Skeptical News for 14 March 2004Skeptical News for 14 March 2004Archive of previous NTS Skeptical News listings
By HAL HATFIELD
Assistant Editor 03/08/2004
"Bigfoot" has not come back to live in the woods on the outskirts of Harvey. He never left. He has been living there all his life - in a house, not a den or cave. Certainly he has been hanging around for the last 25 years since he became a sensation in the Iowa media in the winter of 1978. After all these years, Bigfoot has decided to tell his story.
Harvey Postmistress Catherine Van Waardhuizen was driving to her home near an old railroad trestle near Harvey on Feb. 20, 1978, when she spied what the newspapers described as 20-inch-long, eight-inch-wide foot prints in the deep snow. She went on home and told her son and daughter-in-law, Jill and Jerry Van Waardhuizen, and their two daughters about the tracks.
The skeptical Jill and Jerry Van Waardhuizen took their daughters to see the foot prints and were surprised by three-foot distance between the prints, the absence of boot treads in the tracks and the lack of scuff marks in the snow where a foot should have dragged when taking a step.
Jill Van Waardhuizen said she could not explain the tracks. If someone made the tracks as a hoax, she said, he would have had to walk on stilts to get through the deep snow in such long strides while leaving so few skuff marks between the tracks.
According to a report in the Knoxville Journal under the headline "Does a 'Bigfoot' prowl through the woods near Harvey?", Cliff Worthington, also of Harvey, followed the tracks further, and found where the track-maker had crossed a high barbed-wire fence and a place at the base of the railroad bridge where it looked like the creature had lain down to rest. There was even a packed patch of snow that appeared to have been made by the head of whatever it was as it lay there.
Shirley McCombs of Harvey later found a tuft of hair on the barbed wire where the track-maker had hurdled the fence.
Yet another Harvey resident, Glen Visser, called by the Knoxville Journal "the most determined tracker," took up the trail carrying his .22 rifle, but gave up after concluding he was following the tracks the wrong way. Visser said he became confused by the deep and blowing snow.
He said he would rather believe it was some big human out walking. "One tracker isn't offering opinions," the newspaper said of Visser.
Other area residents reported personal encounters with a Bigfoot and Matt Ver Steeg, a KNIA announcer and southern Iowa director of Bigfoot Research Inc., was quoted that there had been earlier Bigfoot sightings near Oskaloosa and Pella. The Journal said Ver Steeg said he had personally met a Bigfoot.
Ver Steeg explained that "Bigfoot is a primate, but an animal - not some 'missing link.' The animal tends to establish a territory and frequents the same areas, providing its food supply remains fairly constant."
Ver Steeg said Bigfoot was primarily a vegetarian and his diet might consist of bark, left-over corn, soybeans, any kind of berries and roots.
"It may turn to stealing livestock if its more staple foods become scarce," he said. He asked "anyone who has been hearing anything unusual, such as howls, yells, screams or grunts" to contact him.
The winter of 1977-1978 had been a long, cold and snowy one, and Glen Visser had cabin fever. There was an accumulation of about three feet of snow, with a new fall of a fluffy few inches.
Visser was in good shape, working out regularly and jogging when he could. So he strapped on a pair of military snow shoes - each about 24 inches long and a foot wide - and went for a run in the snow.
Catherine Van Waardhuizen went home for lunch and the rest is Bigfoot history. Bigfoot was in the Harvey woods.
The snowshoes made the oversized tracks and Visser was jogging so the interval between the tracks was exaggerated. He picked his feet up and put them straight down - no scuff marks. The wind was blowing the snow - no tread marks. The snow was so deep that the barbed-wire fence was no barrier. "I could step right over it," he says.
After packing down the snow by the trestle so that it looked as if Bigfoot had lain down, Visser took off the snowshoes and went home.
He later realized that there were no Bigfoot foot prints leaving from beneath the bridge, so his wife Jeannine drove him back with the snowshoes to make more tracks. His daughter Kathy took a tuft of hair from an old bearskin and attached it to the fence.
After the tracks were discovered, there were several attempts to track Bigfoot, including Visser's own failed attempt.
"The next day there were about a thousand cars down there," Visser said. "It was just a great time. I really enjoyed it. There had been other Bigfoot sightings in Iowa and that might have prompted me to do it."
Visser also admits climbing a nearby bluff and howling like a wolf, sending dogs in the area into a frenzy.
A year later, the Knoxville Journal observed the first anniversary of the discovery of Bigfoot's tracks by noting that there had been no more sightings. Kevin Cook, director of Bigfoot Research Inc. of Iowa, said that the winter of 1978-1979 had been colder than the previous one and theorized Bigfoot might have moved further south.
Samples of hair from the fence were determined to be from a cow. Visser and his family have kept Bigfoot's identity a secret for 26 years, so why confess now? "I didn't want to die without telling," he says.
Among his newspaper clippings is one about a California man, Ray Wallace, who pulled a similar prank many years ago by making footprints of a Bigfoot with carved pieces of wood. He also filmed his wife in an ape costume to create a "sighting." Among the photos was a pregnant Bigfoot and Bigfoot eating frogs. It was only after Wallace's death at age 86 that his family revealed the secret. "He did it for a joke and he was afraid to tell anyone because they'd be so mad at him," Wallace's nephew said.
The legend of Bigfoot - or Yeti or Sasquatch or Almas or the Abominable Snowman or any of many other names - goes back into history. A check of Google on the Internet reveals 1,160,000 hits under "bigfoot." One web site lists sightings in every state except Hawaii. California has had 263 sightings. Another site lists 21 sightings in Iowa, dating back to 1869.
According to one web site, Bigfoot came out of the woods the same 1978-1979 winter at the Pella Bridge near Harvey, gazed at a 10-year-old boy, and then retreated back into the woods.
In 2000, a duck hunter and his son spotted Bigfoot three miles south of Pella. He was tall, had white fur and ran very quickly.
Visser does not seem worried that folks will be mad at him now that his secret is out. He says Bigfoot was able to liven up the cold, snowy winter in Harvey. "People really wanted to believe in Bigfoot," he said.
Visser is 69 now, but he still works out, still jogs, is still in good shape. He and his wife rode in RAGBRAI for 17 straight years and are avid trail riders. He probably could still negotiate the barbed-wire fence if the snow were deep enough.
Much of the woods where Bigfoot roamed in 1978 is now crop land. But there is still plenty of room for imagination...and hopefully still some people who really want to believe.
©Journal-Express/The Reminder 2004
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1463&dept_id=180222&newsid=11087549&PAG=461&rfi=9
By Jonathan D. Sarfati
Reprinted from the March 2004 issue of Science and Theology News.
The hunt for life on Mars is once again big news. The last time was the 1996 headline about the discovery of life remnants in the Antarctic meteorite, probably from Mars. This particular claim has largely been discounted, but the big-picture issues are the same.
Most supporters of extraterrestrial life have a strong bias against any idea of a creator God. In their belief system, nature is the only reality. Thus, life arose from nonliving chemicals by itself through chemical evolution or abiogenesis. The Mars rock generated many articles gleefully proclaiming that the discovery would cause headaches for traditional theologians. By showing that matter has an inbuilt tendency to form life, a creator is unnecessary, and Earth and humanity are nothing special. Finding primitive life from Mars, though, would not show that it had evolved there.
First, it would not rule out an Earth origin for that life. If rocks can be blasted from Mars to Earth, the other way is also possible. And scientists have considered for years that light pressure can push bacterial spores from Earth's atmosphere into space. Second, evolutionists have not succeeded in showing how nonliving matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells. Finding life on Mars would say absolutely nothing about how it arose. Particles-to-people evolutionists deny the fundamental law of biogenesis: Life comes only from life. Conversely, creationist scientists apply this law to its logical conclusion: Material life has not existed forever, and life only comes from other life. Therefore, the source of material life must be nonmaterial life. The Bible says nothing to indicate that God created life anywhere but Earth. But it does not explicitly deny it. Some have speculated that God's omnipotence and glory might be expressed by many planets with life.
However, Scripture strongly implies that no intelligent life exists elsewhere, and the long-running Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI, projects have failed to refute this. Earth was created to be home for creatures made in God the Creator's image. It was on Earth that the first human couple rebelled against its creator and brought the cosmos under His curse. Thus it would have affected Martians, Vulcans, Klingons and any other being in the universe. The second person of the holy trinity incarnated on Earth alone, took on human nature, died for the sins of those with whom He has the kinsman-redeemer relationship, then ascended to the right hand of God the Father. He did not take on Vulcan or Klingon nature, and He will have only one bride the church for all eternity. It would therefore seem hard to reconcile intelligent life on other worlds with the doctrine of the incarnation. It would also seem odd for God to create microscopic life on other planets, but we should not be dogmatic on this.
