Access Research NetworkThe state's top education official said Wednesday she is confident a new lesson plan on evolution would withstand possible court scrutiny.
"The lesson plan is extremely explicit that those issues are to be discussed using the scientific method," state schools superintendent Susan Tave Zelman said. She said the plan was reviewed by Education Department legal staff and the attorney general's office.
The state school board approved the optional lesson plans Tuesday for districts to use as they teach new science standards approved last year.
Critics say the lessons include elements of intelligent design, or the theory that a non-specified higher power designed life because of its complexity. Supporters say the lessons offer scientifically valid ways to examine evolution.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said it's concerned about the connection between the lessons and intelligent design.
"The lesson plans themselves, in what are many respects very subtle ways, mirror many intelligent design arguments," Gary Daniels, the ACLU's litigation coordinator, said Wednesday. He said the group hadn't decided whether to sue.
Law professor Dennis Hirsch said he believed a lawsuit challenging the plans could be successful.
The lessons involve "the singling out of evolution as one scientific theory to be criticized," said Hirsch, of Capital University in suburban Columbus. "That suggests a religious motivation to single out that one theory."
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted similar logic in ruling unanimously against an Arkansas law that made it illegal to teach that humans descended from a lower order of animals.
The court ruled that the only reason for the law was that a particular religious group considered evolution to conflict with Biblical accounts of humankind's origins.
The issue came before the court again in 1987 when it ruled 7-2 against a Louisiana law that forbid the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by instruction in creation science.
"Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects," Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority.
In 1994, the issue came before federal courts again when a judge struck down a disclaimer required by a Louisiana school district before the teaching of evolution.
The disclaimer said the lesson was "not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports the Ohio lesson plans approved Tuesday, says opponents' legal claims misrepresent the law. The institute supports intelligent design research.
Critics say the lesson plans include intelligent design concepts supported by the institute.
"It's clearly constitutional to teach scientific criticisms of scientific theory, and that's what this lesson does," John West, an institute senior fellow, said Wednesday.
The institute supports the teaching of evolution and the teaching of scientific theories that critically analyze evolution.
The Discovery Institute has been looking for a test case to bring before the courts, said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University philosophy professor opposed to the plans.
The institute denies this. "We are not in any sense trying to push for a case dealing with intelligent design," West said.
It's unclear whether courts are ready to hear other cases following the landmark 1968 and 1987 rulings, said Ronna Greff Schneider, a University of Cincinnati law professor.
In addition, federal courts have yet to rule on debates over intelligent design.
The Supreme Court typically likes "to wait until there's some conflict in the lower courts," Schneider said.
File Date: 3.10.04
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety
for non-commercial use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be
appreciated.
Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of the above document for specific copyright information.