RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Ohio Board of Education, "Teach controversy" v. teaching science< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2002,19:52   

This thread is for items relating to the Ohio Board of Education's consideration of new science standards.

An interesting press statement came out today.

Quote
October 10, 2002
Press Conference Statement of
Professor Joseph F Koonce
Chair, Dept of Biology
Case Western Reserve University
jfk7@po.cwru.edu
216-368-3561

Many claims have been made in recent months as to what Ohio scientists think about intelligent design "theory." However, until now, no data existed on this issue. My colleagues and I set about to collect the data so that the public may gain an accurate impression of what Ohio's scientists think. The results are gratifying and unequivocal.

Nine out of ten Ohio scientists from Ohio public, private (including both secular and religious) universities say that intelligent design is primarily a religious view and is simply not part of science.

We designed and conducted this survey with the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati.  We sent out email messages around the state to faculty in departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics and other natural sciences, inviting them to answer a set of questions and to give their thoughts about the evolution-intelligent design debate.  The survey ran between September 26 and October 9.

Prior to polling the scientists, the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati included questions on the September Ohio Poll (conducted September 4 through 15, 2002) asking the general public to respond to two questions about intelligent design. Like the scientists, a clear majority of Ohio residents found intelligent design to be religious, and not a scientific view.

Next Monday and Tuesday the Ohio Board of Education will vote on whether to include intelligent design or other forms of anti-evolutionism in the new K-12 science standards.  Intelligent design advocates claim life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of a supernatural being or force, and they claim their view is scientific. Clearly Ohio's citizens are not convinced that this argument should be taught as science.

I want to make clear that I am a religious person myself. As a Roman Catholic, I do believe in God and in concurrence with teachings of the Catholic Church, I have never found these beliefs in conflict with Evolutionary Theory.  Science addresses the nature of the physical universe, not the supernatural or the eternal. Like me, 84% of my colleagues also report that they find evolutionary theory compatible with belief in God.

I wish this would lay to rest the destructive notion that science and religion are at war in America. There is no such inherent conflict. Science and religion can promote and enhance each other without having to pretend we know less than we actually do about how the world is constructed and how it functions.

Most all of Ohio's science professors (92%) thought "Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." When asked if such students should also be tested on their knowledge of the concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate, 90% said "no." Only 2% said that intelligent design was strongly supported by scientific evidence.

The survey also explored scientists' views on antievolutionism beyond the intelligent design movement. Some critics of evolution claim evidence against the theory of evolution has caused it to fall out of favor among scientists. This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."

We are extremely pleased with the response. Nearly 500 scientists responded, a rate of 31%.  The survey had an error of plus or minus 4.5 percent. Equally pleasing was the outpouring of gratitude for providing the opportunity to express their concern with the erosion of scientific literacy in the developing K-12 standards for Ohio.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2002,23:05   

The CWRU poll made the news.

Professors say intelligent design is not scientific theory - Akron Beacon Journal, OH

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2002,05:08   

Ohio draft standards

And a newspaper article about the BOE's consideration of "intelligent design": Committee members propose final changes to science standards, AP story

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2002,11:05   

Another news item on Ohio...

Schools panel to decide evolution angle Monday (Plain Dealer, 2002/10/11)

And the Ohio Citizens for Science web page.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2002,15:07   

Another news report on the Ohio poll...

Ohio poll: 'Design' theory is religious (Cincinnatti Post, 2002/10/11)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2167
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2002,17:19   

Thanks for the update.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2002,11:15   

More on the Polls in Ohio

From the AIBS lists...

Quote
Please forward this far and wide!


Dear Colleagues,

       Before the Ohio Board of Education gives any more consideration to including
intelligent design, alternatives to evolution or the "teach the controversy"
approach, they need to listen to what Ohio's best educated scientists said in a
new poll.  The Biology Department at Case Western Reserve University and the
Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati conducted an
e-mail poll of all the 4 year college and university science faculty they could
get e-mail addresses for, and also placed two questions about intelligent
design on the Ohio Poll to gather opinions of the general public.  A quick
summary of the results are given below, followed by the complete press releases
from the University of Cincinnati, Case Western Reserve University and
Professor Joseph F Koonce, Chair, Department of Biology at Case Western Reserve
University.

       As far as support for intelligent design goes, only 4% of the scientists
polled thought there was a valid scientific challenge to evolution, only 7%
thought there was scientific evidence supporting intelligent design (2% strong
evidence, 5% percent some evidence), and only 5% said intelligent design was
not primarily a religious view.  The bottom line for supporters of intelligent
design is it is at BEST only a fringe view, but more accurately recognized as
the newest species of creationism to evolve.

Best wishes and please pass this on!

Steve Edinger, M.S.
President, Ohio Citizens for Science

       Among the survey's findings were:

-       Nine out of 10 scientists (91%) felt the concept of intelligent design was
unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view

-       A vast majority (93%) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically
valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the
fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"

-       Almost all scientists (97%) said they did not use the intelligent design
concept in their research

-       Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no
scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2% were unsure

-       Approximately 7% felt that intelligent design had some support from
scientific evidence

-       Some 84% felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with
believing in God"

        A total of 460 professors responded or a rate of 31%.  The survey had an
error of plus or minus 4.5%.  "We are extremely pleased with the response,"
says Koonce





********************************************************************************


Internet Public Opinion Laboratory

Department of Political Science
University of Cincinnati


By: George Bishop, PhD
Professor of Political Science          For Release: October 10, 2002
Director
Internet Public Opinion Laboratory
Department of Political Science
University of Cincinnati


Majority of Ohio Science Professors and Public Agree: "Intelligent Design"
Mostly about Religion

"Intelligent Design": Is it science or religion? The idea that an intelligent
designer or a supernatural force created the universe and guided the
development of human life has become the center of a heated controversy among
Ohio educators. As the State Board of Education in Ohio wrestles with the
policy issue of whether to teach "intelligent design" in public school science
classes the latest statewide surveys of Ohio citizens and science professors in
Ohio indicate that the concept of "intelligent design" is viewed by the vast
majority of scientists and a clear majority of the public as basically a
religious explanation of human origins.

These findings are based on: (1) an Internet survey of 460 science professors
teaching at both public and private four-year colleges and universities in
Ohio, sponsored by the Biology Department at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland and conducted by the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the
University of Cincinnati between September 26 and October 9, 2002; and (2) an
Ohio Poll of 900 adults conducted by the Institute for Policy Research at the
University of Cincinnati between September 4 and September 15, 2002.

Public Ignorance and Public Opinion

Despite significant coverage and editorials on the ID issue in Ohio's news
media in recent months, most Ohioans still know little or nothing about
"intelligent design". In the most recent Ohio Poll, conducted between September
4 and September 15, 2002, respondents were first asked: " Do you happen to know
anything about the concept of 'intelligent design'?" The vast majority (84%)
said "no"; 14% said "yes"; and the rest (2%) were "not sure". Not surprisingly,
college graduates were significantly more likely to say they knew something
about it (28% of them) than were high school graduates (7%) or those with less
than a high school education (6%).

Whether they knew anything about it or not, respondents were then given a brief
description of the concept of intelligent design identical to the one used in a
statewide Cleveland Plain Dealer Poll conducted this past spring:

"The concept of 'intelligent design' is that life is too complex to have
developed by chance and that a purposeful being or force is guiding the
development of life."

"What is your opinion-do you think the concept of 'intelligent design' is a
valid scientific account of how human life developed, or is it basically a
religious explanation of the development of human life?"

Given this description, the majority of Ohioans (54%) viewed it as basically a
religious explanation of human origins; less than 1 out of 4 (23%) thought it
was a valid scientific account; 7% believed it was a mix of religious and
scientific accounts; and 17% said they were "not sure."

