A major controversy has been stirred in Ohio with the most recent expression
of intent by the State Board of Education to adopt a set of model science
lesson plans which include one which is a blatant expression of creationism.
The "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson was written in response to one
of the 10th Grade science benchmark indicators which requires students to
"describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze
aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not
mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design)."
Prominent young-earth creationists, members of the Intelligent Design
network, and even an associate director of the Discovery Institute’s Center
for Science and Culture, have given bland, non-specific assurances that the
lesson is really a very good introduction to the science behind the Theory
of Evolution and its many challenges. They also state unequivocally that
"Intelligent Design" is not to be found in this lesson.
Rather than accept these assurances, members of the Ohio Citizens for
Science conducted a detailed point-by-point evaluation of the lesson. Our
conclusion, based on the evidence, is that not only does the lesson plan as
written fail to meet the letter and intent of the benchmark and indicator,
it fails in just about every other respect as well.
- It fails as an effective learning model; instead of promoting critical
thinking and analysis skills, the lesson presents students with scripted
arguments and rote copying of incorrect definitions. Then it turns them
loose on the Internet with no guidance to find their own reference
material - the implication being that all web sites are equally honest and
accurate.
- It fails in its depiction of the methods of scientific enquiry and the
terminology used by scientists. By imposing upon students' definitions of
terms out of the creationist literature, the lesson creates the impression
that any idea has scientific validity (regardless of the evidence to support
it). The debate format of the lesson inaccurately depicts how scientists
actually evaluate competing hypotheses.
- It fails to depict scientific knowledge correctly. All of the "challenge"
topics listed in the reference come from the creationist literature instead
of the world of current Biological research. Indeed, one of the key sources
of the lesson’s content appears to be Rev. Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of
Evolution, a text recommended by the Discovery Institute as a "must read"
for Intelligent Design advocates.
- It fails to provide accessible source material to support the topics
contained in the lesson. Recommended sources are either out of date, out of
print, irrelevant to the topic, inaccurate in their content, or material
written at a level of scientific complexity far above that which the average
10th Grader can be expected to understand.
- It fails to recommend quality resources (books and web sites) that are
available from reputable scientific and educational organizations. Instead
it recommends that students explore creationist web sites for their
information (misinformation?)
The structure and organization of this lesson, the specific topics, the approach to the materials, and the assignments to students have all been tracked to Jonathon Wells' ICONS OF EVOLUTION, Michael Behe's DARWIN'S BLACK BOX, and to the Discovery Institute's partial curriculum that was posted on their website in March 2000. The entire lesson conforms to the philosophy of Intelligent Design. We show specific comparisons between the published statements of Intelligent Design philosophy and the implementation of this philosophy in the lesson.
Details of the Ohio Citizens for Science reviews can be found at the links given below. This review is incomplete. We have assembled as much comparative information as possible since the February 2004 meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education. However, there are additional comparisons between this lesson and intelligent design that we have not had time to fully document.
So far, OCS members and allies have been able to prepare these documents for the fight against the flawed 10-23 lesson plan:
-
OCS's brief summary of problems with the approved Lesson Plan
- Geologist Thomas A. Baillieul wrote two analyses of parts of the suspect lesson plan:
- An OCS team led by biology professors Steve Rissing and Patricia Princehouse have written an alternate lesson plan which uses strong science to teach students without opening a door for creationists.
- Another OCS team wrote a longer Concordance that documents many errors and inadequacies in the adopted lesson plan. These are available as RTF files or PDF files.
RTF files:
PDF files:
