CINCINNATI – Americans who question evolution are testing a new tactic in Ohio, arguing that schools should be required to discuss all controversial issues from creation to stem cell research and global warming.
In what critics yesterday called a new attempt to bring religion into the classroom, the Ohio State Board of Education will consider a proposal next week that would oblige schools to teach critical thinking in all subjects.
The proposal, to be discussed Monday by a school board subcommittee in Columbus, is the latest effort by those who believe Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as only one disputed explanation for the origin of humankind.
School board President Sue Westendorf said the committee would debate but probably not vote on the proposal. It is designed to replace curriculum rescinded in February after a Pennsylvania court ruled that teaching the theory known as “intelligent design” in that state was unconstitutional.
The debate between those who accept the theory of evolution and those who believe in the Biblical account of creation has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes “monkey trial” in Tennessee 80 years ago.
The Pennsylvania decision handed down in December found that “intelligent design” – a belief that God must be behind evolution because life is too complex to be random – was a religious doctrine without any scientific merit.
Ohio teachers had been allowed to question evolution under a model lesson plan approved in 2004, but the school board canceled it in February after the Pennsylvania ruling.
Critics said conservative Christians were simply trying to find a backdoor way to teach that God created the Earth.
“Ohio has always been the bellwether. Things are floated in Ohio to see if they work, and if they work, they'll try to get them adopted elsewhere,” said Lawrence Krauss, a member of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, which opposes the teaching of religion in public schools.
John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which promotes the teaching of intelligent design, said the proposed new policy was “good pedagogy and good for students” because it would teach them how to sift and analyze evidence.