Views of Ohio Science Professors

Not unexpectedly, those who have the academic training and expertise (PhDs) to
teach the basic natural and physical sciences in Ohio's public and private
universities regarded the concept of "intelligent design" as an unscientific
notion. More than 9 out of 10 (91%) thought it was primarily a religious view.
The vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any
scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges
the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." Only a tiny percentage
of them (7%) thought that "intelligent design" was either "strongly" or
"partly" supported by scientific evidence. Most (90%) believed there was no
scientific evidence at all for the idea of "intelligent design". And 3% were
"not sure". Furthermore, when asked if they ever used the ID concept in their
research, virtually all of them (97%) said "no."

Ohio's science professors felt just as strongly about what should or should not
be taught about the controversy in Ohio schools. Most all of them (92%) thought
" Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the
basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." When asked,
however, if such students should also be tested on their knowledge of the
concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate, most of them (90%) said
"no."

Perhaps the most surprising finding in the survey is that the great majority of
Ohio science professors (84%) thought that accepting the theory of evolution
was "consistent with believing in God." Only 9% thought it was not; and the
rest (7%) just weren't sure. Most critics of teaching evolution in Ohio's
schools commonly assume it's basically inconsistent with believing in God.
Evidently, most of Ohio's science professors-those who understand the theory of
evolution best-do not share that widespread view.

Further statistical analysis of the data from the survey of Ohio science
professors showed only minor differences in responses across scientific fields
such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and other natural
sciences.

Survey Methodology


Ohio Poll

The sampling error for the Ohio Poll of 900 adults is +/-3.3%. A description of
the methodology for the Ohio Poll conducted from September 4 through 15 can be
found at the following website:

http://www.ipr.uc.edu/PDF/OhioPoll/op092502.pdf



Internet Public Opinion Laboratory (IPOL): Methodology

An e-mail invitation to participate in this web-based survey was sent to all
professors (approximately 1500) currently on the faculty in four-year, public
and private colleges and universities in Ohio for the following fields:
Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and other natural sciences.
Their e-mail addresses were identified through a combination of listings on the
various college and departmental websites, supplemented by further examination
of other university information sources. Four hundred and sixty (460)
professors responded to the e-mail invitation, a response rate of 31%.

The sampling error for a sample size of 460 cases is approximately plus or
minus 4.5%. As in any other survey, in addition to sampling error, other
sources of error such as non-response and the wording and context of the
questions asked can affect the results and conclusions of the study.


The results reported here for the Internet survey of Ohio science professors
were based on the following questions (Note: Percentages Rounded)

1.      Are you aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate
scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of
evolution?

a.      Yes              4%
b.      No              93
c.      Not Sure         2

2.      The concept of "Intelligent Design" is that life and the universe are too
complex to have developed without the intervention of a purposeful being or
force to guide the development of life. Which of the following do you think
best describes "Intelligent Design"?

a.      It is strongly supported by scientific evidence  2%
b.      It is partly supported by scientific evidence            5
c.      It is not supported at all by scientific evidence       90
d.      Not Sure                                                             3

3.      Do you think the concept of "Intelligent Design" is primarily a religious
view?"

a.      Yes             91%
b.      No               5
c.      Not Sure         4

4.      Do you think Ohio high school students should be tested on their
understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to
graduate?

a.      Yes             92%
b.      No                4
c.      Not Sure          3

5.      Do you think Ohio high school students should be tested on their knowledge
of the concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate?

a.      Yes               6%
b.      No               90
c.      Not Sure          4

6.      Do you use the concept of Intelligent Design in your research?

a.      Yes               2%
b.      No               97
c.      Not Sure          1


7.      Do you think accepting the theory of evolution is consistent with believing
in God?

a.      Yes             84%
b.      No                9
c.      Not Sure          7

********************************************************************************
University of Cincinati

October 10, 2002
Contact: Carey Hoffman


NEW POLL DATA SHOWS OHIOANS SEE 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'
AS A RELIGION-BASED CONCEPT

       Cincinnati   The controversial concept of "intelligent design" theory, now
under consideration by the Ohio Board of Education, is seen by Ohio scientists
and the general public as basically a religious explanation of human origins.
That's according to a new study released today that was conducted jointly by
researchers at the University of Cincinnati and Case Western Reserve University.

       Two surveys were analyzed to produce the findings - an Internet survey of 460
science professors from across Ohio and an Ohio Poll of 900 adults conducted in
September. A summary analysis of the data by UC's George Bishop accompanies
this release.

       Bishop is a professor of political science and director of UC's Internet
Public Opinion Laboratory. A widely-known expert on public opinion surveying,
he has done extensive work on the topics of Americans' religious world views
and beliefs about human origins. Bishop can be reached in his office this
afternoon after 3 p.m.

       Case Western's work was led by Joseph Koonce, chair of the biology department.
Case Western will host a press conference in Cleveland this afternoon at 2:45
p.m. in Room 405 of Clapp Hall to discuss the study.

Media contacts: George Bishop, University of Cincinnati.
Joseph Koonce, Case Western Reserve University.
Susan Griffiths, Case Western Reserve University Communications Office.

110-02  -30-


*******************************************************************************


Case Western Reserve University

October 10, 2002                                Contact:        Susan Griffith
                                                               Senior Media Relations Representative


CWRU FACULTY REPORT FINDINGS
ON EVOLUTION, INTELLIGENT DESIGN POLL OF OHIO'S SCIENTISTS

       CLEVELAND--Nine out 10 Ohio scientists from secular and religious colleges and
universities responding to a survey say that intelligent design is primarily a
religious view and not part of science.  Case Western Reserve University
faculty reported on the findings of the Internet poll during a news conference
Thursday, October 10.

       "This is the first time we have hard data on what Ohio's scientists think
about the issue of intelligent design versus evolution," says Joseph Koonce,
CWRU chair and professor of biology.

       Koonce designed the Internet survey with the Internet Public Opinion
Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati.  He sent out e-mail messages around
the state to faculty in departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology,
physics and other natural sciences, urging them to answer a set of questions
and to give their thoughts about the evolution-intelligent design debate.  The
survey was conducted between September 26 and October 9.

       Prior to polling the scientists, the Institute for Policy Research at the
University of Cincinnati included questions on the September Ohio Poll
(conducted September 4-15) about intelligent design, asking the general public
to respond to a similar Internet poll on their views of intelligent design and
evolution.  Like the scientists, a clear majority of Ohio residents found
intelligent design to be religious, and not a scientific view.

       Findings from the polls, come days before the State Board of Education faces
the issue at its meeting on next Monday on whether to include intelligent
design or other forms of anti-evolutionism in the new K-12 science standards.
Intelligent design advocates claim life is too complex to have developed
without the intervention of a supernatural being or force, and they claim their
view is scientific.

       Most all of Ohio's science professors (92%) thought "Ohio high school students
should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory
of evolution in order to graduate."  Scientist responded negatively (90%) to
the testing about the knowledge of "intelligent design" as a requirement to
graduate.

       The survey also explored scientists' views on antievolutionism beyond the
intelligent design movement.  Some critics of evolution claim evidence against
the theory of evolution has caused it to fall out of favor among scientists.
This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority (93%) of science
professors said they were not award of "any scientifically valid evidence or an
alternative scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the
theory of evolution."

       Finally, the survey investigated the popular theme of a war between science
and religion in America and found no such conflict.  The great majority of Ohio
science professors (84%) thought that accepting the theory of evolution was
"consistent with believing in God."  Only nine percent thought it was not; and
the rest (7%)  were not sure.  Most critics of teaching evolution in Ohio's
schools commonly assume it is inconsistent with believing in God.  Evidently,
most of Ohio's science professors-those who understand the theory of evolution
best-do not share that view.

       Among the survey's findings were:

-       Nine out of 10 scientists (91%) felt the concept of intelligent design was
unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view

-       A vast majority (93%) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically
valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the
fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"

-       Almost all scientists (97%) said they did not use the intelligent design
concept in their research

-       Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no
scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2% were unsure

-       Approximately 7% felt that intelligent design had some support from
scientific evidence

-       Some 84% felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with
believing in God"

        A total of 460 professors responded or a rate of 31%.  The survey had an
error of plus or minus 4.5%.  "We are extremely pleased with the response,"
says Koonce

       For further information, contact Koonce.



