Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > January > 09 > Entry
Is science being taught “illegally?”
Dover, Pa., is just one city in one state and the ruling of a judge there calling instruction of intelligent design in science class illegal is technically limited to the case at hand.
But the way this case was decided, especially the judge’s rich and detailed rejection of the arguments for intelligent design as science, is likely to reverberate across the country.
It may not be long before a similar challenge by intelligent design opponents comes to Ohio.
In fact, there already are signs that those forces may be ready to go beyond just making fun of Ohio’s science standards to actually challenging them.
Last week in the Akron Beacon Journal, a prominent Ohio scientist said Ohio’s biology standards would not survive a court challenge in light of the Dover ruling.
For instance, the judge in the Dover case was very critical of an intelligent design book called “Of People and Pandas,” noting evidence that the authors had simply removed the word “creation” and replaced it with “intelligent design” to repackage the book for modern consumption. He ruled this proved intelligent design was religious doctrine dressed up as science.
The scientist quoted by the Beacon Journal, Case Western Reserve physics and astronomy professor Lawrence Krauss, noted that much of Ohio’s model lesson plan on intelligent design is taken directly from that book.
So while the Dover case has no direct impact on Ohio, it appears to provide a road map to challenging the state’s intelligent design-friendly science standards.
Given that reality, it’s probably just a matter of time before the legal fight comes here.
If that’s the case, what should Ohio be doing now? Re-writing its standards? Dropping intelligent design entirely? Or putting the lawyers on speed dial and girding up for a legal battle?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Comments
By Mary
January 10, 2006 1:28 PM | Link to this
Not sure I have “the answer” to what Ohio should do, but quite frankly I am tired of so much energy being wasted on this issue. I liken it to the abortion issue - so much energy and attention spent for the unborn child while an already born child dies every three seconds from preventable causes. I think people should concentrate on what we can know and need to know through science and science curriculum, instead of politicizing the discipline. I think personalities and IQ enter into the debate. Some of us are non-fiction and agnostic (show me) readers and thinkers. Others are avid fiction and faithful dreamers. How does the science curriculum respect itself and people with diverse philosophies regarding life? Stick with the facts and the scientific method as we humanly know them. Acknowledge science as a human discipline and not enscribed into stone tablets by divinity. Both science and religion should embrace the truth and not basically conflict with one another. I am losing patience with people shoving their personal religious beliefs into an academic discipline. Teach religious concepts in a humanities course without proselytizing. The Supreme Court has already ruled that is permissible in our schools. Many religious groups and leaders also believe intelligent design and creationism should not be inserted into our science classes.