In conclusion, despite spending millions of dollars, NASA and others have not found the slightest proof for life anywhere but Earth. Behind the search is the metaphysical assumption that life evolved from nonliving chemicals on Earth, so there is no reason it couldn't evolve elsewhere. Chemical evolution has such major hurdles that if life were found on Mars, the most reasonable assumption is that it came from Earth somehow. Scripture mentions nothing about biology outside Earth, but looking at the big picture of the Bible, it seems hard to re concile it with extraterrestrial intelligence.
Jonathan D. Sarfati is a creationist physical chemist affiliated with 'Answers in Genesis' in Australia.
By Sharon Begley
Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"
Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.
Biologists used to just roll their eyes (and sometimes descend to name-calling) at all this. More recently, they've been joining with First Amendment groups to oppose moves to water down the teaching of evolution in classrooms.
But now they are firing back with science. Their target: a line of attack that has promised over the past decade to "smash through the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence to bring Darwin to the canvas once and for all," as cell biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Providence, R.I., puts it.
The latest flaps are over Georgia's proposal (withdrawn last week) to eliminate the word "evolution" from science classes, and a Missouri bill requiring that biology curricula include a creationism off-shoot called "intelligent design."
This new antievolution argument evolved (no irony intended) from the belief that living things are so complex they only could have been designed by an intelligent being.
For years, intelligent-design theory had been bogged down in what one wag calls "the argument from personal incredulity" ("I can't see how natural forces could produce this, so it must be the work of God"). Darwin's new foes, however, are smart enough to realize that just because most of us can't imagine how the sun can burn so hot for so long, it doesn't follow that God, not nuclear fusion, keeps the fires stoked.
In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa., therefore offered a stronger argument against evolution. Complex living structures, he argued in his book "Darwin's Black Box," possess "irreducible complexity." That is, they can't function until all their components are assembled, much as a mousetrap isn't much good until the base, spring, bar and all the rest are connected.
Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function. Because evolution selects only the fittest innovations, useless ones vanish. The odds against a bunch of useless parts lying around at the same time and coming together by chance are astronomical, mathematician and evolution-critic William Dembski of Baylor University correctly notes.
But a funny thing happened when biologists started scrutinizing structures said to be irreducibly complex. Take the flagellum. It turns out that its base -- which Darwin's foes assert has no stand-alone function -- is made of the same necklace of proteins that compose a kind of syringe used by primitive microbes.
Called the type III secretory system, this microsyringe enables a bacterium to inject a toxin into its victim (this is how bubonic-plague bacteria kill). This component of the flagellum, then, could have been hanging around a very long time, conferring benefits on any organism that had it, ready to combine with other structures (which also perform functions in primitive living things) into a full-blown, functional flagellum.
"As an icon of antievolution, the flagellum has fallen," says Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic. "If bits and pieces of a machine are useful for different functions, it means that natural selection could indeed produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes."
It's like discovering the mousetrap bar was a fine toothpick long before it got together with the other parts to kill rodents.
Components of other irreducibly complex structures and systems, it turns out, have functions, too. Humans, for instance, have a complex multipart biomachine that plays a key role in how cells produce energy.
Irreducibly complex? Maybe not. Two of the six proteins that make up the proton pump that produces energy are dead ringers for those in ancient bacteria. Evolution could have co-opted them when it was putting together the more complicated biochemical processes inside animals, including people.
Biologists have pinpointed the origins of only a few of the complex structures in humans and other higher organisms. Even in these cases, Prof. Behe argues, they have not explained, step by step, how simple systems could evolve into complex ones. But with discoveries like the microsyringe, Darwinians have cast serious doubt on the claim that it is impossible for evolution to shape any complex system.
In one of those strange-bedfellows moments, theologians are joining biologists in criticizing intelligent design. Biologist and Anglican priest Arthur Peacocke, for instance, argues that evolution is God's way of creating. George Coyne -- astronomer, Jesuit and director of the Vatican Observatory -- goes further. Invoking God to explain what we can't otherwise account for, he says, is "a kind of idolatry," because true faith should come from within and not because we can't fully explain the natural world.
The evolution wars show no sign of ending, but maybe they are starting to generate a little light as well as much heat.
The Evolving Debate on 'Intelligent Design'
In response to Sharon Begley's Feb. 13 Science Journal "Evolution Critics Come Under Fire for Flaws in Intelligent Design":
Current debate among evolutionary biologists has not much to do with "intelligent design" or religious beliefs or, more importantly, nothing to do with the now widely accepted overwhelming evidence of changing life forms over geologic time. The current theoretical problem is whether these changes are adequately explained by a mechanism advanced more than a century ago by Darwin and Wallace called "natural selection," which necessitates blind, random events.
Rejecting such a mechanism does not lead to "intelligent design" as the only other explanation or to other conclusions involving God. What it does lead to is "we don't know the answer yet," and as with other incompletely explained natural phenomena, it requires awaiting other explanations possibly based on forthcoming evidence.
Prof. Miller, a practicing Catholic, is quoted as saying that "if bits and pieces are useful for different functions it means that natural selection could produce elements of a biochemical machine for different purposes." Ms. Begley compares a "flagellum" analogy to a mousetrap bar that could be a fine toothpick long before it got together with other parts to kill a rodent. These explanations in fact refer to "evolution" as a force producing changes. No evidence for any such "force" is known despite implications in this article, such as "evolution could have 'co-opted,'" or evolution "shaping any complex system." The key question now being asked is how such a blind "force" would know when a particular combination and in a particular sequence will be useful compared with other combinations (as biochemist Behe describes in the necessary progression of complex biochemical reactions in a certain order for retinal vision to occur).
Once such prescient ability is necessary, natural selection can no longer be considered a blind random event as Darwin postulated. Even "survival of the fittest," on close scrutiny is merely circular. It defines "fittest" as those who survive but avoids any proof between survival and fitness. It says, in effect, the fittest survive because they survive. Although evolutionary biologists have made attempts at alternate explanations, there are some in the field who become quite vituperative when the original Darwinian mechanism is questioned. Such challenges are proper and common in any scientific process and take nothing away from Darwin's brilliant descriptive observations.
Charles Zimmerman, M.D.
Boynton Beach, Fla.
"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001). Ms. Begley reports the very latest "wishful speculations." The flagellum, an astonishingly complex biological outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim, has in recent years been found to be even more sophisticated. Not only does it have a rotary nanomotor that has been dubbed "the most efficient machine in the universe," but we now know it also contains intricate protein pumps that allow it to construct itself, something no human-made machine can do. With breathtaking chutzpah but bizarre logic, a few rather unreflective Darwinists are spinning the increased complexity, which they neither predicted nor explained, as a public relations reprieve for their moribund theory. It's like contending that, although wheels, chassis and a steering column give a car the appearance of intelligent design, when the fuel pump is discovered then happenstance is a better explanation.
The Darwinian imagination is a marvel to behold. No wonder Darwinists try to rule out intelligent design "as a matter of principle." It surely can't be ruled out by the evidence.
Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pa.
Those who question evolution apparently are oblivious to the obvious example of bacteria that adapt to the latest antibiotics in a few years which nevertheless represents millions of bacterial reproductive generations. The equivalent for more complex organisms took millions of years.
Those who invoke God to explain the existence of living things are clueless that this explains exactly nothing because it leaves unexplained the existence of God. And if God must be taken on faith then why not take existence on faith and cut out the middle man?
Fred Charette
Las Vegas
Humans build systems that improve generation to generation in a step-wise manner with only a few variables being advanced at a time; the forces of biological mutation, natural selection and environmental pressures improve or delete across all the natural variables, from how an organism seeks food, reproduces and depends on other species in its life-cycle. It is this amazing system of constant parallel change that is the genius of the natural world, and that genius to me is the essence of a larger intelligence in the universe.
Larry Isacson
Laguna Niguel, Calif.
