REPORT ON COMMENTS ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO the Draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards: Tenth Grade, Life Sciences Section
On January 3, 2002, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO) and Intelligent Design network, inc. posted a web site that solicited comments on proposed Modifications to the Tenth Grade Life Sciences Section of a published draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards.
This report reflects comments received prior to 12:30 am, January 31, 2002.
The Draft Science Standards posted by the Ohio Department of Education only reflect science indicators and omitted to include other substantive provisions of the Draft Standards. In particular, the posted draft made available to the public and SEAO did not include the proposed definition of “science.”
An early draft of the Front Matter to the new Standards (June 22, 2001) used a traditional definition of science, which could include the possibility of design as an explanation for phenomena in nature: “Science is an active process of investigating, learning, and thinking about the natural world.” However, in an oral presentation made by the Ohio Department of Education (January 13, 2002), a naturalistic (materialistic) definition was used: “Science is a method of explaining the natural world using natural processes.”
At this point, we do not know which definition of science is intended for use in the Standards. Thus the respondents to the SEAO/IDnet poll and Ohioans have not had the opportunity to comment on this critically important definition. The definition is important because it goes to the very heart of the controversy. By limiting explanations to only those which are consistent with a natural process, the definition seeks to incorporate Methodological Naturalism into the standards as a mechanism to censor all competing origins hypotheses.
The proposed Modifications and an “OVERVIEW” are appended to this report. Essentially the Modifications seek to have origins science in Ohio taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption. Elimination of an irrebuttable naturalistic assumption permits objective consideration of all the evidence bearing on the most important question of where we come from. It permits this historical area of science to be conducted per the scientific method where scientists seek to rule out competing hypotheses based on scientific investigation, observation and analysis rather than by assumption. Eliminating the naturalistic assumption permits “balanced” treatment of the evidence and treats Darwinian evolution as a hypothesis or “theory” rather than as a “fact.”
The SEAO/IDnet Poll collected 309 usable comments. Comments that were duplicative, incomplete and in some cases non-responsive were discarded. Non-responsive comments from obviously fictitious respondents such as “Charles Darwin,” “Barry Headinground” and the like were discarded .
The Poll sought the educational level and occupation of the respondent, an opportunity to “Agree” or “Disagree” with the proposed Modifications, and a comment form that permitted lengthy comments. The entirety of all comments are included in this report. None have been edited for punctuation or content. The report shows the raw data as our data base received it. We encourage your review of the written comments. In many respects, they are much more meaningful and informative than the raw data.
The names of respondents are shown where they have specifically granted permission to publicly associate their name with their comments. Where permission has been specifically refused or where the response is silent on the issue of permission, we have omitted the name and used the phrase “No Permission” to indicate the desired anonymity.
Of the 309 responses, 243 (79%) specifically “Agree” with the Modifications and 66 (21%) “Disagreed.” However, among those who “disagreed” were 28 (9%) who provided comments that find fault with the proposed Ohio Standards and that essentially indicate concurrence with the theme of “objective origins science.” These respondents are identified in the tables below under the caption “Disagree, but For Obj OS.” The detailed listings under “Poll Results” also identify those in this category by the following statement that appears below their name: “Respondent’s comments have been construed for report purposes as being for objective origins science.” Thus, the total of those who Agree and who appear to favor objective origins science is 271 (88%).
The respondents as a group represent a high level of education, professional experience and expertise. A total of 83 respondents hold doctoral degrees, 78 (94%) of whom reflect agreement with the notion of objective origins science. The poll also shows that 71, or about 84% of those respondents that are or have been engaged in biological sciences favor objective origins science and that 91% of those engaged in teaching or education are of the same mind.
Teaching origins science also involves critical legal issues. All of the eight lawyers responding, including two professors of law, agreed with the modifications. None were opposed.
Ohio residents comprise 190 or 61% of the respondents. The others, which include many highly credentialed scientists, reside all over the world. This input is consistent with the considerable outside assistance received by the Department of Education.
A persistent complaint against design theory and objective origins science is that no “real scientist” or professional agrees with it. The comments show the hollowness of this claim. To underscore its inadequacy we have taken the liberty to list alphabetically all of those who hold doctoral degrees at the beginning of the list. This will enable readers who tend to look only at the beginning of a long list to note the large number of well-credentialed respondents that favor objective origins science.”
The following comments by two scientists who “agree” with the proposed modifications, one a member of the National Academy of Science, summarize very well the consensus reflected in the report:
“I am a member of NAS, Chemistry Section. I have examined carefully the evidence on both sides of this debate and my conclusion [for the Modifications] is based solely on scientific considerations, no religious criteria.” [“Philip Skell, PhD, Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Agree”].
“It is crucial that students understand 1) the important distinction between an empirical science and an historical science, and 2) that the latter is always strongly influenced by non-scientific world view issues, e.g. materialism, theism, etc. Large questions like “Where did we come from” necessarily raise deep philosophical and religious issues. It is important that the state not become an exponent of one view over others. [“David Keller, PhD, Biophysical Chemistry, Professor, Agree.”]
We also encourage readers to visit the Discovery Institute web site http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php) that reflects a list of 100 highly credentialed scientists who recently signed the following statement:
“I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This report was accompanied by the results of another poll about media treatment of Darwinian evolution. The Zogby Poll shows that over 80% of the public favor objective origins science such that “When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin’s theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
Early last year 91 U.S. Senators voted for a provision (the Santorum Amendment) in the federal education bill (H.B.1) that encourages the development of curriculum that will help students think critically, “understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins science may generate controversy.” This provision received favorable mention in the report of the House and Senate Conferees who recommended passage of the education act. The principal embodied in the Santorum Amendment is reflected in the Modifications and is included in recently introduced legislation in the Ohio Legislature, H.B. 481.
The following tables summarize in more detail the results of this poll:
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree, but |
Total For |
|
All Respondents |
309 |
243 |
38 |
28 |
271 |
| Percentages |
79% |
12% |
9% |
88% |
Education of Respondents
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree, but |
Total For |
|
Doctoral Degrees |
83 |
75 |
5 |
3 |
78 (94%) |
| Master’s Degrees |
56 |
48 |
6 |
2 |
50 (89%) |
| Bachelor’s Degrees |
114 |
87 |
13 |
14 |
101 (89%) |
| Other | 56 |
33 |
14 |
9 |
42 (75%) |
| Totals |
309 |
243 |
38 |
28 |
271 (88%) |
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree, but |
Total For |
|
Doctoral Degrees |
44 |
38 |
5 |
1 |
39 (89%) |
| Master’s Degrees |
15 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
10 (67%) |
| Bachelor’s Degrees |
21 |
14 |
3 |
4 |
18 (86%) |
| Other |
5 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
4 (80%) |
| Totals |
85 |
65 |
14 |
6 |
71 (84%) |
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree, but |
Total For |
|
Doctoral Degrees |
48 |
42 |
3 |
3 |
45 (94%) |
| Master’s Degrees |
12 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
10 (84%) |
| Bachelor’s Degrees |
19 |
17 |
2 |
0 |
17 (89%) |
| Other |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 (100%) |
| Totals |
80 |
70 |
7 |
3 |
73 (91%) |
Respondents Engaged in Practicing or Teaching Law
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree, but |
Total For |
|
All Lawyers |
8 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
8 (100%) |
We wish to thank all of those who took the time to comment on the Modifications.
Barry Sheets
Executive Director
SCIENCE EXCELLENCE FOR ALL OHIOANS
John H. Calvert
Managing Director
INTELLIGENT DESIGN network, inc.
IDnet SEAO Report Summary Poll Results Overview of Modifications Modifications
If notions of how things came into begin comes into science classes, then it is incumbent on the teacher to discuss the philosophical issues that are brought out by the students and give them equal and serious treatment. In physics, the notion of a Big Bang plays hardly any role in 99.99% of the achievements of physics that have given rise to all the technological advances we now enjoy. I believe the same is true in the biological sciences and its technological applications in medicine, genetics, etc. with regard to evolution. Evolutionary theory ought to be treated as a working assumption and not a philosophical position that goes beyond science. Of course, whenever philosophical views are discusses then it ought to be an open question and all ought to contribute equally. I do not understand the fear historical biologists have that such discussions would undermine the truly scientific issues involved. As a physics professor any student can raise any issue in my class about the assumptions that physicists make in order to carry on the study of nature. Biologist ought to similarly have no fears that open discussions of the assumptions being made by them will undermine the science that they are trying to teach. If questions of origins are part of the curriculum, then views held by the community ought to similarly be part of the curriculum. Note that biologists say that they “believe in evolution,” which makes it quite clear that it is a matter of faith rather than science.
2. Francis Beckwith, PhD, Philosophy, Philosophy and Law Professor, Agree
I would add that one could justify these changes (especially the inclusion of Intelligent Design) by appealing to the importance of exposing students to reputable scholarship that critiques the materialist assumptions behind naturalistic evolution. For in U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court maintains that its holding does “not imply that the legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” The Court asserts that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” In addition, the Court points out, with apparent approval, that the unconstitutional Balanced-Treatment Act was unnecessary because the state of Louisiana already did not prohibit teachers from introducing students to alternative points of view.
When applied to these suggested modifications, the Edwards test in fact justifies them. For naturalistic evolution provides an answer to the very same question Intelligent Design provides an answer: What is the origin of apparent design in biological organisms and/or other aspects of the natural universe? Evolution answers the question by appealing to the forces of unguided matter, the latter to intelligent agency. Same question, different answers.
Given the history of the teaching of origins in public schools, it is understandable why someone may see these modifications as being in line with statutes already struck down by the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that would not be a correct reading of those cases. What animated the courts, and what they found unconstitutional, were the transparent use of the Book of Genesis in the influence and content of the statutes. This is not the case here. In fact, the authors of the modifications raise just the sort of profound and interesting philosophical and scientific questions that I believe the courts thought were essential to a good education. It would be ironic if these modifications were rejected, for it would mean that a teacher, if she raised questions about naturalistic evolution on her own initiative, could be accused and convicted of the Socratic transgression of encouraging her pupils to think deeply and thoughtfully about the philosophical implications that flow from the Darwinian paradigm.
3. No Permission, PhD, Psychology, College Professor, Agree
4. Michael Behe, PhD, Biochemistry, Professor of Biological Sciences, Agree
These modest changes will serve to help students think more deeply about the nature of life.
5. Timothy Benadum, M.D., Chemistry; Medicine, Physician, Agree
I agree with the proposed modifications. The student should have a clear understanding what is fact and what is theory. Furthermore the worldview perspective of the theory should be delineated with its presuppositions to allow greater comprehension and insight.
6. Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology, College Professor (Biology), Agree
We should teach the controversey and not censor the problems with Darwinism.
7. Samuel Beshers, Ph.D., Biology, Lecturer and biological researcher, Disagree,
I wonder why you waste your time working to promote ignorance. It is clear from your site that your group does not understand, or more likely, refuses to understand, the most basic ideas about how science works, and what fact and theory are. None of you propose any scientific way in which design can be studied, because it is not possible to do so. Your activities serve no scientific, educational, religious, or other worthwhile aims. All you are doing is attempting to undermine public understanding and education, for your own reasons, which I simply can’t fathom. Intelligent design theory is associated with “creationism” and religion, but I have yet to find the religion that upholds the ideal that ignorance and lack of understanding are the way to God or other enlightenment.
I expect it’s hopeless, but I nevertheless urge you to look deep into your souls and ask yourselves, honestly: Why am I involved in this project? What good does it do? Do I really understand what I’m talking about, or am I allowing myself to be persuaded by the glib words of other people, whose agendas I may or may not agree with?
Please, open your minds and learn. Don’t close off the world for yourselves and for others.
8. No Permission, PhD, Engineering, Engineer, Agree
I think a more balanced curriculum should be presented to students on the topic of the origins of life. There are many theories on this topic. One of the important aspects of education is to develop students critical thinking skills. Present the multiple theories on the origins of life and let the students decide for themselves. Therefore, I support the proposed modifications to include the theory for intelligent design.
9. No Permission., Ph.D., Biology, Executive Director Organization, Agree
10. William Bordeaux, D.A., Chemistry, College Professor, Agree
The theory of evolution, as it is presently taught, is fraught with both scientific and philospohical problems. Intelligent design continues to provide a thoughtful response to these issues and deserves to be included in the life science curriculum.
11. Robert Brown, Ph.D., Physics, Physics Teacher, Agree
12. Donald Calbreath, Ph.D., Biochemistry, College Biochemistry Professor, Agee
13. John Calvert, J.D., Law, Lawyer and Manager of IDnet, Agree
See Teaching Origins Science in Public Schools for the various reasons that the Modifications should be incorporated into the Science Standards.
14. Harold Campbell, Ph.D., Neurosciences, Associate Professor of Biology, Agree
I am less concerned that Intelligent Design be proposed as an alternate theory, than I am that the data related to macroevolution be fairly presented. As it is, neither students nor teachers are not encouraged to critically evaluate the material because portions of it are unfairly presented.
Frequently, contradictory data is presented as if part of a mutually supporting field of information (e.g. the early atmosphere is thought to have consisted of gases not contained in the Miller/Urey experimental flask yet the Miller/Urey experiment is constantly put forward as evidence for organic molecule formation in just such a non-existant early atmosphere).
Frequently, no distinction is made between the hypotheses generated from forensic investigations and those generated from bench science (e.g. in one text the authors state that denying all life derives from natural processes is equivalent to denying electricity and gravity. Yet, the conclusions derived from forensic sciences ought to be regarded as more tentative than the that derived from more directly empirical sciences.
Finally, nearly all texts conflate data with the conclusions naturalists draw from that data without distinguishing between data and conclusion (e.g. the so-called evolutionary tree illustrations where the actual data, contemporary and extinct species, are weighted the same as the lines naturalists draw between them).
15. Jack Cashill, Ph.D., American Studies, Writer, Agree
16. Charles Casteel, M.D., Medicine, Urologist, Agree
17. Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., Molecular Biology, Professor, Agree
Science thrives on attitudes of openness among its practitioners.Denying legitimate ideas about a subject as difficult to encompass in science as origins, is dogmatism at its worst.
Good science cannot afford dogmatism, and openness has always served the highest interests of science.
Please do not be responsible for excluding by arbitrary actions, considerations of origins other than strict Darwinian evolution.
In the mind of a third grader, flowers and insects didn’t “just happen”.
Putting into their hands textbooks that contradict that logic sounds like a recipe for turning students away from careers in science to me.
18 William Cirignani, J.D., Law, Lawyer, Agree
19. No Permission, PhD, Materials Science, Professor Emeritus, Agree
20. No Permission, Ph.D., Human Development, Now retired; formerly university admministrator, Agree
The modifications make it clear that the Dawinian theory of evolution is not dogma that must be accepted as fact throughout, but that it is still a theory that needs to be studied further.
21. William Dembski, PhD, Mathematics, Philosophy, Research Professor, Author, Agree
Darwinism has become an inviolable principle of modern science. Critical scrutiny of it is no longer tolerated and its proponenets exercise monopolistic control over all levels of the United States’ educational system. That monopoly needs to be broken up, not least because it turns education into indoctrination. Alternatives and critiques of Darwinian evolutionary theory are currently on the table and being vigorously discussed at the highest levels of the academy. To teach only Darwinism is to give a false impression to students, giving them the sense that no disagreement exists concerning a theory (Darwinism) that remains highly controversial.
22. Paul Dennis, Doctor of Optometry, Optometrist, Agree
Science, of all disciplines, should be taught and understood with and by objective, unbiased, honest assessment of possible viewpoints. Theories should be presented as such with accompanying bodies of evidence. In the area of life origins, it is impossible (and not intellectually honest) to present ANY viewpoint dogmatically as proven fact, or scientific “law”. All viewpoints should be discussed in this light, so students can form their own views based on the evidence available, not on narrow, biased views of the instructor. Hesitance to be objective in this area is a sad commentary on the education establishment, and the proposed modifications to Science Standards appear to me to be a solid step in the right direction.
23. David DeWitt, Ph.D., Neuroscience, College Biology Professor, Agree
The modifications to the Science Standards represent a more scientifically accurate and balanced approach to teaching about origins. It admits limitations to scientific knowledge in a postive way that is likely to promote a better understanding of the scientific method. Moreover, it is sensitive to students of faith while teaching them about evolution.
24. David DeWolf, J.D., Law, Law Professor, Agree
25. Russell Durbin, Ph.D., Biochemistry, Biomedical research scientist, Disagre
Evolutionary theory is supported by countless thousands of publications in peer reviewed journals. When any alternative theory reaches that standard, I hope it, too, will be taught in public school. As of today, there is not a single article that discusses, let alone supports “intelligent design theory” in the scientific literature.
26. Bruce Evans, Ph.D., Biology, College Biology Professor, Agree
One of the major problems that we must address in our pedagogy in public schools is the strict adherence to naturalism which pervades the curriculum. The proposed modifications would allow for an honest, open presentation and discussion of ideas that are scientific in nature but do not agree with strict neo-Darwinian principles. While it is true that most scientists believe that biological evolution has taken place, their belief does not make these tenets true or untrue. When we tell students that science is about allowing a free discussion of alternative scientific hypotheses and then we censor the politically incorrect hypotheses, we are being self-contradictory and deceptive in our teachings. We must allow the discussion of intelligent design ideas, whether they turn out to be right or wrong.
27. Donald Ewert, Ph.D., Microbiology/Immunology, Research Scientist, Agree
It is important for students to be able to differentiate between the observations or facts of science and the interpretations of those facts. Most of the initial statements give an explicit or implicit interpretation to the observations.
When interpretations of observations are made the assumptions that inevitably underly them should be explained. Then the student will be able to understand how two rational people can come to differnt interpretations of the facts. Science does not exist in a vaccume void of philosophical or religious beliefs.
The education system can do the next generations a great service by helping them to differentiate the facts from beliefs. The proposed changes help to accomplish this end.
28. Joseph Francis, PhD, Biolgoy, Associate Professor of Biology, Agree
Science education should include the teaching of all relevant and reasonable theories about the origin of life
29. James Graham, JD, Law, Lawyer, Agree
Having read Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Crick, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others it is clear to me that Darwinian evolution does not provide a convincing answer to the important questions of the origin of life or the origin of the human race. The science curriculum in public schools should address these issues honestly and include discussion of the limitations and inadequacies of the various theories of origins without elevating any of them to the level of orthodoxy. Science has not provided a conclusive (or even compelling)answer to the question of the origin of life and any official science curriculum that says Darwinian evolution is the answer to this fundamentally important question is dishonest, infringes academic freedom and perhaps the First Amndment as well.
30. Doug Hansen, JD, Law, Attorney, Agree
The very future of science as a worthy pursuit is dependent upon a perception that science is an endeavor that is focused, first and foremost upon finding TRUTH. In order to be credible over the long haul, Science must be seen as the champion of following the empirical EVIDENCE WHEREVER IT LEADS, not forcing the evidence into a fixed, preconceived frame. If scientists and science teachers are seen as dogmatists, covering up, censoring or glossing over inconvenient inconsistencies, flaws, anomalies or controversies in the evidence, the advancement of science will inevitably suffer.
The suggested Modifications are most assuredly improvements in the text. They are improvements because they improve the accuracy and integrity of the text. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by eliminating (or fully disclosing) subtly hidden but unproven (and un-provable) crucial assumptions. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by stating tentatively those things that can only be inferred but which inherently cannot be verified by scientific testing and observation. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by directly teaching students about the nature, limitations and philosophy of science, especially as scientific inquiry relates to historical phenomena. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by insisting upon a clear and precise definitions of crucial terms, especially the term evolution itself, which when used without a clear and precise definition leads to needless misunderstandings, pointless debate and even deliberate obfuscation. The Modifications will promote improvement in the quality and integrity of science teaching itself by encouraging critical thinking about scientific endeavors.
