Demagogic Ohio governor attacks critical analysis of Darwinism

An article in the Columbus Dispatch said,

Looking back yesterday on his eight years as governor, Bob Taft said one of the lessons he learned was to ensure that potential appointees to the state Board of Education don’t support teaching intelligent design in public-school science classes . . . . . .

Taft said he plans to appoint four new members to the board before he leaves office and that he will not name anyone who doesn’t back the teaching of evolution.

Gov. Taft knows that all of the members of the last board publicly backed the teaching of evolution, even including Deborah Owens-Fink, who was one of the strongest supporters of keeping the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan. He also knows that this lesson plan expressly excluded intelligent design from the plan. Taft's statements were just demagogic pandering to Darwinist fanatics. Such demagoguery may backfire because public opinion polls have shown that a majority of the public wants the public schools to teach both the evidence for and against evolution (which is why Darwinism-only school board candidates don't always win).

Actually, though, it appears that Gov. Taft may just be blowing smoke. Richard Hoppe, an active member of the hardcore Darwinist "Ohio Citizens for Science," wrote on Ed Brayton's blog (Hoppe posts under the initials RBH),

Note that three of those whom Taft re-appointed (Wick, Millet, and Sheets) pretty consistently voted in support of the various ID creationist motions over the years -- to adopt the "critical analysis of evolution" standard and benchmark and to adopt the "critical analysis of evolution" model lesson plan -- right up until the last motion to remove the matter from the Achievement Committee. They weren't rabid ID supporters like Cochran and Owens Fink, but they damn sure weren't strong supporters of honest science. They were wishy-washy throughout and in votes tended to vote on the ID creationist side. The fourth appointee, Gunlock, is new to the board and has no history except on the last motion when he voted with the majority.

I'm not persuaded that Taft learned anything that a parrot couldn't have learned quicker and with the same level of cognition that Taft used.

Hoppe's above comment is borne out to a great extent by the OCS website. Of the three re-appointed school board members, Wick and Sheets voted at the Jan. 2006 meeting to keep the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan. These two switched sides at two later meetings ( Sheets was absent at the February meeting and both Sheets and Wick were present at the October meeting ), but that was after Gov. Taft came out against intelligent design (to hardcore Darwinists, ID and critical analysis of evolution are one and the same) on February 3. So maybe Wick and Sheets switched sides because they wanted to improve their chances of re-appointment. The re-appointments are good until the end of 2010.

READ MORE

Audio copy of evolution debate in Ohio

The audio copy is here.

Guests: Tom Sawyer, candidate for State Board of Ed; Ken Miller, biologist, Brown University; Deborah Owens-Fink, candidate for the State Board; Chris Williams, biochemist

READ MORE

Scientists' open letter attacks Ohio school board candidate

A New York Times article describes an open letter from Case Western Reserve University scientists that attacks Ohio Board of Education candidate Deborah Owens Fink.

The bias of the article is immediately apparent. For example, the article says,

Elsewhere in Ohio, scientists have also been campaigning for candidates who support the teaching of evolution and have recruited at least one biologist from out of state to help.

The above statement implies that Owens Fink and some other candidates are opposed to the teaching of evolution. This is not the case -- Owens Fink and some other candidates are not opposed to the teaching of evolution but want to include a critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum. The above statement would have been more correct to say that scientists have been campaigning for candidates who are opposed to including a critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum.

The NY Times article also states opinions as though they were facts, e.g.,

Although researchers may argue about its details, the theory of evolution is the foundation for modern biology, and there is no credible scientific challenge to it as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.

My replies to the above statement are in Darwinism is grossly overrated, Darwinism is grossly overrated II, and Darwinism is grossly overrated III.

Red State Rabble has a complete copy of the scientists' letter, which says,

Current Board Member Deborah Owens Fink has referred to the National Academy of Science, the nation’s most prestigious scientific body, as “a group of so-called scientists”, and more generally to all scientists as a “dogmatic community”.