*******************************************************************************


October 10, 2002
Press Conference Statement of
Professor Joseph F Koonce
Chair, Dept of Biology
Case Western Reserve University



Many claims have been made in recent months as to what Ohio scientists think
about intelligent design "theory." However, until now, no data existed on
this issue. My colleagues and I set about to collect the data so that the
public may gain an accurate impression of what Ohio's scientists think. The
results are gratifying and unequivocal.

Nine out of ten Ohio scientists from Ohio public, private (including both
secular and religious) universities say that intelligent design is primarily
a religious view and is simply not part of science.

We designed and conducted this survey with the Internet Public Opinion
Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati.  We sent out email messages
around the state to faculty in departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry,
geology, physics and other natural sciences, inviting them to answer a set
of questions and to give their thoughts about the evolution-intelligent
design debate.  The survey ran between September 26 and October 9.

        Prior to polling the scientists, the Institute for Policy Research
at the University of Cincinnati included questions on the September Ohio
Poll (conducted September 4 through 15, 2002) asking the general public to
respond to two questions about intelligent design. Like the scientists, a
clear majority of Ohio residents found intelligent design to be religious,
and not a scientific view.

       Next Monday and Tuesday the Ohio Board of Education will vote on
whether to include intelligent design or other forms of anti-evolutionism in
the new K-12 science standards.  Intelligent design advocates claim life is
too complex to have developed without the intervention of a supernatural
being or force, and they claim their view is scientific. Clearly Ohio's
citizens are not convinced that this argument should be taught as science.

I want to make clear that I am a religious person myself. As a Roman
Catholic, I do believe in God and in concurrence with teachings of the
Catholic Church, I have never found these beliefs in conflict with
Evolutionary Theory.  Science addresses the nature of the physical universe,
not the supernatural or the eternal. Like me, 84% of my colleagues also
report that they find evolutionary theory compatible with belief in God.

I wish this would lay to rest the destructive notion that science and
religion are at war in America. There is no such inherent conflict. Science
and religion can promote and enhance each other without having to pretend we
know less than we actually do about how the world is constructed and how it
functions.

Most all of Ohio's science professors (92%) thought "Ohio high school
students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of
the theory of evolution in order to graduate." When asked if such students
should also be tested on their knowledge of the concept of "Intelligent
Design" in order to graduate, 90% said "no." Only 2% said that intelligent
design was strongly supported by scientific evidence.

The survey also explored scientists' views on antievolutionism beyond the
intelligent design movement. Some critics of evolution claim evidence
against the theory of evolution has caused it to fall out of favor among
scientists. This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority
(93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically
valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the
fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."

We are extremely pleased with the response. Nearly 500 scientists responded,
a rate of 31%.  The survey had an error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
Equally pleasing was the outpouring of gratitude for providing the
opportunity to express their concern with the erosion of scientific literacy
in the developing K-12 standards for Ohio.




*******************************************************************************




Please see the Ohio Citizens for Science's web page at:

http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven A. Edinger, Physiology Lab Instructor

064 Irvine Hall
Department of Biological Sciences               steven.edinger.1@ohio.edu
Ohio University                                 Office:  (740) 593-9484
Athens, Ohio  45701-2979                        Fax:  (740) 593-0300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution."  Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973
******************************************************


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2002,16:54   

More news from Ohio...

Evolution may be hot topic, but barely makes ripple in races (Akron Beacon Journal, 2002/10/12)

The contentious debate over evolution and "teaching the controversy" doesn't seem to be having an effect on most of the political races for positions on the board of education.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2002,05:41   

State refuses to advance intelligent design theory (Canton Repository, 2002/10/13)

Quote
Pat Barron, facilitator for the writing team, said the panel held “considerable discussion about what to put in, what to leave out” and examined virtually every piece of public input.

