpoints. Intelligent design provides a banner or umbrella under which a united front can be presented to the science and education establishment. It has been relatively easy for evolutionists to defeat creation science initiatives in U.S. courts and school boards. The establishment is finding it to be much more difficult to defeat the design hypothesis, which is clearly a viable scientific paradigm, and not a religious concept.

Public opinion. Where do Ohioans stand on the issue of origins? A Zogby International (Discovery Institute) poll released on May 10, 2002, shows strong agreement (65%) among Ohioans for the statement 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."

On June 9, 2002, the results of an extensive Mason-Dixon (Cleveland Plain Dealer) poll 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 results of these two polls show that a large majority of Ohioans favor "teaching the controversy" over biological evolution.

The scientific method. Scientific inquiry is (or should be) carried out by using the scientific method. This involves "the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and if possible experiment, the formulation of hypotheses, and the testing and confirmation of the hypotheses formulated" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary - unabridged, 1971). Current research in biological origins circumvents the scientific method by using the assumption of naturalism to exclude the design hypothesis from consideration. Note that to be consistent with the above description of the scientific method, scientists should consider all logical hypotheses before drawing a conclusion. There is no valid reason - scientific, educational, or legal - why the design hypothesis should not be considered as an alternative in biological origins.

Conclusion. Most of the biological evolution indicators in the new Ohio Standards are at the 10^th grade level, which means the subject will be covered on the new Ohio Graduation Test. Thus, students must learn and be tested on the theory of evolution before they can graduate from high school. This will be the law, even though a large majority of Ohioans reject the theory of Darwinian evolution. We are hopeful that the modest, but significant, changes made to the standards prior to their adoption will result in students obtaining more objective instruction and assessment in the biological origins area.

The State Board of Education adopted the science standards on Dec. 10, 2002, by a vote of 18-0. We are pleased that the Board modified the draft standards to substantially incorporate the "teach the controversy" proposal. The Board knows that public opinion in Ohio is strongly in favor of this fair, reasonable, and objective approach. While the final standards certainly represent a compromise position, we are pleased that the Board has responded to the strong public input on instruction in biological origins.