Why Evolution Works: Survival Is Not 'Random'
Charles Zimmerman's Feb. 27 Letter to the Editor on evolution and intelligent design (responding to Sharon Begley's Feb. 13 Science Journal "Evolution Critics Come Under Fire for Flaws in Intelligent Design") contained substantial misrepresentations. The expression "force of evolution" is not intended to imply an actual physical force, but is a metaphor for observation -- random mutation and natural selection may produce a flying animal from a terrestrial one, but no evolutionist would say there is a force propelling the ancestral species into the air, other than metaphorically. By analogy, centrifugal force doesn't exist either, but it's still a convenient shorthand for an inertial process. The expression "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer. It may be a circular definition, but it doesn't mean the underlying process of which it is an overly brief simplification is false.
Mr. Zimmerman cites the biochemistry of retinal vision as an example of irreducible complexity, one of evolution critic Michael Behe's favorite instances. He is obviously unaware, unlike Prof. Behe, who simply ignores it, that as biochemical processes become increasingly refined or complex, earlier steps may be discarded, and the result may appear to be "impossible" to originate.
Mr. Zimmerman claims Darwin argued that natural selection is random. He never did. The variation may be random, but selection is not. That, in fact, is why evolution works: Survival is decidedly not random. For example, the ambulocetus that can stay under water a little longer has a slight advantage over the ambulocetus that cannot. That is no more random than the winner of the 100-meter dash being the fastest sprinter.
Stephen R. Gould
New York
Re: Q&A with Gregg Easterbrook, Religion, March 6
In Laura Griffin's interview, author Gregg Easterbrook begins an answer with, "There's a very clear line between whether you believe life has meaning or you believe is a cosmic accident."
I think Religion readers might enjoy the book Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward (Baker Book House, $19.99). The book is mainly about the intense rhetoric in the debate between the secular Darwinist and the intelligent design theorist. The outcome deals with the great cultural divide of our times: Are we here by chance or are we here by design?
For the first time in a very long time, science seems to be coming down on the side of design, and secularists are doing everything they can to keep this information from the general public.
John Standifer, Odessa
By Jim Brown
March 12, 2004
(AgapePress) - The Ohio State Board of Education's adoption of an optional science lesson for schools called "Critical Analysis of Evolutionary Theory" is being hailed as a victory for Ohio public school students and families.
By a 13-5 vote, Ohio's education board members decided to implement a first for public schools in America -- a curriculum that allows for the discussion of evidence supporting and opposing the theory of macroevolution, or common descent. Dr. Bob Lattimer, a research chemist and co-founder of the group Science Excellence for All Ohioans, says he hopes the board's vote will set a precedent -- not only for Ohio, but also for the entire United States.
"I think over time other states will look at this lesson and develop similar ones of their own," Lattimer says. He notes that each state has its own processes, but all review their science standards periodically.
"When those [standards] come up for adoption, I think other states will certainly look at this lesson, and we're certainly hopeful that they'll adopt similar ones," the says.
The "Critical Analysis of Evolutionary Theory" lesson plan contains exploration of five basic problem areas with the theory of evolution. Lattimer says the two areas that are the most obvious and that will receive the most attention are the fossil record and the idea of homologies, or comparisons between various organisms.
Lattimer also notes that, despite what has been portrayed by the secular media, the lesson does not include religious content or the promotion of any alternative theories. "Our opposition has been very intent to paint this lesson as something that promotes religion -- intelligent design, creationism or both."
But in fact, "It actually has no content that is religious at all. It's totally science," Lattimer says.
The scientist and educational excellence advocate adds that the next step for his group is to get test questions pertaining to criticisms of evolution included on Ohio's statewide assessment exams.
© 2004 AgapePress
ALABAMA
Senate Bill 336, the counterpart of Alabama House Bill 391, passed the Senate Education Committee on March 10 by a vote of 7-0. If enacted, SB336 would provide teachers and instructors at public institutions "the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific, historical, theoretical, or evidentiary information pertaining to alternative theories or points of view on the subject of origins," and protection from penalties for teaching alternatives. The bill would also provide a student the right not to be penalized for holding "a particular position on origins, so long as he or she demonstrates acceptable understanding of course materials." During the committee hearing, the question of whether the bill would open the door to religious ideas about origins such as those of Hinduism was broached; a motion to amend the bill to refer specifically to creationism was rejected, one senator citing the likelihood of a lawsuit as a reason.
For further information, see the Associated Press story in The Tuscaloosa News:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040310/APN/403101014
OHIO
On March 9, the Ohio Board of Education passed the proposed model science curriculum, including the controversial model lesson plan L10H23, "Critical Analysis of Evolution." This lesson plan corresponds to a similarly controversial provision included in the Ohio state science standards adopted in 2002, Benchmark H, indicator 23, which reads "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.)" The 22-page "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan was opposed by numerous science and education organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Academy of Science.
The 547-page model curriculum, including the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan, was passed by a 13-5 vote. A preceding vote to remove L10H23 failed 10-7. Teachers are not required to teach the model lesson plans. However, since the model lesson plans are based on the Ohio science standards, on which students can be tested, it is expected that they will be widely used. Several of those opposed to the model lesson plan have discussed the possibility of lawsuits. Patricia Princehouse, a philosophy professor at Case Western Reserve Universitiy, said, "They're standing in line -- high school teachers, board members, parents, the students themselves," according to an Associated Press story.
For further information, see the story in the Dayton Daily News:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0310intelligent.html
and the web site of Ohio Citizens for Science:
http://www.ohioscience.org
ELDREDGE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History was profiled in a story in the March 9, 2004, issue of The New York Times. The story, subtitled "Bursts of Cornets and Evolution," discusses the affinities between Eldredge's scientific vocation and his musicological avocation--studying the history of the cornet. Eldredge is a Supporter of NCSE, to which he dedicated his book The Triumph of Evolution: and the Failure of Creationism (New York: W. H. Freeman, 2000).
For further information, see the story in The New York Times (registration is required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/science/09PROF.html
For more detail on these and other stories, be sure to consult NCSE's web site: http://www.ncseweb.org where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and threats to it.
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
City officials fall for an Internet prank and draft a law to curb the risks of dihydrogen monoxide.
By William Wan, Times Staff Writer
In large quantities, dihydrogen monoxide can cause medical problems in humans and even destroy property. But in Aliso Viejo, it's only causing red faces.
Officials of the south Orange County city were embarrassed to learn Friday that they had tripped over an Internet hoax about dihydrogen monoxide commonly known as water in an effort to be environmentally correct.
A proposed law that was scheduled to go before the City Council next week would have banned foam cups and containers at events requiring city permits.
A staff report cited environmental concerns, including the danger posed by dihydrogen monoxide, described as a chemical used in production of the plastic that can "threaten human health and safety."
"It's embarrassing," said City Manager David J. Norman. "We had a paralegal who did bad research."
The American Plastics Council has seized on the case as an example of how "junk science" can cause unfounded environmental fears.
"The plastics industry has always been a favorite target of environmentalists," said spokesman Robert Krebs. "But we dream about instances like this when our opponents do something foolish."
Regardless of the hoax, the Sierra Club argues that the ubiquitous white foam made of polystyrene can cause environmental harm.
It's not biodegradable, said spokesman Eric Antebi, and, if ingested, can damage the digestive tracts of marine animals.
Aliso Viejo officials are not the only people who have fallen for the hoax.
Seven years ago, four teenagers in Pittsburgh were reprimanded by police for passing out fliers that caused a neighborhood-wide panic about dihydrogen monoxide.
Weeks later, the hoax took on a life of its own after a junior high school student in Eagle Rock, Idaho, used it in a science fair project to prove how gullible people can be.
The student conducted a survey of residents about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide and found that 86% favored banning the substance without knowing what it was.
The hoax inspired a small tongue-in-cheek movement on the Internet, with "national coalitions" formed to ban the substance. One of them, the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division, maintains an extensive, if satirical, website detailing the harmful effects of the chemical from tissue damage caused by prolonged exposure (wrinkly skin after soaking in the bath tub) to death by overdose (drowning).
Despite their embarrassment, officials in Aliso Viejo may still ban polystyrene.
"Our main concern is with the Aliso Creek watershed," Norman said. "If you get Styrofoam into the water and it breaks apart, it's virtually impossible to clean up."
After some Internet research on Friday, the city manager decided to pull the item from the City Council's agenda.
"We're going to rework it with better research before it's taken back to the council," Norman
said.