In short, it has hard to imagine why these Modifications are controversial at all. We live in a society that values the “marketplace of ideas” and the lessons that can be learned by observing the competition among ideas in that marketplace. Science has always valued the competition among various “schools of thought.” In most matters, science has sought to be non-dogmatic; to hold all of its conclusions as tentative. There is no reason why origins science should be held to a lesser standard. To the contrary, given the inherent and obvious impact of origins science upon religious thought, and given the guarantees of the First Amendment, there is every reason why government sponsored teaching of origins science should be held to a greater standard of precision, accuracy, full disclosure, honesty and open self-criticism than any other area of science teaching.
31. William Harris, PhD, Nutritional Biochemistry, Professor/Research Scientist, Agree
It is critically important that the presentation of theories of life’s origins and development be tested against each other for the best fit. To allow presentation of only one theory and to assume that no other theory could be possible is inappropriate for public education.
32. David Hauge, JD, Law, Attorney, Agree
It is my belief that the concept of Intelligent Design, per se, should be part of any course which discusses the theory of evolution. I believe that Intelligent Design clearly qualifies as science (This would not include so called Biblical creation). The concept of Intelligent Design is getting more and more legitimate play in the scientific community, but yet, continues to be unfairly excluded from mainstream discussion in the education system. It is only a matter of time before Intelligent Design moves to the forfront on its own merrits. Why not stop the artificial exclusion of Intelligent Design here in Ohio by voting for these modifications.
33. Douglas Hausknecht, PhD, Marketing, Professor, Agree
The debate recalls the Behavioristic versus Cognitive revolution of paradigms in Psychology. At present, cognitive orientations dominate, but the behavioral approach is taught as a contrasting opinion with defenders and evidence of its own. If intelligent design were taught as a similar “opposition view,” the inclusion would satisfy the need to be fair and to let students choose their own preferred paradigm.
34. Scott Haynes, JD, Law, Attorney, Agree
As an attorney, I am compelled to discover and review evidence. If evidence can support multiple theories, let all of the theories into the debate and let each person make his or her own informed decision based upon the evidence.
35. No Permission, PhD, Botany, Assistant Professor, Agree
36. Roland F. Hirsch, Ph.D., Chemistry, structural biology research manager, Agree
37. No Permission, PhD, Biochemistry, Biology Professor, Agree
38. Conrad Johanson, PhD, Physiology, Scientist, Agree
Darwinism is just one model or theory for origins. More evidence is needed to prove Darwinian theory.
Alternative models, such as intelligent design, need to be seriously considered and debated.
It’s important that all voices be heard. That’s the American democratic way, and it makes for good science as well.
39. Lawrence Johnston, Ph.D., Nuclear Physics, Physics professor/researcher, Agree
I want students to have a broader view of Biological origins than the dominant view usually given in biotextbooks. Modern information theory shows that the huge amount of information in biological systems cannot come from a non-intelligent source.
Origins science is still a wide open field, none of the proposed solutions has worked out. It would be arbitrary in the extreme to exclude the likelihood that an intelligent designer provided the huge amounts of information required to produce the first cell. Students should be taught to consider all options, not be spoonfed an arbitrary viewpoint.
40. Michael Keas, PhD, History of Science, Professor of Natural Science, Agree
41. Bruce Keillor, PhD, Business Admin., Professor, No Vote
I am highly concerned that the Darwinian approach to creation is adopted as the only explanation for creation. While there are many educated authorities who accept this view, there are also a substantial number of authorities who recognize the shortcomings in the theory of evolution. One of the underlying tenets of science is that inquiry and discussion continues until irrefutable evidence exists to support one particular explanation. This is not the case with the theory of evolution as considerable gaps remain in its explanation for the origins of humans.
42. David Keller, PhD, Biophysical Chemistry, Professor, Agree
It is crucial that students understand 1) the important distinction between an empirical science and an historical science, and 2) that the latter is always strongly influenced by non-scientific worldview issues, e.g. materialism, theism, etc. Large questions like “Where did we come from” necessarily raise deep philosophical and religious issues. It is important that the state not become an exponent of one view over others.
43. No Permission, PhD, Philosophy, Professor of Philosophy, Agree
44. Jeffrey Koperski, PhD, Philosophy, University Professor, Agree
Intelligent Design should be taught as one of several contemporary positions critical of orthodox neo-Darwinism. These might also include self-organization/complexity theory, saltationism, and punctuated equilibrium.
45. Joel Lantz, PhD, Chemistry, Technical writer (Most of career: R&D), Agree
It is clearly necessary to present alternative theories of origins in Ohio classrooms. The proposed standards Modifications seem almost too gentle, considering the problems with macroevolution — rarely admitted in public for political and philosophical reasons.
It is clear that macroevolution is driven by an unsubstantiated, naturalistic philosophy that assumes the universe MUST be a closed system of material causes and effects, with no possible outside influence. Therefore, in that view, the human eye, machine-like proteins, and other seemingly designed entities MUST only have the appearance of design. They MUST have evolved, no matter how small the odds.
Therefore, students MUST not hear that examples of roughly all animal phyla existing today (and more) first appear suddenly in Cambrian fossils, representing a period as short as 2 to 3 million years — too brief for macroevolution. Students MUST not realize that this “Cambrian explosion” inverts the evolutionary tree — phyla first, diversity of species later. They MUST not know that key, still-published textbook “evidences” for abiogenesis and macroevolution are false or misleading, such as: 1950s experiments which made amino acids from gases that scientists now know misrepresent earth’s early atmosphere; drawings that fake embryo commonality across multiple species; photographs that supposedly show adaptation of moths to tree trunks, though the moths don’t normally land there and were pasted on.
Physicist Paul Davies’ comments in a recent book are enlightening: “When I set out to write this book I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now convinced that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.”
Resistance to alternative explanations of origins is centered in the U.S., enforced by a powerful science elite. By contrast, the People’s Daily, though presumably atheistic, published the following headline about Cambrian fossils in China: “Chengjiang Fossils Challenge the Theory of Darwin.” A Chinese paleontologist noted that, ” In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Hopefully, teachers and students in Ohio schools can soon criticize the government AND Darwin.
46. Robert Lattimer, PhD, Chemistry, Research Chemist, Agree
The modifications are great.
47. Garrick Little, PhD, Chemistry, Senior Scientist, Agree
I agree with the principles that have been used to justify the modifications to the proposed science standards. My position is that to claim evolution to be a scientific fact would at a minimum require a well established mechanism/explanation both for the origin of the first cell as well as a mechanism that clearly shows how increasingly complex life could have come into existence. I find that the field of evolutionary study cannot point to such mechanisms according to the norms of scientific rigor.
48. Paul Madtes, PhD, Biochemistry, Faculty, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I believe the lack of balance in instruction leads to inadequate preparation to be usccessful in science. Presentation of scientific thought ought to include both strengths and weaknesses, along with alternative explanations, and their strengths and weaknesses. This approach enables students to gain a better insight into the purpose and value of science.
49. Joseph Mastropaolo, PhD, Kinesiology, Physiology, Professor, Agree
50. Jeffrey McKee, PhD, Anthropology, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Disagree
The “Intelligent Design” network is attempting to “stuff the ballot box” with canned modifications that are bereft of solid science.
51. Scott A. Minnich, PhD, Microbiology, Associate Professor, Agree
I think the proposed modifications are consistent with the present body of knowledge. In fact, these modifications are more reflective of a true scientific position, ie., willing to question primary assumptions continually with data as it is collected. Accepting these criteria will foster better science education and is not promoting some type of fundamentalist infringment into the curriculum.
52. Thomas Morgan, DMA, Music Performance, Music Professor, Agree
It’s time to tell our students the truth about origins. Let’s give them all the information and let them make a choice based on knowledge. We should teach Darwinism, but give them the whole story. Stop giving the impression that we can explain everything by naturalistic processes. Let the students in on Darwinism’s many problems. The ID movement is growing, and this information cannot be hidden any longer.
53. Paul Nesselroad, Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, Associate Professor, Agree
Naturalistic evolution has many problems (information generation, lack of fossil record, irredicible complexity…). It’s time for the scientific elite to loosen their stranglehold on education and take the risk that some “unfortunate” ideas may find their way into the science classroom. Nobody wants that, but to hide behind the idea that there are no problems with evolution, in the long run, isn’t doing our students any good. We must have free inquiry if we want to continue learning. “ID” meets the criteria of a scientific paradigm and is being brought to the table for consideration. Shouldn’t our students know that?
54. John Nichols, PhD, Mathematics, Professor of Mathematics, Agree
I find the modifications to be well-reasoned and professionally written.
55. Jay Nicholson, PhD, Entomology, Science Instructor, Agree
56. No Permission, PhD, Biochemistry, Medical Laboratory Director, Agree
Dear Educators:
Evolution as defined as random chemicals forming a single life form and subsequently transforming into a variety of life forms through DNA random mutations is scientifically impossible being in violation of the second law of themodynamics, the laws of probability, and information therory. If evolution is to be presented to students as an acceptable view of origins then certainly intelligent design should be taught. In my opinion, in studying the complexity and efficiency of cellular function, intellignet design is the intelligent choice. Sincerely, XXXXXXXXX, Ph.D.
57. Deborah Owens-Fink, PhD, Business, College Professor, Agree
We must make these changes to assure that our students are critical thinkers for the 21st century . Intellectual stimulation comes from considering all views. Students will be more engaged if we teach both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design. We can not and should not censure either view
58. Yougsoon Park, PhD, Biochemistry, Senior Research Scientist, Agree
I wonder why the definition of science is missing from the introductory provision?
59. No Permission, PhD, Oceanography, Oceanographer, Agree
In general, these revisions are quite good in that:
(1) they identify and eliminate much of the dogmatism invoked in the teaching of evolutionary theory; dogmatism is not science, presenting information in this fashion is counter to the stated learning goals of the science standards, and needs to be eliminated.
(2) they identify and eliminate the use of naturalism to justify theories, especially evolution, in science. Science should not be based upon naturalism; when it is, it rapidly degenerates into scientism which is neither good science nor good religion; rather its just another ‘ism’ looking for followers and converts.
60. Rick Petosa, PhD, Behavioral Science, Associate Professor, Disagree
The Intelligent Design constituency has failed to produce a substantive, scientific theory regarding the origins and adaptive nature of life on planet earth. Further, they have not produced a scientific literature to substantiate their touted theory. The mere criticism of current evolutionary theory does not substantiate their position.
61. Scott Piper, MD, Elementary Education, Teacher, Agree
62. James Brian Pitts, PhD, Physics, University Mathematics Teacher, Agree
The proposed modifications are very wise, and in fact rather mild. I cannot see how a well-informed person
could object to them, unless he or she is seeking to teach a naturalistic worldview in the Ohio public schools.
By the way, I attended Ohio public schools, in the Beavercreek system, for 8 years, and graduated there, though I now live elsewhere.
63. Andrew Repp, PhD, Mathematics, Highschool Teacher, Agree
The proposed modifications seem self-evident to me. If intelligent design theory can explain observed pheonomena as well as or better than darwinian evolution–and from what I’ve seen, it can–then only hidebound prejudice would advocate its suppression.
64 Jay Richards, PhD, Philosophy and theology, VP, Discovery Institute, Agree
65 Ralph Richardson, MD, Medicine, Physician, Agree
I am in favor of standards that promote the objective teaching of Origins Science. As the US Constitution dictates, and as the Santorum Amendment counsels, Origins Science should be taught with viewpoint neutrality with regard to religion or philosophy. In other words, the State cannot promote one hypothesis while censoring another in the science classrooms of our public schools, if both hypotheses are scientific in nature and have impact on religion or worldview. Intelligent Design Theory is science. To believe otherwise is to be misinformed about what ID theory actually is. I support the proposed Ohio Science Standards because they do not allow censorship of anything that qualifies as science.
66. Steven Robertson, PhD, Physiology & Cell Biophysics, Business Systems Designer, Agree
I support a full and comprehensive presentation of all sides of the “Orgins” debate. The growing body of scientific evidince that cannot be explained by the theory of macroevolution should not be omitted, suppressed or even marginalized in our schools just because Evolution is the only “naturalistic” theory for the origin of live on earth. This debate should be an unbiased search for truth. A unified comprehensive inclusive theory that explains all the observations made to date and which has great preditability for future observations is what I define as truth.
While Newtonian mechanics is valid for most of Nature it cannot explain atomic and subatomic behavior. In the same way the data collected on life thus far is quite compelling in its support for Microevolution but not for macroevolution. Very basic observations like the Cambrian Explosion of life cannot be explained at all by Macroevolution.
Seems to me we need a whole new theory to explain the great diversity of Life. Continuing to brain wash students that Macroevolution is fact we are just suppressing the creative potential of students and prolonging the introduction of an entirely new theory.
67. Miguel Rodriguez, PhD, Chemistry, Biochemistry professor, Agree
I don’t consider a good education that one that teaches as certain what is uncertain. Thus, all possible explanations of life origins should be part of a biology program.
68. Ariel Roth, PhD, Zoology, Editor of Journal Origins, Agree
I agree with the modifications
69. Craig Rusbult, PhD, Curriculum & Instruction, Educator, Agree
This is an explanation of one reason for my agreement with the proposed modifications:
Science should be open. This is described very well in the indicator for Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing #3, which explains that “scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data, or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism, and open communication are integral to the process of science.” Based on my extensive study of science, scientists, and scientific methods, this description seems very accurate. I encourage you to apply this principle in the area of evolution education, by encouraging (instead of prohibiting) the “questioning” and “open communication” that are “integral to the process of science.” Science should be open, not closed.
70. Marc Scarbrough, MD, Medicine, Medical Doctor, Internal Medicine, Agree
71. Duane Schmidt, DDS, Life Sciences, Dentist, Agree
Quite plainly, the way the standards were written presupposes the theory of evolution to be fact, when the only fact about evolution that is indisputable is that it is a band of suppositions and guesses, rather than a data-driven body of science. In the guesswork business, one guess is as good as another. Please read may article in NetWorldDaily.com, January 5, In the Beginning was What?
72. No Permission, PhD, Microbiology, Professor, Department of Biology and Earth Sciences, Agree
73. No Permission, MD, Medicine, Pathologist, Agree
74. Philip Skell, PhD, Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Agree
I am a member of NAS, Chemistry Section.
I have examined carefully the evidence on both sides of this debate and my conclusion is based solely on scientific considerations, no religious criteria.
75. Fred Skiff, PhD, Physics, University Professor, Agree
The modifications promote intellectual integrity and honesty. The credibiliy of the scientific community will be damaged if there is a dogmatic attachment to Darwinism. Materialism did not give birth to science and it should not be confused with science.
76. James Standish, JD, Law, Lawyer, Agree
It is time that public schools taught the divergent views about possible explanations for the origins of life. Presenting macroevolution as a monolithic orthodoxy denies students the academic openness necessary for them to form their own views on this much debated issue.
James Standish, JD, MBA
77. No Permission, PhD, Biology, Agree
As a former teacher of high school biology and current research scientists I fully support the consideration of multiple ideas about the origin of life and its diversity. Modifications to the draft Ohio Academic Content Standards for Science suggested by Science Excellence for All Ohioans would greatly enhance the science curriculum in Ohio public schools. This could only result in students better prepared to meet and understand the complex world in which they live. More informed graduates will build stronger communities of citizens equipped to participate in those aspects of public life in which science impacts development of public policy.
78. Royal Truman, PhD, Chemistry, Research chemist and computer systems specialist, Agree
Some general observations. The current dominant biology framework, neo-Darwinism and its variants, has lost its plausibility in explaining the issues of major concern. Dissent and superior explanations are becoming virtually impossible to publish in research journals.
I must support any educational amendments which permit one to question, to critique, to evaluate. And best of all, to simply state like I do, that chance plus selection is incapable of explaining the vast majority of the truly interesting issues:
– the origin of the genetic code
– the physical and informational organisation of cells
– the precise developmental guidance from fertilized cell to full organism
– the origin of sexual reproduction
– the origin and regulation of DNA repair mechanisms
– the integration and automatic self-regulation of thousands of metabolic cellular processes
– the interaction of about 200 kinds of specialized cells into an integrated mammals into whole organisms
– the origin of intelligence, consciousness and will.
These and many other observations are not explainable by hand-waving materialist stories being claimed as “fact”.
79. Jonathan Wells, PhD, Biology, Biologist, Agree
Science is the search for truth, and it works best when it follows the evidence wherever it leads – even if it undermines widely held theories such as Darwinian evolution. Accordingly, science students should be encouraged to consider evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, and they should also be encouraged to evaluate the evidence for alternative theories such as intelligent design.
80. Terry Weston, MD, Biology major in college, Physician, Agree
To suggest that Darwin’s “Theory” is the foundation for instruction in life’s origin is to ignore the basis of scientific hypothesis and theory itself. It should be required to balance this unscientific approach to life’s origins with other explanations such as intelligent design in order to teach science students to think critically of such processes.
81. Tim Wilkinson, Ph.D., Political Science, Professor, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The perspective that only biological macro-evolution should be taught in Ohio’s public schools is intellectually dishonest. An increasing number of scientists and thinkers believe that other theories should be taught because much of the scientific data does not support the theory of macro-evolution. It is ridiculous for science teachers to present macro-evolution as if it has been proven. A balanced perspective should be taught to students. At the very least, students should be exposed to the intelligent design perspective in addition to the macro-evolutionary view. We do not live in the Soviet Union. We should not propagandize students with the reigning Darwinist orthodoxy. Rather, free inquiry is open to all perspectives. Present the facts, with various interpretations of those facts, and then let the students form their own opinions.
82. Joseph Yavornitzky, DDS, Dentistry, Professor, Human Anatomy & Physiology, Disagree
83. Henry Zuill, PhD, Biology, Biology professor retired, Agree
I am in substantial agreement with the modifications given, but I find that the last modification, Grade 12, Life Sciences #15, page 89, is too vague when “another mechanism” is given as a cause of change.
May I suggest that ecosystems appear designed because of ecological interdependence, and it is this that causes ecosystems to change whenever the other given changes occur. May I also suggest that ecosystems change when species are subtracted, as well as when added.
As written, it appears that ID, climate change, or new species, whenever they are inserted into ecosystems, induce change. I’m suggesting that ecosystem changes occur because of designed ecological interdependence responding to climate change or the addition or subtraction of species due to migration or (micro)evolution.
What do you mean when you say that ID, along with climate change and additional species due to migration and evolution, bring about ecosystem change?
84 Mustafa Akyol, MS, Political Science, Agree
I agree that the proposed Modifications to the Draft of the Science Academic Content Standards for Ohio should be realized. By deciding so, the State of Ohio will acquire a vanguard position in the paradigm shift that taking in contemporary science. The naturalistic philosophy has been masquerading itself as science itself since the 19th century. Darwinism has been the core of this great misconception. Now, thanks to the developments in many fields of life sciences, and the brave scientists who had the privilege to represent them to the public and to say that “The King is Naked”, the Darwinist dogma is on the brink of collapse. As one of the great thinkers of our age, Thomas Kuhn, observed, such great revolutions in science realize despite a great resistance by the establishment, but eventually they do realize. The proposal to modify the textbooks in order to make them fit the realities of science seems to be an important step in this process. I hope it will realize and be an example for other states in the US and other countries in the world.
85. Galen Alexander, Disagree,
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
As someone brought up in the Christian faith, I accept, without reservation, that the Holy Scriptures are a profound and undeniable truth which explains the creation of the Universe and God’s relationship with his creation, Mankind. Likewise, I can not ignore emperical evidence of dinosaurs and other life now long extinct.
Creationism, “Intelligent Design”, or what ever you choose to call it, does nothing to discount prehistoric life. Events portrayed in religious texts and drawings from far flung portions of the world (almost identical in theme) from peoples who could not have had knowledge of other cultures indeed provide accounts of cataclysmic circumstances which, in perhaps a simplistic fashion, explain(s) the extinction of numerous species.
