Ohio

I just rec'd the following email from one of my "religious" right
contacts.

Comments?
----------------------
From: Cathie Adams and Texas Eagle Forum
Date: March 23, 2004

Ohio lesson plan pleases conservatives, irks apostles of Darwin
Phyllis Schlafly

March 22, 2004

"Why is it important for scientists to critically analyze evolution?"

That's the first question in the "student reflection" portion of a
controversial 22-page section called "Critical Analysis of Evolution,"
which is now part of Ohio's 547-page public school science curriculum.

How could anybody object to such an innocuous question? Newspapers report
a
steady stream of news that scientists are questioning such dogmas as good

cholesterol vs. bad cholesterol, vaccine links to autism, the causes of
breast cancer, even fluoridation for children's teeth. Isn't the nature
of
science to question assertions and seek the proof from evidence?

On Feb. 10, the Ohio State Board of Education approved the new curriculum

by a vote of 13-5 after being persuaded by 22 Ohio scientists that the
lesson plan promotes academic freedom and that it is good for students in

10th grade to have an inquiring mind about evolution.

"Are we about teaching students how to think, or what to think?" asked
one
parent supporter of the lesson plan.

And it's optional; no teacher will be required to teach criticisms of
evolution, and no students will be tested on the criticisms. So what's
the
big deal?

To some people, it's a very big deal. The American Civil Liberties Union
is
threatening a lawsuit.

Case Western Reserve University lecturer Patricia Princehouse - whose
academic position is philosophy, not science - led the opposition to the
new lesson. "It's sad day for science in Ohio," she said.

Another nonscientist, Florida State University law professor Steven Gey,
flew in to warn Ohio residents that the lesson is unconstitutional and
would almost certainly be struck down if it reached the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Maybe he is seeking an activist judge to rule that the Constitution
prohibits allowing students to question anything in science class.

Gey's notions of constitutionality are unusual. He thinks that "moral
relativism" is a "constitutional command," that the Pledge of Allegiance
is
unconstitutional, and that nude sunbathing should be given
"constitutional
protection."

There is nothing religious about creationism, or even about intelligent
design, in the new Ohio standards. What is controversial is giving
students
the opportunity to question evolution; it's the inquiry-and-debate aspect

that some people find so threatening.

The new lesson encourages students to consider both supporting and
"challenging" evidence for evolution. The challenges to the theory are
understated and are backed up with facts.

For example, the lesson says that the fossil record supports evolution
with
its increasing complexity of living forms. But the lesson also observes
that "transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record" and "a growing
number of scientists now question that ... transitional fossils really
are
transitional forms." The lesson notes that some changes in species occur
quickly in the fossil record relative to longer stretches that manifest
no
change.

The new lesson plan presents the overused English peppered moth story
found
in most textbooks, which teaches that black moths survived because they
rested on trees blackened by soot, while white moths were eaten by the
birds. The lesson points out that "peppered moths do not actually rest on

tree trunks," and that "no new species emerged" as evolutionists have
long
implied was the result of the soot.

The new lesson plan invites students to take a fresh look at evolutionary

claims of common ancestry. The lesson observes that different genes and
development have created similar anatomical structures, suggesting
different ancestries.

Can it be that this kind of balanced information is so dangerous for high

school students to hear that it must be censored from textbooks? Or that
it
rises to the level of a Supreme Court case where judges might declare it
unconstitutional?

Diehard evolutionists have enjoyed censorship of any criticism of their
beliefs for 100 years, and they won't willingly give up their academic
turf. Their censorship demands became so irrational that Rich Baker, the
Ohio board's vice president, called them "a bunch of paranoid,
egotistical
scientists afraid of people finding out (they) don't know anything."

Ohio has become the cutting edge in the long-running evolution debate.
Georgia, New Mexico, Minnesota, West Virginia and Kansas have all
wrestled
with science standards and curricula on evolution in recent years.

The Alabama Senate Education Committee last week approved the "Academic
Freedom Act," which says that no teacher or professor in public schools
or
universities may be fired, denied tenure or otherwise discriminated
against
for presenting "alternative theories" to evolution. The bill would also
prohibit any student from being penalized because he held "a particular
position on biological or physical origins" so long as the student
demonstrated "acceptable understanding of course materials," which
include
evolution.
-----------------------
Burgy

www.burgy.50megs.com/astory.htm (a story to tell)

Ubi Caritas

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Thu Mar 25 09:44:10 2004