PARUL MALHOTRA
How many young Indians pay dhyaan to spiritual gyaan? It turns out that a 9:30 am lecture by Swami A Parthasarathy on Vedanta philosophy is way too early for most summiteers gathered in New Delhi for the CII Young Indians jamboree. Many were partying the night before at a Shiv Khemka-hosted bash at the Oberoi's. It's actually a pity that many have missed Swamiji's talk on Vedanta the "technology of living" as he puts it.
He explains why it's not post-retirement pastime and how it's a technique to improve your life. He clarifies the difference between intelligence and intellect (for example, the cardiologist who smokes a pack a day is intelligent but lacks intellect). He talks of mind control "mind destroys you when you give in to whims and fancies. You don't need to pamper it". And he exhorts you to be happy with what you have even as you reach for the moon.
An architect asks Swamiji about the "science" behind Vedic vaastu shastra. A management student quizzes him on how to salvage happiness from the frenzy of wealth accumulation. A lady sporting a business suit and a foreign accent wonders how to combat violent communalists with philosophy. The lecture has struck a chord with the sparse audience comprising managers, entrepreneurs, students, and professionals.
One among them is 34-year old Milind Joshi with Tata Power in Mumbai, who admits that he's not spiritually inclined. He also says he has heard "these good things before" courtesy the now mandatory spirituality sessions at corporate talk shops. Yet, he believes these messages ought to be reinforced periodically so that one is able to imbibe them in daily life.
Nirja Baheyti, asst vice-president at Indo Rama, agrees that spirituality tends to be ephemeral. "I try very hard", says the 38-year old who has been "besotted with spiritualism" since the past 20 years. At her work station she has pasted inspiring messages of the "yes to anger; no to cruelty" and "forgive and forget" sort. Beyond work, she has done the satsang routine, dabbled in Reiki, tried Art of Living and heard out various other schools of thought.
New Age is more than a fad, going beyond kitschy T-shirts, wind chimes and organic food cafes. It is grounded in reality, having to do with healing the mind, body and spirit The slightly built, dhoti-kurta clad, tonsured 31-year old Gautam Jain does better than most. Ten years ago, he graduated from a private school in Pennsylvania, received offers from Wall Street, ignored them, and headed straight to the Vedanta Academy near Lonavala to "know more about life". He hasn't left since, busily studying, reflecting on, preaching and now, conducting research, on Vedanta. He isn't an exception he insists, talking of the 70-odd students enrolled in a formal three-year programme at the Academy. "It's open to 18-30 year olds who want to study Vedanta. Two-thirds are Indians".
The youth and youthful aren't turning swamis in alarming numbers, of course, but there is evident a gradual spiritual awakening. In part, the institutionalisation of spiritualism at the workplace via leadership workshops, motivation seminars, annual retreats at Ananda spa and Dharamshala, and lectures by assorted gurus has influenced thinking. Grow Talent founder-CEO Anil Sachdeva has gone further. "Our coaches (note the term) have one-on-ones every month with executives from top corporates," he says. A contract typically runs over a year or so, packing in 24 hours, costing Rs 3,000-25,000 an hour. Psychological and spiritual insights aim to bust stress and eventually to discover one's true calling.
Some like Narayan Sethuramon, the 32-year old Jt MD of WS Industries, draw upon their upbringing. "I come from a spiritual background. I was told that doing your duty is the most important part, it counts for 99 per cent of all you do. The remaining 1 per cent goes to the power of prayer". Further inspiration comes from Steven Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. "I'm still short-tempered but have done a fairly good job of controlling the ego," he says, while referring to his ability to accept mistakes. Right now, he's working on eliminating personal biases which creep into decision-making.
Or take this 27-year old colleague at FE, for instance. She loves listening to Himalayan chants while she drives to and from work because they de-stress her even though she doesn't understand Sanskrit. Ask her why she picked up the tape and she says the audio used to be played at home and when she actually heard it, it struck her as immensely soothing.
There are others out there for whom New Age, in its myriad forms, for various reasons, is slowly entering mainstream. Twenty-eight-year old consultant Uday Singh turned to Su Jok (a Korean version of Chinese acupuncture) to fix his achey joints, bad back and dislocated finger. "I usually don't believe in this stuff but I heard about it from a friend and gave it a shot". It's worked for him and he now recommends this therapy to others.
Unlike Mr Singh, Deepika Guglani, a 32-year old investment consultant, always appreciated alternative medicine. She dabbled in yoga and homeopathy but was finally driven to reflexology because of cervical spondyliosis earned on the job. Her healer 32-year old Suruchi Bazaz is rather busy herself alternating between reflexology sessions, teaching UK high commission staffers yoga and holding stress-busting workshops at the American school.
Clearly, some of this New Age is very grounded in reality, having to do with healing the mind, body and spirit. It's more than a fad, going beyond kitschy T-shirts, wind chimes and organic food cafes. It's also very personal and therefore what works for one may not work for another. The bottomline seems to be, as Swami Nikhilananda of the Chinmaya Mission puts it, "People are beginning to realise that there's some truth behind what's said in our scriptures." But the first step is to be smart enough to understand you need this stuff, concludes Mr Jain wryly.
Mohammed Alkhereiji, Arab News Staff
JEDDAH, 12 March 2004 The Kingdom has banned the import and sale of dietary supplements containing the popular weight-loss stimulant ephedra, a month ahead of its ban in the United States.
According to sources at the Ministry of Health, the ban comes after the FDA linked the amphetamine-like stimulant to 16,000 adverse reactions and 155 deaths.
Ephedra will become illegal in the US on April 12.
The MOH source told Al-Madinah newspaper the ministry never registered or cleared any supplements that contain ephedra and that anybody involved in the sale and distribution of ephedra will be punished.
The ministry is currently investigating the matter as is the Saudi food and drug commission.
The reason ephedra, a naturally occurring substance derived from plants, could be imported into the Kingdom is that it is considered an alternative medicine and does not fall under the same strict laws that regulate the rest of the industry. According to Abdul Wahab Hassen, a pharmacist working in Jeddah, "it's a supplement, and there are other herbal supplements in the market which, although harmless, are still unregulated."
Health Ministry representatives have been inspecting pharmacies in the city to see if they were complying with the ban.
"It was very popular, and I never heard any complaints from my customers. I believe the deaths attributed to ephedra were because people were abusing it by exceeding the recommended dosage," said Ali, a nutritionist at a health store in north Jeddah.
The ban came as no surprise to Ali. "It's been off the market for almost two months, and we've had health inspectors check our stores," he said.
All pharmacies and nutrition stores interviewed by Arab News have also been ephedra-free for the same period.
Customers in the Kingdom did not get a chance to stock up as the ban was not announced at the time. "People still come in and ask for it," he said.
Tamer Rida, 35, used ephedra in the late 90s for over a year and sustained a permanent muscle injury while working out. "If anybody is on ephedra I recommend they take a blood test to check their potassium hasn't dropped to a level where they need hospitalization. Lack of potassium makes muscle contractions irregular, which could lead to a heart attack.
By Randy Dotinga
02:00 AM Mar. 12, 2004 PT
Placebos often make people feel better, but for decades, researchers didn't try very hard to figure out why. A sugar pill, after all, isn't likely to become a best-selling drug or turn a scientist into a star. But now, a new generation of psychiatrists and neurologists is trying to solve the mystery of the placebo.
Why do placebos help some people and not others? How can researchers study placebos without violating medical ethics? As neuroscientist Melanie Leitner put it before an audience of scientists last month, "What does it mean to harness the power of belief?"
"There really hasn't been a whole lot of research on the placebo," said epidemiologist Dr. John Bailar, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. "There's a lot of description and a lot of chatter, but we don't know a whole lot about it."
One thing seems to be clear, however. The brain is a "crucial player," said Leitner during a workshop on placebos at a February meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"What we need to learn is how taking a placebo affects the brain's processing of symptoms and other sensations related to illness, how it affects output and the activity of your immune system," said Dr. David Spiegel, a Stanford University psychiatrist who studies placebos.
Research has shown that people who unknowingly take placebos -- sometimes pills, sometimes injections -- often feel relief from pain, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders and high blood pressure. But placebos don't help people recover from diseases like cancer. "They're more likely to be effective when there's a perceptive component to the illness," Spiegel said.
Some experts say the placebo effect is indeed all in your head, but they aren't too impressed by the idea. "Many people see placebo as just about that doctor-patient relationship, that laying on of hands, that trust," said Dr. Helen Mayberg, a neuropsychiatrist at Emory University. They claim "that placebo is some kind of poor man's psychotherapy. It's just the interaction, and any interaction is good."