“To have intelligent design in the standards as something that is documented in science, (they) just didn’t believe that there’d been sufficient research evidence,” she said.


That's a considerable understatement.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2002,10:23   

Another press item on Ohio.

School Board Panel Puts Final Touches On Science Standards (WCMH, 2002/10/14)

Quote
A final draft of the standards takes an evolution-only approach, despite efforts by some board members to add a concept called "intelligent design," the idea that a higher power must have designed life because it is so complex.

Critics say the concept is a version of divine creation, which the U.S. Supreme Court has barred from being taught in public schools.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2002,19:34   

Another news item:

Ohio Panel Gives Evolution Nod (Dayton Daily News (AP), 2002/10/14)

Quote
A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.

The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of ``intelligent design,'' which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2002,08:09   

More news.  Same data, different interpretation.

Intelligent design absent from science standards (Zanesville Times Recorder, 2002/10/15)

Quote
The evolution section of the standards does include instructions to teach "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

The language was adopted over the objections of board member Marlene Jennings of Kirtland, who called it an attempt to insert intelligent design into the standards surreptitiously.

But board member Michael Cochran of Blacklick, who introduced the language, said Jennings was twisting the words.

"This just reflects that there is some debate in the scientific community currently," he said. "There are none of the buzz words that point to other theories."


Note that Cochran is on record as saying that this particular phrasing is not about opening the door to "intelligent design" discussion.  My bet is that Cochran is either being disingenuous or just plain lying.  So watch what "intelligent design" advocates say about this part of the proposed standards; if they tout it as a victory for their viewpoint, that makes a stronger case for deliberate deception on Cochran's part.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2002,18:16   

The Ohio Board of Education Vote

What the news outlets say...

Ohio OKs Creation in Science Class (Newsday (AP), 2002/10/15)

Quote
The state school board said Tuesday it will adopt a science curriculum that leaves it up to school districts whether to teach the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence.


Same AP story, different headline.  This link gives more of the AP story.

School board panel: Ohio students should be taught evolution (Wilmington News Journal (AP), 2002/10/15)

Another story on the local impact:

State decision not likely to have great impact on local processes, educator says (Wilmington News Journal, 2002/10/15)

Quote
I think it could excite some people to think that things are going to happen that probably won’t," said Melissa Snyder, Blanchester Schools’ director of instruction. "I know that our science teachers are going to go ahead and teach science.

"They want to meet the state’s standards, but I don’t think they’re going to open up a bunch of controversial topics just because there’s some language at the state. They pretty well respond to the community and to their students’ interests and needs, as far as what they need to know in science."


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2002,18:23   

And a response from "intelligent design" advocates:

Intelligent Design Debate 'A Small First Step' States Ohio Roundtable (PR Newswire, 2002/10/15)

Quote
"The debate over intelligent design as a viable addition to state science standards proves just how inflexible the education establishment has become. According to recent polls, over 80% of Ohioans would prefer to have an open classroom environment for the discussion of scientific theories of origins. Yet changing a handful of words in the standards has created near hysteria among many in the education establishment.
   Today's vote by the board is a small first step in the direction of open dialogue and freedom of thought. It falls far short of acknowledging the tremendous outpouring of public support for change in the state standards."


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2002,20:32   

Discovery Institute Claims Victory in Ohio

Ohio Board Backs Academic Freedom and Encourages Critical Analysis of Evolution (DI CRSC, 2002/10/15)

Quote
The Board's approach was anticipated by a proposal made earlier in the year by Dr. Meyer. Testifying before the Board of Education in March 2002, Meyer proposed requiring students to understand the scientific arguments for and against Darwinian evolution and allowing (but not requiring) local districts to include "intelligent design" as part of teaching the scientific controversy over evolution.


Like I noted earlier, Cochran's statement that the language wasn't about admitting "intelligent design" looks like it was either disingenuous or deliberate deception.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2002,09:03   

Op-ed gives BOE kudos for decision...