So she called them names -- so what? She has probably been called everything in the book.

According to the NY Times article, she did not specifically remember calling the NAS "a group of so-called scientists": "Dr. Owens Fink . . . said the letter was probably right to say she had dismissed it as 'a group of so-called scientists.' 'I may have said that, yeah,' she said."

The scientists' letter said,

During her tenure on the State School Board she has continued to sideline important issues associated with improving public education in her effort to debase and distort the teaching of science in high schools while attempting to cast controversy on biological evolution in favor of an ill-defined notion called Intelligent Design that courts have ruled is religion, not science.

ID was not part of the Ohio evolution lesson plan that the Ohio Board of Education deleted in February. ID is specifically the idea that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved solely by what we consider to be natural means -- there was nothing about that in the lesson plan and in fact the lesson plan expressly denied that teaching ID was one of its purposes.

Also, I have seen no evidence that she "sidelined" other important issues or that she tried to "debase and distort" the teaching of science in general.

And ID was ruled to be religion by a single judge, not "courts."

. . .our views thus reflect the views of the majority of the science community in Northeast Ohio

Case Western Reserve University has a minority of the scientists in Northeastern Ohio.

This letter is full of lies.

I don't see what these scientists are bellyaching about. Millions of tax dollars per year are spent on evolution research. For example, scientists get public funding for fossil hunts that could turn out to be wild goose chases. And there is no evidence that fossil hunting produces technological spinoffs of benefit to the public -- the fossil hunts mostly just pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Scientists who argue that criticisms of Darwinism are absurd ought to put their money-grubbing mitts where their mouths are by signing a pledge to never accept one dime of research money for anything that directly addresses those criticisms, e.g., research into determining the evolvability of irreducibly complex biological systems.

For more info on the situation in Ohio, just enter "Ohio" in the search window in the top border of the blog screen. You must be scrolled to the very top to see this window.

=================================================

Dear National Science Foundation,

I would like a grant of one billion dollars for a research program to show that criticisms of my theory are so ridiculous that they are not even worthy of consideration.

Sincerely,

Prof. Charles Darwin

READ MORE

Update on evolution education issue in Ohio

Some background information is in my article titled "Evolution education is a hot potato in Ohio".

The Akron Beacon Journal reported the following statements from the District 7 and District 8 candidates for the Ohio Board of Education:

What is your stand on the proposed "Controversial Issues Template" that provides teachers guidance on teaching controversial subjects? The plan has had support from Deborah Owens Fink, among others on the state school board. They said it would elevate discussion on controversial issues.

Many scientists criticize it, saying it would create the illusion of controversy where it doesn't exist and also could open the door for religion-based challenges to evolution. (The state school board recently voted to end discussion of the guidelines, although one member said he intends to keep it alive.)

District 7 candidates

Jones: I see nothing wrong with the proposed "Controversial IssuesTemplate." Teaching controversial subjects should be explored. Who gave scientists the ultimate authority? If you put two or more scientists in a blue room they could not agree on the color.

Kovacs: Biology teachers know best how to teach their subject. My campaign proposes something far more controversial than creationism: Teach students to think for themselves. This can be accomplished by creating elective classes in philosophy and funding courses in philosophical ethics. The division of sciences must be maintained.

Owens Fink: Those opposed to this template have likely not read it. It was developed to provide teachers and students with tools to improve classroom instruction, prepare them for the global economy. It could be used to discuss Darwinian thought... or any area such as social studies to discuss immigration policies or Iraq.

Sawyer: I support teaching evolution. It is grounded in numerous basic sciences and is itself a foundational life science. By contrast, creationism in its many forms is not science but theology. And while faith is important to most Americans, its interpretation is best left to our many diverse faith communities.

District 8 candidates

Cain: The state school board just voted to remove the "Controversial Issues Template" and I support that removal.

