Access Research NetworkOhio scientists are angry that a proposed lesson for the state's new science curriculum calls for high-school students to debate evolution.
The lesson, "Critical Analysis of Evolution," is one of 10 about evolution in the 10th-grade curriculum being prepared for the 2004-2005 school year.
Critics say the lesson suggests that students debate the overall idea of evolution -- instead of parts of it -- and provides ideas to challenge the theory. It also lists several intelligent-design and creationist Web sites.
Intelligent design is the concept that the complexity of living things required intervention by an intelligent designer, possibly God. Critics say including this concept is a way to slip biblical creationism into schools.
Many thought the fight over intelligent design would have eased when the State Board of Education last year mandated teaching evolution. It was a compromise of sorts because the decision allowed local educators to include intelligent design if they wanted to.
"The debate will never go away," said John Neth, who taught science at Groveport-Madison High School for 30 years and is a former science adviser for the state Department of Education.
"It will just be hashed back and forth."
Neth said scientists don't think that every part of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is exact, but they argue that certainly doesn't mean the alternative is intelligent design.
A state school board member, however, defended the proposed lesson.
"I don't see how anyone could infer anything but science in there," said Deborah Owens-Fink, a marketing professor at the University of Akron.
The 35-member writing committee will meet at 9:30 a.m. today and Friday at the University Plaza Hotel, 3110 Olentangy River Rd., to review comments and consider changes.
In its December 2002 announcement, the state school board also required that students be taught how scientists critically analyze all aspects of evolutionary theory.
While the board did not say that intelligent design must be taught, it also did not forbid it.
Some proponents, including Owens-Fink and fellow state board member Michael Cochran of Franklin County, wanted the standards to include intelligent design.
"I would have preferred that we include in the lessons and the state benchmarks that some scientists are doing work in intelligent design," Owens-Fink said. "That did not happen. Most Ohioans wanted it."
Cochran said last year that the state board intended that students critically examine basic evolutionary theory.
Scientists, however, say that goes too far.
They insist that students should understand that Darwin's theory has been tested and revised over time. For instance, the idea of whether evolution occurs gradually or in rapid bursts is still debated.
This sort of debate, they say, doesn't mean the entire theory should be called into question.
"There are outstanding issues where we can't understand things. Those aspects are useful for students to understand," said Case Western Reserve physicist Lawrence Krauss. "But (this lesson) involves direct attacks on the theory that have long ago been discounted."
This lesson does not reflect the board's science standard, according to Lynn Elfner, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Science.
"The current suspect lesson plan that asks teachers to 'teach the controversy' still goes back to the nature of the controversy. Is it science or religion?" he said.
The state board will vote on the proposals that include evolution lessons in March. A total of 200 science lessons for K-12 must be ready by July.
The department also parceled out the lessons, a few to each reviewer, a method Owens-Fink said was necessary because the entire lesson plan involved thousands of pages.
Elfner said he was given several evolution lessons but had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the entire draft lesson plan.
"The department has pretty much hidden these documents from the public," he said.
File Date: 12.04.03
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.