What Darwinian theory or thinking can not explain or demonstrate is how something can be made from nothing or, how something can evolve over time into something unrecognizable from its previous form. What was recognizable as a pig 250 million years ago remains today a pig though its form and habits have changed due to enviornmental adaptations. Fossil evidence exists of fish, whales, sharks, birds, snakes, mammals, etc., hundreds of millions of years old. Those species who survived or adapted to environmental catastrophy(s)are easily recognized from their ancestors. Some remain unchanged in any significant manner over eons of time.
Further, what evolution can not explain or demonstrate are the missing links in the chain of evolution which apply not only to the human species. Evolution would have us believe that humans evolved from apes. Modern science suggests that the DNA structure of apes is close to that of humans. I’m certain that with DNA being the building block of existance we could likewise find DNA similarities with other species.
Similar does not mean the same!
Scientists and acheologists have tried to prove or disprove scriptural accounts of history only to find in their attempts that Biblical (even ledgendary) renditions of events and places have a basis in fact.
Creationism and Evolution need be discussed in the same forum with a healthy respect and scrutiny of both. Each, in thier own way fill some gaps in our knowledge and provide a reason for our existance. The State in its education of our children has no right nor any reason to destroy thousands of years of established faith based on factual historical accounts to adopt a theory established only a hundred years or so which remains to this day unproveable.
86. Augusta Allen, MBA, Consultant, Economic Development, Agree
87. Nelson Alonso, BS, Student, Biochemistry, Agree
88. Susan Anderson, MBA, Business, Music Director, Agree
I believe that the proposed modifications to the Ohio Life Science Standards contribute to the Education Depaartment’s desire to see good science taught in our schools. I support the proposed modifications because they honestly acknowledge that scientists do not always agree, particularly in theories related to origins of life. In order for Ohio’s students to gain real
89. Chad Armbruster, BS, Political Science, Self Employed, Agree
90. Mike Arnett, M.S. Colonel, USAF, Operations Research, Agree
To dismiss the proposed modifications out of hand very subtly teaches that some scientific dogma are exempt from scrutiny using the Scientific Method. The State of Ohio should practice what it preaches (teaches) and apply the steps that say, “First, form a hypothesis. Second, test it.”
91. Peg Ballou, B.S., Nursing, Mother, Disagree,
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I disagree with the teaching solely of evolution in the area of life origins to the exclusion of other theorie which does not present a balanced education when so much evidence is out there for alternative methods. Sudden life form stata in fossil layers, explosions of new forms in various layers and the absolute failure of any slowly mutating variations in between are simply a few. Even solid evolutionists are beginning to rethink their views, so why would we subject impressionable students in “public” schools to a limited sphere of thought?
I submit that we present all the evidence to the students, and allow them to make up their own minds. Isn’t this what the liberal education is all about?
92. No Permission, Agree
Growing up in the public school system and believing that everything I was taught in both high school and college was “fact” I never heard any other view until I was an adult. It is only a theory and yet is is taught as a truth. My oldest son’s textbook states at the beginning the differing theories of our world, and yet the entire book is presented from an evolutionary point of view as if it is fact. I would much prefer that these modifications be incorporated into the Science curriculum, so that those reading are able to decide for themselves.
93. James Bardeen, MS, Environmental Management, Human Resources, Agree
Students need to be aware of the fact that there are many theories on the origin of life and the universe. The education systems’ task ought to be, to provide students with knowledge of a few of different theories. Until there is a scientific law of our origins, there should be an even platform for the various theories.
94. Gary Barnes, A.B., Theology, Minister, Agree
It is a detriment to education to continue the crippling of young minds.
95. Dennis Baumann, A.B., History, Retired, Agree
The proposed modifications will lend credibility to the standards because they more fairly represent methods for evaluating each of the hypotheses.
In addition, the modifications more adquately represent accepted scientific standards for evaluation.
96. Linda Beck, BA, International Studies of Western Europe, Agree
I agree that the proposed Science Standards seem reasonable at first glance, however they perpetuate some fairly serious assumptions that have become commonplace in the current culture (such as when ideas that are still technically theories are prematurely regarded as fact). Some of these assumptions actually work against a truly scientific approach by setting unnecessary “rules of the game” that limit the scope of scientific inquiry or override it altogether. My fear is that in our great efforts to “keep religion out of the science classroom” (which I agree with wholeheartedly), we are also inadvertently teaching that it is fine to operate under prejudice and to not question.
97. April Beck, Student, Agree
98. No Permission, Electrician, Technical School, Physics, Agree
99. Connie Beck, LPN, Biology, Agree
I feel that Origin science should teach all theories equally and evolotion not as fact but theory. Let’s be fair! Put everything on the table and let those in the classes come to their own conclusion. What are our schools and government officials afraid of?
100. No Permission, B.S., Biology, Teacher, Agree
101. David Bible, M.S., Biology, Business Owner, Disagree
The problem with modifying the Ohio Science Standards to include Intelligent Design is basically one of dissembling on the part of the supporters of Intelligent Design.
Their credibility should be seriously questioned.
First of all, they misuse the word theory. Scientifically, theory is used as the best explanation for the observations and data.
The Theory of Evolution based on the observations, experiments concerning the diversity of life. It is used to make predictions that are experimentally verified.
Teaching theories that provide explanations for biological diversity other than in a historical note is a waste of time.
Lamarcks theory was disproved years ago. Mendel’s work in genetics is one of the bases supporting evolution, Paley is basically creationism/intelligent design.
Behe’s theory of Intelligent Design is simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
I would suggest that the board members read through, Finding Darwin’s God, by Kenneth Miller for an excellent critique of Behe’s ideas.
The real problem with Intelligent Design that it has no scientific basis.
Science does not have the technology to measure the effect of an intelligent designer. It cannot prove or disprove an intelligent designer. This makes intelligent design a guess rather than a theory that provides a reasonable scientific explanation of biological diversity.
This suggested modification would introduce, into a science class, the teaching of religion, which is not the purpose of science class.
Materialism in science is not a bad thing. It is all science can measure. To give anything that proposes that there is a non-materialism, supernatural explanation is simply not science and has no place in a science class.
Although there are people that use science to prove there is no God, there is nothing about science that disproves any person’s religious beliefs other than the belief that the Genesis creation story cannot be taken literally.
There is no need to object to scientific discoveries that clearly explains biological diversity.
An interesting comment, from a religious perspective about science, is that science only discovers what God created. If Science has discovered evolution, there is no reason to invoke the need of a creator or intelligent designer.
Please vote against the modifications of the Science Standards. The modifications have nothing to do with science and everything to do with teaching religion/non-science in a science class.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Bible
102. Karl Birti, B.S., Engineering, Project Manager, Agree
I think a more balanced curriculum should be presented to students on the topic of the origins of life. There are many theories on this topic. One of the important aspects of education is to develop students critical thinking skills. Present the multiple theories on the origins of life and let the students decide for themselves. Therefore, I support the proposed modifications to include the theory for intelligent design.
103. No Permission, BS, Elementary Education, Former Teacher and School Board Member, Agree
104. No Permission, Agree,
I think this is a wonderful idea. It would be nice for school kids to be allowed to hear all sides and to then decide for themselves which one they want to believe in, rather than only giving them one option.
105. No Permission, B.S., Journalism, Librarian Assistant, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I feel that design concepts as well as evolution should be presented in Ohio science classes to give students a balanced view of life science.
106. Linda Boutet, Marketing Director, Disagree,
For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
With regard to Life Science, I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting all evidence, including design hypothesis.
I reside in Hamilton County.
107. David Bradbury, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Regional Manager, Agree
For 20 years after serving in the Navy and graduating from the University of Michigan in 1949, I was a convinced and outspoken supporter of biological (macro) evolution.
In the early 70’s I encountered a startling challenge by Dr. John J. Grebe, then Director of Research for Dow Chemical Co. Before the Texas State School Bd. he made a public offer of $1,000 ($10,000 in today’s dollars) to anyone (Bd. Member or supporting scientist) who could offer even a single example of scientific evidence, or mathematical analysis, sufficient to elevate (macro)evolution to the status of scientific theory.
Like many, I set out to collect this easy money. I truly wanted to embarrass, and put an end to, such reckless challenges to what I had accepted as responsible science education and respected evolutionary authorities.
Within only a few weeks of independent examination of the classic references then (and still) cited as providing a scientific basis for the concept, I found myself compelled to acknowledge that Dr. Grebe’s money perhaps wasn’t in as much danger as I had initially presumed.
There was no verifiable, repeatable, empirical evidence anywhere then (or even today) as required to elevate the fascinating concept of evolution to the compelling status of valid ‘theory’. ALL the claims responsible for the on-going controversy are but unverifiable ‘interpretations’, ‘extrapolations’ or ‘deductions’ going beyond the evidence being observed. With a little clear thinking it becomes increasingly apparent that upwards of 90% of all current disagreement in this controversy is due more to careless, or slippery, semantics than to actual scientific differences.
Evolutionary textbooks invariably introduce ‘science’ as being based on empirical criteria (physical observations and experimental confirmation. Unfortunately, they do NOT go on to apply this criteria to the concept of evolution itself.
Much the same problem exists with similarly imprecise, vague and frequently misunderstood meanings for other key terms as ‘evolution’, ‘religion’, ‘theory’, etc. within these texts.
A properly precise glossary definition of terms — and the faithful use of these definitions throughout our textbooks is a reasonable and non-controversial recommendation — and is pretty much all that is being proposed in the modifications proposed.
P.S. This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or does) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public.
David A. Bradbury 1/28/02
108. Frank Brown, BBA, Airline Pilot and Business Owner, Agree
I FEEL THAT SCIENCE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ALL THE THEORIES & HIPOTHESIS ON UNPROVEN SUBJECTS OF IMPORTANCE WOULD BE PRESENTED & DISCUSSED.
109. No Permission, B.S., Art Education, Principal,
110. Lee Bulls, M.A., Religion, Minister, Agree
111. Laurie, Calvert, B.J., Journalism, English Teacher, Agee
I wholeheartedly agree with the Standards because they take the bias out of the teaching of science. At last, we look at the causes of life and it’s complexity without philisophical or religious a priori assumptions!
112. Chris Canzurlo, BBA, Computer Science and Management, Computer Analyst, Agree
113. Kathleen Capretta, BBA, Business Administration, Homemaker, Agree
114. Glyn Carpenter, Master Devinity, Counseling and Theology, Information Technology Business, Agree
At the heart of this issue seems to be the question of “integrity”. Intelligent Design is as “scientific” as what is commonly termed “evolution”. Conversely, “evolution” based on the assumption of philosphical naturalism, is no less a belief system with religious implications, than IDT. Why should science assume philosophical naturalism? Instead, surely it’s better, (plus there must be more integrity), in following the scientific method, without being restricted to allowing only naturalistic explanations, and see where the evidence leads.
115. Kari Carpenter, BA, Literature/English, Teacher at home, Agree
Today is January 24,2002. The comment section on the ODE website is already closed in order to “collect the data.” I am disappointed, as I only just received info on this today. But I read the suggested modifications listed on this site, and I agree with them. Changes should have been made 20 years ago to texts in order to include the possibility of an intelligent design theory.
It enrages me that there is no inclusion of it as another possibility.
116. Angel Carpenter, Housewife, Home School Mom, Disagree
As a God fearing woman and mother I feel that these new science standards and modifications are unacceptable. If my children were in the public school system I would not want this being taught to my children. As a home schooling mom I would not teach this to my children due to the fact that we are Christians and beleive that the Lord our God created the earth and everything on it, including the human race.
117. Pamela Case, Office Administrator, Disagree,
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I have strongly question issue #21 and #22 on the Life Science section for the 10th grade. Strictly teaching evolution is becoming less and less appropriate as other equally compelling theories such as the design hypothesis are raising dramatic scientific questions to the Darwin, Mendel and Larmarck theories.
118. Joy Chaney, B.S., Computer INformation Systems, Systems Engineer, Agree
The State of Ohio needs to teach all theories of our origin equally. To do otherwise is to promote one theory over another. In promoting one theory over another, you are forcing a belief system onto the student rather than allowing them to study all of the theories and make their own decisions as to what they believe. How unscientific is that course of action?
While participating in science fair as a young student I was taught to gather ALL data equally and to weigh the evidence without bias in order to come to an objective and scientific conclusion. To do otherwise is to taint the data and skew the results.
The logical and scientific approach should allow all theories, including evolution theory and design theory, to be taught side by side. Comparing and contrasting the theories in an unbiased, intelligent, and logical manner. This would fit into the Life Sciences Standards for Ohio, since evolution would still be taught and mentioned by name right alongside design theory.
Students would be taught and tested on both theories, and experiments could be conducted in the class to test the theories. There is no logical reason that both theories can not be taught to students. The theories are unique enough that students would be able to differentiate between them.
Many well respected scientists including Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and Stephen Hawking have all stated cases and/or belief in the design theory. To ignore design theory is to throw out and ignore the experiments, thinking and teaching of the three most brilliant minds of the 20th century.
In conclusion I would respectfully suggest that to teach evolution alone to our students is to limit their scientific devolopment. It will inhibit their free thought and analytical skills. It will arrest the imagination and quest for higher thought. That in turn will weaken the future of science as a whole by producing an entire generation of scientists who lack the skills necessary to objectively evaluate evidence. The greatest learning will come by presenting multiple theories, and allowing free thought and science to thrive.
119. Jeff Colborn, B.S., Business, Materials Manager, Disagree
120. No Permission, B.S., Allied Health Professions, Occupational Therapist,
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Darwin’s theories and concepts should not be given greater credibility than design hypotheses and concepts. Design hypotheses should be taught as equally valid theories. Testing should reflect design hypotheses to have equal validity to Darwin’s and other theories.
121. Candy Collette, Homemaker/Clerk, Agree
I don’t have a problem as a genreal rule with our students being taught “Darwin’s Theory”, only as long as the concept of creation or whatever you choose to call it is presented as well. We need to have fair and unbiased concept put before our kids in order for them to make an intelligent judgement. It is no different than asking them to check out all avenues before buying a car or making any major decesion in their lives. I strongly urge you to make sure that “all” views are given a fair and balanced place in our science education. No one “theory” should be required in order for our students to graduate. That is part of the thinking and judging process to choose for themselves what they belive. I will make sure that all of my friends know about this and that they too will make their voice known to you. I appreciate your ear and your time and consideration of my opinion.
122. Pam Cornstock, BBA, Business, Homemaker, Disagee
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I vote AGAINST presenting ONLY Darwinian evolution as in regard to instruction of the origin of life. I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting ALL evidence, including evidence of “design.”
Darwinian evolution is not a proven fact. It is a THEORY. Evidence for all theories, including design should be presented in a neutral format to allow students to examine the evidence and reach their own conclusions.
123. No Permission, BS, International Business, Agree
The goal of education is to help students expand their thought process. Educated people have learned how to take various options into consideration and determine which one(s) are worthy of furthur study. It is only right that all the options and opinions be set forth in front of the educated student. Only in this way will students be able to take all options into consideration and, in so doing, learn to expand their minds.
124. No Permission, MA, Linguistics, religion and humanities, College Instructor, Agree
125. Don Covington, BA, Psychology, Management Consultant, Agree
Consistent with the newly discovered interest in honesty in science education, the proposed modifications emphasize presentation of ALL theories dealing with the origin and development of life. It is highly important that students’ be given an opportunity to learn the full range of issues surrounding the teaching of biological sciences, and that they be made aware of the bias of naturalism that pervades current science education. Students should be taught that nothing in science makes sense except in the light of the evidence, and that whatever inferences are drawn from the evidence must be able to withstand the scrutiny of logic.
126. Brenda Craig, BS, Accounting, Accountant, Agree
127. Jeff Curran, MS, MBA, Sr Manager, CMS Communications, Agree
The summary of modifications was very well written. If we want our youth to be objective analysts, teaching them to explore and evaluate all potential explanations or solutions to a problem, then we need to allow for the modifications as stated in the summary.
Otherwise, whether in the science classroom or in the executive boardroom, our youth will not have been trained to consider all the viable options and therefore be trained to make myopic, ill-informed decisions.
128. Janet Dalton, A.S., Nursing, Homemaker, Agree
The Science needed to present a more balanced perspective.
129. Arthur Dalton, BS, Science, Manager, Agree
There needs to be a balance in teaching the subject of our beginning. Evolution and Intelligent Design taught together appear to a more balanced approach and more accurate.
130. Mark Darroch, BS, Biology, Student, Agree
A growing number of published scientific researchers have questions about some of the fundamental assertions of Neo Darwinian theory. It seems that in the interest of achieving the best public education possible, these reservations should at least be allowed to be discussed.
131. Roger DeHart, BS, Biology, Biology Teacher, Agree
132. George Detwiler, MAT Science, General Science, Jr/Sr. High School Science and Math Teacher, Agree
To present macroevolution as a fact is completely nonscience. It has not been proven; it cannot be proven. ALL data from All areas of science should be considered (including that data that directly contradicts evolution “science” and strongly supports the concept of intelligent design. To do otherwise is indoctrination in a religious belief (evolution). This is specifically prohibited by Supreme Court decisions. If this is not done, the matter should be challenged in court and it will be found unconstitutional.
133. Kevin Dill, B.S., Computer Science, Computer Consultant, Agree
Having studied and applied a logical science discipline, I am disturbed at how pieces of scientific observation can be applied to say that the theory of macroevolution can be construed as a proven “fact”.
Many of the historic “facts” over the last millineum have been overturned by the continual application of true scientific method. With simple observations, we say that the sun “rises” in the East and “sets” in the West, and for hundreds of years, scientists asserted that the sun revolved around the earth… and yet we know that is untrue. Scientists naturally gravitate toward the most current theories because they are the only current explanations for what happens around us. However, the simplest explanation is almost never the “accurate” one.
Macroevolution has never been proven as absolute fact by evidence in a controlled setting. Only minor microevolution changes have been observed in a controlled study. To assert that macroevolution is anything other than a current theory is a deception.
The scientific viewpoint continues to change; a “truth” is never static. For hundreds of years, scientists have scoffed at the “religious” views of creation as unsubstantiated. Yet within the last few decades, scientists now believe that the entire universe came into being in a single instance and cannot explain what existed before the “Big Bang” other than a “void”.
Macroevolutionists would have us believe that we can trace all current animals back through the billions of years to a few cells. However that is untrue. At best, we have fossil record “snapshots” in time. While similar attributes can be found among the snapshots, scientific evidence simply does not exist to track the “morphing” of one animal classification into another.
The proposed Modifications should be incorporated into the Life Science Standards to present an accurate representation of theories as to the “origin of life”. To censor alternative theories and select only the simplest is the act of a closed, ignorant mind… something that we are trying to avoid in Ohio education.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
134. Sharon Dodds, BS, Business Administration, Administrative Assistant, Agree
I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting ALL evidence, including evidence of “design.”
135. Tim Dodds, BS, Accounting, CPA, Agree
136. Nathan Duriga, Student, Agree,
I believe that niether evolution nor intellegent design can be considered scientifically true, since niether is testable, observable, and repeatable according to the scientific method. Therefore both should be considered philosophical or religious views and be presented equally so that each person can make their own decision.
137. Geralvn Duska-McEwen, MS, Veterinary Pathobiology, Research Scientist, Agree
Biological evolution is not the only possible explanation to our origin, and it is important for children to understand this. While the teaching of evolution is certainly appropriate, it is the exclusion of other possibilities (in particular, the exclusion of the intelligent design theory) that I find objectionable.
138. Cherilu DuVal, BA, Fine Arts, Homemaker, Agree
I agree with the modifications to the proposed Science Standards, as they make the standards agree with true science, which is based on observation and experimentation and open to change, if the evidence so indicates. Without the modifications, the Science Standards resemble dogma, not the words of scientists.
139. No Permission, BA, Philosophy, Media/Public Relations Manager, Agree
140 David Elsensohn, Graphic WEb Designer, Disagree
It is stated in the proposed modifications that there is “no viable reason to exclude” design as an alternative. However, for an idea to be worthy of inclusion within the subject, that idea should have supporting evidence. In short, the reason to include a theory should not be because there’s no reason it shouldn’t, but because there IS a reason it SHOULD. There should be facts and observations to support it. Until it does, the idea is relegated to philosophy and theology… not science.
