Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
The Ohio state school board voted in favor of an ‘intent’ to pass new science standards.
The votes are in, and it’s official. On 15 October, the state school board in Ohio, USA, voted in favor of an “intent” to pass new science standards, including a controversial amendment that would promote the teaching of debates about evolution. Is this good news? Decide for yourself.
The facts are fairly straightforward.
The significance of this vote is not as clear as it might seem, however. Both evolutionists and proponents of “intelligent design” have found the wording acceptable because they interpret the “controversy” differently.
Evolutionists are excited because the new science standards give a prominent place to “evolution,” a term missing in the previous standards. Evolutionists are also pleased that the standards do not mention intelligent design.
Proponents of intelligent design (ID) are excited, they say, because the new standards clarify and reinforce the freedoms of teachers to discuss controversies about evolution. They believe that teachers have had this freedom all along, but it is now being set in stone. According to the ID people, the new standards will leave it to local school districts to decide how to handle intelligent design. (Note that early in the curriculum debate, many proponents of ID wanted to include “intelligent design”-by name-in the standards, but they later shifted the emphasis to “teaching the controversy,” which they believe would allow more alternatives than just intelligent design. For more information about ID, see AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement.)
It is encouraging to see some openness in Ohio to teaching controversies, despite being couched in such flimsy language and undefined terms. The amendment says that students should learn how scientists “critically analyze” evolution, but this could mean two things: (1) students need to learn the different views about how evolution works (but not question the reality of evolution), or (2) students need to learn alternative views to evolution. Evolutionists prefer the former interpretation. In fact, Lynn Elfner, who directs the Ohio Academy of Science, said he thinks that the amendment is pointless because all fields of science already allow open debate about how each theory works.6 ID proponents, on the other hand, want the amendment to open the door to alternative theories.
So what are the practical benefits of these revised science standards? Well, technically they will not even become official until after the state board presents them to the education committees of the Ohio legislature in November, and then the board must make a final vote by 31 December. Furthermore, teachers in local school districts are not required to abide by the standards (although teachers have a powerful incentive to follow the standards, because state tests are based on these standards). The new amendment may well provide encouragement and emboldening for Christian teachers to do what they have probably been free to do all along, i.e. teach evolution (and long ages) “warts and all,” including the problems with it.
It’s shocking to see just how much confusion and misunderstanding has attended Ohio’s controversy over curriculum standards. Answers in Genesis sincerely hopes that Ohio will make an unambiguous stand in defense of the liberty of teachers and students to discuss the problems with evolution and to offer alternative explanations.
Vote on Evolution in Ohio 7 September 2002
Teach “Intelligent Design” 14 June 2002
Eyes of the Science World Turn to Columbus, Ohio, USA 13 March 2002
Ohio—First US State to Teach “Intelligent Design”? 8 March 2002
Creationism battle heats up again in US schools 8 February 2002
AiG’s Commentary on the ID (Intelligent Design) Movement 28 August 2002
Who Won in Cobb County? 1 October 2002
Equal time for creation in Cobb County? 26 August 2002
Supreme Court: Don’t Teach Evolution Difficulties! 10 January 2002
Honest Science “Left Behind” in U.S. Education Bill 7 January 2002