Recently in Ohio Category

Over and over we hear from the Disco ‘Tute boys that they’re not pushing the teaching of intelligent design creationism and that they’re only interested in teaching the controversy or critically analyzing evolution or teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Most recently they are pushing the “academic freedom” bills being introduced in state legislatures and, in the case of Louisiana, being passed by those legislatures. Of the Louisiana bill the Disco ‘Tute piously claims that

Why is the law needed?

For two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do.

When one inquires just a dab deeper, though, that “scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory” turns out to be creationist crap, much of it filtered through Jonathan Wells’ Moonie spectacles in Icons of Evolution. And the creationist teachers claim cover from the state actions.

Does that really happen?

Sure it does. In my update on “Coach” Dave Daubenmire’s appearance on Geraldo At Large, I noted that Daubenmire floated a new defense of Freshwater’s teaching of creationism in 8^th grade science. Daubenmire said that in 2003 Freshwater

… began to teach what was then the state standards to teach the controversy of evolution.

Daubenmire is apparently referring to the Disco ‘Tute’s “critical analysis of evolution” ploy, first tried out on the Ohio State Board of Education. That Board subsequently adopted (but later abandoned) a grade indicator in its 10^th grade biology standards that said

23. 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.

I’ve read some of the materials that Freshwater used and I’ve talked with his students. Freshwater was feeding them the worst of creationist trash and through his spokesman is now claiming that he was following state standards that explicitly disavowed the teaching of intelligent design!

Update at the bottom of the post starring Geraldo Rivera!

In a post just below PvM gave the background to the Freshwater case in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. The 5-member District Board of Education met this afternoon and after a 3.5 hour executive session, voted unanimously to initiate termination proceedings against Freshwater. Those proceedings start with a copy of the resolution being provided to Freshwater via registered mail. On receipt of the notification, Freshwater has 10 days to request a hearing before the board or a referee. If he elects to not request the hearing, the Board will consider the termination at its July meeting. If he does request it, Board action will be delayed until a hearing has been held.

The Board’s resolution cited four basic grounds for its resolution:

Just in from the New York Times:

The National Association of State Boards of Education [NASBE] will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution.

Who would that be? Ken Willard, someone you may remember.

Imagine that you are a Ph.D. candidate in biology. You aren’t doing anything with charismatic megafauna; your focus is on invertebrates. Worms, really. But you’ve done some work on figuring out how worms move through substrate. It is good work, and you’ve been published in Nature on the topic. That’s all pretty cool.

Then, you find out that your research has been used as a prime exhibit in a political campaign to advance “intelligent design” and “teach the controversy” positions. That’s not cool.

Kelly Dorgan, though, has her own message about the misuse of her work, one that she has sent to the Ohio Board of Education, and that she has graciously given permission to be published here. Read it below the fold.

One would hope that politicians seeking to understand science education would turn to people who know what they are talking about, and avoid propaganda outlets. In Ohio, the propaganda has been dished out in large quantities by SEAO and the Discovery Institute. Fortunately, there are many science faculty at Ohio’s universities who have taken the time to advise non-scientists on the Ohio State Board of Education; they have made themselves available as a resource. There are professional scientific organizations in Ohio whose goal is better science education for students. Between these resources, a politician who wants to get serious about improving science education in Ohio has many choices in getting good advice.

Last week I announced that Kenneth Miller, Deborah “[The NAS is] a group of so-called scientists” Owens-Fink, and Tom “No, not from Mark Twain” Sawyer were doing a radio debate. ID guy Chris Williams was evidently the anti-Kenneth Miller guest, although for some reason they never realize that Ken Miller knows all their talking points.