141 Melanie Elsey, BS, EDucation, Teacher, agree
I have requested that the ODE present a balanced perspective on the origin of life [biological evolution and design] on the website of the ODE. The modifications proposed on this website would be appropriate.
142 John English, BS, Engineering, Engineer, No Vote
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I believe that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools as popular theories. Wwe should aslo teach them the skills to research the issues and decide for themselves which theory is more likely true.
143. Sandy Everett, BS, Criminal Justice and Education, Reverend, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I don’t believe that evolution should be the only proposed theory of evolution. After all it is only a theory. Please change the wording so that all theories including creation will be included and taught as theories, not fact.
144. Pam Fallara, BS, Medical Technology, Medical Technologist, Agree
I agree that since Darwinian macro-evolution is still considered a theory and has not been proven as a fact that it should not be presented as the only choice. I agree that we see micro-evolution within a species but species to species evolution has never been proven and as such there should be shown that there is another theory that can be another answer…intelligent design theory. It is just as valid and actually fits the data better. But the main issue is that macro-evolution is a theory and not proven fact and should be presented as such. Science should be based on truth and facts and theories should be stated as such.
145. Michael Farley, M.S., Biochemistry, Graduate Student, Agree
146. No Permission, BS, Physical Therapy, Physical Therapist, Agree
147. Jeffrey Folkens, BS, Education, Public School Teacher, Agree
To teach the theory of macro-evolution without teaching other worthy theories, is to represent macro-evolution as a proven fact, instead of as the theory which it is. I view macro-evolution as a teaching of the humanism movement; and I see humanism as a religion because it functions as a religion. To exclusively teach macro-evolution is a violation of my family’s first amendment rights, just as the exclusive teaching of creationism would be a violation of another’s rights.
148. Ronald Foster, BS, Chemistry, Research Chemist, Agree
Clearly, the suggested modifications to the Life Sciences indicators represent a dramatic improvement in the objectivity of the presentation of the subject matter. These changes simply represent better science. Regardless of an individual’s theological inclinations, there is a wealth of data about life on earth that is worthy of study. To deliberately disregard a particular perspective would be a significant loss to the educational process. As a professional scientist with 20 years of industry experience, it has been my observation that more open-mindedness is needed on many scientific issues. There is often a temptation to accept data and explanations that agree with our prejudices, and ignore those that disagree. It is critical that our educational system do a better job of teaching young people to seek a thorough understanding of the data before reaching a conclusion.
149. Barbara Foster, BS, Business Administration, Accountant, Agree
It would be important to me to have evolution taught as the theory that it is, rather than fact. There are many areas of scientific study that have shown that genes can not mutate “better”. And thus, that evolution is unlikely to have occurred. One article written in reference to this can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html
150. Linda Fox, BS, History, Technology Coordinator, Disagree
I consider this a blatant attempt to impose “creationism” on the schools of Ohio, and I object. All students deserve to be taught SCIENCE in science classes, not religion. There is NO ONE who promotes this point of view who is not a fundamentalist. It is another attempt to impose a “Bible-based” curriculum on the public schools, at taxpayer expense.
151. Beverly Fox, MS, Library Science, Technician Librarian, Agree
Darwin’s therory of evolution includes a warning that students of evolution continue to seek proof for his theory which would prove or disprove it. The evidence collected to date does not support the macroevolution he described. why is this still presented to students a fact? I have tutored students in public school that are required to hand in worksheets with Darwinistis answers as fact. Students are being deprived of any opportunity to question Darwin’s concept. Students are fully capable of comparing different ideas about prehistoric events and deciding for themselves about the evidence. Isn’t this a more scientific approach – give the facts and keep an open mind about the unknowns?
152. John Frechette, BS, Plastics Engineering, Plastics Research Engineer, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Intelligent design should also be included. Darwinism is a theory and not a fact.
153. No Permission, Agree
154. Phil Futoran, M.Div., Bible, Pastor, Agree
As you would think it ludicrous and scientifically flawed for me to insist science be taught using only the Bible as a textbook, I believe it is the same for you to disregard scientific (including mathmatical probability) truths that seem to conflict with a pet theory (evolution). Please include these resonable modifications lest Ohio students learn, not just poor science, but faulty skills in reason and logic.
155. Christiana Gain, BS, General Liberal Arts, School Teacher, Disagree
I don’t believe the proposed Science standards and modifications are in the best interests of the students.
156. Robert Garbe, BS, Registered Pharmacist, Agree,
I just RESET a half hours work on comments because it was placed before the SUBMIT button. Please correct this problem. I know I should read first!
Comments:
If the public is ever to have confidence and trust in science or achedemia then they must be allowed to view both the pros and cons of the ID and evolution theories. To censure ID the most believed theory is an insult to laymen as well as scientists. Truth wins only in the arena of free thought. Censureship has always been doomed to failure or locked in repressive societies. I cant immagine why scientists who believe in evolution can’t see this point unless they are afraid their reasoning is incomplete. Lay out the facts on this contriversial subject and let the data answer the question of origins.
157. Leslie Gardner, Administrative Assistant and Student, Agree
I am convinced that the modifications to the new Science Education standards proposal are correct and a balanced assessment of origin science theory.
158. No Permission, BS, Engineering, Technical Information Manager, Agree
159. Thomas Georgantis, MBA, Business/Finance, Business Program Manager, Agree
160. No Permission Gibson, Housekeeper, Agree
Darwin’s Theory is just that ” a Theory” it has not be proven was a fact. It should not be the only ” Theory ” of how the earth came into being.It should be teach that other “Theories” of the beging of time.
161. Barbara Gifford, MA, Educational Ministries, Youth Director, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
It seems that the State would like to present Evolutionary Theory as fact. There is a huge lack of evidence to support the proposed changes. Since Evolutionary Theory, in particular Macro-evolution, lacks the support of hard physical evidence it seems the State would be supporting theory as fact (something respected scientists don’t do) and therefore promoting a State religion which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America.
162. Constance Gleason, MS, Occupational Therapy/Neuroscience, Occupational Therapist, Agree
163. Terri Goubeaux, MST, Comprehensive Sciences, Teacher, Agree (Recorded as Disagree due to comment)
The lobbying efforts of groups like SEAO are trying to again bring the “Creation” controversy back into the classroom. The good, educated Christians in the State of Ohio will make sure that this not happen here.
164. Prudence Greve, BA, Art, Housewife and mom, Disagree
165. Joseph Guthrie, MS, Chemistry (Analytical), Senior Chemist, Agree
166. Kim Haas, RN, Nursing, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I disagree with the life science indicators describing evolution. I do not agree with the indicators that suggest that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life. I believe that Darwin’s theory should be taught in our schools as only what it is, a theory. Our children need to be presented with all theories in order to have an opportunity to come to their own conclusions.
167. Hobson Hamilton, Jr., Master of Education, Higher Education Administration, Assistant Director, Career Service, Agree
I strongly support the modifications to the Life Science Standards for Ohio. Thanks to Deborah Owens-Fink for taking a stand on this important matter.
168. Lisa Hay, BS, CPA, Accountant, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The proposed Standards do not represent good science in that biological macroevolution is portrayed as a proven fact, not a theory. Biological evolution (like creationism and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution as a theory, but I believe that origins science must be presented in an equal and unbiased manner.
The standards should state that some scientists support the alternative theory of intelligent design.
169. Faith Herrington, Associate Degree, Biology, Homeschooling mother, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I think it is sad that in our age of “tolerance”, that only one area of origins is acceptable, especially when there is such a large population that disagrees, with much scientific evidence provided.
170. No Permission, MS, Education, High School Administrator, Agree
171. Amy Hess, BA, Religion/Philosophy, Internet Programmer, Agree
I recognize that I am not a degreed scientist, nor am I a PhD. However, I hope my religion/philosophy degree allows me a little authority in the area of debate and logic and philosophy in general. While I have not pursued my PhD at this point, I have continued my education informally through private study, and have a particluar interest in the area of Evolution vs Intelligent Design. I appreciate the struggle the Department of Education is making in resolving this important issue.
I would just like to send you a note of my support regarding the Intelligent Design Network’s assertion that both Intelligent Design and Naturalistic Evolution have religious implications. They do indeed. There are people who claim they can completely separate “science” and “religion” and say their scientific positions have no bearing on their faith. However, we philosophers know that in general, all disciplines fade into each other. Math and Science, History, Religion, Political Science and Art all affect one another. They can not be separated into neat little boxes. The Enlightenment’s philosophies affected all these disciplines, and the disciplines affected one another. You will see the same thing through different movements in history.
Religion and Science are both searches for “reality”. Some areas of reality can be best understood through faith, and some can be best understood through the scientific method. However, there are places where the two disciplines overlap – where science affects religion and religion affects science. Newton and Darwin were both spiritually affected by their scientific discoveries. One particular area where religion and science begin running into each other and butting heads is the origins debate. In the area of origins, there are many questions and very little you can observe directly. Scientists are forced to INFER from the evidence and that leads to INTERPRETATION of the evidence. And you will find that interpretation is usually based on a persons… ahhh… philosophies.
If scientists are purely naturalistic in their philosophical approach to science, they will find an evolutionary explanation feasible. If the scientists do not confine themselves to naturalism, they may interpret the very same evidence in a variety of ways, including intelligent design. The scientific community has taught students that Naturalism is the only acceptable philosophy for the ‘real’ scientist. If in ‘reality’ the true explanation is indeed naturalistic, then testing will support a naturalistic explanation. However, if in ‘reality’ the true explanation is not a naturalistic one, then the naturalistic scientists are forcing their explanations to fit their philosophy, and not necessarily to fit un-biased observation. Naturalism itself is a philosophic viewpoint, and cannot be proved through the scientific method. This is very important to realize.
In the origins debate, scientists with different philosophic viewpoints can come to a variety of conclusions based on the same evidence. Pure observable science would not produce a variety of conclusions unless there were room for personal philosophies.
It is my opinion that students be TOLD that there are different philosophies that affect scientific explanations so that they can be aware of the differences between evidence and interpretation – and so they can be aware of the philosophies that color their own interpretations of evidence. They should know that excellent scientists exist on both sides of the origins debate, and that the issue of origins is not at all as cut and dried as those with a naturalistic bias would tell them. Both sides have something valuable to add to the debate, and both sides have true, observable science to back their conclusions.
I hope this is helpful to you. My best wishes to you all as you work to come to a decision on this matter.
Sincerely,
Amy J. Hess
172. Matthew Hexter, BS, Former Ohio Certified Educator, IT Consultant, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Regarding your indicators for Grade 10, they are very unbalanced in your view of evolution, specifically, indicators 2 and 19-24. As a former public school educator, the goal was to provide my students with a *balanced* view of all sides, not one that was heavily weighted to one side based on preference. Has this changed? I would therefore urge you to either remove these indicators or add additional indicators that also teach about creationism and a comparison between the two approaches.
173. Beth Hill, BS, Teacher, Agree
The State of Ohio has an obligation to its citizens to present all theories of origin in the teaching of life sciences. To do otherwise is to teach students WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. By incorporating the proposed Modifications to the Science Standards, Ohio can achieve an unbiased balance in the teaching of origins that does not favor any one theory.
174. Jami Hinson, Homemaker, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Teaching evolution as the only possible origin of man would be disasterous. If you do, you should also teach that the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
175. Steven Hodges, BS, Youth Pastor, Bible, Agree
Lies that are taught about evolution’s support from science should not be taught. I do not propose creation by Jehovah God is taught, but I do propose that we stop lying about “facts” that have been known to be false for years in order to support a theory that most scientist to not even support anymore.
176. Nancy Hoffman, Operations Specialist, Agree
I believe that many theories and ideas of creation should be offered to the students. Give me all the options and I will be able to form an informed opinon. Give me one theory and it is often taken as fact which it is not.
177. Karen Housholder, BA, HCDS, History and Government, Speaker/Writer, Agree
A primary, and most essential, goal of learning is to teach students how to decipher what is factual, from that which is theory or falsehood. The proposed Science Standards fail to accomplish this. Not only do they present the theory of evolution as fact, which it is clearly not, they do not present another alternative theory. Intelligent Design is every bit as reasonable a theory as Evolution. Indeed, many think more so. Origens science is an Historical science, which cannot be verified in the laboratory by repeated testing. The criticism that Intelligent Design is not acceptable as a theory because it has not been tested and verified is thus irrelevant. The theory of evolution has never been tested or verified either. Both theories do present a reasonable explanation. The evidence for both theories should be presented, not just those in support of one or the other. In any case, most Americans want their children to be exposed to all the information. When this does not occur public schools can open themselves up to the charge that they are more interested in promoting an unproven theory than they are in equipping students with the tools they need to think for themselves.
178. Michelle Houston, BS, Education, Administrative Assistant, Agree
I strongly agree that both evolution (as a theory) and design should be taught in the public schools.
179. Michael Houston, BS, Social Work, Sales, Agree
180. Rick Howeard, BS, Business, Quality Technician in Aircraft MFG Plant, Agree
181. Stephanie Hughes, BS, Biology, Educator, Agree
From a purely philosophical standpoint, there is strength for a prime or first mover – an organized, creative, logical entity or force – that was the causal agent of dynamic complexity. If the laws of thermodynamics are viewed as laws (as of yet to be broken), one cannot assume scientifically that these forces operated any differently in any other era. The law of entropy cannot be changed from digression, or chaos, to one of building up to complexity, simply to fit a theory. There have been no actual transitional forms of living or once living organisms to place credence to the last statement of the theory of evolution, and that being adaptations by organisms for survival can give rise to a new unique and separate organism. That is not to say there are adaptations within species that give them a survival edge, but one does not find evidence of new separate species from this.
As well, similarities of design between species does not mean transition of organisms to other species. It simply means that the design is creative, worthwhile, and works. One argument, the Operin Haldane (sorry for the misspelling) model, though very specific, and to some degree successful in laboratory settings, cannot be a cogent argument for a pre-existant earth climate that is conducive to protein synthesis, to ultimately bring about the synthesis of DNA, and later, lead to higher forms of life. So, if this fails, we must look at Darwin’s tennants of evolution as simply a theory. We, as explorers of science, must broaden our thinking and searching to intelligently entertain other viewpoints that can be studied, evidenced, and extrapolated on for new horizons in origins.
182. Steve Hughes, MS, Business, Real Estate, Agree
This language is very objective.
183. Ray Hunter, BS, EE, Engineer, Disagree
Theory sould be taught as theory and facts that can be proven through the scientific process should be taught as facts.
The theory of evolution as “Darwin” and followers have stated it is a THEORY. Not fact and cannot be proven. In such faith based studies it is best left this way.
184. Christopher Huseer, Business Owner, Disargee
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I believe that we were created by our lord and father (GOD) who gave his only begotten son to save us from sin and eternal damnation and that each and every person on this planet should be allowed to come to their own conclusion. During my school years I was not given the appropriate information to be allowed to make that choice early in life. This was solely due to the fact that the only information given was Darwinism as a standard. How can we possibly expect any different outcome for the future generations of our country if we don’t give them the right to choose based on all of the information. Step back and take a good look at the basis for the attack on our country today. Is it based on Christianity or Darwinism. Thank GOD for the christian leaders of our country. Please don’t condem our country to a life lived as the primates did. Survival of the fittest. Allow our children the opportunity to do as God commands us to do and that is the 2nd greatest commandment of all. ( Love your neibor as you love yourself. ) Mark 12:31
185. James Elchert, BS, Business, Estimator, Agree
Regarding the “life science” portion of the State of Ohio proposed science standards at the grade 10 level, I strongly favor the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting all evidence, including evidence of “intelligent design”, to Ohio students.
Thank You.
186. Tammy Jeffrey, BS, Photography, Digital imaging, Agree
Some might seem to think that modifying a few little words here and there is silly and a waste of time. But little words can change the belief structure of people. Darwin at first, had a theory. Now it is fact. Not that it is truely fact, but that it has been called fact for a couple of generations and has been accepted as fact. I have no problem changing these little words to correctly represent the truth; Darwin has a theory.
187. Celtie Johnson, Associate Degree, Chemistry/Biology, Electronics Communication Technician, Agree
Nothing is more inappropriate in science education than to censor information and suppress critical thinking and inquiry. Every scientific claim, including evolution, must welcome all challenges from alternative theories, if it wants to continue to be held up as true, i.e., for real.
If, however, the search for truth is no longer the primary goal of science, then parents, students, administrators and teachers deserve to be immediately notified.
188. No Permission, Agree
189. Jack Juron, MBA, Accounting and Finance, Real Estate Developer and Broker, Agree
In my view, the faith of creationists seems at least as reasonable as the faith of evolutionists. Meditate, for example, upon the 10 billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex of the human brain. Darwin himself admitted drawbacks of the evolution theory in trying to explain complex organs, such as the eye. He stated that to believe that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone. Furthermore, the kidneys contain approximately 280 miles of tubes and filter 185 quarts of water a day from the blood. The heart pumps 5,000 gallons of blood a day. It beats about 2.5 billion tiems in an average life time. And, all of these complex systems function together! Can evolution really account for all of this? An honest assessment of available information must conclude that there is powerful evidence to support the theory that the universe and all that is in it is a designed creation.
Why not teach a balanced view? It only seems reasonable.
189. Regina Kalbfell, LPN, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Since when do we teach an oppinion as a fact? If you are going to teach a theory, teach both sides of the theory.
190. No Permission, CEO of XXXXXXX, Ltd, Agree
191. Shaun Kapusinski, BS, Marketing, Student, Agree
If truth is what each educated individual is searching for, then it is truth we should be teaching. In the recurring event of the unknown, a bias towards one theory is not an education at all; it is an opinion. As a product of the Ohio School Board system, I am thankful to have had teachers who were not biased towards one opinion, but rather taught based on a foundation of truth and recognition of any and all possible explanations for the unknown.
192. Steven Kasiguran, BRE, Religious Education, Educational Administration, Agree
I believe that the proposed Modifications improve the scientific objectivity and academic integrity of the proposed Science Standards. The classical Darwinian viewpoint is treated fairly as theory, origins science is accurately defined as a historical discipline, and no attempt is made to direct students to any religious viewpoint.
193. Jacke Kawalec, Homemaker, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
In regard to the life science, there are many beliefs concerning the design concepts of the beginning of life, mankind and the universe. To test children on their knowledge, when that knowlegde,in part, is based on their beliefs that are taught to them from birth is ludicrous. I strongly agree with Dr. John Calvert in his position concerning the teaching of an alternative hypothesis to evolution. This would indeed allow the State of Ohio to remain neutral.
194. No Permission, BA, MT, ASCP, Biology, Agree
195. John Keller, BS, Forest Management, Natural Resource Professional, Agree
196. Melody Klockner, BS, Nursing, Registered Nurse, Agree
I believe the proposed modifications are very valuable to achieve an unbiased view of the science of origins. The children of Ohio should be able to learn the evidence for design as well as evidence for (macro)evolution instead of being forced to assume that the THEORY of macroevolution is scientific fact. It is not, as the continuing debate between well-respected scientists on both sides of the issue shows. What better way to promote true thinking, rather than simple memorization of the content of a book, can one have? Let them see both sides and make up their own minds!
197. Samuel Knisley, MS, Mechanical Engineering, Senior Project Manager, Agree
My 7th grade daughter just completed the Science chapter on evolution at North Canton Middle School. I was disappointed in the treatment of evolution as the only possible explanation for our existence. Many of the early scientific “findings” (since disproved or significantly modified) were used in support of the theory as fact. It is obvious to the non-biased observer that Design Theory is at least equally supported by the scientific evidence (if not more so) than evolution theory. We do our students (and nation’s founders) an incredible disservice to notpresent a fair and unbiased presentation of Design Theory as alternative theory to evolution.