But she thinks there's more to it than that. She and colleagues examined brain scans of three groups of depressed people -- those who took placebo antidepressants, those who got cognitive therapy, and those who took actual Prozac pills. Several patients who took placebos felt better, and the scans showed their brains reacted like those of subjects in the antidepressant group, but not those who went through "talk" therapy.
In other words, placebos seemed to work on the parts of the brain that are also affected by actual drugs. But, Mayberg said, the placebos weren't as powerful as Prozac, and their effects didn't last as long. "The drug is not equal to placebo. The drug is placebo-plus," she said.
Mayberg's study, published in 2002, raises the possibility that many drugs come with a built-in placebo effect, perhaps boosted by their active ingredients. Some experts go even further. "An awful lot of alternative medicine is a placebo effect and I think a lot of standard medicine is also the placebo effect," said Dr. Howard Brody, a bioethicist at Michigan State University and author of a book on placebos.
But people who take placebos don't always get better, and in some cases, they actually feel worse. In recent years, researchers have begun exploring the so-called "nocebo" effect: People who take placebos sometimes develop the side effects of the drugs they think they're taking. ("Nocebo" is Latin for "I will harm"; "placebo" means "I will please.")
The nocebo effect, the dark side of placebos, presents yet another puzzle for researchers to solve. There are two possibilities, said Dr. Arthur J. Barsky, a psychiatrist at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. First, the patients may be reacting to suggestion. One study found that the number of aspirin users reporting gastrointestinal problems jumped by six times when they were told that the symptoms might be a side effect of their treatment. Second, something may be happening in the neurons of the brain itself, Barsky said.
But how can researchers test these theories? The typical way to test a new medication is to split a group of subjects in two, give the medication to one half and a placebo to the other, and see what happens. Typically, all the patients must be told what's going on. It's unethical to tell patients they're all getting an actual drug when they might be gulping sugar pills.
Scientists studying placebos could conceivably divide subjects into two groups -- those getting placebos and those getting nothing. But thanks to informed consent, everybody would be able to figure out which group they're in. Placebos don't seem to work when people know they're taking a sham drug.
The other alternative is to keep testing placebos against regular drugs, but that's an iffy proposition, too, said Bailar of the University of Chicago. If patients know they are likely to receive a placebo, that knowledge may sharpen their interest and alter their responses.
Even if researchers do untangle the workings of placebos, it's not clear what they'll be able to do with the information.
"You wouldn't have a pharmacist selling placebo pills to the public," Bailar said. But he thinks more knowledge about how placebos work might help people better understand how individuals react to medication and help doctors do a better job of prescribing drugs.
Many doctors, he said, essentially prescribe placebos all the time. "The doctor knows this (drug) isn't going to do anything for the patient, but the patient came expecting pills, so this is a way to please them. Who knows? Maybe it will work."
Perhaps doctors will learn which drugs rely more on the placebo effect than anything else, he said.
Whatever happens, Bailar is hopeful about the growing research into placebos. "I have a pretty deep faith that wherever it's heading is someplace we want to go," he said.
By MICHAEL MOORE
The Missoulian
DARBY The acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education has told Montana's top education official that the federal No Child Left Behind Act does not require the teaching of so-called "Intelligent Design" theory in high schools.
On the other hand, nor does the act prohibit such teaching, Gene Hickok wrote in a March 8 letter to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch.
McCulloch had written to U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige in early February, asking for Paige's opinion about an aspect of the ongoing debate over a science policy first proposed for Darby schools by minister Curtis Brickley. Brickley proposed the "objective origins" policy that eventually was passed by the school board, and he also made a presentation about intelligent design during the discussion of "objective origins."
Intelligent design, which is primarily a product of the conservative Seattle think tank the Discover Institute, posits that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," the institute states on its Web site.
"We had been getting questions from people who said that Rev. Brickley was claiming that No Child Left Behind required schools to teach intelligent design," McCulloch said Wednesday. "So I wanted to make clear with the secretary that that wasn't true."
So she wrote to Paige: "The claim that the No Child Left Behind Act requires the inclusion of the philosophy of intelligent design has been presented."
McCulloch said that with her three-paragraph letter, she asked a simple question and wanted a simple answer. That's not precisely what she got. Acting Deputy Secretary Gene Hickok wrote back on Monday: "The NCLB Act does not contain any language that requires or prohibits the teaching of any particular scientific views or theories as part of a state's science curriculum or otherwise."
Furthermore, Hickok noted that no state is required to have its science standards approved by the federal government, and that, in fact, the U.S. Department of Education is prohibited from "using funds to endorse, approve or sanction any curriculum that is designed to be used in an elementary or secondary school."
Finally, Hickok referenced what's commonly referred to as the Santorum amendment. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., had proposed some language for the NCLB act, and while the language was part of an early version of the bill, it was later removed. The language stated, in part, that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."
"This language is based on a Senate resolution that passed by a vote of 91-8" Hickok wrote.
In fact, the Santorum language is not part of the NCLB act and has no legal standing, although it remains part of a conference committee report. "I feel like they answered my letter and then editorialized an awful lot, too," McCulloch said. "Going into the whole Santorum amendment is not necessary, because it's not binding and it's not part of the law." The Discovery Institute, in a story on its Web site, proclaimed Hickok's letter as a victory for academic freedom.
"The letter is important because some Darwin-only activists and educational officials have claimed that public schools could risk losing their federal funding if they allow students to learn about current scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory," said Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. In fact, McCulloch said the letter will have little or no effect on what happens in Montana schools.
"We'll just use it to answer people's questions when they have them," she said of the letter.
Reporter Michael Moore can be reached at 523-5252 or 370-3330, or by
e-mail at mmoore@missoulian.com
Thursday, March 11, 2004
During an on-line colloquy about science policy in the Bush administration conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 5, John H. Marburger III, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, was asked about the Bush administration's scientific credibility in light of the president's reported skepticism about evolution. He replied, "Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology," adding, "Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history."
March 5, 2004
BY EARL LANE
WASHINGTON BUREAU
March 10, 2004
WASHINGTON -- As the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has risen due to industrial activity, scientists have proposed ways to soak up some of the gas by planting more trees or triggering blooms of microscopic plants at sea.
But recent research suggests both approaches have uncertain value and are unlikely to provide any easy fix.
Duke University scientists have been looking since 1997 at trees' ability to act as sponges for excess carbon dioxide, which they incorporate into their tissue during photosynthesis. The scientists report loblolly pines experienced an initial growth increase of 10 to 20 percent once they were exposed to carbon dioxide concentrations 1 1/2 times higher than today's. The scientists mounted pipes and valves on towers to release extra gas into forested test plots.
But the overall growth of the trees, despite the high levels of carbon dioxide, has slowed in recent years, according to William Schlesinger, a professor of biogeochemistry at Duke. A deficiency of nitrogen common to forest soils in the Southeast may limit the ability of the trees to produce more tissue as they take in more carbon dioxide, Schlesinger told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science recently.
Another team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been studying the response of a stand of sweet gum trees in Tennessee to increased levels of carbon dioxide for the past six years. The team has found that above-ground wood production in the trees increased significantly only during the first year of treatment. Much of the development after that was in fine roots.
While fine roots are important for uptake of water and nutrients by the trees, they have a short life and their carbon returns to the soil within a year. Scientists argue the positive effect of carbon dioxide fertilization may be insufficient to reverse the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
What about other types of vegetation? Jeffrey Dukes of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, has studied grassland test plots north of San Francisco since 1998 for their response to increased carbon dioxide as well as increased warming, nitrogen pollution and increased rainfall. His analysis has found that increased carbon dioxide "did not perceptibly affect plant growth" through the spring of 2003.
"We have found no evidence that productivity changes in this grassland can contribute to increased carbon storage on land under the climate and atmospheric conditions expected later this century," Dukes wrote in a recent abstract of his work.
Beyond forests and grasslands, another large "sink" for carbon dioxide is the ocean. There are estimates the oceans now absorb about 20 million tons of carbon dioxide a day.
One avenue of uptake is absorption during photosynthesis by tiny marine plants called phytoplankton. Researchers have done a decade of small-scale experiments in which patches of ocean are seeded with iron particles in an effort to stimulate blooms of phytoplankton, which require iron as a nutrient.
Kenneth Coale of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories on Monterey Bay in Moss Landing, Calif., described a 2002 experiment to deploy iron particles over two patches of ocean south of New Zealand. One patch, initially about 87 square miles, produced a bloom that grew to more than 385 square miles. Coale said the two patches soaked up an estimated 10,000 tons of carbon. It is unknown, however, just how much of that carbon sank deep enough to avoid being re-released into the air when tiny critters called zooplankton graze on the phytoplankton.
"The vertical fate [of the carbon] is an issue that still is to be resolved," said Richard Barber of Duke University in Durham, N.C. There also are questions about whether seeding large swaths of ocean waters with iron will substantially alter marine ecosystems, critics say.
An alternative might be direct injection of carbon dioxide into deep ocean waters, and some early experiments have started to explore that possibility. Carbon dioxide can be scrubbed from smokestack emissions before it reaches the atmosphere. Under high pressure, it can be turned into a liquid and pumped into the sea.
Peter Brewer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and his colleagues have done small-scale experiments off the coast of California. They used a remotely operated vehicle to inject small amounts of carbon dioxide at depth, where it can react with cold sea water to form an ice-like hydrate. That hydrate eventually dissolves, releasing the carbon dioxide into free circulation. For injection at depths of about 3,000 meters, the researchers say, computer models suggest about 85 percent of the carbon dioxide will be retained in the deep sea over a 1,000-year time scale.
There are unresolved questions about the wisdom of the direct injection approach, however. An increase in dissolved carbon dioxide can change the pH of the water, making it slightly more acidic, with potentially harmful effects on coral reefs and marine life.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
A bar owner in Sydney, Australia, has banned a group of drinkers after he accused them of casting spells in his pub. Tony Green, who owns the Greenwood Hotel, said people had found the drinkers' behaviour strange and threatening. Green was referring to PaganPages, a group that met at his pub each month to discuss rituals, mythology and other Pagan-related topics until he asked them to leave.
He said they had cast spells on bars in the hotel or had cleared bars with certain spells, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. "They talk about casting spells and they brought with them, I believe, a small cauldron. I think they behaved as though they are witches," added Mr Green.
But PaganPages co-ordinator Suzanne Maxim denied the group was using magic at the bar. "As far as I know, people don't cast spells, but I can't vouch for everyone. It's not a very sacred space," she said.
03/11/04
DAVID WHITE
News staff writer
MONTGOMERY - A legislative committee on Wednesday approved a plan that would prohibit firing or discriminating against teachers for presenting "alternative theories" to evolution.
The Senate Education Committee voted 7-0 for the "Academic Freedom Act," which says no teacher or professor in public schools or universities could be fired, denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against for presenting such theories, which could include creationism. The proposal could be debated by the 35-member Senate as soon as next week.
The bill also would prohibit any student from being penalized because he or she held "a particular position on biological or physical origins," as long as the student demonstrated "acceptable understanding of course materials," which could include evolution.
Interim state schools Superintendent Joe Morton said the proposed law would not stop the teaching of evolution, which is taught in 10th grade biology classes in Alabama public schools.
"I don't think it would have any negative effect on what's going on right now," Morton said.
Larry Darby, president of the nonprofit Atheist Law Center in Montgomery, called the bill an attempt to inject religion into public schools and universities. "Creationism, any alternative to evolution, is based on the notion of a creator God," he said.
"Religious people want to get their notions of a creator God in the minds of impressionable children in government schools," Darby said. "That's wrong. It's not science. Anything that advances the concept of a creator God is not science."
But Sen. Bradley Byrne, R-Fairhope, a former member of the state Board of Education, said the bill simply would ensure intellectual freedom by protecting the presentation of evidence or theories for creationism or other alternate points of view.
"There is no question that the vast majority of scientists hold with the theory of evolution," Byrne said. "There's nothing in this bill that does any danger at all to a scientist or a teacher that wants to teach that. It simply says that if you're in the dissenting minority within the scientific community on that issue, you're free to teach that.
``That's in keeping with what I understand to be the modern understanding of intellectual freedom," he said.
Byrne said the bill would not change the way the state Board of Education selects biology textbooks. A similar bill awaits debate by the House of Representatives.
John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama said the bills would create a ``safety net against frivolous lawsuits" filed against people who teach alternatives to evolution.
Giles said he didn't know of any teacher or professor punished in Alabama for teaching such alternatives.
Biology textbooks in Alabama's public schools already carry a label on the cover pages that says in part, ``The theory of evolution by natural selection is a controversial theory that is included in this textbook."
The label also says, in part: ``It is controversial because it states that natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific explanation for the diversity of living things. Since natural selection has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in a population, it is assumed that it produces large changes, even thought this has not been directly observed."
By LEO SHANE III
Star Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS -- Hours of criticism from mainstream scientists and several legal threats didn't discourage the state Board of Education on Tuesday from approving new lesson plans to teach evolution in Ohio schools.
The science model curriculum, an optional set of classroom lectures and activities for science teachers, includes a chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that recommends 10th-graders debate several common critiques of the theory.
Supporters maintain the document simply fulfills a board compromise from 2002 to include critical thinking about evolution in science classes. But opponents label the section a cleverly disguised way of introducing public school students to intelligent design, which states a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
"The reason this is being picked out for scientific questioning is not because it is more controversial than other science; it's because some people object to evolution for religious reasons," said Rev. George Murphy, a Lutheran pastor from Akron and a former biology teacher.
"But this (lesson) encourages students not to take evolution seriously. I'm concerned about this as a scientist and a theologian."
Critics say the lesson plan includes hints of intelligent design arguments - in the examples it uses to challenge evolution and in the print and Internet resources used to craft the language.
Catherine Callaghan, a linguistics professor at the Ohio State University, said she thinks the arguments included in the curriculum should be ignored because they come from unscientific sources.
"If you're teaching geology, you don't want to include a little bit of evidence from the Flat Earth Society," she said.
Board member Jennifer Stewart, representing Morrow and other surrounding counties, voted against the measure, saying she believed the critical analysis requirement was covered in other lesson plans. She hoped her colleagues would remove the chapter so it could be debated further.
But the board approved the chapter by a 13 to 5 vote after rebuffing efforts to replace it with compromise language put forth by opponents.
Several members said revised versions of the curriculum excluded a number of Internet links and literary references that took care of any perception that the chapter had religious influences.
"You've never heard me argue for intelligent design because I don't want it in there," said board member Michael Cochran. "But I don't see it in there."
He also criticized opponents' assertions that controversies surrounding evolution are fictional, and took exception at one biologist's characterization of evolution critics as "cartoons."
"It's clear after today the scientific community is not all of one mind on this," he said.
Faculty councils from five universities, including Ohio State, and the Ohio Academy of Science all voiced opposition to the plan. But a number of individual academics also spoke in favor of the controversial lessons on Tuesday, saying it encourages healthy scientific debate.
"Critical analysis is part of science," said Thomas Marshall, an environmental science professor at the Ohio State University. "Withholding this evidence would be a disservice to students."
The lesson plans approved Tuesday are one set of several model curriculums schools can use to teach science classes. Individual districts can choose to teach intelligent design. Last year Patrick Henry School District in northwest Ohio decided to include it in science lessons.
Board members who voted against the document predicted the state will be sued for introducing religion into public schools. Board member Martha Wise said she would consider filing suit herself.
Steven Gey, a law professor from Florida State University who attended Tuesday's meeting, said prior federal rulings have kept any sort of religious teachings out of public school classrooms.
"No one has won one of these cases yet," he said. "Once the courts are convinced it's some form of creationism, you're going to lose."
Leo Shane III is a reporter for The Marion Star's Columbus bureau.
Originally published Wednesday, March 10, 2004
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
The Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory "cloaked as science."
Supporters argued the lesson plan offers scientific ways to analyze evolution, but scientific groups objected and critics said they expected a lawsuit.
After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of "Critical Analysis of Evolution," an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life.
"I am convinced this is a religious effort cloaked as science," said board member Robin Hovis.
At issue is 22 pages out of more than 500 that schools can use to teach new science standards approved last year for all grades. No student will be tested on intelligent design, said board president Jennifer Sheets.
The vote was applauded by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent design theory, and says states should teach both evolution and scientific criticism of evolutionary theory.
The vote "is a significant victory for students and their academic freedom to study all sides of current scientific debates over evolutionary theory," said Bruce Chapman, Discovery Institute president.
Board member Sam Schloemer complained the lessons "further erode the status and the value of Ohio's public education system because it is without scientific evidence," he said.
Several scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, are opposed to the lessons.