Listening to it is like listening to the DI versus PT, actually. Owens-Fink really knows her DI talking points – although according to her, Icons of Evolution is not an ID book, and she thinks that it should have been left in the “critical analysis” lesson plan (the reference, but not the content, was deleted after scientists complained). And she is still defending the “critical analysis” lesson plan and claiming it isn’t creationism or ID. Chris Williams tries to say that evolution equals atheism, citing the recent cover story of Wired – and of course Ken Miller cheerily points out that he himself is a counterexample. For extra fun, board member Martha Wise called in to dispute claims that Owens-Fink made about board procedure. The radio guy’s introduction is pretty good also.

The show is online here (mp3 direct link, 22 MB).

PS: There is also a great bit where Chris Williams claims that evolution held back the discovery of small interfering RNA – and Kenneth Miller replied by pointing out that Craig Mello, who won the Nobel Prize 3 weeks ago for his work on RNA interference, was a student in the first biology class Ken Miller taught. Bam!

UPDATE: Ken Miller will be on Ohio Public Radio tomorrow, on 90.3 WCPN, 9 a.m. eastern. The program will also feature a face-off between Ohio State Board of Education candidates Deborah Owens-Fink and Tom Sawyer. The program, “Evolution’s Effect on Voters,” will start at 9 am Eastern Time on Thursday, and the station has live streaming. Questions can be asked at (216) 578-0903, or the show email, [Enable javascript to see this email address.].

Ken Miller speaking in Ohio: An announcement from Patricia Princehouse of Ohio is below. Kenneth Miller is evidently trying to break some sort of record – he is speaking seven times in three days, starting Thursday at Case Western Reserve University, in a talk which will be webcast.

Ken Miller in Ohio! Oct 26-28 Science, God, & Intelligent-Design: Why all three matter in the 2006 Ohio elections

As seen on the Colbert Report & YouTube!!!

Akron, Bowling Green, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Kent, and Oberlin.

**FREE & OPEN to the PUBLIC** Details at http://ohiohope.homestead.com/miller.html

Webcast Thurs 11:30 am!

Yesterday turned out to be a pretty good day for science education.

The word out of Ohio today is that the Ohio Board of Education is still stalling on its prior commitment to have an up-or-down vote on a “replacement policy” for the ill-fated “Critical Analysis of Evolution” benchmark and lesson plan which were defeated back in February. This is in marked contrast to a recent report in the press in which a board member claimed the debate template was “dead”.

(Note: I am posting a webified version of the Ohio Citizens for Science analysis of the new “son of critical analysis” proposal, a “debate template” which may come up for a vote tomorrow. The original PDF is available at the OCS website, but a web version may reach more readers and show up better in google. Particularly interesting in the OCS analysis are the graphics of the early versions of the lesson plan which originally became the famed (now defunct) “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson. Examination shows that the creationists in Ohio have been thinking of framing evolution as a “debate” or “trial” from the very beginning. If you pay attention to such things this is creationist “contrived dualism” going back to the 1980s and probably before – notably, the “Two Model Approach” advocated by the creation scientists and debunked in McLean and Edwards.)

Ohio Citizens for Science Call for Action on Resolution 31 and Response to the Proposed Framework for Teaching Controversial Issues aka “Controversy Template”

Contacts: Steve Rissing 614-791-0153 Patricia Princehouse 440-478-5292

Ohio Citizens for Science urges the Ohio Board of Education to accomplish the following at its meeting scheduled for 11-12 September 2006:

Ohio is back in the news because yet another creationism-inspired proposal may come up for a vote tomorrow (Tuesday, September 12). This time it’s called The Great Evolution Debate, er, Macroevolution on Trial, er, The Great Macroevolution Debate, er, Critical Analysis of Evolution, er, Critical Analysis of Evolution, Global Warming, and Stem Cells, er, the “Controversial Issues” Template. (Yes, all of these are policies or proposed policies that the creationists in Ohio have tried to shove down the throats of public school students and teachers. See this amazing analysis of the history by Ohio Citizens for Science, which includes images of actual drafts of the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson plan that was in place in Ohio until it was voted out in February 2003. I will try to post a text version of the OCS analysis later.)