198. Todd Koonce, BS, Business, Finance, Agree
I feel that it is ok to present evolution as a theory, but at the same time it is only fair that if evolution is going to be presented, creation should also be presented to student, leaving students with the option to choose which theory they will believe.
Thank you,
Todd Koonce
199. No Permission, MS, Physics, Graduate Student Researcher, Agree
200. Brett & Heidi Kulp, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The draft standards are satisfactory in most areas, but the proposals in the area of origins science exclusively support the teaching of biological evolution (Darwinism). The proposed standards are one-sided in favor of Darwinian evolution. I support the proposed modifications by the SEAO as follows; SEAO has proposed Modifications to the draft standards that would reflect (a) the wide gap between microevolution (minor genetic variation) and macroevolution (descent of all life from a single common ancestry), (b) the naturalistic (materialistic) nature of evolutionary theory, (c) the historical (tentative, unprovable) nature of origins science theories, and (d) intelligent design theory as a viable scientific alternative to Darwinism.
201. Eleni Lang, BS, Computer Science/Mathematics, Computer Programmer, Agree
I believe that in teaching Life Science all theories should be presented to the students in a completely objective manner. None of the thoeries should be presented as fact.
202. Eric Lanier, BA, Telecommunications, State of Ohio Claims Specialist, Agree
The presentation of such a discredited theory as Darwinian Evolution as fact is not intellectually sound. To present it as a theory along with other theories is reasonable. To arbitrarily exclude intelligent design theory from science education is closed-minded.
203. Richard Lanser, M.Div., Theology, Medical Technologist (microbiology), Agree
Having been trained in both the biological sciences and theology, I can give my wholehearted support to the recommendations. They do not espouse the teaching of any particular form of theistic belief, and encourage the best of true scientific aspirations. I studied biology for many years, and put many aspects of that knowledge into practice in the lab. Darwinian ideas never had any practical impact on the real-world biology I practiced, amounting mainly to guessing at answers to questions of origins – questions more appropriate to the realm of religion.
204. Mary Lattimer, MS, Chemistry, Technical Editor, Agree
205. Philip Leiter, BS, Photojournalism, Insurance/Journalism, Agree
I have specific comments that I have attatched to the proposed Science Standards, however, generally speaking I take issue with the exclusionary language concerning the issue of origin science. I believe in intellectual honesty, and the assumption that macroevolution theory is correct contradicts this stance.
I have actually read Darwin’s works in its entirety and he himself allowed for his own human error. He openly questioned his “beliefs” in chapter 6. I have gone into this in some detail in the notes attatched to the draft. Suffice it to say, that Darwin was not so arrogant as to think his perspective was the only possible explanation for the observations he made of the visible world. He was open to critique. In fact, he does so in chapter 7 of Origin of Species:
“Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.”
Darwin believed that in the long run fossil or physical evidence would be found to support his theory of species mutation on a macro level. Nothing concrete has surfaced to date. In fact, species remain “true to type” consistently. There are no half man, half ape creatures roaming about; nor have there been any clear and unambiguous fossil evidence suggesting this radical step of macroevolution has occurred.
Although I believe in intelligent design (you may have discerned this from my comments thus far), I am not so arrogant as to think I have it all figured out. To me, the origin of life is still a mystery as to the details.
Since I was not around several millions of years ago, I couldn’t swear to anything. I do not even have the faith to believe that Carbon deteriorated at the same rate that it does currently millions of years ago. Nothing is beyond imagining.
I am a father of two children in 6th and 7th grade. I find it discouraging that Darwin’s theories are bandied about, yet neither of them have actually READ Darwin IN SCHOOL. I have shared MY copy with them so that they know the source of these ideas. I believe that Darwin’s theories are important in the understanding of our world. His discoveries have proven invaluable in the development of genetic and medical research. We owe Darwin respect for preparing the way for scientists to discover the cures for polio, smallpox and other diseases that threatened human kind.
It is unfortunate that some of my fellow Christians do not see this and have over-reacted to anything having to do with the discussion of Darwinian theory. I think there are those in the scientific community who are reactionary to challenges to “sacred” ground within their own ranks as well.
I believe the recommended modifications are fair and reasonable. These modifications fulfil the standards set forth in the section entitled “scientific inquiry”:
“Standard: Scientific Inquiry
Students demonstrate an understanding of the use of the processes of scientific inquiry to ask questions, gather and analyze information, make inferences and predictions, and create, modify, and possibly discard some explanations. This includes students demonstrating an understanding of how to ask valid questions that can be investigated scientifically about the natural world and develop an action plan to discover the answers.”
Thank you for taking the time to consider my ramblings. I hope we can together take the cause of science to a higher level.
Philip Leiter
206. Carla Leitner, BS, Engineering, Homeschool teacher, Agree
“Did matter create intelligence or did intelligence create matter?” Quote from Dr. Carl F. Painter Giving children both sides can only make them better thinkers – isn’t that what education is all about?
207. Rodney LeVake, Masters of Arts in teaching Biology, Biology, Science Teacher, Agree
208. Marvlee Lewis, RHU, employee benefits, Asset protection specialist, Agree
We are responsible for teaching children truth. therefore, evolution must be taught as exactly what it is – theory. thank you for your consideration.
209. Korey Lughry, BS, Bible, Youth and Outreach Director, Agree
210. C. Luskin, MS, Geology, Scientific Researcher, Geological Sciences, Agree
The changes help students to think more critically about what is evidence, and what is interpretation of evidence in light of a scientific theory, which may or may not be valid. I very much agree that a distinction should be made between microevolutionary change and macroevolutionary change. The changes also necessary help distinguish the difference between scientific data, and inferences stemming from a naturalistic philosophy of science. While intelligent design, as a science, might be too “young” for direct incorporation into science standards, Calvert and Harris are correct in stating that it passes constitutional legitimacy for inclusion, and it at least deserves mention in any science curriculum because of its empirical foundation and philosophical stature as a non-naturalistic theory of origins.
211. John Malone, Student, Disagree
I disagree that modifications should be made in the Life Science Standards for Ohio, and this is why. While at face value it does seem like a good idea to allow “equal time” for competing “theories”, in reality, there is only one theory. If we look at the evidence for “Intelligent Design” (or “ID”), there is little that actually exists. The so-called ID “theory” presupposes that God created Earth and all life on Earth, and then tries to find evidence that supports that theory and ignores the enormous amount of evidence that refutes it. This fact alone makes ID theory very pseudo-scientific, or one might even say “anti-science”. It is the antithesis of the way science works! If the “concerned citizens” of Ohio want equal time for all possible theories of the origin of life, why not also offer the “Muslim” version of Creation, or the Hindu, or the Buddhist? Is it that they really want equal time, or is it that they simply wish to introduce religion to the class room? For these reasons, I disagree with the proposed Modifications of the Life Science Standards of Ohio.
212 Chris Mammoliti, MS, Environmental Studies, Stream Ecologist, Agree
As a working biologist, I find the proposed modifications of the Life Science Standards, in the Science Academic Content Standards for Ohio, to be a breath of fresh air. Darwinian evolution, in its modern form and as reflected in the original draft Life Science Standards, rests on an underlying and unverifiable, philosophical view of nature. This philosophy promotes the idea that the origin and diversity of all life forms can be explained by purely materialistic processes. Students should have the opportunity to understand that this philosophical presupposition can not be proven by the methods of science. They should also have the opportunity to understand that there are a growing number of scientists who do not accept this particular viewpoint and consider evidence in the natural world to infer intelligent design. The inclusion of design into the Life Science Standards brings a degree of neutrality into the process and allows the free and open exchange of scientific ideas in public education.
213. Gary Martin, Senior Computer Programmer, Agree,
I am in general agreement with the proposed changes, except that I would prefer that the following be completely removed because there’s no empirical scientific evidence to support them:
Grade 10, Life Sciences #19, page 65. Know that biological evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time.
Grade 10, Life Sciences #20, page 65. Analyze how natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms.
Grade 10, Life Sciences #21, page 66. Know how life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth, only single-celled micro-organisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved.
Grade 12, Life Sciences #7, page 88. Know other mechanisms for evolutionary change, including genetic drift, immigration, emigration, and mutation.
Change the following modifided indicator from:
Modified indicator. Know that ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as a result of migration, local evolution, or another mechanism.
to: Modified indicator. Know that ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as a result of migration, local genetic changes, or another mechanism.
214. Cathy Martin, MBA, Business, Instructor, Agree
At first, I was reluctant to get involved in this controversy. However, upon careful reading of the proposed modifications, I, too, believe that omitting mention of intelligent design would subvert the goals of delivering “good science” to our students. I feel it is the responsibility of parents and churches to influence the “beliefs’ of our students. It is the responsibility of the schools to present viable theories regarding the beginnings of life that our students can apply their beliefs to.
215. Marjorie Masters, BS, BA, Business and Psychology, Homemaker and Homeschool Teacher, Agree
216. Alise McCain, BA, English, homemaker, No Agree/Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I disagree with the Life Science indicators describing evolution that are included in the proposed Science Standards.
217. Paul McDorman, M.Ed., School Psychology, Chemist, Agree
Students and teachers should be able to question the validity of evolution in the classroom. No science should be immune from critical evaluation. Intelligent design (ID) is a testable scientifc alternative to evolution. If it is not, then archeology, forensic science, the Seti (Search for extraterrestial intelligence) project could not be a part of science.
218. David McFarlane, BA, Psychology, Information Analyst, Agree
The study of origins is exciting. There are numerous views and theories to be considered. Let’s make sure each gets a balanced hearing. We each need to weigh the evidence and determine what we believe is true. Give our students the evidence and the theories.
219. Scott McGlasson, Various Computer Work, Disargee
This issue is very simple. Creationism / Intelligent Design are not science, and therefore they should not be included in science curriculi. Many courts have addressed this issue already, and not one has determined that creationism belongs in the science classroom.
Even creationist / ID authorities acknowledge that they have no scientific hypothesis or theory.
Creationism could certainly be taught in school – but it belongs in religious or philosophical studies, not science.
There is as yet no scientific theory of creationism or I.D. Creationism proponents advance no evidence for any alternative to evolution. They have no scientific alternative to evolution; they only want their personal beliefs and ideas about life origins to be considered science without meeting the requirements of science.
There is a very good reason that creationists’ previous efforts to include creationism in science education have failed again and again. The reason is that creationism is not science.
It is very important for Ohio to retain neutrality in this issue, and in order to do that, the intelligent design theory should be included in curriculum. Neither macroevolution nor intelligent design can be proven, so it is reasonable to include both as valid hypotheses.
The standards should also reflect the difference between microevolution, which is not disputed, and macroevolution. Students need to be aware of the difference between the two.
220. Ann McGrath, AB, Math, Elementary Education, Educator, Agree
It is extremely important that both views be taught and tautht as to scientic opinions, not proven fact.
221. James Merwin, BS, Chemical Engineering, Senior Tech Engineer, Agree
It’s important that Ohio’s science education distinguish between demonstrated fact and scientific theory. With regard to origins science, all views should be put forth as theory since none can be adequately tested by modern science (and haven’t been). The observation of micro-evolution should not be taken as full validation of macro-evolution which hasn’t been observed, though it is one plausible theory. Other theories, specifically those centered around intelligent design, should not be ruled out but rather presented as alternate views that, like macro-evolution, also can’t be tested for validation.
222. Kathleen Merwin, BA, Art, Music, Music Teacher, Agree
Our students need to understand that the theory of evolution is just that … not fact, but a theory as to the origins of man and the universe. I believe it would be a much greater challenge to the critical thinking skills of students to present to them more than one possible theory for consideration.
223. Lisa Messinger, BA, Journalism, Public Information Officer, Agree
224. Julie Mihaljevic, Officer Manager, Agree
I think the modifications are very fair, and do not seek to eliminate the teaching of the THEORY of macroevolution, but to inform students of other theories, as well. How very biased to teach ONLY macroevolution! Why should students be kept unaware of alternatives?
225. Ruth Miller, BS, Retired general science teacher, Agree
Dear Ms. Anderson,
I would like to comment on the proposed standards for science. Life science standard for 10th grade number 21 begins with the words, “know life on earth is thought to have begun…” followed by statements supporting the view of evolution. No mention is made of the views many intelligent, educated scientists hold….that intelligent design was/is a part of the process. To set forth evolution as the only theory to be taught in our schools would seriously compromise the proficiency test. Students who do not hold to this theory would be forced to answer in the “right” way in order to pass the test??? If scientific inquiry is to be a goal for educators, why not present all theories, with supporting evidence so that students may come to their own conclusion?
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Ann Miller
mother of four, grandmother of ten
retired middle school science educator
mimimiller@att.net
226 Janine Miller, BS, Education, Educator, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Teaching evolution as the only viable solution to creation is not only “discriminatory”, it is also scientifically faulty. Ohio’s education elite seem to be leaning toward teaching evolution as an already established fact, instead of the theory it is, whether they admit it or not.
227. Ronald Miller, BA, Chemistry, Retired, Agree
It is inconceivable to me, having been trained in the scientific method, that only one viewpoint relating to the issue of “man’s creation” is currently being suggested by those appointed to select information for our Ohio scientific textbooks. To completely ignore the possibility of an Intellectual Design Author as a creator of “Man and our Universe” does not speak highly for those given responsibility for approving our scientific texts. Why not give our young students the right to chose between these two Theories?
228. No Permission, BS, Industrial management, housewife, Agree
We continue to let our children down regarding their schooling. We change history to be P.C. “politcally correct”, allow them to spell words “as they see fit”, and solve math problems “close enough”. Let us not teach Evolution as fact when there is no supporting evidence. It is very frustrating for me to watch the “dummbing down of America children”.
229. No Permission, BS, Elementary Teacher and Board of Education Member, Agree
230. R. Marshall Minnich, BS, Architecture, Architect, Agree
Score one for truth and honesty. In the arena of origins science, the proposed modifications level the playing field for all competing hypotheses. Finally, you can allow all legitimate scientific inquiries into the classroom and allow the students to see the facts and decide for themselves. Let science point where it may point, and if it points to a god, so be it–is that a crime? Shall we cover up truth and indoctrinate lies in the minds of students in the name of the establishment clause of our constitution? I really hope not. Please allow the THEORY of evolution to duke it out with competing theories in the classroom. The indoctrination of any one philosophy, including the philosophy of Naturalism, will certainly fail the constitutional test. Truth deserves a fighting chance.
231. Rober Moak, Systems Analyst, Agree
All theories about the origins of life should be presented for study. None of these theories should be taught as factual, as none of them are actually scientific verifiable information. Since none of these can be proven, it requires a faith to believe them, thus they all constitute a religious belief not a scientific fact.
232. No Permission, BS, Biomedical Engineering, Editor, Agree
Any standard or modification that would require teaching Intelligent Design is a farce. It’s like forcing educators to teach the least stupid alternative to the Atomic Theory or the Theory of Gravity. There’s not enough time in a normal child’s education to include failed, misguided, and fairy-tale science.We have a hard enough time teaching them what the experts believe are the best explanations in biology, geology, astronmy, and the rest of the sciences, along with the scientific method. Let’s not clutter it up with god, eugenics, astrology, and palm reading.
233. Todd Muller, BA, History, Community Development, Agree,
These are very reasonable modifications. Not to include them does not seem consistent with a pursuit of scientific knowledge.
234 Mary Murphy, HS, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The theory of evolution is strictly an opinion of Darwin and has not been proven to be true. How can you justify forcing children to learn that theory, when it is not entirely factual, but merely a choice of belief. It is my understanding that how we have come to be, is a personal choice of religion or belief. Religion is suppose to be separate from the state. Therefore, unless you are willing to teach all beliefs, one should not be singled out and forced to be learned.
235 Daniel Muscarella, BBA, Finance/Economics, Customer Service Engineer, Agree
Science in an of itself is not absolute. Scientific study is an investigation into the understanding of observed facts, a hypothesis is then either supported or not supported by what is observed.
Because of the limitations of science, the need for statements about these limitations should be included in all scientific study.
The best I have found came from Bob Jones University Press 1993:
1) Science deals only with the physical universe.
2) Science is unable to prove a universal negative.
3) Science is unable to make value judgments.
4) Science is unable to make moral judgments.
5) Science is unable to produce final answers.
6) Science is fallible and pronce to error.
7) Science is often forced to deal with models rather than with reality.
8) Science is bound by certain ordained restriction.
9) Science is affected by the scientists’ prejudices.
10) Science is a useful tool.
In an age where diversity and tolerance reign, it is amazing to me that the Creation, Intelligent Design Hypothesis is feared by the public educators. Their fear is geniune. The data that has been collected and even manipulated does not support the hypothesis of evolution as the beginning of life.
Blinding prejudices do not have any place in the area of education or in the search for truth.
236 Ellen Myers, MA, History, Teacher, Agree
The history of science shows that scientific revolutions have occurred in the past. The intelligent design paradigm may well cause a scientific revolution now. Our students should learn to be flexible about the current paradigm of origins.
237. Todd Norquist, BA, Psychology, Theater, Marketing, Agree
Single lane, one way dogmatism stifles curiousity. It’s a teen-ager’s job to be turned-on by debate and controversy. Teachers should be happy that such a controversy is brewing. Students deserve the most up-to-date presentation of the scientific landsape–including this controversy.
238. Kyle Nowakowski, Student, Agree
These new modifications will stimulate new, uncharted, inquiry into scientific discoveries regardless of religion, race, or ethic standings. Let us explore all possibilities.
239. Larissa Nygren, BS, English, Marketing Manager, Disagree
I don’t object to traditional scientific evolution theories being taught, but I think they should be taught as THEORIES, not as proven fact. They have not, in fact, been proven. It’s fine to introduce children to the theory as a possibility, but should not be taught as truth, thereby ruling out personal religious beliefs.
240. Chris O’Daniel, BS, Computer Science, Programmer/Analyst, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I think it is wrong to even suggest that a therory is absolute truth. Therefore evolution as an assumption should not be something we teach in any school much less public schools. I think it should be presented as a theory along with other valid theories as well.
241. No Permission, BA, Communications, Marketing Director, Agree
I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting all evidence, including evidence of “design.”
242. Carla Owens, MA, Counseling, Career Counselor, Agree
I fully agree with the new proposals – it is strange that evolution has historically been taught as “fact” rather than just one of many theories when in fact many scientists are still debating many of the laws of science, including the origins of man. Evolution does not even attempt to fully explain the origins of space, time, the big-bang, etc… – who set these in place? Creative Design may be the only logical answer!
This “theory” of Creative Design should not offend anyones particular religious views as the finger is not pointed at anyone religion but rather some sort of supreme being setting all of creation into motion!
Students are given the opportunity to hear many different views in their classes – ie – history, literature, psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Why should science class be any different? Students need to be taught to be independent thinkers across all curriculum.
243. No Permission, BS, Engineering, Web Commerce Developer, Disagree
244. James Pardee, MS, Business Admin, Public Accountant, Disagree
Don’t let the Ohio board of education become the second laughing stock (after Kansas)because of this ridiculous idea of intelligent design, etc. One county school board in Florida was voted in to make the same changes as Kansas and Ohio and was recalled by majority vote after the courts said their actions were unconstitutional.
245. Quentin Patch, BS, Industrial Engineering, Sales engineer, Agree
The modifications represent a minimal move toward the current middle position regarding origins. Without these small modifications, students will be left in the dark regarding cutting arguments against the plausibility of evolutionism. Continued censoring of up-to-date information will not benefit students of any persuasion in their future education and career pursuits.
246. No Permission, MA, Biblical Studies, Writer, Agree
247. No Permission, BS, ME, Mechanical Engineer, Agree
248. No Permission, MM, Music, Musician, Agree
To present evolution as fact and all other as fiction is to teach poor science methods. It is best to present the opinions and theories available and allow students to cpme to their own conclusions. Teachers are already going to present their biased views to students whether or not those theories are based on solid science, but why are they afraid to teach opposing views?