Others predicted the plan would be challenged in court.
"They're standing in line - high school teachers, board members, parents, the students themselves," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University philosophy professor who has led lobbying efforts against the lessons.
Board member James Turner, appointed to the board by Gov. Bob Taft, said he was impressed by the number of scientists in favor of the lessons, arguing opponents were "allowing their fear of what this lesson could lead to" to reflect their views.
The board should rely on the guidance of evolutionary biologists with experience studying evolution, argued Stephen Weeks, a University of Akron biologist.
"If someone's an expert and they're telling you they need a brain tumor removed in a certain way, that's weighted more than your mechanic's opinion," Weeks said.
The state school board a lesson plan on evolution Tuesday that critics say tries to cloak religion in science. Supporters say it offers scientific ways to analyze evolution theory.
March 10, 2004 8:31 AM
By Whitney Ellis
BUTLER COUNTY The passing of the 10th grade lesson plan on evolution by the Ohio school board in Columbus Tuesday has sparked controversy between some local scientists and others in favor of a theory which challenges evolution.
Professors and others in favor of "intelligent design" the idea that life is so complex a higher being must have had a hand in its creation have drawn mixed reactions.
At least one religious leader in the area said he welcomes the possible entry of the theory.
"(Intelligent design) should be presented as an option in the schools," said Pastor Ken Ritz of the Hamilton Vineyard Church. "I believe we are intelligently designed."
Ritz said the move to intelligent design is a "healthy thing to consider" for the schools.
Some scientists agreed the theory should be considered.
Dan Ely, a University of Akron biologist, said the plan of intelligent design is scientifically sound and allows appropriate questioning of evolution.
"It's not intelligent design versus evolution. It's not religion versus science. It's what are the issues within evolution," Ely said. "This lesson doesn't throw out evolution."
Ely was a member of the team that helped write the lesson plan before the state board Tuesday.
The board voted 13-5 in favor of the plan, titled "Critical Analysis of Evolution." The lesson is an optional set of plans for schools to use in the teaching of science standards for the new 10th grade graduation test.
But for Miami University zoologists Tom Gregg and Susan Hoffman, the plan is a failed attempt to mix religion into the schools.
"There will almost certainly be a lawsuit resulting from this," Gregg said, adding that the passage of this is like "introducing religion into a science class."
Gregg said the claim that all evidence the intelligent design theorists found was scientific is false.
"This is going to make Ohio a laughing stock like Kansas was a few years ago before they reversed their decision on creationism," Gregg said.
Hoffman said the state board Tuesday cleared up some major points, but didn't change some of the underlying problems with the lesson plans.
"The way the classes are set up is modeled after a creationist book," Hoffman said, referring to "Icons of Evolution," by Jonathan Wells. Wells' book attempts to discredit many scientists who use evolution as a correct theory.
The state board removed a reference to Wells' book from an earlier draft. Any connection between the book and the plan "seems inconsequential at best," John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture, said in a letter to Sheets last week.
Hoffman said nearly all practicing scientists use evolutionary theory as the basis for their understanding of life on Earth.
Before the board's passing, Hoffman sent a letter to the state board as well as to Gov. Bob Taft expressing her displeasure for the new lesson plan.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/03/11/news/top/news01.txt
The acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education has told Montana's top education official that the federal No Child Left Behind Act does not require the teaching of so-called "Intelligent Design" theory in high schools.
On the other hand, nor does the act prohibit such teaching, Gene Hickok wrote in a March 8 letter to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch.
McCulloch had written to U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige in early February, asking for Paige's opinion about an aspect of the ongoing debate over a science policy first proposed for Darby schools by minister Curtis Brickley. Brickley proposed the "objective origins" policy that eventually was passed by the school board, and he also made a presentation about intelligent design during the discussion of "objective origins."
Intelligent design, which is primarily a product of the conservative Seattle think tank the Discover Institute, posits that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection," the institute states on its Web site.
"We had been getting questions from people who said that Rev. Brickley was claiming that No Child Left Behind required schools to teach intelligent design," McCulloch said Wednesday. "So I wanted to make clear with the secretary that that wasn't true."
So she wrote to Paige: "The claim that the No Child Left Behind Act requires the inclusion of the philosophy of intelligent design has been presented."
McCulloch said that with her three-paragraph letter, she asked a simple question and wanted a simple answer. That's not precisely what she got.
Acting Deputy Secretary Gene Hickok wrote back on Monday: "The NCLB Act does not contain any language that requires or prohibits the teaching of any particular scientific views or theories as part of a state's science curriculum or otherwise."
Furthermore, Hickok noted that no state is required to have its science standards approved by the federal government, and that, in fact, the U.S. Department of Education is prohibited from "using funds to endorse, approve or sanction any curriculum that is designed to be used in an elementary or secondary school."
Finally, Hickok referenced what's commonly referred to as the Santorum amendment. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., had proposed some language for the NCLB act, and while the language was part of an early version of the bill, it was later removed. The language stated, in part, that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."
"This language is based on a Senate resolution that passed by a vote of 91-8" Hickok wrote.
In fact, the Santorum language is not part of the NCLB act and has no legal standing, although it remains part of a conference committee report.
"I feel like they answered my letter and then editorialized an awful lot, too," McCulloch said. "Going into the whole Santorum amendment is not necessary, because it's not binding and it's not part of the law."
The Discovery Institute, in a story on its Web site, proclaimed Hickok's letter as a victory for academic freedom.
"The letter is important because some Darwin-only activists and educational officials have claimed that public schools could risk losing their federal funding if they allow students to learn about current scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory," said Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.
In fact, McCulloch said the letter will have little or no effect on what happens in Montana schools.
"We'll just use it to answer people's questions when they have them," she said of the letter.
Reporter Michael Moore can be reached at 523-5252 or 370-3330, or by e-mail at
mmoore@missoulian.com
The Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes a religious theory for the creation of life.
Scientific groups objected and critics said they expected a lawsuit.
After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of "Critical Analysis of Evolution," an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
Critics say the lessons contain elements of a theory called intelligent design, which states a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life. "I am convinced this is a religious effort cloaked as science," said board member Robin Hovis.
At issue is 22 pages out of more than 500 that schools can use to teach new science standards approved last year for all grades. No student will be tested on intelligent design, said board president Jennifer Sheets.
The vote was applauded by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent design theory, and says states should teach both evolution and scientific criticism of evolutionary theory.
The vote "is a significant victory for students and their academic freedom to study all sides of current scientific debates over evolutionary theory," said Bruce Chapman, Discovery Institute president.
Board member Sam Schloemer complained the lessons "further erode the status and the value of Ohio's public education system because it is without scientific evidence," he said.
Several scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, are opposed to the lessons. Others predicted the plan would be challenged in court.
"They're standing in line -- high school teachers, board members, parents, the students themselves," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University philosophy professor who has led lobbying efforts against the lessons.
Board member James Turner, appointed to the board by Gov. Bob Taft, said he was impressed by the number of scientists in favor of the lessons, arguing opponents were "allowing their fear of what this lesson could lead to" to reflect their views.
The board should rely on the guidance of evolutionary biologists with experience studying evolution, argued Stephen Weeks, a University of Akron biologist.
"If someone's an expert and they're telling you they need a brain tumor removed in a certain way, that's weighted more than your mechanic's opinion," Weeks said.
© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune
COLUMBUS -- The debate over the teaching of evolution appears to be moving from the state school board to courts. This comes following the board's approval Tuesday of an evolution lesson plan over the objections of several scientific organizations.
Critics of the lessons say a lawsuit challenging the plan's constitutionality is almost certain. They say it contains elements of intelligent design, the theory that says a higher power must have been involved in the creation of life.
The plan is an optional set of lessons for schools to use in the teaching of science standards for the new 10th grade graduation test. The board voted 13-5 in favor of the plan, titled "Critical Analysis of Evolution." Earlier, the board narrowly rejected an attempt to delay the plan for further study.
Michael Cochran, a suburban Columbus lawyer and elected board member, questioned what further delay would achieve. He noted that scientists had spoken on both sides of the issue. "The entire scientific community is not monolithic and are not all of one mind," Cochran said. "Multiple sides of that community deserve to be heard and have a lesson that can be challenged on a scientific basis."
Deborah Owens Fink, an elected board member from Akron who voted in favor of the lessons, said the plan did not contain the intelligent design elements claimed by its critics. "It is good science," she said. Robin Hovis, an elected board member from Millersburg, said the plan was still a veiled attempt to introduce intelligent design into schools. "I am convinced this is a religious effort cloaked as science," Hovis said.
