Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Evolution lesson renews intelligent design dispute
By: MARILYN H. KARFELD Staff Reporter
Ohio's controversial new 10th-grade biology model lesson plan, approved last week by the state school board, has attracted national attention.
The scientific community, from the prestigious National Academy of Science to the science faculty of Case Western Reserve University, has criticized the lesson for allowing intelligent design, a pseudo-scientific version of creationism, to creep into high-school biology classrooms.
Last week, the Ohio Board of Education approved the 547 pages of science lesson plans, including the controversial 22-page lesson, "Critical Analysis of Evolution."
Scientists oppose the biology lesson because it uses intelligent design concepts to suggest that evolution is a supposition. They note that evolution is a firmly accepted scientific theory that has withstood repeated tests over time. While there are numerous scientific theories in the state lesson plans, only the one on evolution asks students for critical analysis.
"It's quite clear when you look at the history of this fiasco that it's driven entirely by religious motivation," says Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist at Case Western Reserve University. "The science lesson tells lies about science, errors that come straight out of Christian fundamentalist, creationist literature."
The Jewish community has been largely silent on the model lesson plan, despite what critics say are the conservative Christian beliefs underlying it. Not one Jewish person has mentioned the science lesson to her, says Joyce Garver Keller, the Jewish community's lobbyist in Columbus.
While the American Jewish Committee has a long standing opposition to creationism in the science classroom, John Hexter, the organization's area director, suggests the community is preoccupied today with Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" or the violence in Israel.
The new science lesson "nips around the edges" of creationism and belongs in a class on comparative religion, not biology, says Hexter. "When you lose those boundaries, you erode that division between church and state that has stood us so well."
The "wedge theory" is at work here, says Bettysue Feuer, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. If you teach that there is a controversy over evolution, intelligent design advocates get their foot in the door. "This goes beyond pseudo-science. It's religion."
The model lesson plan, says Princehouse, uses concepts based on Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, and Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, both intelligent design proponents.
Intelligent design supporters say that the origins of life are too complex to be explained by evolution; therefore, a higher being or intelligent designer must play a role. The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that challenges evolution, praised Ohio's 10th-grade biology lesson plan.
Florida State University constitutional law Professor Steven Gey, who testified against the lesson before the state school board and spoke on the issue recently at Case, describes the plan as "not only bad science, it is illegal." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 and 1987 that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution to also teach creationism.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio "is preparing this matter for litigation," says litigation coordinator Gary Daniels. He says the board of trustees, meeting at the end of the month, will decide whether or not to bring a lawsuit.
While evolution can be legitimately debated and addressed in science class, he adds, "the way this model lesson plan is presented is a way for people to inject their religious beliefs into science class."
The state Board of Education insists the lesson is not about intelligent design. But, Daniels says, "even if you don't see the words intelligent design, the fingerprints are all through the lesson plan."
The Ohio controversy began in 2002, when Ohio Board of Education members supporting intelligent design attempted to add its precepts to the curriculum standards for science. The state proficiency exams, which students must pass to graduate from high school, are based on these science standards.
Ultimately, the board came up with a compromise. They included a benchmark that scientists continue to critically analyze evolutionary theory. A disclaimer says the standard does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.
However, Princehouse says the 10th-grade lesson plan was written by a high-school teacher who testified in favor of intelligent design in the 2002 education standards debate.
Proponents of the lesson plan say it rightfully exposes students to views opposing Darwinian evolution, which they claim many scientists have challenged. Polls show that nearly half of all Americans believe in the literal truth of the book of Genesis: that 6,000 years ago, God created the world in six days. Only 10% accept evolution as the sole force behind the world's existence, according to a survey in the Los Angeles Times.
Ohio is the first state in the country to pass a model lesson plan challenging evolutionary theory, says Rich Benz, an award-winning biology teacher at Wickliffe High School.
Asking students to debate or argue about "one of the main tenets of biology" is not good teaching because 10th-graders are just learning what the concepts are. They don't have the background to debate evolution.
"I was appalled" at the lesson, says Benz, a 31-year teaching veteran who is on the state advisory board for the development of the science curriculum. "I knew the writers, I knew they had a personal agenda as supporters of intelligent design."
The state Board of Education field-tested its high school graduation exam this week. On Thursday, after the CJN went to press, Wickliffe students were to take the science portion of the exam.
While Benz says the model lesson will not change how he teaches evolution, he's concerned about other teachers, especially young ones, who do not have his background. "If there's a lesson that's not good education and not good science, it shouldn't be part of a good curriculum."
