An Open Letter on Science Education to Officials Serving the State of Ohio
30 January 2002

Dear Governor Taft and members of the Ohio Board of Education, Ohio Board of Regents, Ohio House Education Committee and Ohio Senate Education Committee,

We have reached a very serious juncture in time for science education in Ohio. Several members of the legislature and the Ohio Board of Education are considering introducing intelligent design (ID) into Ohio's science curriculum.

While I have no doubt their intentions are well-meaning, they could not possibly be more misguided. While I am sure they think including intelligent design will help science education, they appear to have no idea how seriously it will damage science education. If Ohio continues down this path, Ohio will become an international laughingstock, the butt of late night jokes, and possibly become involved in a costly lawsuit that will keep Ohio in the spotlight as a scientific and intellectual backwater for years to come.

Biotechnology firms will be the first "science-dependent" industries to shun or flee Ohio if we start teaching nonsense in the science classroom. The Scopes Monkey Trial occurred in Tennessee in 1925, 77 years ago, and yet Tennessee is still fighting to overcome the legacy and image of Scopes. Are you ready to do the same thing to Ohio's reputation, given that we already rank very low in the USA regarding the higher education of our citizens?

The Ohio Board of Education wisely chose panels of scientists and science educators to draw up standards for science education (the Writing Committee) and to oversee the scientific content of those science standards (the Advisory Committee). Forty-four out of the 45 members of the writing committee, all members of the Advisory Committee, all of the professional staff and consultants from the Ohio Department of Education, all of us from the Ohio Academy of Science who reviewed the standards, the National Academy of Sciences, and virtually every scientific organization which has been asked about evolution agree that evolution is science and belongs in science education standards, while intelligent design and other forms of creationism are not science and must be excluded. The one exception on the Writing Committee is Ph.D. chemist (not a biologist or geologist) Robert Lattimer. It defies every measure of logic and reason to consider the opinion of a very small minority to somehow carry a weight equal to the professional thoughts of the vast majority of professional scientists and science educators, and begs the question, "What is this thing called intelligent design? Where does it come from and what is its purpose?"

Intelligent design has a clear pedigree. It begins with laws forbidding the teaching of evolution, like the one John Scopes was convicted of violating in Tennessee. The Tennessee law and others like it were intended to keep evolution out of the public schools, leaving only the Biblical stories of creation in the schools. When laws like these were ruled unconstitutional, they were replaced by attempts to pass laws mandating equal time for the Bible if evolution was taught. Such laws quickly ran afoul of the Constitution, since they required teaching religion (i.e., the Biblical account of creation) in public schools. At this point, those people who wanted to see the Bible taught in public schools had what must be called a brilliant flash of insight: Invent something called "creation science."

Creationists claim creation science is strictly non-religious, but that science, properly understood, just happens to confirm the Biblical stories of creation, including the flood of Noah. Two states, Louisiana and Arkansas, adopted laws requiring equal time for creationism. In both cases, the courts saw right through the disguise, and clearly recognized the religious nature of creation science. Both laws were declared unconstitutional (in McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, which resulted in a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of the Louisiana law).

But creationists learned and evolved and tried passing laws requiring equal time for "evidences" against evolution, including the proposed Ohio House Bills 679 and 692. The so-called "evidences" were, not surprisingly, the same incorrect claims made by creation science: the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection to account for life on earth; the apparent design in living things suggesting a designer; the supposed lack of ANY transitional fossil forms, etc. To my knowledge, none of those bills ever passed, so creationism evolved again, this time into intelligent design "theory."

Intelligent design "theory" (more accurately, intelligent design creationism) is simply the recycling of a very old, disproved and discarded idea called "argument from design." Argument from design is the idea that if you look at nature and you perceive design, then that the perceived design implies a designer - God. The problem is that when you look to nature, you see very clumsily constructed things like the vertebrate eye, with the retina mounted backwards (facing away from the light it is trying to detect) and with a hole cut out of it (the blind spot); digestive systems in rabbits and many other mammals that are so badly "designed" they are forced to eat their own feces to extract the nourishment from their food; a lump of bone and tendons used like a thumb by pandas instead of a real thumb; junk DNA (about 90% of our DNA) that does not produce anything; and so on.

Argument from design was rejected over 100 years ago, but has now been revived as "intelligent design". The same old Edsel automobile with a new paint job!

Supporters of intelligent design claim it is not creationism, just as supporters of creation science claimed it is not religious. The original proponents of argument from design/intelligent design, including Paley, Cuvier and Augustine, honestly proclaimed they were using nature to try to demonstrate the existence of God. The new supporters of intelligent design, like creation "scientists" before them, claim intelligent design is purely scientific, not religious, which apparently makes intelligent design "the non-religious belief in God." But beneath the carefully laid camouflage, intelligent design creationism is clearly an attempt to put religion into science as the explanation for the world. So although Biblical creationism has evolved a long way since John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution, its purpose remains the same: to put religious explanations of the world into the science classroom.

If intelligent design is really a science, then the peer-reviewed scientific journals should be full of scientific papers about intelligent design. I ran a computer search for scientific papers on intelligent design on the Biological and Agricultural Index's database, which covers over 200 scientific journals about the life sciences back to 1983. The search turned up two book reviews, both harshly critical of William Dembski's books on intelligent design, and not one research paper on intelligent design. If intelligent design really is science then why are there no papers in the peer-reviewed literature? By contrast, a search using the keywords "evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, natural selection and speciation" turned up 12,900 scientific papers. Which one is the science, the one with 12,000+ scientific papers or the one with 0?

To listen to the promoters of intelligent design, and their fellow supporters of creation science before them, the only reason there are no papers on intelligent design is the prejudice of scientists and some kind of "conspiracy" to keep creationism and intelligent design out of science. I always wonder how people can say that with a straight face!

In the final analysis, you will be deciding if Ohio's science education will cover science or whatever pseudoscientific beliefs are popular. Consider this. The supernatural was once used to explain how the planets circle the sun: angels pushed them. The supernatural was once used to explain disease: spirits caused them. The supernatural was once used to explain why the rain falls, how the wind blows, what drives the tides, etc. If supernatural explanations are acceptable in biology, why not accept them in these other areas as "alternative theories?" Why not decide that the idea an intelligent designer is holding atoms together as just as reasonable an explanation as the "supposed" nuclear forces? Try proving or disproving the claim, "An intelligent designer holds atoms together." Why not a supernatural explanation for fire, or conception, or every other area of science? Think carefully before you open this Pandora's box in the State of Ohio!

Sincerely,

Steven A. Edinger, Physiology Lab Instructor and a founding member of Ohio Citizens for Science

---

Steven A. Edinger, Physiology Lab Instructor

064 Irvine Hall Department of Biological Sciences Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701-2979

steven.edinger.1@ohio.edu Office: (740) 593-9484 Fax: (740) 593-0300

---

The following letter should be carefully considered while you are discussing this issue.

Steve Edinger



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. - http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

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. - http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ articles/3675_eight_significant_court_decisi_2_15_2001.asp

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. - http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/ For other links related to evolution, and creationism/ID, please see the website of Kansas Citizens For Science at www.kcfs.org.

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