Teach-the-Controversy Update - The Ohio "Wedge"

		[top_right_buttons.htm]
	Teach-the-Controversy Update The Ohio "Wedge"	[Rainmakers_Title.htm]

[navi.htm]

Ohio's State Board of Education, by a vote of 18-0, adopted on Dec. 10 the state's new science standards. The standards include two key changes which substantially implement the teach-the-controversy approach. These changes were made at the Oct. 15 and Dec. 10 State Board meetings.

First, a new definition of science was added:

Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

This replaces the following statement in Scientific Ways of Knowing, Grade 10, Indicator 3:

Recognize that scientific knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions.

Second, a new statement was added as Life Sciences, Grade 10, Indicator 23:

Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

This same statement was also added to Benchmark H in Life Sciences, Grade 10, with the substitution of the word benchmark for indicator.

December 12, 2002
K.C. Priest report via CRSNET

Dave Snyder Reports

I have been reading and reflecting over various news reports, and their spin on the Ohio Board of Education state science standards decision and the wording finally approved. Some are quite imaginative, and many are overly self serving for their agenda. At the risk of joining their ranks, in looking further at the actual wording of the new standards it occurs to me that:

The Board in the end sustained the phrase describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze evolutionary theory and decided not to change it to a generic analyze all theories as requested by the other side. Why? Why did they sustain that phrase and not replace it when asked?

Ostensibly and specifically to answer another request (from the public and from our side) that textbook evolutionary theory not be considered immune to critical analysis when warranted (since other theories typically are not, a point the other side conceded when they made the recommendation in the first place).

KEEPING the phrase intact suggests the Board acknowledged that while it is both scientifically normal and common sense that most theories are not immune to ongoing scientific scrutiny, that in this case, and at this point in the standards, it was important to clearly say evolution as a general theory is also not immune.

They infer the notion (the fact) that textbook evolution HAD been enjoying a pass in how it has long been presented, cloaked with unassailable factuality as found in most modern textbooks. By sustaining the phrase it seems to me they were willing to agree (18-0) that evolution as a theory in Ohio should not be given special immunity status as in the past when scientific evidence FOR evolution was standard and dogmatic and any scientific evidence that questioned it was censored or withheld because it must be religiously motivated and unscientific.

Further, the last minute addition explaining the Board had no intent to mandate the teaching or testing of ID, suggests (by it’s contextual insertion) they DO intend to mandate the teaching of how “scientists go about critically analyzing evolutionary theory”—in particular-- implying there may be a controversy of some sort with it, as with most theories. They therefore agree with the majority of Ohioans (not to mention the Supreme Court and the Congress) when they acknowledge the rightness of ongoing objective evaluation of evolutionary theory. To me, they are implying the inappropriateness of its current classroom insulation from information about such scrutiny. They simply intended to dispel any notion that they were mandating the introduction of a religiously based alternative theory of origins, which they wrongly suppose ID represents.

On the other hand, various other sections in the new standards refer to evolutionary theory implying its essential factuality as a reflection of those same textbooks, and as the consensus of a majority of scientists, especially those contributing to and endorsing the standard texts used in most schools. In this, the Board felt compelled, as Boards always do, to go with the majority scientific establishment consensus. In doing so they provided a framework and a clear agenda for the curriculum model writing team to align with popular evolutionary dogma.

How can these two positions be reconciled? Perhaps this is one of the areas that also befuddles the Ohio Legislature, and their call for clarity in the new standards, and rightly so.

However, I would suggest we take the Board at face value.

On the one hand, there is a clear intent from the Board that objectivity as seen from conclusions suggested by analysis from scientists both supportive and unsupportive of evolutionary theory, is not only to be allowable at the discretion of the classroom teacher, but is to be a factor in the future state curriculum teaching models! This means no longer is the general theory of evolution a defacto theory immune from the conclusions of a broad spectrum of scientists who have utilized the scientific method to analyze its claims.

I would note also that the new standards do not say the analysis of the majority of peer reviewed scientists, or the analysis of the consensus of scientists subscribing only to philosophical naturalism. Nor does it apriori exclude scientists who happen also to be Christians or creationists. I would conclude it means a broad spectrum of scientists and their analysis of the data, given that analysis to be scientific and qualitative, and not mere nonsense. One would hope the Board will follow through on this line of thinking and assemble a model curriculum writing team reflective of the real world of science opinions with a reflective percentage of majority and minority views.

On the other hand, the Board clearly felt compelled to approve statements in the overall standards that clearly align with the majority opinion of modern science texts and the majority of the science establishment that considers the general theory of evolution reliable and essentially factual. The problem here is of course, it is not. But the majority of the Board, knowingly or dutifully in spite of all the material presented to them, decided to continue with the evolutionary science establishment and officialize their failed view.

This now begs the question: Are textbook and establishment evolutionary claims as solid and factual as has long been suggested? What does the spectrum of evidence say? What conclusions are many scientists coming to?

The concern over ID has been a straw man all along. The issue has not been the novel insertion of religious tenets into academic standards via Intelligent Design theory, but whether or not we will allow ourselves to objectively evaluate the trustworthiness and scientific credibility of longstanding evolutionary claims. ID is only ONE of several lab tables on which to examine evolutionary theory. If the public ever really understands this, the lid will come off.

ID does not offer, nor seeks to offer a competing Origins theory. It simply exposes the unlikelihood of evolution and the likelihood of a Designer. From scientific and mathematical analysis it logically infers the existence of a Creator, (since there is no debate we are here) but the theory of evolution logically infers no Creator is needed. Both imply a religious conclusion if one so wishes to have one. Yet we are to reject the one, and accept the other based primarily on their secular or religious possible conclusions and not on their scientific merit.

Since the Board and the evolutionary establishment will concede to NO consideration of any model of origins and development of life if it has even a hint of inference there might be a Creator out there somewhere, they give us no choice now but to simply deconstruct their theory fact by fact under critical analysis. This we intend to do. The Board of Education has opened the door for that process which should now begin in Ohio in earnest. The schools in Ohio become the place where claims for and against evolution are exposed to students so they can readily see whether or nor evolution holds water.

No creationism concepts are on the table.

Are their claims as true as they officially insist they are? This is the education in Ohio and nationwide concerning the truth which is so long overdue.

But someone insists we do not have an alternative theory to replace evolutionary naturalism if we deconstruct it.

Our reply is we have an alternative theory, with a lot of supporting evidence to go with it but they are unwilling to consider the evidence and the inferences involved. They are unwilling to concede that evolutionary claims for 150 years, have not adequately addressed the puzzle of life. If they are unwilling to concede the facts then they must eventually be embarrassed by them.

If they insist that science and naturalism are not limited in their ability to explain the origin and development of life, and the textbook publishers and the evolutionary science establishment really have it right, they will welcome the critical analysis of their theory and will gain adherents by the exercise. But that is not what we are seeing. They are erecting straw men of religion at every turn and preparing for lawsuits should anyone dare to take the presentation and comprehension of the critical analysis of their theory seriously.

They rejoice that now evolution is clearly mandated in the standards. We are glad we finally have a clearly stated opportunity to examine the theory objectively. Time will tell, but usually the truth carries the day in the end. That day may be sooner than the evolutionists think.

12-14-2002
Dave Snyder, Director, OVCEA

[rightcolumn.htm]