The scientific community, from the prestigious National Academy of Science to the science faculty of Case Western Reserve University, has criticized the lesson for allowing intelligent design, a pseudo-scientific version of creationism, to creep into high-school biology classrooms.
Last week, the Ohio Board of Education approved the 547 pages of science lesson plans, including the controversial 22-page lesson, "Critical Analysis of Evolution."
Scientists oppose the biology lesson because it uses intelligent design concepts to suggest that evolution is a supposition. They note that evolution is a firmly accepted scientific theory that has withstood repeated tests over time. While there are numerous scientific theories in the state lesson plans, only the one on evolution asks students for critical analysis.
"It's quite clear when you look at the history of this fiasco that it's driven entirely by religious motivation," says Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist at Case Western Reserve University. "The science lesson tells lies about science, errors that come straight out of Christian fundamentalist, creationist literature."
The Jewish community has been largely silent on the model lesson plan, despite what critics say are the conservative Christian beliefs underlying it. Not one Jewish person has mentioned the science lesson to her, says Joyce Garver Keller, the Jewish community's lobbyist in Columbus.
While the American Jewish Committee has a long standing opposition to creationism in the science classroom, John Hexter, the organization's area director, suggests the community is preoccupied today with Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" or the violence in Israel.
The new science lesson "nips around the edges" of creationism and belongs in a class on comparative religion, not biology, says Hexter. "When you lose those boundaries, you erode that division between church and state that has stood us so well."
The "wedge theory" is at work here, says Bettysue Feuer, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. If you teach that there is a controversy over evolution, intelligent design advocates get their foot in the door. "This goes beyond pseudo-science. It's religion."
The model lesson plan, says Princehouse, uses concepts based on Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, and Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, both intelligent design proponents.
Intelligent design supporters say that the origins of life are too complex to be explained by evolution; therefore, a higher being or intelligent designer must play a role. The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that challenges evolution, praised Ohio's 10th-grade biology lesson plan.
Florida State University constitutional law Professor Steven Gey, who testified against the lesson before the state school board and spoke on the issue recently at Case, describes the plan as "not only bad science, it is illegal." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 and 1987 that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution to also teach creationism.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio "is preparing this matter for litigation," says litigation coordinator Gary Daniels. He says the board of trustees, meeting at the end of the month, will decide whether or not to bring a lawsuit.
While evolution can be legitimately debated and addressed in science class, he adds, "the way this model lesson plan is presented is a way for people to inject their religious beliefs into science class."
The state Board of Education insists the lesson is not about intelligent design. But, Daniels says, "even if you don't see the words intelligent design, the fingerprints are all through the lesson plan."
The Ohio controversy began in 2002, when Ohio Board of Education members supporting intelligent design attempted to add its precepts to the curriculum standards for science. The state proficiency exams, which students must pass to graduate from high school, are based on these science standards.
Ultimately, the board came up with a compromise. They included a benchmark that scientists continue to critically analyze evolutionary theory. A disclaimer says the standard does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.
However, Princehouse says the 10th-grade lesson plan was written by a high-school teacher who testified in favor of intelligent design in the 2002 education standards debate.
Proponents of the lesson plan say it rightfully exposes students to views opposing Darwinian evolution, which they claim many scientists have challenged. Polls show that nearly half of all Americans believe in the literal truth of the book of Genesis: that 6,000 years ago, God created the world in six days. Only 10% accept evolution as the sole force behind the world's existence, according to a survey in the Los Angeles Times.
Ohio is the first state in the country to pass a model lesson plan challenging evolutionary theory, says Rich Benz, an award-winning biology teacher at Wickliffe High School.
Asking students to debate or argue about "one of the main tenets of biology" is not good teaching because 10th-graders are just learning what the concepts are. They don't have the background to debate evolution.
"I was appalled" at the lesson, says Benz, a 31-year teaching veteran who is on the state advisory board for the development of the science curriculum. "I knew the writers, I knew they had a personal agenda as supporters of intelligent design."
The state Board of Education field-tested its high school graduation exam this week. On Thursday, after the CJN went to press, Wickliffe students were to take the science portion of the exam.
While Benz says the model lesson will not change how he teaches evolution, he's concerned about other teachers, especially young ones, who do not have his background. "If there's a lesson that's not good education and not good science, it shouldn't be part of a good curriculum."
 |
 |
|
| Build me up | Student group makes a 'Case for Israel' at Hague |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of clevelandjewishnews.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments. Registration is free.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
