The debate over teaching evolution in schools, which has been going on in America at least since the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925, burst onto the front pages of Ohio newspapers in early January. What's it all about? And where does Fordham stand? Read on.
Let's start with a little background. In 2001, the Ohio Department of Education updated the state's science standards. When a draft came before the State Board of Education in January 2002, several members derided it for only including evolution and omitting any mention of so-called "intelligent design." Those Board members had allies in the Ohio General Assembly who introduced bills in both the House and the Senate that would, in effect, force the board to approve standards that would present both sides of the debate (regardless of the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of evolution). Those bills were killed, however, when the Speaker announced that any decision regarding science standards should be left to the State Board of Education.
The State Board picked up the ball and hosted a panel of experts, in front of an audience of 1,000, which included such heavy hitters from the world of science as the late Stephen Jay Gould. The Board eventually decided to adopt standards that do not question evolution (or promote intelligent design) but, in a political compromise, it also directed the Department of Education to draft an optional lesson plan that includes such elements.
In 2004, the State Board approved that lesson plan. Teachers are not mandated to teach it, but questions about it could show up on the 10th grade Ohio Graduation Test.
The debate was reignited in recent weeks when a federal judge struck down, on "establishment of religion" grounds, a local school board resolution in Pennsylvania that required a skeptical teaching of evolution and promoted the ideas of intelligent design. Fearing a costly lawsuit, some on the Ohio State Board wanted to reconsider its 2004 decision. The issue was put to a vote again-but by a 9-8 margin the Board maintained its earlier decision.
During that debate, some people pointed to Fordham's recent evaluation of state science standards as evidence that the lesson plan must be kosher. In fact, our reviewers examined only the official science standards of every state. Though verbose, Ohio's standards earned a respectable "B." Their straight-up handling of evolution-in the standards themselves-was lauded by our reviewers. The contentious lesson plan, to repeat, is not part of the actual standards.
This misrepresentation of Fordham's view of that anti-evolution lesson plan understandably drew the ire of our reviewers, serious scientists all. Dr. Paul Gross, the lead author of our report and one of America's foremost biologists, along with his co-authors, excoriated the State Board's decision to retain the lesson plan, noting to "To devote scores of pages in the official standards to the principles of good science, and then to teach bad or pseudo-science in the classroom, is to defeat the very purpose of standards. If creationism-driven arguments become an authorized extension of Ohio's K-12 science standards, then the standards will deserve a failing grade."
Fordham shares the scientists' view that this "lesson plan" is inappropriate, unscientific, and raises the same problems (of religion creeping into the science curriculum) as the Dover resolution. At the same time, we recognize that it is not, technically, a part of Ohio's science standards. Therefore we will not change Ohio's grade.
Recently in the news:
"An ounce of prevention," by Columbus Dispatch, January 10, 2006
"Here come the lawyers," by Akron Beacon-Journal, January 10, 2006
"Students will continue to debate merits of evolution," by Scott Stephens, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 11, 2006
"In 9-8 vote, state panel retains science rules," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, January 11, 2006
"Biology curriculum foes want to resume debate," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, January 12, 2006
"School board begging for court battles," by Dayton Daily News, January 13, 2006
"Ohio may lose science grade," by Scott Elliott, Dayton Daily News, January 17, 2006
"Intelligent design course canceled," by Juliana Barbassa, Associated Press, January 18, 2006
"Intelligent design not science, Vatican newspaper says," by Associated Press, January 19, 2006
"Witnesses badgered at science meeting," by Catherine Candisky, Columbus Dispatch, January 20, 2006