School board did right thing on evolution (Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, 2002/10/16)

Quote
Board members stressed that they do not believe that the standards encourage students to learn intelligent design or other concepts not rooted in science. We agree. A science curriculum should stick to proven scientific facts.

The 19-member board voted unanimously to adopt the standards, and we are pleased that even those who pushed for intelligent design are receptive to the compromise.

In the end, decisions over teaching intelligent design ended up where they should with the local districts.


News item on the BOE vote...

State approves new science guidelines (Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, 2002/10/16)

Quote
The new science standards, used as a baseline for the state's proficiency exams, do include teaching evolution in biology classes in high school and middle school. But they also include the caveat that teachers discuss "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."

That language, added Monday during a committee meeting, was deemed innocuous but important by board members sympathetic to intelligent design, the belief that a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.

"This is not ID," said board member Deborah Owens Fink of Akron, who introduced the analysis language. "This is not introducing religious perspectives. This is only introducing scientific perspectives."


That's not what the Discovery Institute thinks.  I think Owens-Fink is, like her colleague Michael Cochran, being either disingenuous or deliberately deceptive on this.  The test will be whether "intelligent design" is permitted or encouraged as an alternative "scientific" view to be discussed when evolution is mentioned in science classes.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2002,04:01   

Op-ed on the BOE decision...

A waste of time: School board mentality is unevolved (Cliff Radel, Cinncinnatti Enquirer, 2002/10/17)

Quote
The board's decision was by design. But, it wasn't intelligent.

Made in the spirit of compromise with certain board members, being open-minded, bowing to thousands of e-mails pushing intelligent design - take your pick - this decision sets a vile precedent. It opens the floodgates to every half-baked, crackpot notion about any subject taught in school.

Above all, it amounts to a waste of precious time.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2002,04:12   

The Moonie take on the Ohio decision...

Ohio schools to teach evolution 'controversy' (Larry Elder, Washington Times, 2002/10/17)

Quote
    In the first of the two changes, the definition of science has been broadened to "a systematic method of continuing investigation" of nature. It replaced the previous contention that science is limited to "natural explanations," which, according to some, rules out any concept of a Creator.
    Ms. Princehouse said the change is "innocuous." But Mr. Lattimer said it allows students to consider that a higher force can be part of how science interprets the world.
    The second statement requires that teachers "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
    The decision by a five-member standards committee followed a year of hearings and public opinion polls indicating that Ohioans liked the idea of "teaching the controversy."


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2002,08:24   

Commentary by Pamela Winnick

Inherited Debate: Ohio classrooms get a second opinion on evolution (National Review Online, Pamela Winnick, 2002/10/18)

Quote
In what could turn out to be a stunning victory for opponents of evolution, the Ohio Department of Education voted 17-0 on Tuesday to pass a "resolution of intent" to adopt science standards that would allow students to "investigate and critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution. With additional hearings scheduled for November and a final vote to be held in December, Ohio is likely to become the latest battleground in the never-ending debate over how life began.


Quote
Pamela R. Winnick, a lawyer admitted to practice in New York, has been a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade. A 2001 Phillips Foundation fellow, she is writing a book about the politics of evolution.


When one looks into the fellowship Winnick received, it appears that she is being paid as a partisan anti-evolutionist, not just as an investigative reporter.  I've never seen the partisan nature of Winnick's fellowship noted in relation to her "news" stories.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 18 2002,08:24

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2002,12:35   

SEAO plans to capitalize on BOE wording

RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT SCIENCE STANDARDS (accessed 2002/10/20)

Quote
Overall, we commend the State Board for making these changes. This recognizes, in part, the results of public input which show that a large majority of Ohioans favors the teach-the-controversy approach. This also acknowledges a growing number of credentialed scientists, including over fifty from Ohio, who endorse a teach-the-controversy approach to biological evolution. We feel that the changes that have been made will align the new standards with the Santorum language in the federal education bill, the 'No Child Left Behind Act' of 2001. In addition, these changes will contribute substantially to better objectivity in biological origins instruction.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2002,11:53   

Intelligent Design advocate lauds state plan on teaching evolution (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2002/10/23)

Quote
"Our slogan to the press is, Teach the controversy,' " said Johnson, widely regarded as the father of the modern intelligent-design movement.