Craig: The template has not been proposed. It was distributed... by the Ohio Department of Education staff, for the (state school board's) achievement committee... to look at. While I believe it is a great idea to have students think, I have had no students, teachers, administrators or parents say that we need this type of lesson plan.

So what candidate Craig seems to be saying is that no students, teachers, administrators or parents have said that we need to have students think.

District 7 candidate Deborah Owens Fink is the incumbent and has been one of the Board of Education's chief advocates of including critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum. Tom Sawyer, one of her election opponents, says above that he is opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools, but none of the proposed lesson plans included creationism or even intelligent design. Also, even though it was Darwinists who persuaded Sawyer to run, his campaign website is giving a very low profile to the evolution issue -- the issue is not even mentioned on the website's homepage or on a webpage titled "About the Campaign." A backpage has links to news articles that discuss this issue. One particularly informative article listed here says,

Some of the scientists rallied like-minded people across the country to flood the e-mail boxes of school board members, urging them to reject a proposed template for teachers to follow when covering controversial issues such as global warming, stem-cell research and evolution.

Board President Sue Westendorf said she's received between 25,000 and 30,000 e-mails.

However, the above statements could be misleading because a significant fraction of those emails could have come from those who support the proposed template. Darwinists are not the only ones who can rally the faithful.

Also, well-known fanatic Darwinist Ken Miller is scheduled to give seven pre-election speeches across the state in three days on the subject, "Science, God, & Intelligent-Design: Why all three matter in the 2006 Ohio elections." Also, Ohio State University will be hosting a panel discussion and a series of lectures on the controversy in the period November 1-3. It is apparent that Ohio is now considered to be a key state in the controversy over evolution education in the public schools.

READ MORE

Evolution education is a hot potato in Ohio

I last reported the Ohio evolution education situation in this article. The present situation is described here, here, here, here, and here. If you are confused, welcome to the club. Here is the history, as well as I can piece it together:

In early January, following the release of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision on December 20, the Ohio Board of Education held a non-agenda phony "emergency" vote on whether or not to keep a controversial "critical analysis" evolution lesson plan, and voted to keep the plan.

In February, the board held another phony "emergency" vote on whether to keep the lesson plan and this time voted to delete it, but also passed a resolution titled "Resolution 31" that asked the board's achievement committee to determine what language, if any, should replace the deleted lesson plan.

A replacement plan, called a "controversial issues template," was on the agenda for the September achievement committee meeting. Copies of the plan were distributed to committee members, but there was no discussion and no vote on it. Also, the plan was not considered at the meeting of the full board on the next day.

The template and Resolution 31 were not on the agenda for the October board meeting, but in a third phony "emergency" vote, the board voted Tuesday to repeal Resolution 31 (someone should sue the living crap out of the Ohio BOE for abusing the "emergency" exceptions of the Ohio open meetings laws). The motion approved by the board said,

RESOLVED, That the Achievement Committee of the State Board of Education, having recommended no response to Board Resolution 31 referred to it in February 2006, is hereby discharged from further consideration of Resolution 31 and anything arising therefrom, including the template for teaching controversial issues.

Though the board repealed Board Resolution 31, there was no report of any vote to reject the template that was proposed at the September board meetings. Jim Craig, co-chairman of the achievement committee, said Monday that the template may go on the department's web site for four to six months to test public reaction. So the board may still have something up its sleeve. One thing that the board members have staring them in the face is the fact that a large percentage of the public -- possibly a majority -- is in favor of teaching the weaknesses of evolution as well as evolution. School-board election races where evolution education was a major issue have been close. Anyway, Darwinists who think that this issue is going away anytime soon have another thing coming.

The reaction of John West of the Discovery Institute is here.

In other news, the Michigan state Board of Education unanimously decided to not include intelligent design in the state's education guidelines. However, Dick DeVos, the state's Republican gubernatorial candidate, said last month that he is in favor of teaching intelligent design along with evolution in science classes, though he said the decision should be left up to local school districts.

