Patricia Princehouse
Remarks to Ohio Board of Education
July 13, 2004

Madame President and Members of the Board,

I am here to ask you to delete the so-called "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan from the Model Curriculum before classes start this Fall.

Things got a bit out of hand this Spring and I hope that you have, by now, had time to review the materials in question, and that you will have the courage to correct the error the Board made on March 9 in accepting the lesson plan in question.

Everybody makes mistakes from time to time. In this case, the mistake is a serious one and requires immediate correction. And it is serious not only pedagogically, but also legally. I understand that at least 2 groups, the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have begun preparing court cases. I have spoken with numerous lawyers expert in this area of law and they overwhelmingly indicate that this case is a “slam dunk” that the Board of Education will surely lose. I hear the state stands to lose many millions of dollars in the process.

I've heard that the aforementioned groups are not satisfied with the response they've gotten from the Board and the Department of Education regarding the Public Records Requests they've made. I recall that the bad lesson plan came to light last Fall when similar Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. This reflects badly on the Board, the Department, and the process. I will just briefly highlight some of the other major issues.

Recall that in Fall 2002 I presented the Board with data from a major poll of Ohio scientists. These scientists came from all areas of the natural sciences and included scientists at both public and private colleges and universities in Ohio, including explicitly religious schools where young earth creationism is taught. The poll had an excellent response rate of over 30%. The majority opinion was clear and corresponded nicely with letters the Board received from, for example, the Presidents of all of Ohio's public universities, and the President of the National Academy of Sciences -- the most prestigious scientific organization in the world.

      Among the survey's findings were:

• A vast majority (93%) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution"
• Almost all scientists (97%) said they did NOT use the intelligent design concept in their research
• 90% of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design.
• Nine out of 10 scientists (91%) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view
• 84% felt acceptance of evolutionary theory was "consistent with believing in God."

Now we heard many denials last Spring claiming that there's no ID in the lesson plan because the words "Intelligent Design" do not appear. But the survey results are important here not only because of what they say scientists think about ID, but also because they make it very clear that no challenge to evolution exists in the scientific literature. The controversy the Discovery Institute and other creationists want taught is not a scientific controversy, but a religious one. And that's illegal.

The lesson plan in question makes many false statements about the content and process of science. These falsehoods come directly from the creationist literature, including the Intelligent Design literature. Among the more egregious examples are the so-called "Aspects of Evolution." I'll look briefly at 3 examples:

Aspect #1: Homology
"Some scientists think similarities in anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry... "

This is NOT TRUE. This claim cannot be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It is found only in creationist literature. It is found in creationist literature because it is a direct argument for special creation.

Aspect #2: Fossil Record
"Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record..."

This is NOT TRUE. This misrepresents the scientific literature. It is drawn from creationism. It is found in creationist literature because it is a direct argument for special creation.

Aspect #4: Peppered Moths
"...Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. ..."

This is NOT TRUE. This claim is overtly contradicted by the scientific literature. It is drawn directly from creationist literature. Specifically it is Intelligent Design Creationism taken from Rev. Jonathan Wells' recent book . When Wells spoke at OSU after the March, 2002 Board meeting, he was pressed on his mechanism for what causes speciation; Rev Wells invokes divine intervention.

The problem with ID does not lie in its name but its content. Intelligent design advocates claim life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of a supernatural being or force. The US Supreme Court has made very clear rulings on introducing manifestly religious content into science classes. It is illegal.

Not only is it illegal to teach religious notions in science class, it is illegal to suppress the teaching of scientific ideas just because they may offend some folks' religious sensibilities. The Board argued this spring that we should be opposed to evolution since Richard Dawkins is an atheist. The 1968 case Epperson v Arkansas (the case that overturned the Scopes laws) made the Supreme Court's view on this clear: "the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them"

The Board argued this spring that the lesson plan has nothing to do with religion, and relies only on real science. This is exactly what the states of Louisiana and Arkansas argued about "Creation Science." There are many problems with this. To mention just 2: a) the content is not found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature b) there was a huge paper trail showing how the policy was gradually cleansed of references to religion and that the motivation of proponents was religious.

When it went to the US Supreme Court in 1987 (Edwards v Aguillard), it was struck down 7-2 because it "embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible." With regard to the claim that this was only good science, the comment was that "these concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as a philosophy or as a science." They specified that real alternatives to evolution could certainly be taught (should any ever arise), but that claims must be "sincere and not a sham."

In 2000, the US Supreme Court let a lower court's decision stand on another case that has a direct bearing on this one ( Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education). It claimed to be promoting "critical thinking" about evolution. The court noted that the policy singled out evolution for special attention, and that the only so-called "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was the "concept of Creation", and that the curriculum already encouraged students to engage in critical thinking. The decision is also noteworthy because it recognizes that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science".

The US Supreme Court uses the "Lemon test" in such cases. To be legal, Ohio's "Critical Analysis" lesson plan must:

a) have a secular purpose
b) have a secular effect
c) avoid excessive entanglement between church and state.

The lesson fails all three prongs of the Lemon test.

To sum up:

The lesson plan follows the path of other failed creationist efforts and will surely fail any well-argued legal challenge. It possesses the same sort of paper trail and makes the same sort of thinly-veiled religious claims.

Ohio's lesson plan does not promote critical analysis, it promotes uncritical blind acceptance of lies about the content, methods, and standards of scientific analysis. In the vernacular sense of the word, the lesson plan is a fraud concocted expressly and solely for the purpose of violating the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court's thinking aligns with public opinion on these issues. The American people value the separation of church and state as one of their core values. That's why school boards who push the creationist agenda get voted out so consistently. It happened in Kansas in 2000, and it just happened again in Montana. The Board members promoting the so-called "Objective Origins" policy in MT were just voted out of office by a margin of 2 to 1. Parents want their kids to be taught real science. Despite the pleading of special interest lobbyists such as the Discovery Institute, both the Supreme Court and the parents want "science only" in science class.