249. Karl Priest, MA, Education Administration, Teacher-public school, Agree
Mathematics(not religion)has destroyed Darwinism. Why not let your students see the facts so they can make informed decision?
250. Everett Purcell, MS, MS, Aerospace Engineering and Mathematics, Agree
Science can’t be studied properly unless all views are freely discussed without prejudice. Discussions of intelligent design must be introduced.
251. Roger Ransom, BA, Public School teacher, Agree
I disagree with the Life Science Standards for Ohio and the stance that the committee has taken to make the absurd claim that evolution is the only acceptable explain for the origin of life. To be truly academic or educational, all possibilities for the origin of life must be presented to Ohio students. No true scientist had ever or could ever make the claim that evolution is a fact. Their statements are only presuppositions or theories. That is the way the committee should leave it. The Modifications should be incorporated in the Life Science Standards for Ohio, since it allows for a fair inclusion for other orign possibilities.
252. Joseph Renick, MS, Mechanical Engineering, Research Scientist, Agree
I heartily agree with the proposed Modifications to the Science Standards. I encourage the members of
the Ohio Board of Education to take a courageous stand for unbiased, evidence-based science education.
Perhaps history will record that it was in Ohio that the first steps were taken in exorcising the
naturalistic philosophical bias that is so deeply embedded in biological sciences education in American public schools.
Joseph D. Renick
Senior Research Scientist
Northrop Grumman Information Technology
P.O. Box 9377
Albuquerque, NM 87119
505-842-8911
253. No Permission, Associate Degree, Secretary, Disagree
254. Joel Roadruck, MBA, Finance, self employed business owner, Agree
I have been studying this issue for years. I was taught in public school that evolution was a “fact” and as a result concluded that all religion was simply weak-minded men’s way of coping. This resulted in my becoming an atheist. It was not until I was challenged to look at the historical evidence for Jesus that I began to question the “fact” of evolution. I now believe that the teaching of evolution as a fact is the most serious problem facing our society. If the State of Ohio adopts the new science standards without the proposed modifications then it will be in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution. The scientific work in support of ID by Wells, Behe, Dembski, Bradley, Meyer and others can not be ignored. The very definition of science needs to be modified. It should be: the search for knowledge based upon empirical evidence. However, the definition should not contain the clause “of only natural causes.” This clause has been tacitly included and contains the underlying philosophy of naturalism which is the antithesis of religion and requires that there is, and can be, no god. Science should follow wherever the evidence leads. ID theorists conclude that living organisms and the biosphere in which we live show specified complexity which appear to be the result of design. (No religion is attributed.) Evolutionists conclude that chance and natural selection account for all of the complexity that we see today. Students should be allowed to discern which theory best fits the evidence. They should understand the implications and the limitations of both equally. Teachers should not be allowed to force one view over the other. One last point. ID is NOT creation science. Creation science is directly derived from the bible. I do not support the teaching of CS in public schools. I would be happy to assist in the adoption of the proposed modifications in any way possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Joel Roadruck
255. Mary Ann Rockwood, RN, RN, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I believe we should also include the life design theory as well. We need to boarden our education not limit it.
256. Jeff Roley, MS, Administration, Social Worker, Agree
257. Allen Roy, AA, Civil Engineering Technology, Creationary Catastrophe Tour Guide at Grand Canyon, Agree
258. Doug Rudy, BS, English Ed, Software Developer, Agree
At the level of popular media, the assumption is made that the scientific data supporting evolution supports a wide range of sociological and philosophical positions, affecting the meaning of human life, the basis for ethics, etc.
The proposed modification here are CRITICAL to equipping students to evaluate such claims for themselves. They do no more than make the teaching of evolution move closer to what objective scientific research reveals to those working in the field.
259. John Russell, BSChe; ME, Chemical Engineering; Business, Computer Consultant, Agree
As a graduate of one of the top engineering schools in the country (RPI), I find it appalling that the science standards should be so dogmatic on the issue of life origins and development when there is no consensus in the scientific community as to the processes which resulted in life as we know it. The inclusion of intelligent design theory would be a welcome – indeed necessary – counter-balance to the repudiated theories of time, chance, and natural selection.
260. No Permission, BS, Family Studies/Education, Preschool Director/Teacher Agree
Evolution is a theory not a fact. Because of this other theories need introduced to let the child/children draw conclusions based on all the material they have been presented.
261. Chris Sams, Student, Agree
I remember being in high school…I wish we would have been taught the objective views in science…that is part of science, gathering un-biased facts and making a decision for ourself. If we withhold facts an/or views, isn’t that a breakdown of what science and the unviverse as we understand it is all about?
262. Brian Sandefur, BS, Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Agree
263. Kelly Sanders, Registered Nurse, Agree
It is a well known fact that the table has turned with the historic facts regarding evolution. I have discovered that many more scientists are finding more flaws than ever before in this theory. It is amazing that in any other subject matter, one is to be fair in hearing and discussing both or various possibilities or views. When it comes to science it is considered unacceptable to teach anything else but evolution. I call this censorship.
264. Mark Scheel, BA, Psychology, Librarian and freelance writer, Agree
Students should have the opportunity to be exposed to the areas of weakness and illogic in Darwinism.
265. No Permission, Self employed, Agree
266. Peg Schultz, BS, Nursing, Registered Nurse, Disagree
267. No Permission, MA, Anthropology, Vertebrate paleontologist, Disagree
The 1st proposed change is simply an attempt to eliminate the word “evolution” from the lesson, resulting in scientific inaccuracy. It is actually the changes in life forms through geologic time that have influenced environmental change. For example, there was little or no oxygen in the atmosphere at the time life formed. Anaerobic metabolic processes carried out early photosynthesis. It was not until roughly 2.3 billion years ago that Organisms called cyanobacteria oxygenated the atmosphere (incidentally causing their own extinction!). Clearly, the evolution of life, not its mere presence, was the driving force behind these changes. To leave out this important component of the lesson renders it virtually useless.
The 2nd proposed change is again, simply, the removal of the word “evolution”. The remainder of this point is mere obfuscation. While it is true that Linnaean classification was developed prior to the theory of evolution, and was not originally evolutionary in practice, modern taxonomists have modified the system to reflect evolutionary relationships. One need only look at any college-level biology textbook to discover that Linnaean taxonomy is now, in practice, evolutionary.
The proponents of this modification are also not “up” on their understanding of phylogenetic systematics. Cladistic methodology has generated a more refined evolution-based taxonomy called “phylogenetic taxonomy”, which identifies groups based on common ancestry, rather than overall similarity used in Linnaean-based taxonomies. It is far from troublesome and is currently gaining wide support in some fields of systematics. (The Dawkins quote is a disingenuous non sequitur. Our inability to identify specific ancestors does not entail that we cannot classify organisms based on relationship, or know the degree of relatedness between different organisms. For example, you can know who your second cousin is even if you do not have any pictures of your great-grandparents and do not know where they are buried.)
The 3rd proposed modification is accurate however stated, both in the current draft indicator and as modified. But the second sentence in the modified indicator is unnecessary. The motivation behind this change is pure creationism: creationists have long insisted on a spurious distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution because common ancestry would violate the creationists’ position on created “kinds.” According to creationists, kinds were created with built-in barriers that prevent descent with modification resulting in speciation. For example, according to creationists, whales are a created kind, and not the result of descent with modification from early, land-dwelling mammals, as evolutionists assert based on study of the fossil record. However, creationists have never presented scientific models of exactly what defines each kind and what the barrier to speciation is. (This is just one of the many reasons why creationism is not a science!)
The 4th proposed modification involves semantics. Here the word “may” is unnecessarily inserted to cast doubt on one of the most well- established theories in science. This modification reflects confusion about the scientific definition of a “theory.” But, as the National Academy of Science explains, “Ideas are not referred to as ‘theories’ in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence”. Thus, insertion of the word may is unnecessary, and is intended only to cast doubt about the status of evolution in the minds of students.
Methodological naturalism is incorrectly defined in this proposed modification. It actually means only that scientists are restricted to natural explanations in explaining the natural world, and the principle applies to all of science, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, and biology. There is therefore absolutely no real debate over whether methodological naturalism should be applied to the “historical sciences” because it is a basic principle of all sciences. Of course, even sciences not usually thought of as “historical” such as physics and chemistry have historical aspects. For example, because gravity causes objects to fall to the ground today, we assume gravity has always caused objects to fall to the ground. This is both empirical and historical, and the same is true of evolutionary biology.
The intent of Modification #5 is to remove any reference to the age of the earth, and to qualify or make the status of evolution as a science seem more tentative to students. Both are bad for students’ understanding of science. The assertion in the explanation that “these estimated times very greatly” is simply false; scientists have dated not only rocks on earth, but meteorites and moon rocks as well. Meteorites and the most ancient rocks date between 4.5 billion and 4.6 billion years. The oldest known earth rocks are 3.7 to 3.9 billion years old, while the oldest minerals date between 4.1 and 4.2 billion years. The age of the earth is therefore known to be approximately 4.5 billion years.
regarding Modification #6: Historical knowledge about the development and acceptance of scientific theories is an integral part of quality science education. However, given the amount of information children today are expected to learn, and the limited time in which to learn it, it is important to keep the most relevant, the most up-to-date, and the most scientifically valuable information in the curriculum. The inclusion of Paley and Behe in the list of scientific developments is intended to lend an air of legitimacy to intelligent design as a viable scientific field of study. However, intelligent design has yet to be demonstrated as viable by its advocates. For example, Paley argued that the adaptations of the eyes of fish and the eyes of land vertebrates to their respective environments was evidence for the work of an intelligent designer. “What plainer manifestation of design can there be than this instance?” he asked. This question was also considered by Darwin, who proposed: “Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.” Darwin did not “overshadow” Paley as the proposed change states; he overturned his ideas, providing a better explanation for what we see in nature.
Including Paley in the curriculum might be useful from a historical perspective, but including Behe’s idea of “irreducible complexity” would serve no purpose in science education. Paley represented, in his day, the consensus view. And this would be good for students to know. But Behe does not; his ideas have been rejected by the knowledgable scientific community. Our responsibility is to give students the best information science has to offer. Currently, that does not include irreducible complexity and intelligent design.
As for “Intelligent Design”: this unscientific concept is currently accepted by only a very small number of scientists who have yet to publish research results in any peer- reviewed scientific journal. The vast majority of scientists do not regard intelligent design as a “viable scientific theory that presents an opposing viewpoint that is deserving of consideration.” Science is a process of learning about the natural world. The introduction of supernatural causes removes the lesson from the realm of science. (A more appropriate place in education for intelligent design theory might be a humanities course or a comparative religions course, since intelligent design is not a scientific view.) The exclusion of intelligent design is therefore not censorship. Scientists have examined the views of the Intelligent Design proponents and have not found them useful for understanding the natural world. Science curricula for K-12 schools are developed around the consensus of the scientific community, and this consensus does not include intelligent design. If it ever enters into the consensus, then it will doubtless trickle down to the pre-college level much as have other scientific views.
A parallel situation existed twenty years ago regarding a proposal that “creation science” – a view that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that living things appeared suddenly in their present form – was supportable through science and thus should be taught in public schools. Scientists examined and rejected these claims, and creation science is not included in the curriculum because the evidence against such claims is overwhelming. Indeed, the scientific procedure requires the testing of alternate hypotheses, but once such hypotheses are disproved, there is no point in constantly reiterating them.
Until intelligent design advocates can make a case for their ideas that is at least as strong as the evolutionary view, they will remain on the fringes of science with such notions as a young earth.
Evolutionary theory, like all science, is “open to questions and possible modification”, and in fact, new developments occur daily. But the modifications in evolutionary theory – like those from all other science – must come from the application of the discovery of natural causes and effects, not supernatural ones. Once we begin assuming miracles occur in our study of the natural world, we stop doing science.
Claims of “viewpoint discrimination” are inappropriate, an example of a legal concept applied outside of its proper setting. Scientific concepts and theories are not “viewpoints” in the sense that the courts have used this term. “Viewpoints” are social, political, religious, and artistic opinions, rather than logically and empirically derived scientific theories and concepts. Whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes perpetual motion machines is not a “viewpoint”. A political or religious opinion may not, under the free speech clause of the First Amendment, be repressed, but that does not mean that proponents of perpetual motion machines deserve to have their views taught in science classes.
What we teach in science class is the concepts and theories that have stood the test of time. Evolution has. Intelligent Design and creation science have not.
There are other problems with the proposed modifications, as I’m certain other interested parties will demonstrate. Suffice it to say that the proposed modifications are clearly not scientific in nature, regardless of what their authors have said. Evolutionary theory is solid science; the reason no other scientific viewpoints are presently taught in the classroom is that there are NO such viewpoints. Evolutionary theory is the only scientific explanation for the development of life on earth; arguments from “intelligent design”, “creation science”, and so forth are clearly religious in their foundations, and should not be taught in science classrooms. They are not valid science in any way, shape or form.
268. Doris Lynn Shaffer, MS, Mental Health Counseling, Clinical counselor, Disagree
269. Doug Sharp, BS, Physical Science, Computer Scientist, Agree
It is time to end the double standard that says that evolution is science but intelligent design is religion. Neither are totally scientific nor religious, but there is a mixture of ideology in both. I believe that all sides of this issue need to be exposed to students. Evolutionism is an apologetic for a number of religious beliefs, including materialism, secularism, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, communism, fascism, and humanism, all of which exhibit a perverse hatred toward people of faith in the Bible. To teach evolution as fact is to slap the face of the student of faith who disagrees, but who has no recourse but to answer his teacher to get a good grade. It one of the worst forms of bigotry exhibited by schools who pride themselves in being open minded.
270. Michael Shelton, MS, Aerospace Engineering, Aerospace Engineer, Agree
Teach science straight up. No smoke and mirrors, please. Also, teach about pure materialistic naturalism, and intelligent design. Then allow the students (and parents, as appropriate), to make an informed decision.
271. No Permission, Auditor, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
In order for an education to be comprehensive, I feel that all sides of an argument or theory should be presented as theory so that the resulting debate and discovery will not be one sided or manipulated in a predetermined direction. The competing design theories for example concerning the origins of life, should both/all be presented. If only one is used then the education of the students is restricted and free, independent thinking is not encouraged.
272. Jody Sjogren, MS, Medical Illustration, Medical Illustrator and Aviation Artist, Agree
I agree with the concerns articulated in the Modifications, and I strongly urge that they be implemented. The Modifications remove the pervasive but erroneous assumption that science has a proven naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. The Modifications help to reflect the true status of scientific knowledge about the origin of life, including those areas about which science is ignorant.
I am quite concerned that our Science Standards include reference to, and discussion of, these key concepts: 1) origins science is a historical science, and as such it must be approached without pre-existing bias in order to arrive at an explanation consistent with all of the evidence; 2) in spite of half a century of research into the origin of the first biologically active molecules by chemical evolution, the process remains a mystery (rather than a foregone conclusion, as implied in the current version of the Standards); and 3) natural selection may explain why certain members of existing populations survive and others die out, but it has yet to propose a mechanism for complexity-building at the biomolecular or gross anatomical level, and it has no explanation for the presence and activity of information (which is something other than matter and energy) in biochemical systems. The Modifications address most of these issues; the current Standards do not.
The writers of the current Standards have also neglected to mention the growing body of significant scientific evidence which supports a design hypothesis. The assumption of naturalism pervades these Standards, and the Modifications are essential and necessary for disclosing this assumption and revealing the evidence which challenges Darwinian processes. The inclusion of Intelligent Design theory is necessary so that students can be exposed to and understand the competing hypothesis for the origin of life and its diversity, and so that they are aware of why a growing body of scientists are considering Intelligent Design as a viable explanation for origins.
273. No Permission, Student, Molecular and Cellular biology, Agree
274. Paul Smith, HS, Computer Programmer, Agree
It’s high time we did something *actual* about keeping orthodoxies and sacred cows out of science. Unfortunately, we have unwittingly let Darwinism become one of these sacred cows, and in the process, we have forgotten that our primary goal should be to teach our children to think, rather than teaching them *what* to think.
These modifications are a good first step towards achieving a truly evidence-based science curriculum, which is how science should have been taught in the first place.
275. Jeff Smith, BBA, Chemistry, Self employed, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The design concepts in the Life Science curriculum is too narrow banded. Darwinism is a theory and should be taught as a theory, as well as considering other theories and ideas on this matter. This subject matter should not be limited to one thought when all teachings in this area are only theories. Please consider expanding this Science standard.
276. Judy Smith, BS, Registered Pharmacist, Agree
Science is about inquiry and by implication that would include all theories about origins. One needs all the information available to be able to effectively examine the evidence. The controversy about origins should be taught in schools. Children should not be co-opted into believing in one particular worldview or another. They should be allowed to examine the evidence available and given the tools to pursue their examination further if they wish. School is not about indoctrination to either side of this issue; it is about giving students the ability to think critically, not merely parrot one point of view or the other. Judy Smith, RPH
277. Tracy Solli, MS, Education, Course Coordinator for Biolgoy Program, Agree
I agree that it is a form of viewpoint discrimination and state censorship to exclude design as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Members of the scientific community have given convincing arguments for considering the theory of design as a possible explanation for the origins of life on earth. It should be included in the information we give to our students. I don’t see how it adversely affects our students to clarify to them that Darwinian Evolution is one possible explanation for the origin of life on earth and that there are scientists that have studied the same information, but have come up with a different explanation, intelligent design. That’s what real science is all about! I do, however, think that we cause great damage to the reputation of science by restricting thought and the flow of information and by not telling our students the whole story.
278. Scott Sommer, MS, Chemical Engineering, Managing Engineer/Scientist, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The portions of the proposed Modifications that reference the origins of the earth take into account only one very narrow view, namely Darwinian evolution theory (note, evolution is one of many theories and is not fact). I am referring specifically to the Grade 10 proposed modifications, items #2 and #19-24. A true science curriculum would embrace the discovery, teaching, and discussion of multiple theories of the origins of earth and of life. By restricting the classroom discussion and presentation to only one of many theories, you are in essence proposing that the scientific method be thown out in favor of those who would like to present only one theory. This is not only a disservice to the students, but also is counter to true scientific methods. I am a scientist by schooling, trade, and profession, and only when diverse theories are presented does true scientific learning occur. Limiting the discussions to one theory is, in essence, opinion and indoctrination, not scientific teaching or scientific discovery. I am very disappointed that the Ohio Board would consider such a restriction under the guise of scientific instruction.
279. Andy Stack, BA, Claims representative, No Response
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
The portions of the proposed Modifications that reference the origins of the earth take into account only one very narrow view, namely Darwinian evolution theory (note, evolution is one of many theories and is not fact). I am referring specifically to the Grade 10 proposed modifications, items #2 and #19-24. A true science curriculum would embrace the discovery, teaching, and discussion of multiple theories of the origins of earth and of life. By restricting the classroom discussion and presentation to only one of many theories, you are in essence proposing that the scientific method be thown out in favor of those who would like to present only one theory. This is not only a disservice to the students, but also is counter to true scientific methods. I am a scientist by schooling, trade, and profession, and only when diverse theories are presented does true scientific learning occur. Limiting the discussions to one theory is, in essence, opinion and indoctrination, not scientific teaching or scientific discovery. I am very disappointed that the Ohio Board would consider such a restriction under the guise of scientific instruction.
280. Mark Stewart, AD, Accounting and Business/Admin, Plant Operator, Agree
281. No Permission, receptionist, Disagree.
282. David Stockman, BS, Accounting, Financial Advisor, Agree
Just a reminder that not a single verifiable transition from one species to another has ever been found. For verification of this fact, contact Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world’s largest fossil collection, – sixty million specimens.
Albert Einstein acknowledged that “the harmony of natural law…reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all systematic thinking and acting of human beings is utterly insignificant reflection.”
283. Greg Stover, AAS, Agriculture, Truck Driver, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
As I understand it the rule of public system is to enable our populace to determine the how to govern this democratic republic. The act of governing requires the ability to make choices based on known facts. I therefore believe the choice of origins should be made available to our students in state sponsored science classes. Beings it is that our government is historically and heavily influenced on the laws of God. I therefore believe God or the creation argument should be given no less than 50% of the class time for instruction.
284. Jonathan Stull, Road Worker for State of Ohio, High School, Disagree
285. No Permission, MS, Education, Therapist and licensed counselor, Disagree
286. David Swan, Software engineer, Disagree
No matter how you name it Intelligent Design is Creationism. Intelligent Design assumes, without evidence, the existence of a supreme being. I would question how one would even teach such a concept. The entire theory seems to be based on incredulity of complex lifeforms. Incredulity is not a theory. If you want equal time for competing theories at least come up with a competative theory. Would you complain about the Heliocentric theories lack of competition? How about the fact that we have but one element chart. Perhaps we should bring back the theory of the four elements earth, fire, air and water. To allow creationism into our school systems would be an embarrasment to Ohio. Please don’t let this happen.
287. Dan Swires, BA, Theology, Electronics Technician, Agree
288. Renee Szabo, Agree
Scientific evidence for “intelligent design” provides a practical and legal balance to Darwinism evolution without any bias toward any one particular theistic belief.
289. William Taber, BS, Microbiology, Microbiologist, disagree
I am extremely discouraged and disgusted to see your organization use the word “Science” in your organiztation’s name. Apparently, you seem to fear even the word “evolution”, while you have failed to even recognize what the word actually means.
290. Nancy Thompson, MS, Exercise Physiology, School Board Member, Agree
The modifications to the proposed science standards are reasonable and necessary to teach students about evolutionary theory with complete understanding. In fact, if many of these modifications are not implemented, students will be taught to uncritically accept information based on authority, not scientific principles. The science classroom should be a place where students learn to form conclusions based on full access to data and information, not partial data that supports a predetermined assumption about the world.
Who could argue that giving students a full understanding of both microevolution and macroevolution is “bad science”? This includes, of course, the knowledge that the former has been observed and the latter is assumed to be true based on interpretation of other evidence.
Who could argue that giving students a complete understanding of the assumptions that underlie a theory, before being asked to embrace that theory, is “bad science”? This includes realizing that evolutionary theory includes the assumption of naturalistic explanations (naturalism), not as a conclusion based on evidence, but as a philosophy regardless of the evidence.
Please base your final decision on what makes sense to teach kids, not what is politically correct to please one particular organization or another. Students should be able to trust that educators will present an intellectually honest version of something as important as evolutionary theory.
291. David Thrush, MS, Biology, Teacher, Disagree
The following are not my comments but express the nature of science and why intelligent design has no place in the curriculum.
(begin quote)
> The report (on the front page of the Plain Dealer of January 15) that several members of the State Board of Education wanted the draft science standards to be rewritten to present evolution as “an assumption, not fact” signals the arrival in Ohio of a nationwide controversy. The news item went on to say that these board members>wanted alternative explanations such as ‘intelligent design’ or ID to >be also included in the standards.
> This point of view raises some very deep and interesting issues about exactly what science is and is not, and what properly belongs within its curriculum. Suppose we apply that point of view to other areas of science. Is the theory of gravity an assumption or a fact?
>Are Newton’s laws of motion an assumption or a fact? Is Einstein’s theory of relativity an assumption or a fact?
> If by ‘fact’ we mean those things that are unquestioningly accepted as true or can be directly experienced via the senses, then all these theories fail the test. They are all models that have been constructed by people to explain certain phenomena. None of them can be directly tested. They each have limitations in what they can explain. But they are all unequivocally accepted into the scientific canon because they meet the criteria for inclusion.
> For something to be considered a part of science and to be included in the science curriculum, it does not have to be a ‘fact’ or even true. If we look back in time, we see that almost everything that we once thought to be true in science is now considered false. But all those ideas are still considered to be a part of science. Newton’s laws of motion (which are taught to students in middle and high schools and in college) are, even now, not considered to be true in the sense of never having been contradicted by experiment. But these laws are highly regarded, considered to be science, and given pride of place in the science curriculum.
> So what makes a theory or model scientific and why does ID not meet the criteria for inclusion in the science standards as a viable, alternative, and scientific explanation for the origins of life? The first reason is that one of the operational rules for a theory to be considered scientific is that it be naturalistic. In other words, it cannot appeal to supernatural forces and inscrutable agents. Since ID theories do so, it does not fit into the scientific canon.
>Although this criterion is essentially a philosophical position and can be challenged as such, there are sound practical reasons for invoking it. The reason that science has made such enormous progress in the past is that it has, even when confronted with seemingly intractable problems, refused to give in to the temptation to invoke a non-physical cause. Scientists are quite used to living with serious discrepancies in their theories for decades so the difficulties that
>evolution theory currently has in explaining some phenomena is not unusual. For example, it was known for over fifty years that the motion of the planet Uranus could not be completely explained using Newton’s laws of motion. The peculiar behavior of the planet Mercury was again a problem for Newtonian mechanics for about seventy years.
>In each of these cases, scientists did not feel obligated to argue that the actions of a God was responsible for any of these serious and very long-lasting discrepancies. They instead looked for naturalistic alternatives, and eventually found solutions that satisfied them. These new explanations contributed to science’s progress and considerably expanded its reach. Thus a scientific explanation does much more than explain something that was previously inexplicable. It also necessarily must point to new areas for investigation, with concrete and specific predictions for what to look for and where. ID does not really do this.
>There is no doubt that many people (including scientists) are not fully convinced that evolution is the correct explanation for how living things came to be. Many people may well believe that ID is the true explanation and they are perfectly entitled to do so. But the science curriculum is not the repository for everything that is considered true, any more than the history curriculum is the repository for each and every event that happened in the past. To be in a specific curriculum, that discipline’s criteria for inclusion must be met. In the case of science, two of the criteria are that it be naturalistic and predictive. Intelligent design does not meet those criteria and so is not included in the scientific curriculum.
Mano Singham, Associate Director
University Center for Innovations in Teaching and Education (UCITE)
Department of Physics Rockefeller 222 A Case Western Reserve University
292. Laurel Tombazzi, Associate Degree in Business, Housewife, Disagree
293. Doris Troxell, BS, Bible, Homemaker, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
Leaving out other theories of creation is a form of discrimination. This is hardly in line with tolerance and diversity. This would be forcing conformity.
294. No Permission, Supply chain information & EDI Coordinator, Agree
Intelligent design may be a new concept to you, but it is an idea that has been around since antiquity. Simply stated, design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living things may be designed – by a mind or some form of intelligence. The basic premise is that life is much too complex and subtle to have come about without the active intervention of an external agent or deity. Design theory by itself makes no claim about the nature of the designer.
295. Kim Van Keuls, BA, political science/journalism, Administrative assistant-mortgage underwriting, Agree
I do agree that the “Intelligent Design” Theory should be taught in conjunction with the “Evolution” Theory in the school system. Evolution should be taught as a theroy, not as an absolute. Both theories should be presented in the classromm in as much as an objective manner as possible. This is TRUE eductation, presentation of theories and allowing the student to decide what they belive is plausible or not plausible.
296. Lisa Wagler, Associate Education, Teacher, Agree
I think it is important for Ohio to remain neutral in presenting science theories in order to bring balance.
297. No Permission, Office assistant, Agree
298. Patricia Welch, MS, Preschool Teacher, of Children With Disabilities, Agree
Not to fairly address any alternatives to evolution in origin science is equal to brainwashing our children. If not given all the options available to be able to think and decide for themselves which theory is most viable to their way of thinking, children will be short changed and and eventually insulted that they could not be trusted with this information.
299. Nathan Wells, BS, business, Pastor, Agree
300. Richard wells, MS, Electronic engineering, Electronic engineer, Agree
I urge Ohio to adopt Standards which define science as a search for TRUTH in natural phenomenon. Restricting science to search only for NATURALISTIC explanations is inherently bad science, since it excudes truth if truth is outside the naturalistic boundary. Note that if the true explanation is within the bonds of naturalistic expanations, it is completely acceptable, therefore no harm can possibly occur from this broadening the search for explanations to seek truth.
301. Kathy Wells, MBA, Finance, Investment Manager, Agree
If the public schools in Akron start teaching evolution, I will yank my two children out of the pulic system so fast, the ODE’s collective head will spin.
302. No Permission, Homemaker and homeschool mom, Agree
303. Jerry Whatman, Truck driver, Disagree
Evolution is not ‘only a theory’. Evolution is an observed fact. The ‘theory’ fo evolution is the method used to explain the observed facts.
Same for heliocentrism.
304. David Wilcox, Property Specialist for Allstate Ins., Agree
I imagion the power of the knowledge that would lead children to ask–“If i’m designed, maybe I do have a purpose”– and go on from there and find It.
305 Rob Wilson, BS, Math and Physics, Purchasing Manager, Agree
306 Brian Wilson, MS, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Civil & Environmental Engineer, Agree
The eleven (11) comments listed below are grouped according to subject matter. The appropriate comment(s) for the draft state science standard are directed to the individual points listed. e.g. Page 35, Grade 5, Item 3, is indicated as (Pg 35 Gr 5 #3).
Email or Call me at work 216/574-9270 or home 216/481-9080 if you have any questions.
1) Modern Science Innuendoes
A Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific tests and refutation
Scientism is defined as the theory that investigational methods used in the natural sciences should be applied in all fields of inquiry.
Scientific Naturalism assumes that science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.
See Limitations on Science per the philosopher Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum (New Organon)
2) Scientific Principle
(Pg 35 Gr 5 # 3), (Pg 83 Gr 9 # 4), (Pg 84 Gr 9 # 7), (Pg 96 Gr 12 # 2)
Before 1900, the scientific method was employed to observe nature, gather data, and formulate models and theories that were consistent with all data. Mach’s Criterion [Only those propositions should be employed in physical theory from which statements about observable phenomena can be induced, and verified] was formulated to guide scientists in applying the scientific method and validate theories on the nature of the laws of physics. In other words no assumptions or propositions can be incorporated in scientific theories that can not be tested in some way, furthermore no assumptions or propositions can be incorporated in science if they have been experimentally proven false. These and other logical rules and principles for scientific propositions were employed in science in order to exclude from science the biased notions of philosophers found in mythology which are in obvious disagreement with the real world. It forbids the use of any assumption or subtheory proven false in the development of a new scientific theory.
Despite claims of objectivity, much of modern science is actually established by consensus instead of scientific criteria. For a majority of science professors, science has become a belief system they cannot validate scientifically but nevertheless teach to unsuspecting students. Mach’s Criterion is no longer printed in science texts because the foundation of some science is inconsistent with experimental facts, and some parts of modern theory contradict other parts of the same theory.
Ref: Mach’s Criterion [ Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics (Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, 1893) and (Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, Fourth Edition (D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1968), p. 1050 ]
3) The Role of Philosophical Worldview in Science (Pg 83 Gr 10 # 4), (Pg 96 Gr 11 # 5)
A Worldview presents principles on the nature of the world we life in. A worldview is a belief system with underlying assumptions about nature and presents a theory of physical objects and their relationship. A worldview should be consistent with experiments and theory to pass logical tests for truth. In teaching modern science the role of the underlying worldview is often not defined or alluded to. All scientific theories are built upon certain assumptions, axioms and idealizations of nature. If the development of science is logical, which it usually is, then the conclusions science reaches from using these idealizations, remain consistent with the underlying worldview that originally espouses them. Most textbooks do not concern themselves with the underlying worldview for modern science. Francis Schaeffer [ A Christian Manifesto (Crossway Books,. Westchester IL. 1981, p18 ] points out that our society is dominated by a worldview based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance. This is the ancient Helenistic worldview known as atomism,
4) Worldview Principles on the Nature of Things. (Pg 96 Gr 11 # 3)
Science should be based on three unprovable principles. The premise of reality, causality and unity ( Stanley Beck, Bioscience, Oct., 1982 ) Science has been based on the belief that the world is real and the human mind is capable of knowing its real nature. The law of cause and effect is that all observable phenomena are the effects of previous underling measurable causes. The third basic scientific premise is that nature is unified, we live in one world.
5) Scientific Method
(Pg 58 Gr 6 # 6), (Pg 83 Gr 9 # 4), (Pg 84 Gr 9 # 7), (Pg 96 Gr 11 # 4)
While all scientists subscribe to the scientific method, not all theories or laws have been developed through its rigorous application. Many theories are not founded on observed measurable repeatable behavior. In Historical Science which studies the past, one really cannot use the scientific method. One cannot observe past phenomena as a basis for drawing conclusions. In these circumstance one can only use one’s theories of past phenomena ( which may or may not be true) as a basis for one’s conclusions.
6) What is Truth
(Pg 58 Gr 6 # 5) (Pg 58 Gr 8 # 3)
For thousands of years Western thought had regarded truth as objective, absolute, and unchanging. But Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1832) undercut this view by treating truth as a changing process. According to the Hegelian dialectic, in each age there is a central idea, called the thesis, and that Truth is an ever-changing, ever-upward (evolving) process.
7) Evolution
(Pg 65 Gr 10 # 19) (Pg 65 Gr 10 # 20)
Strictly speaking, evolution is simply a change in the frequency with which specific genes occur in a population. Fallacy of equivocation, using the word evolution in two different ways:
1) a change in gene frequency with time
2) the theory that all living organisms have a single common ancestor, which itself came from non-living matter,
8) Fossils
(Pg 38 Gr 3 # 5)
Most kinds of fossils are extremely rare. After all, to become a fossil, the species not only must exist, but individuals also must die in places where conditions are right for preservation, In other words, the skeleton must be buried in sediments with preservative properties before scavengers or weathering can destroy it. Then only a few of those places will undergo erosion or uplifting that exposes the long buried remains. Thus Fossilization requires rapid burial and cementing agents.
9) Geologic Column and Fossil Record
(Pg 38 Gr 3 # 5), (Pg 44 Gr 3 # 11), (Pg 66 Gr 10 # 22), (Pg 88 Gr 10 # 12)
The geologic column and the position of fossils within the geologic column provide no proof of amoeba-to-man evolution. All the animal phyla, including chordate fish, are now known as fossils in the Cambrian System. No ancestral forms can be found for the protozoans, arthropods, brachipods, mollusks, bryzoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinodems or chordates. These phyla appear in the fossil record fully formed and distinct, in better agreement with the concept of “Multiple, abrupt beginning”, than with the notion of “descent from a common ancestor” (evolution).
10) Science and Bias (Quotable Quote)
(Pg 83 Gr 10 # 3), (Pg 84 Gr 9 # 8), (Pg 96 Gr 12 # 1)
At this point it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something that textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As Individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in their own ideas and a desire for acceptance by their peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose result they hope will support their position. Boyce, Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17-18.
Science… is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “Truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time… [ Scientists ] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm- in this case neo-Darwinism- so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing.. They find it hard to [ get ] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll find it very hard.” Prof. Evelleen Richards, Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia, commenting on dogmatism from the establishment even against a non-Darwinian (neo-Lamarkian) theory on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV program Lateline, 9 October 1998.
11) Experiments on Stratification
(Pg 39 Gr 3 # 10), (Pg 60 Gr 10 # 1), (Pg 88 Gr 10 # 12)
Numerous fluviatile and marine sediments, as well as sedimentary rocks observed in nature , showing the microstratified aspect are given such names as: laminae, varves, etc. These types of lamination are attributed to successive deposits of layers, usually by superposition of seasonal or annual beds.Recently, however, geologists have discovered that laminae and beds form quickly on floodplains of rivers during floods, in shallow marine areas during storms, and in deep water by turbidity currents. The evidence of rapid sedimentation is now so easily recognized that geologists observing a strata system these days often ask where to insert the “missing time” of which the strata do not show sedimentary evidence.”
It has now been demonstrated that rapidly-moving, sediment-laden fluids can result in an abundance of laminations and/or layers. They can be forme in lab experiments, by hurricanes, and were even formed by catastrophic mud flows associated with the eruption of Mount St. Helens. A better interpretation of past deposits would stem from acceptance of rapid intense geologic processes.
In 1669 Wilken Stello formulated his principle of superposition, which requires that superposed strata in sedimentary rocks form from successive layers of sediments. The principle of continuity asserts that each layer has the same age at any point. These principles apply a relative chronology to superposed strata. The correlation between strata and time allowed Charles Lyell to establish the first geologic column in 1830.
One of the founders of sedimentology Johanne Walther, formulated his law of correlation of facies, from examination of sediments in the Gulf of Naples. Walthers Law, which gave rise to the modern sequential analysis of facies, is not in agreement with the principles of superposition and continuity.Ref: [ Walther Johannes, 1885, die Gesteinbildende Kalkalgen des Golfes von Naepel und die Entstehung Strukturloser. Kalke, Geol. Ges. Zeitschr. Deutsch., V. 37 pp. 329-357., 1893-1894. “Einleitung in die Geologie als Historische Wissenschaft: Jena, Verlag, Gustav Fischer, 3 vols. ]
In the 1970s and 80s Glomar Challenger borings into the Pacific Ocean bottom showed that Walther’s discovery of superposed and juxtaposed facies also applied to deep sea sediments. Walther’s observations can in fact be shown to be a natural consequence of sedimentary mechanics.
His law as well of the observation of the 1965 Bijou-Creek floodwater deposits , suggests that the contradiction might be due to the belief that superposed strata are the same as successive layers.Ref: [ E.D. McKee, Flood Deposits, Bijou-Creek, Colorado, 1965, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37.3, 1967, pp 820-851.]
Other previous researchers on this subject include:
Rubin D.M. and McCulloch D.S., 1980 Single and superposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 26:207-231.
Southard J. and Boguchwal J.A. 1990, Bed configuration in steady unidirectional waterflows, part 2, synthesis of flume data, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 60(5): 658-679.
Guy Berthault’s experiments on lamination and those performed at the Colorado State University in large flumes showed that stratification under a continuous supply of hetergeneous sand particles can result from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded beds, and desiccation for bedding plane partings. The tests also found that stratification can form parallel to a slope exceeding an angle of 30 degrees and thus can invalidate the principle of original horizontally. Inclined strata are not necessarily, therefore, the result of subsidence or uplift.
Ref: [ G. Berthault, Sedimentation of a Hetrogranular mixture. Experimental lamination in still and running water, C.R.Acad. Sc., Paris T., 306, Serie II, pp. 717-724, 1988] and [P.Julien, Y. Lan, G. Berthault, Experiments on stratification of hetereogeneous sand mixtures, Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 1993, T. 164., pp. 649-660.]The experiments could provide a new model for explaining the formation of stratified rocksIn the flume experiments superposed strata were always distinct from successive layers, and neither the principle of superposition nor the principle of continuity applied to the strata. Due to the mechanical nature of segregation and the presence of sediments and non-uniform flow in oceans and rivers being the same factors producing strata formation in the flume, the experiment results might have some application to the genesis of stratified rocks.
In summary, the experiments cast doubt upon the use of the principles of superposition and continuity for interpreting the origin of sedimentary rocks. The experimental fact that a continuous supply of sediment produces stratified deposits should dissipate the illusion that superposed strata result from an intermittent succession of layers taking millions of years to deposit. Experiments in stratification directed by Guy Berthault and conducted in the hydraulics laboratory of the Colorado State University have shown that the principles of stratigraphy, such as superposition and continuity, do not apply when there is a water current. As most sedimentary rock strata were originally formed in oceans subject to variable currents, the principles could not have applied to any significant degree. The original seventeenth century authors of these stratigraphic principles believed them to have a global application. In consequence they were used to establish the geologic column and the geologic time-scale. Little, if any testing by experiments was performed by these Historical Geologists. The lab experiments by Berthault, confirmed by observations of sedimentologists in the field, demonstrate that the principles apply only locally and in calm waters for fine sediments. Where there is a current, which is generally the case, strata do no form successively but laterally and vertically at the same time. The geological time-scale is shown, therefore to have been constructed on invalid data. In consequence, the principles must be abandoned as a general law because they only apply under specific and very limited conditions. Thus fundamental error in calculating geological time.