I think that there is a need to distinguish between (1) the inclusion of the actual teaching of criticisms of evolution in official curricula and (2) the inclusion of "evolution disclaimers" in official curricula.

================================================

And it's slower in Ohio, too --

READ MORE

Ohio Board of Education meetings like Mad Hatter's Tea Party

As noted in "Quibbling over Ohio evolution education plans", the scandal-ridden Ohio Board of Education held publicly unannounced phony "emergency" discussions and votes on the previous evolution lesson plan in January and February. This month, a replacement plan was finally put on the agenda but was not voted on or even discussed, as described by the Ohio Citizens for Science:

On September 11, the Achievement Committee of the Ohio Board of Education considered the "Controversial Issues" Template, drafted by a staff member of the Ohio Department of Education. This was the final item on the agenda of the Achievement Committee meeting.

The document was distributed to committee members. After a pause, there was a motion for adjournment from Deborah Owens-Fink. Although the motion did not receive a second, the meeting was adjourned.(emphasis added)

The full board met on September 12. The template was not discussed by the board at this meeting.

On September 11, the meeting was adjourned early by a motion that was not even seconded, let alone voted upon! How can anyone take these clowns seriously?

A CantonRep.com online news report about the meetings said,

The committee, which started its meeting more than 15 minutes late, originally was scheduled to meet for three hours but cut it down to two . . . .

Jim Craig of 2345 Bevington St. NW in Canton, who chaired the meeting, adjourned it without getting a second or taking a vote on motion to adjourn.

Critics accused Craig and other committee members of ducking the issue. They said those who support the teaching of intelligent design are delaying the vote because they don’t command a majority of the committee.

There we go again with that darned misconception that all scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution is intelligent design. This was supposed to be an objective news article.

One blog made the claim that 140,000 emails opposing the new Ohio lesson plan were sent in, but that figure seems doubtful because the bloggers had no way of knowing the number and because such a high number is doubtful, especially considering that there was not much advance notice that the plan would be on the agenda. The blog claimed that 20,000 of its own members sent in protest emails and that is possible because the blog had a fill-in submission form and so could count the emails, but that number seems high because the blog gave only about a week of advance notice.

The latest news is that the Board of Education has been accused of altering a July meeting's tape recording and minutes record. LOL

It looks like we are seeing the same kind of vacillation in Ohio that is going on in Kansas, where the state school board has reversed itself three times already on evolution standards and will probably reverse itself again because of the election of Darwinist board members.

READ MORE

Quibbling over Ohio evolution education plans

In February 2006, in response to the December release of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision which banned intelligent design from public schools in the Dover Area school district in Pennsylvania, the Ohio Board of Education panicked and voted to drop its controversial "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan, even though there was no lawsuit in Ohio and the plan did not include intelligent design. Critics of the plan claimed that it contained "creationist" arguments. The board initially voted in January to keep the plan. BTW, both the January and February proposals to drop the evolution lesson plan were introduced as phony "emergency" matters in order to give the sleazy board a lame excuse to avoid hearing public comments before voting. Anyway, the board said that it might later consider a replacement for the plan. A proposed replacement that the board is now considering, called "Controversy Template", challenges "everything." Board member Debra Owens Fink said that the new proposal "isn't a challenge to evolution, but is a challenge to everything. Teachers will be encouraged to have debates on all controversial topics." Well, at least Darwinists can't make their usual complaint that evolution is being singled out for criticism. LOL Also, I hope that this month's board vote on the issue is not another phony "emergency." The most important question is whether the new proposed plan is constitutional. The plan does not have to make sense to be constitutional. As Sir Thomas More said in the play "A Man for All Seasons," "the world must construe according to its wits. This court must construe according to the law."

BTW, I think that it is silly for the states to have their own K-12 education standards -- I think that we should have uniform national K-12 education standards. Uniform national standards would help assure uniform national preparation for college and would help prevent disruptions in the education of K-12 students who transfer from one state to another.

READ MORE