Ohio's decision to allow that controversy in science classrooms has drawn fire from the science community, which has accused the intelligent design advocates of attempting to slip religion into the classroom by the back door.

That doesn't bother Johnson, who said the scientific establishment keeps the Darwin "myth" afloat by controlling funding and keeping research it doesn't like out of scholarly journals. Ohio, Johnson said, has "liberated" teachers to teach all sides of origins.


The article dances around the political aspect of Johnson's talk.  We have the indication of press manipulation, and elsewhere there is mention of planning in Kansas being less well done than it was in Ohio.  Hello?  The press just doesn't seem to get it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2002,00:03   

Despite failing, Taft is better choice for Ohio (News-Messenger, 2002/10/28)

Quote
At a recent joint appearance before a group of Ohio newspaper editors, Hagan challenged Taft on his stance on the intelligent design vs. evolution debate before the state school board. Hagan said that if he were the governor, he would speak forcefully on the issue, telling Ohioans that intelligent design can be taught in comparative religion classes or philosophy classes but that it does not belong in science classes.

He then asked Taft for his opinion. Taft evaded the question by saying that a committee was working on the issue. An editor followed up: OK, so a committee is looking into it, but what is your position, Gov. Taft? The governor refused to answer.

The reason: Taft can't win votes by telling us his position. But he can lose votes, so he keeps quiet.

That's not leadership, governor. Tell us what you think. Tell us what needs to be done. Make the hard decisions and then force the Legislature to deal with it. If you get another four years, you need to show that you deserved it.


In a lukewarm endorsement of Taft for re-election as governor of Ohio, the editorial gives us this vignette of an encounter on the campaign trail.  The editorial writer nails it on the head, and reminds me of Acton's aphorism that all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2002,13:40   

Phillip Johnson on Ohio

The Dick Staub Interview: Phillip Johnson

Quote
What does Ohio's decision on science requirements mean for the Intelligent Design Movement?

The recent decision of the Ohio Science Standards Committee of the State School Board has been a big breakthrough. [Critics] are calling it a compromise, but it isn't. It's our position. It allows teachers to present evidence against the theory of evolution. This evidence includes the facts that the drawings of embryos in the textbooks are fraudulent and that the peppered moth experiment was botched if not an outright hoax.


It looks like the statements from board members that their proposed language did not represent an opening for "intelligent design" arguments are considered by Johnson to be pure flapdoodle.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
charlie d



Posts: 56
Joined: Oct. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2002,21:47   

Somebody should explain to PJ the difference between evidence disproving a theory, and evidence disproving evidence for a theory (assuming that it does, which in the case of the peppered moth is clearly not the case).  Must be a lawyer thing, that he can't see the difference.

None of the "Icons" (even if they were largely correct, rather than essentially an overinflated hodgepodge of willful misrepresentations) comes even close to being  "evidence against the theory of evolution".  For that, I guess, we'll have to wait for the results of that famous ID research that's going on somewhere.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2002,07:33   

Newspaper: at least six no votes expected on science standards

Quote
Some members of the state Board of Education say they feel pressured by Gov. Bob Taft’s office and his eight appointees on the panel to vote unanimously for the curriculum guidelines. Only a majority is required for approval.

“It’s all coming through the governor’s office — a call here, a comment there,” board member Martha Wise of Avon told the newspaper. “It’s a very heavy-handed way of dealing with the situation. This is our vote. It’s not the governor’s vote.”


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4932
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2002,13:33   

New standards play down `intelligent design'

Quote
The debate on whether intelligent design should be taught in Ohio schools has raged for months as the state board of education considered the new science standards. The standards are guidelines for teaching science to the state's 1.8 million public school students.

The new science standards emphasize evolution but allow critical analysis of the theory. However, the board added an amendment saying the standards do not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  25 replies since Oct. 10 2002,19:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]