Science Excellence for All Ohioans is a network of concerned citizens who support excellent state science standards that are fair, reasonable, and objective. Excellent standards can serve as a basis for learning for all students in Ohio, and they can prepare students to become critical thinkers on issues involving science.

Science standards for Ohio's schools were revised in 2001-2002. SEAO formed in November of 2001 for the purpose of advocating for new standards that are appropriate for all citizens in our state. We were particularly concerned that fair, reasonable, and objective standards be written in such controversial areas as environmentalism, cosmology (study of the origin and development of the universe), and biological origins (the study of the origin, development, and diversity of life on Earth). The new standards in the areas of environmentalism and cosmology are, for the most part, "fair, reasonable, and objective." The biological origins standards emphasize Darwinian evolution, but the standards also allow for "investigating and critically analyzing aspects of evolutionary theory." For more information, click on the "Overview of Ohio Science Standards" page.

Ohio's previous standards were contained in the 1996 document Science: Ohio's Model Competency-Based Program. There were two main reasons the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) revised these standards. First, Am. Sub. Senate Bill 1, enacted by the Ohio General Assembly in 2001, required that new science standards be adopted by the State Board of Education by the end of 2002. Second, a Thomas B. Fordham Foundation report (Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, 2000) gave Ohio a rating of "F" for its standards in the area of biological evolution. Good Science, Bad Science was a highly biased report with a very narrow scope. Its purpose was to discredit states (like Ohio) who failed to give dogmatic and exclusive support to the teaching of biological evolution (Darwinism) in science classes. ODE decided to strengthen its coverage of biological evolution in the new science standards.

The standards in the area of biological origins emphasize the teaching of biological evolution. We are not opposed to the teaching of Darwinian evolution; we just want it portrayed honestly as a theory with uncertainties. We support a teach the controversy approach with respect to biological origins. This 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. We are pleased that the new Ohio standards (adopted Dec. 10, 2002) substantially support the teach-the-controversy approach - although the language is not as strong or explicit as we would like.

No, intelligent design and creation science are not the same. Courts have ruled that creation science cannot be taught in public school science classes. Creation science has been deemed "religious" since it seeks to find scientific evidence supporting a literal interpretation of the Bible - particularly the Genesis creation account.

Intelligent design seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living systems may be designed - by a mind or some form of intelligence. Design theory 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. While it is true that both design theory and naturalistic evolution have religious implications, one concept is no more religious than the other. For more details, click on the "Intelligent Design definition" page.

Intelligent design theory is not mandated as a part of the biological origins standards. The new standards, however, do permit teachers to discuss scientific alternatives to biological evolution. One such alternative is intelligent design.

wThe science standards have been adopted. This is not the end of the process, however. The next phases are the development of (a) a curriculum model for science, and (b) questions for state assessments. Citizens need to be actively involved, as the process moves forward, by contacting government officials (State Board of Education members, the Governor, members of the General Assembly).

wRequest an SEAO speaker for an event in your area; click on the "Speakers Bureau" page. Help us to get the word out that public engagement is needed.

wSubmit an opinion editorial or letter to the editor to your local newspaper(s). You may use material on our website for ideas on wording; click on the "Letters and Editorials" page.

To make a comment, ask a question, request a speaker, or contact us for another reason, please e-mail info@sciohio.org. Douglas Rudy is the Director of SEAO. You may contact him by e-mail at drudy@sciohio.org.

Intelligent Design Network (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org)

Access Research Network (www.arn.org)

Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org)

International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (www.iscid.org)