Letter from Liz Craig,
President, Kansas Citizens for Science
to Ohio Board of Education

I have read with alarm of the efforts of "intelligent design" proponents to persuade the Ohio Board of Education to teach ID in K-12 science classes. Here in Kansas, we dealt with the same kind of challenge, with the exception that here, the charge was led by Missouri Young-Earth Creationists, then carried on by the local ID organization, IDnet (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org).

A member of Kansas' IDnet, Mr. John Calvert, who has made presentations to Ohio BOE members, also testified numerous times before the Kansas BOE during our widely publicized science standards battle. Ms. Jodi Sjogren, another member of IDnet, who now lives in Ohio, also testified numerous times, using her avian and aircraft illustrations to illustrate her points about "intelligent design," the newest repackaging of creationism.

I am writing you this letter in the hope that you will decide to avoid the global derision of our state which attended the Kansas BOE's adoption of creationist-tainted science standards. The conservative Fordham Foundation, which evaluates state educational standards, gave the Kansas standards the lowest possible rating, "F-minus." Students at Kansas colleges and universities reported being reluctant to tell out-of-staters where they went to school, for fear of being laughed at. More than one corporation scratched Kansas from its list of potential homes; top-level executives don't want to locate where they fear their children won't get the best education. News articles and letters from around the world ridiculed Kansas as being backward and ignorant.

At the next election, in which five of the ten Kansas BOE members were up for re-election, three of the four creationists ("social conservatives") were defeated and replaced with pro-science moderates . The newly constituted Kansas BOE very shortly tossed out the bad science standards - which had been butchered by a team of creationists - and adopted the version which had been created by a 27-member standards writing committee, composed of scientists, teachers and curriculum experts.

Children in public school today will face an increasingly scientific and technological world when they graduate. They need to be educated to take their place in that world. It is imperative that they receive the very best scientific education we can provide them in grades K-12, so they will have a foundation of knowledge on which to build when they enter college or university science programs. The theory of evolution, the modern synthesis, and genetic science are the foundations upon which our students will build their scientific careers.

The theory of evolution is the unifying theory of all the life sciences. Perhaps no other scientific theory has been corroborated by knowledge from so many diverse areas of scientific research. Proponents of ID would have you believe there is significant controversy over the validity of the theory of evolution. "Teach the controversy," they say. But the fact is that there is no controversy among the overwhelming majority of s cientists around the world. Scientists do debate the relative influences of various mechanisms of evolution, however, the theoretical basis of evolution is universally acknowledged to be sound.

"Intelligent Design," on the other hand, is not science. Its proponents have never proposed a testable hypothesis, let alone tested or validated one. ID has no scientific research program. ID proponents aim their appeals at the general public, not the scientific community. ID concepts have never been peer-reviewed by the world community of scientists, because there is nothing to review. ID has no hypotheses, no research program, no theory, and has not proved useful in any regard except political.

ID is a political, cultural and religious movement, not science. Its proponents are intent on replacing naturalistic science with a "theistic science." (See "The Wedge Strategy" link below).

Not only is ID bad science, it is also bad religion. Most people of faith have no problem reconciling evolution with their religious beliefs. Proponents of ID evidently think it necessary to look for proof of God through a microscope. But I think most people of faith consider such an approach misguided..

ID proponents claim evolutionary science is taught dogmatically, and that it teaches students a purely material view of life, i.e., that there is no God. This is patently untrue. Science says nothing about God, not because science is inherently anti-God or anti-religion, but because science has neither the tools nor the ability to investigate whether God exists. Science is silent on the subject of religion. But to say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

Generally, when someone criticizes a well-supported scientific theory, it is necessary that the critic supply a better alternative. ID proponents have offered none -only false arguments against evolutionary theory which have been refuted repeatedly by scientists.

I might add that ID proponents are looking for a court case in which they hope to persuade the courts that ID is not religion, and therefore, will pass the Lemon Test in order to be taught as science in public schools. However, ID is clearly not scientifically valid and is religiously based. Its proponents carefully avoid using the word "God" when talking to Boards of Education or other non-religious groups. However, when they are guests on radio call-in shows like "Bible Answer Man," when they make frequent presentations at churches, or when they write in Christian publications, they make it clear that they believe the "intelligent designer" is God.

The objective of ID is to push religiously based (conservative Christian) ideas into public school science classes. Please note there is no reason religious ideas cannot be discussed in a philosophy or comparative religions class, but under the Constitution, religious ideas may not be taught as science, in science class.

I refer you to a few URLs for further information:

The "intelligent design" movement was born at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a conservative think-tank - not in a scientific laboratory. This document, produced by the Discovery Institute, spells out quite clearly the religious basis for ID. It spells out the ID proponents' long-term goals, and how they intend to achieve them.

The Wedge Strategy.

The wall of separation between religion and government is threatened by the introduction of creationism/ID into the science classroom. Here are eight cases in which the courts have rejected these threats.

Eight Significant Court Decisions.

From the National Academy Press, a discussion of why teaching evolution is vital, and the true nature of science.

Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science.

For other links related to evolution, and creationism/ID, please see the website of Kansas Citizens For Science.

In summary, we Kansans have been down the road you are contemplating taking. It is the road to disaster. If you wish to avoid the shame and humiliation, acrimony and division which Kansas experienced, you would do well to take a detour. Listen to the scientific experts: evolutionary biologists. Evolutionary theory has proved its validity for a century and a half. ID is not science; it is nothing but "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," as Dr. Leonard Krishtalka of the University of Kansas so eloquently worded it. Don't be fooled by the ID costume. Do the right thing for Ohio K-12 students and give them science standards that will enhance their understanding of the world around them and uphold the quality of education in your state.

Sincerely,
Liz Craig, President
Kansas Citizens For Science