7 Jul 02
Leave it to two GOP losers in Jeff's state to push this bullshit as
"science."
Jeff: "Darwinism is a religion."
Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed
By Michael A. Fletcher
Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation
in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their
home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to
evolution.
In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind,
Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of
Education to consider the language in a conference report that
accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.
"Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as
biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand
the full range of scientific views that exist," the lawmakers wrote in a
letter to the Ohio board, quoting the conference report language.
That language was crafted with the help of a leading proponent of
"intelligent design theory," which contends that the very complexity of
life is evidence that the world was organized by a guiding intelligence.
The growing movement behind that theory, which does not attribute the
world's creation to God, is supported by conservative Christian groups,
whose drive to include the teaching of Bible-based "creation science" in
public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987.
David Schnittger, a spokesman for Boehner, stressed that the conference
report language cited in the March13 letter to Ohio's state board "does
not endorse the teaching of any particular topic or philosophy or
curriculum."
While conference report language does not have the force of law, it has
in the past been used as the basis for regulations that guide how laws
are enforced.
But many officials from science and education groups, most of whom back
teaching only evolution, call the language part of a wider campaign to
force intelligent-design theory into the nation's science classrooms.
They fear that the congressional language will be used to challenge the
teaching of evolution across the country.
"When language like this is included on the national level, it provides
ammunition that people use in local battles," said W. Eric Meikle,
outreach coordinator for the National Center for Science Education, a
nonprofit organization that defends the teaching of evolution.
Similarly, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate's
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and a supporter of the
conference report language, said he opposes the teaching of intelligent
design.
"I believe that public school classes should focus on teaching students
how to understand and critically analyze genuine scientific theories.
Unlike biological evolution, intelligent design is not a genuine
scientific theory, and therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our
nation's public school science classes," he said in a statement.
The Ohio school board has been embroiled for months in a controversy
over whether to include intelligent-design theory, along with
evolutionary science, in a revised science curriculum scheduled to be
approved later this year. Evolutionary science holds that all existing
organisms developed from earlier life forms through natural selection.
Proponents of the intelligent-design theory have cited language in the
federal law as the basis for including lessons on the theory wherever
evolution is taught. The letter from Boehner and Chabot was written in
an attempt to clarify how federal law affects the debate in Ohio. Still,
the head of the Ohio Board of Education is not sure what impact the
House members' letter may have.
"[It] seems to suggest that science should be taught in the spirit of
free inquiry, including the discussion of the pros and cons of
theories," said Jennifer L. Sheets, the board's president.
Other board members say, however, that the letter could be interpreted
as supporting intelligent design. "Supporters of that viewpoint will use
that letter to bolster that point of view," said Virgil E. Brown, a
Cleveland lawyer who sits on the state panel.
"I look at the letter as misleading," said Cyrus B. Richardson Jr., the
board vice president. "It makes it sound like the law says you have to
teach intelligent design, when that isn't in the law."
For that reason, science groups had opposed the conference report
language, which was approved late last year.
"The apparently innocuous statements in this resolution mask an anti-
evolution agenda that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts," said
a joint letter signed by 80 educational and scientific groups, from the
American Anthropological Association and the Society of Protozoologists
to the National Association of Biology Teachers.
The nation's leading science organizations generally view intelligent-
design theory as a pseudo-scientific way to teach creationism, the
latest front in a battle that dates to the well-known 1925 conviction of
Tennessee science teacher John T. Scopes for teaching evolution.
But intelligent-design theory apparently resonates with the public. In
their letter to the Ohio board, Boehner, chairman of the House Committee
on Education and the Workforce, and Chabot cited a 2001 Zogby poll that
found that 71 percent of those surveyed supported offering students the
"scientific evidence against evolution." The two lawmakers suggested
that the exclusion of such evidence would amount to a "censorship of
opposing points of view."
While Ohio is now the main battleground, in recent years legislatures or
school boards in such states as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Hawaii, New
Mexico, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Kansas have also been wrestling with the
issue.
Intelligent-design proponents -- such as Phillip E. Johnson, a
University of California at Berkeley law professor whose 1991 book
"Darwin on Trial" lifted the fledgling intelligent-design movement from
obscurity -- hope to bring the concept to other state curricula.
"If you are going to teach the Darwinist view that organisms may look
like they were designed but weren't, then you have to allow for the
possibility that they look like they were designed because they were
designed," said Johnson, who helped draft the language that was
eventually distilled into the conference report.
Johnson's writings make clear, however, that his aims extend into the
realm of religion. "When people are taught for years on end that good
thinking is naturalistic thinking, and that bringing God into the
picture only leads to confusion and error, they have to be pretty dense
not to get the point that God must be an illusion," he wrote in another
book, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds."
The language that Johnson helped craft was originally introduced as a
nonbinding resolution by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). The resolution
passed the Senate last June in a 91 to 8 vote. Eight Republicans,who
considered the measure an unwarranted intrusion into local curriculum
matters, voted against it.
Senate supporters shrugged off the concerns of science groups, calling
the measure an innocuous statement of the elements of good science
education.
"We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific
theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to
them," said Kennedy, who backed the Santorum measure.
Federal law has long barred Washington from controlling state and local
school instructional content -- a prohibition that has been guarded by
GOP lawmakers through the years. With little attention, however, that
outright prohibition was weakened by Congress in 1994 when it barred the
federal government only from controlling "specific" state or local
instructional matters.
The education bill enacted earlier this year also suggested that
Washington could exercise some general control over state and local
curricula but not require the teaching of specific subjects. Federal
education officials, however, said they have no intention of
interpreting the language as requiring local school systems to teach
alternatives to evolution.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
þ CMPQwk 1.42 16554 þ
"Let's Get Dangerous"
Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this
criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to
U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
"You can lie about ICR all you want." --
Jason Daniel Henderson
"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need
to. Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." --
Fredric L. Rice
ROSS SAUER
Ohio creationist crap
Ohio Lawmakers Cite Reform Legislation
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 29, 2002; Page A03
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140)
This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank