| Quote |
23. 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.) |
| Quote |
"I think it's going to be great for science. This lesson, in my opinion, has been misunderstood. I am very familiar with intelligent design and it just is not in there," said Robert Lattimer, an intelligent design proponent and a scientist who was on the standards writing team from two years ago. |
| Quote |
The nation's most prestigious science organization added its voice Monday to criticism of model science lesson plans that the state school board is expected to vote on today. Scientists are "rightfully concerned about attempts to introduce tenets of intelligent design into your state's science curriculum and instruction," Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a letter Monday to Jennifer Sheets, president of the Ohio Board of Education. |
| Quote |
Citizens who are not in a position to read all the documentation -- or interpret all the buzz words that only the fully initiated understand -- might wonder where to turn. Best to turn to the scientists. And not just individual scientists, but the organizations that are representative of scientists and that have people who have responsibility for looking into these matters fully. |
| Quote |
JEERS . . . to Gov. Bob Taft for taking a walk on the debate over the state's proposed science education standards. He must figure enough people are arguing that they'll eventually drift to a solution. That's not leadership. |
| Quote |
Can scientists comprehend a simple lesson plan? According to State Board of Education member Deborah Owens-Fink, "Some of these scientists are so paranoid, they don't understand it." The truth is that scientists understand it all too well: The proposed lesson plan on evolution is a thinly disguised attempt to promote creationism in Ohio's science classrooms. But the lesson is one of politics, not science. One need not be a scientist to connect the dots, as board members should know. Did she really think that we would not notice the highly misleading statements on the fossil record of evolution, fraudulent claims about today's evolution of bacteria and direct references to creationist literature? The proposed lesson plan must be replaced by an honest and serious portrayal of contemporary biology. Owens-Fink's cavalier attitude is characteristic of certain board members who would rather play political games than ensure a quality science education for Ohio's young scholars. Along with board member Michael Cochran, the other main perpetrator of this fraud, Owens-Fink is pushing a desperation agenda instead of fostering understanding. The "standards committee" of the State Board of Education needs a new chairperson with higher standards. Owens-Fink and Cochran should resign. JEFFREY K. McKEE Professor Ohio State University |
| Quote |
| I am a recent graduate of the Ph.D. Biology program at the University of California, San Diego, and have been following the Intelligent Design (ID) movement for several years now.  I’ve watched the advocates of ID go from state to state, trying to insert their ideology into high school science classrooms, and held my breath each time.  As someone who has spent the last six years completely engrossed in biology, I’m always amazed at how bad their arguments are against evolution or for intelligent design.  Their writings display a lack of understanding of biology, and of the nature of evidence. However, I realize now that they are not trying to convince me, or the scientific community, that evolution is indeed a theory in crisis.  They only have to convince you.  Ultimately, it is not the scientific community that holds the power over what high school students are taught, you do.  So ID dvocates start with an innocuous proposal, that students should learn both the scientific evidence for and against evolution.  Then they present distortions and half-truths and claim it as "scientific" evidence against evolution.  They know that it doesn’t have to be accurate, or based on sound logic.  It doesn’t actually have to *be* scientific evidence, it just has to look like it.  It doesn’t even matter if members of the scientific community challenge them and expose the flaws in their arguments.  If the public doesn’t understand the evidence, then how do they know who’s right?  I guess that’s the big question here.  How do non-biologists gauge biological evidence?  To me, the answer is simple.  If it’s an issue of science, then listen to the scientific community.  When asked whether they thought there was any scientific evidence that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution, 93% of Ohio scientists said no [1].  When asked whether they thought students should be tested on Intelligent Design, 90% of Ohio scientists said no [1].  What I’ve found most disturbing in these latest incidents is not the actions of the IDists, but in the lack of trust displayed by boards of education toward their state’s own university scientists.  Examining the lesson plan entitled “Critical Analysis of Evolution”, in the “five aspects of evolution” in attachment A, the brief challenging sample answers read just like stock creationist responses [2].  By adopting such material, the board is tacitly endorsing such fallacious arguments.  Surely the Board must have seen the letter signed by the Presidents of Ohio's public universities. Surely the board must have seen the poll of Ohio scientists demonstrating their resounding support for the teaching of evolution.  If any of the board members do not understand why those “challenging” sample answers are erroneous, then please, ask one of your own scientists to explain it.  It all comes down to an issue of trust.  Who can the Ohio board of education trust if not the consensus of Ohio’s own scientists? [1] http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/press04.asp [2] http://www.sciohio.org/curriculum.pdf (pages 326-328) |