Berthault’s stratification experimental results were presented at the following conferences:
French National Congress of Sedimentology 1993
International Congress of Sedimentology 1994
European Congress of Sedimentology 1995
Powders and Grains Conference- USA 1997
Independent confirmation of some of Berthault’s experimental work is published in the following:
Maske, H.A., Havlin, S., King, P.R. and Stanley, H.E. 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379-382.
Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323-
307. Elton Wolter, BS, Geology, Geologist, Agree
Evolution is a belief system, as any that purports to know how the universe or life began.
308. Ronda Yoder, AS, Opt. Technology, Optometric technologist, Agree
I agree with the proposed modification because it includes language that presents the science of origins in an unbiased way, rather than presenting evolution as scientific fact.
309. Laura Yoerger, Concerned parent, Disagree
(For report purposes, comments are recorded “for objective origins science.”)
I strongly disagree with the life science indicators describing evolution. Science standards need to provide for balanced instruction in the area of life origins. The state of Ohio needs to implement a policy that conforms to a constitutional obligation to be neutral
in matters of religion and non-religion. The proposed wording would in reality be censoring scientific evidence of design. This would most certainly violate the criteria already established by the U.S. Supreme Court [Epperson v. Arkansas].
Sincerely,
Laura Yoerger
IDnet SEAO Report Summary Poll Results Overview of Modifications Modifications
Senate Bill 1, passed earlier this year by the Ohio General Assembly, was enacted as part of the state’s response to the DeRolph court case on school funding. S.B. 1 calls for new state standards in several academic areas. New language arts and math standards are being considered this fall by the State Board of Education, and new science and social studies standards are slated for passage by the end of 2002.
Ohio’s current science standards are contained in the 1996 document Science: Ohio’s Model Competency-Based Program.(1) The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation rated state academic standards last year,(2) and Ohio received a “B” in science. Fordham said the document is a “fine basis for learning but could well use a companion document devoted to detail….” In other words, the performance objectives are good, but Fordham felt that the list should be more extensive and more explicit.
The study complimented Ohio for the initiation of “quantitative study” in grade 3, and for the progression/elaboration of material in the upper grades. Fordham was also pleased with a strong emphasis on the history of science. The main criticism by Fordham was the lack of specifics in such areas as the laws of science, descriptions of certain natural phenomena, and the use of mathematical analysis.
A second Fordham report, Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States (2000)(3) was less kind to Ohio. It gave an “F” to Ohio’s standards in the area of biological evolution, saying: “Evolution [is] treated here as if it were not proper conversation in polite company. The E-word is avoided and the evolutionary process occupies a near-negligible part of an extensive document.”
Indeed, there is some validity to these claims. The “E-word” is used only once in Ohio’s Standards; the term in which it appears is “stellar evolution,” which of course has nothing to do with biological evolution. The Ohio document describes numerous evolutionary concepts, but different words are used – for example, “change over time,” “natural selection,” “punctuated equilibrium,” “speciation,” “change phenomena,” “historical development,” and “diversity at different periods of geologic time.” In Good Science, Bad Science, avoidance of the E-word was sufficient to warrant an “F” rating for Ohio, even though the content is there. (We might note that the Ohio Standards also avoid the “D-word”; the concept of design is not mentioned at all.)
Good Science, Bad Science was a highly biased report with a very narrow scope. Its purpose was to discredit states that failed to give dogmatic and exclusive support to the teaching of macroevolution (Darwinism) in science classes. That’s what Fordham’s “F” rating really reflects – that Ohio’s evolution standards are not deemed strong enough in their support of the theory. Good Science, Bad Science is one reason the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) decided to strengthen its coverage of biological evolution in the new science standards.
Ohio’s Science Advisory Committee(4) has been meeting since April. This group of about 35 people consists mostly of high school and college science teachers/professors, representatives of some scientific and educational organizations, and a few people from the business community. The Advisory Committee put together some general principles for the standards writing process, and they composed the “Front Matter” (introductory portion) of the document. They also developed a set of “organizers” (major topics, themes, or strands) for the Writing Team to follow. The Advisory Committee discussed how biological evolution should be treated in the Standards, but no one on the Committee served as a proponent for a balanced, unbiased treatment of the subject. Not surprisingly, their recommendation was that only biological evolution should be taught in the area of origins science. (Origins science is the study of the origin and development/diversity of life on earth.)
Ohio’s Science Standards Writing Team(5) has been meeting since June, and a draft set of “indicators” has been completed. (Indicators are statements of what a student should know and be able to do.) The Writing Team consists of about 35 people from around the state; most of the members are elementary, secondary, and post-secondary science teachers/professors. Three team members are from industry; one of these is Bob Lattimer, a research chemist.
Almost everyone knows that origins science is currently taught in public schools from a purely evolutionary (Darwinian) perspective. Only evidence in support of evolution is presented, and alternatives (such as creationism or intelligent design) are either not covered or else are marginalized. Our goal has been to work for fair and reasonable origins science standards that are appropriate for all Ohioans. We have consulted with John Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network(6) in this effort.
Overall, we would leave intact most of the current language in the Biological Evolution indicators. Minor changes are needed, however, to ensure that biological evolution is portrayed as a theory – not proven fact. We are not opposed to the teaching of evolution; we just want origins science to be presented in a fair, reasonable, and unbiased manner. Specifically, we believe the following topics should be addressed in the standards:
1. Microevolution/macroevolution. Biological evolution is defined in the standards as “a change in gene frequency in a population over time.” Evolutionary theory teaches that microevolution (minor genetic variation) over long periods of time results in macroevolution (descent with modification from a single common ancestry). Microevolution is well-supported experimentally and is accepted by nearly all scientists. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is what we usually think of when we hear the word “evolution.” This is “Darwinian evolution”; it cannot be verified by experiment and is controversial. The standards should reflect the wide gap between microevolution and macroevolution.
2. Naturalism. Naturalism is the principle that all phenomena in nature must have a natural (material or physical) explanation. The assumption of naturalism specifically excludes any form of design (including creationism) as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life. The standards should state that biological evolution is a naturalistic theory that intentionally excludes design from consideration. Many scientists feel that naturalism should not be invoked as a guiding principle in origins science, since it restricts the objectivity of investigations. If naturalism is invoked as a principle, this should be explained to teachers and students.
3. Historical science. Most sciences, including chemistry and physics, are empirical (or experimental) in nature; theories can be tested by experiments in the laboratory and/or by observations of the world. Some disciplines, like origins science, are historical in nature; that is, they attempt to explain events and processes that have already taken place in the distant past. Theories in historical sciences cannot be verified experimentally, so the explanations are always tentative. Biological evolution (like creationism and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. The historical nature of evolution/design theory should be explained in the standards.
4. Intelligent design. Design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living things may be designed – by a mind or some form of intelligence. Design theory by itself 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. (One might also say that naturalistic evolution, while not a “religion,” is consistent with atheism.) The standards should state that some scientists support the alternative theory of intelligent design. There is no valid reason, legal or scientific, why design should not be considered as a possible explanation in origins science.
Unfortunately, the Science Standards Writing Team has thus far rejected language that would include any of these considerations in the standards. The indicators as they now stand exclusively support evolutionary dogma. Although the Life Sciences subgroup of the Writing Team has discussed the above four points, none of these ideas has been incorporated into the document. The current draft indicators in biological evolution are at present neither fair nor reasonable. All of the new K-12 science indicators (draft version) have been posted on the web by the Department of Education (ODE) for public review and comment.(7)
Evolution seems to be in a special category when it comes to science standards. Two other controversial topics that are covered in the new Ohio Standards are environmentalism and cosmology (study of the origin and development of the universe). ODE should be commended for their coverage of both environmentalism and cosmology. The draft indicators in both of these areas are “fair and reasonable,” showing sensitivity to different viewpoints. It is not entirely clear why the Writing Team chose to be dogmatic on evolution, but not environmentalism or cosmology.
A question that might be asked regarding origins science standards is this: “What about creation science? Why shouldn’t the alternative of creationism be included in the standards?” Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have already ruled that creation science cannot be taught in public school classes. The courts’ reasoning, whether we agree with it or not, is that creation science is “religious” since it seeks to find scientific evidence supporting a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus it is pointless to try to inject creationist language into state-adopted science standards, since that battle has already been fought – and won by the evolutionists. While it is true that both design theory and naturalistic evolution have religious implications, one concept is no more “religious” than the other.
Another point is this. Even if creationist language could be incorporated into standards, one would still have to decide which kind of creationism should be covered. Committed people of faith who reject naturalistic evolution are divided into at least four major groups: (1) “young earth” creationists who believe the Genesis account refers to normal (24 hour) days; (2) “old earth” creationists who interpret the Genesis “days” as long “ages” or “eras,” (3) “framework” creationists who believe Genesis provides only a “literary framework” for describing God’s work; and (4) “theistic evolutionists” who believe God used and directed evolutionary processes over time.
Intelligent design seeks to avoid these controversies by focusing on scientific, rather than theological, arguments. Intelligent design is a good scientific alternative to evolution, and “creationists” with differing perspectives have found that they can unite under the design banner and present a unified front to the science and education establishment. It has been relatively easy for evolutionists to defeat creation science initiatives in U.S. courts and school boards. The establishment is finding it to be much more difficult to defeat the design hypothesis, which is clearly a viable scientific paradigm, and not a religious concept.
Where do Americans stand on the issue of origins? A February (2001) Gallup poll showed that 57% of Americans favor the theory of creationism, while only 33% favor the theory of evolution.(8) In the same poll, 82% of respondents said that God was involved in the creation/development of human beings. Only 35% of those polled said that the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. (We note that Gallup polls have not framed their questions in terms of “intelligent design.”)
Most of the biological evolution indicators in the new Ohio Standards are at the 10th grade level, which means the subject will be covered on the new Ohio Graduation Test. Thus, unless the situation changes, students must learn and be tested on the theory of evolution before they can graduate from high school. This will be the law, even though a large majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution.
One of the basic reference books used by the Department of Education in revising the science standards is Science for All Americans (1989).(9) Not surprisingly, despite its title, Science for All Americans is very dogmatic with regard to the teaching of biological evolution. This simply reflects the strong control that a segment of the U.S. science and education establishment has in the teaching of origins science. It is clear that we have our work cut out for us in Ohio. We must work to mobilize public opinion in favor of science standards that will be fair and reasonable for all Ohioans, not just the small percentage that believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
IDnet SEAO Report Summary Poll Results Overview of Modifications Modifications
Modifications are suggested that add language to (a) distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, (b) state that evolution is a naturalistic theory, (c) make a distinction between empirical and historical sciences, and (d) include the alternative theory of intelligent design.Note: The page listed is where the indicator may be found on the “www.edohio.org/science_comment” website.
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Earth and Space Sciences #3, page 60.
Know how the evolution of life on earth has changed the oxygen composition of the earth’s atmosphere.
Modified indicator.
Know how the presence of life on earth has changed the oxygen composition of the earth’s atmosphere.
Current draft indicator. Grade10, Life Sciences #2, page 63.
Know that biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit of classification.
Modified indicator.
Know that biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Know that organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities in form and/or function. Know that species is the most fundamental unit of classification.
Explanation.
The Linnaean classification system (which is still used to a large extent) was developed during the 18th century, long before the advent of Darwinian evolution. Thus it is inaccurate to say that classifications of organisms “reflect their evolutionary relationships.”
It is true that some modern (cladistic) methods seek to develop classifications based on evolutionary relationships. Cladistic taxonomy is troublesome in practice, however. For example, Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 284) says “it is difficult to pin down the precise identity of ancestors, and there is a good case for not even trying to do so.”
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #19, page 65.
Know that biological evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time.
Modified indicator.
Know that biological evolution may be defined as a change in gene frequency in a population over time. Know that evolutionary theory posits that microevolution (minor genetic variation within a population) over long periods of time results in macroevolution (descent with modification from a single common ancestry).
Explanation.
The statement that biological evolution is a “change in gene frequency” requires clarification. A change in gene frequency would seem to be microevolution, the normal genetic variation within a population. Macroevolution, or Darwinian evolution, would require modification of existing genes (by forming new combinations of existing genes or by mutation of genes). The Standards need to make a distinction between microevolution, which is well-supported experimentally, and macroevolution, which is ultimately based on similarities rather than experimentation.
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #20, page 65.
Analyze how natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms.
Modified indicator.
Analyze how natural selection and its evolutionary consequences may explain the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms. Know that natural selection does not explain the origin of life itself, and that biological evolution is a naturalistic theory that specifically excludes design from consideration.
Explanation.
The word “may” is added to emphasize that evolution is a theory. Students should know that natural selection can only operate after life has originated. Students should also know that a basic assumption of evolutionary theory is methodological naturalism, the principle that design (teleology) plays no role in the origin or diversity of life. Naturalism is a reasonable assumption for empirical sciences like chemistry and physics. There is considerable debate, however, as to whether or not naturalism should be employed in historical sciences like cosmology and origins science. Since biological evolution assumes naturalism as a precondition, this needs to be disclosed and explained to students.
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #21, page 66.
Know how life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth, only single-celled micro-organisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved.
Modified indicator.
Know that according to evolutionary theory, life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms shortly after the time when the earth first became habitable. During most of the history of the earth, only single-celled micro-organisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed, increasingly complex multicellular organisms developed. Know that evolutionary biology, as a historical science, forms a tentative reconstruction of events and processes that have already taken place.
Explanation.
The original indicator assumes that (Darwinian) evolution occurred. The modified wording makes it clear that evolution is a theory for the development of life on earth. This is the only indicator in the origins science area that includes estimated dates for events or processes in the distant past. Since these estimated times vary greatly, it seems best not to insert a specific number. In place of a date, one can state that life is believed to have arisen shortly after the earth became habitable.
Origins science (the study of the origin and development/diversity of life on earth) is a historical discipline. As such, in the words of Ernst Mayr (“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American, July 2000, p. 80): “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with chemistry and physics, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
Theories that are proposed in a historical science are always tentative, and alternative explanations are possible.It may be noted that the origin of life and its subsequent development are really separate subjects. That is, before any evolution can occur, life must originate. The origin of life remains a mystery. For example, Michael Denton (Nature’s Destiny, 1998, p. 293) says “despite an enormous effort, we still have no idea how this [the beginning of life] occurred, and the event remains as enigmatic as ever.” The indicator really doesn’t speculate on how life began. However, a discussion of abiogenesis (or “chemical evolution”) is typically included under the umbrella of evolutionary theory, so one may presume that this topic might be included here.
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #22, page 66.
Know historical scientific developments occurred in evolutionary thought (e.g., Darwin, Mendel, Lamarck).
Modified indicator.
Know historical scientific developments that occurred in evolutionary thought, including alternative theories that have been considered (e.g., Paley, Darwin, Lamarck, Mendel, Behe).
Explanation.
A discussion of historical developments in origins science should include a discussion of theories that have competed with Darwinian evolution (such as special creation, panspermia, and intelligent design). Numerous advocates for intelligent design could be considered for inclusion in the indicator, but William Paley and Michael Behe are perhaps the most logical. Paley’s book Natural Theology (1802) gave a classic presentation of the argument for design. His writings were later overshadowed by Darwin and his followers, but Paley’s arguments (and those of his successors) are still worthy of consideration. Michael Behe is a founder of the modern design movement. His book Darwin’s Black Box (1996) put forth the argument that numerous biological systems are “irreducibly complex,” indicating they have been designed by some form of intelligence.
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #23, page 66.
Understand that natural selection leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments. Chance alone can result in the persistence of some heritable characteristics having no survival or reproductive advantage or disadvantage for the organism. When an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited characteristics may change.
Notes.
No modification is suggested for this indicator, since it basically describes microevolution (which is well accepted). In any case, the validity of natural selection is not the issue. The issue is whether natural selection is a sufficient mechanism to enact macroevolutionary change. The indicator does not consider this topic.
Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #24, page 66.
Understand that natural selection provides the following mechanism for evolution: some variation in heritable characteristics exists within every species, some of these characteristics give individuals an advantage over others in surviving and reproducing, and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely than others to survive and reproduce. The proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase.
Notes.
Again no modification is suggested, since this basically describes microevolution. None of the original indicators states the Darwinian argument that natural selection over long periods time results in macroevolution.
New indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences (insert after #24, page 66).
Know that some scientists support the theory of intelligent design, which postulates that the influence of some form of intelligence is a viable alternative explanation for both the origin and diversity of life. Compare and contrast the evidence that supports the design hypothesis with the evidence that supports the evolutionary hypothesis.
Explanation.
None of the original Life Sciences indicators mentions alternatives to evolutionary theory. Modern intelligent design (or just “design”) is a viable scientific theory that presents an opposing viewpoint that is deserving of consideration. There are several reasons why the design hypothesis should be included in the Life Sciences standards:
The design hypothesis is consistent with the definition of science given in the Front Matter to the Standards, namely: “Science is an active process of investigating, learning, and thinking about the natural world.” There is nothing in this definition that would preclude design as a possible explanation in origins science.
Censoring the evidence for design is contrary to the scientific method, which requires that opposing hypotheses be tested against each other. The consideration of alternative theories is consistent with the spirit of the indicator (Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing #3) that says “scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data, or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism, and open communication are integral to the process of science.” Also, another indicator (Grade 12, Scientific Ways of Knowing #2) states that “evaluation of scientific investigations includes … suggesting alternative explanations for the same observations.”Censoring evidence for design suggests that naturalism has been employed as an underlying assumption in the Standards. Excluding design because of naturalism in effect makes evolutionary theory immune to scientific criticism. The use of the naturalistic assumption to protect evolutionary theory violates the spirit of the indicator (Grade 9, Scientific Ways of Knowing #4) that states “scientific explanations … must be open to questions and possible modification.”State censorship of design is inconsistent with the neutrality required by the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also amounts to a form of viewpoint discrimination that is not permitted under the First Amendment speech clause. There is no viable legal reason to exclude design as an alternative.
Reasons for inclusion of design are presented in more detail in Teaching Origins Science in Public Schools: Memorandum and Opinion, by John Calvert and William Harris, 2001.
Current draft indicator. Grade 12, Life Sciences #7, page 88.
Know other mechanisms for evolutionary change, including genetic drift, immigration, emigration, and mutation.
Modified indicator.
Describe these proposed mechanisms for evolutionary change: genetic drift, immigration, emigration, and mutation.
Explanation.
This indicator seems to appear out of context. The word “other” implies that the indicator is making a contrast with something else, probably “natural selection” (Grade 10, Life Sciences #23 and #24). A minor wording change is recommended to help the indicator stand better on its own.
Current draft indicator. Grade 12, Life Sciences # 12, page 88.
Know how the evolution of life has changed the physical world over geological time.
Modified indicator.
Know how the presence of life has changed the physical world over geological time.
Explanation.
These indicators are very similar in nature, and both assume that (Darwinian) evolution has occurred. It is the presence of life, not its evolution, that has changed the physical earth over time.
Current draft indicator. Grade 12, Life Sciences #15, page 89.
Know that ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as a result of migration or local evolution.
Modified indicator.
Know that ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as a result of migration, local evolution, or another mechanism.
Explanation.
This indicator assumes that migration and evolution are the only mechanisms for the appearance of new species in an ecosystem. The modified wording allows for other mechanisms to be considered (such as intelligent design).
1. www.ode.state.oh.us/ca/ci (downloadable “pdf” file under “Curriculum Models – Science”)
2. www.edexcellence.net/library/soss2000/2000soss.html (State of the State Standards: 2000)
3. www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html
4. www.ode.state.oh.us/ca/ci/acs/acsscienceadvisorycommittee.htm
5. www.ode.state.oh.us/ca/ci/acs/sciencewritingteam.htm
6. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
7. http://www.edohio.org/science_comment/
8. www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science