The vote was applauded by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent design and says states should teach both evolution and scientific criticism of evolutionary theory. The vote "is a significant victory for students and their academic freedom to study all sides of current scientific debates over evolutionary theory," said Bruce Chapman, Discovery Institute president.
Critics of the lesson plan say it includes many of the concepts found in "Icons of Evolution," a book by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the institute. The state board removed a reference to Wells' book from an earlier draft. Sam Schloemer, an elected board member from Cincinnati, said the lessons go against state efforts to improve Ohio's educational achievements. The plan "further erodes the status and the value of Ohio's public education system because it is without scientific evidence," he said.
James Turner, like several board members, said he was impressed by the number of scientists in favor of the lessons. He said some opponents were "allowing their fear of what this lesson could lead to" to reflect their views, rather than "what this lesson says." Turner, of Cincinnati, was appointed by Gov. Bob Taft.
The board voted after hearing about six hours of testimony from dozens of people for and against the plan. Several scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, are opposed to the lessons. Many scientists supporting the lessons spoke individually in favor of them. Steven Gey, a Florida State University law professor, told board members the lessons were unconstitutional and would almost certainly be struck down if they reached the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is 22 pages out of more than 500 pages of optional lesson plans that schools can use to teach new science standards approved last year for all grades. No student will be tested on intelligent design, said board president Jennifer Sheets.
Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press
Posted Wednesday, March 10, 2004 at 7:16 a.m.
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
March 9, 2004
(AgapePress) - The efforts of a Christian man in Montana have led to a new science policy in local public schools that allows criticisms of the theory of evolution to be taught.
Ever since Curtis Brickley with Power of One Ministries held a detailed Powerpoint presentation in December, challenging Charles Darwin's theories on the origin of life and evolution, the small conservative town of Darby has been abuzz. The presentation set off a chain of events -- the most significant being a 3-2 vote by the school board in favor of adopting an objective origins science policy.
Although many defenders of Darwin object to the policy, Brickley says it merely says various lines of evolutionary evidence can be challenged scientifically and should be critically analyzed. "Many, many scientists who are credible, published, peer-reviewed -- responsible scientists -- are giving cause to challenge various aspects of evolution" he notes.
Power of One Ministries' spokesman says for too long, students have been wrongly taught the assumption that there are no supernatural causes, but only natural ones. He applauds the school board's decision to adopt a policy that allows teachers to discuss criticisms of Darwin's theories, and to end the Darwinists' long monopoly of origins science education.
However, some groups and individuals who oppose the policy change, are questioning whether Brickley's campaign to encourage teaching the criticism of the theory of evolution arises less out of scientific concerns and more out of religious ones.
According to Associated Press reports, Montana's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Linda McCulloch, is among those who feel Brickley's efforts may be no more than a thinly disguised push to teach creationism in public classrooms. "That isn't science," she said, adding, "It doesn't matter what you call it. Creationism is not a recognized science."
The education chief also warned that Darby's school system will risk being in violation of the Montana Constitution and jeopardizing its schools' eligibility for federal funding if the district adopts a policy and curriculum that brings creationism into its science classes.
But Brickley, a Darby resident and local Baptist minister, insists that teaching creation science as an alternative to evolution is not his goal. He notes, "Just because you disagree with evolution doesn't mean you favor creationism." Still, he says many of his opponents seek to discredit other legitimate scientific theories by characterizing them as creationism, which has previously been stigmatized by the courts as religious pseudo-science. But the minister-activist says his only objective is to promote a policy that will encourage "critical analysis of evolution."
"The opponents of such a policy want to frame the theory of intelligent design under the same framework as creationism. They do this because the courts, back to 1987, have essentially made creation[ism] illegal in our public schools. And when they did that, they began a process of indoctrination, offering only one side of a controversial subject," Brickley says.
Darby's new objective origins science policy is up for a second reading and final approval later this month.
© 2004 AgapePress
By JEFF GIBSON
The Darby schools want to include a section on "creationism" in the classroom to "balance" evolution theory and physics.
Creationism is a religious concept a miracle, and miracles are by definition supernatural events. They have no place in science, which is the study of natural events. What next? A course on "Lazarus-ism" in medical schools?
Obviously, science belongs in the public schools. There's a place for creationism, too: church.
The above comments are experted from Jeff Gibson's "Monday Matters" column in the Montana Standard. Gibson is a somewhat retired Standard writer. To read the entire column, click here. Monday, March 8, 2004
Last update: March 9, 2004 at 9:13 PM
March 10, 2004
EVOL10
Four of the 13 members of Minnesota's science standards writing committee Tuesday released results of a statewide poll they commissioned that shows most respondents favor teaching scientific evidence both for and against evolution.
Dave Eaton, an engineer and Minnetonka school board member, said the group isn't advocating the teaching of creationism. "Our hope is that the data ... will help [legislators] make the right decision for how to treat evolution in state standards," he said.
When the 601 likely voters were asked whether students learning evolutionary theory should also be taught "how scientists continue to critically analyze" aspects of it, 82 percent agreed. Nearly three of four respondents said they think the Legislature should approve standards that include teaching evolution and the scientific evidence against it.
Yvonne Boldt, a doctorate who teaches biology and chemistry at Providence Academy, a college prep school in Plymouth, said the poll supports "a realistic evaluation" of evolution. But Jamie Crannell, a member of the science standards committee who teaches chemistry at Chaska High School, said the standards already call for that.
"The trouble comes in what is proclaimed to be the scientific evidence against evolution," he said. "According to the science community, there really is not any scientific evidence to counter evolution. My problem with this poll is that it preys on a lack of scientific literacy."
The poll, conducted in mid-February by Zogby International of New York, cost about $6,000 and was paid for by committee members, teachers and parents, Eaton said. It was not a random sample; the field of respondents was weighted to reflect educational, religious and political characteristics of Minnesotans. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
Kevin Duchschere
© Copyright 2004 Star Tribune
Wednesday March 10, 2004
By KARL J. MOGEL
The second Mars rover, Opportunity, has returned tantalizing evidence of a wetter Martian past. Minerals such as jarosite found in a rock outcropping called "El Capitan" not only suggest that the rocks were soaked in water, but perhaps there was a volcanic hot spring at that location.
This information suggests a habitable environment, so where are the little green people, er, cyanobacteria?
The rover missions can only tell us so much about the history of Mars, and they will come to an end in a couple months. We're not likely to find anything alive - or once alive - within reach of the small drills that Spirit and Opportunity carry with them. So it seems that our biggest question will go unanswered by science for some time. That is, if finding life itself is the only way we can learn about its origins.
From the analysis of meteorites, we have found amino acids and other carbon-containing compounds. Last week, a European spacecraft called Rosetta began a 10-year journey to investigate a comet close-up, with the intent of placing a lander on it. This will give insight into the composition of the early solar system, and what molecules were dropped on the planets.
To figure out what has worked, we need to separate what can work from what can't. Even if we don't find life on Mars, it will still help us narrow down the possibilities. Several laboratories are undertaking active research into chemical evolution - the idea that natural reactions build upon each other until life is born. This is abiogenesis, or life from lifelessness.
However, a certain group of thinkers questions the idea that life arose on its own, or even evolved. Intelligent Design, or ID, is a counter-theory to Darwinian evolution and theories of origins. It became the modern version of creationism, levying arguments against the empirical support for evolution and the motives of scientists. The group touts various ways of "detecting design" in nature.
ID is based on the idea that the active organic molecules or "molecular machines" are too interdependent to have originated on their own, a concept called irreducible complexity. Rather than pick apart exactly how a seemingly irreducible system could arise, they instead engage in armchair philosophy. As if literally sitting back in an armchair, they make conclusions from a limited amount of knowledge and a whole slough of assumptions.
The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution doesn't explain everything, and ID advocates latch onto this inadequacy as if it was what could undermine its foundations. This is called the god-of-the-gaps argument, where holes in current knowledge are filled by the actions of an intelligent being. Supposedly, only intelligence can create such patterns as we see in life.
But what exactly constitutes intelligence? What we call intelligence, the selection and weeding out of ideas by our neural switches, is a sort of evolution itself. So they are saying that only trial and error in a mind can create patterns, but evolution as a trial and error of molecules cannot?
New findings suggest that even in seeming randomness, emergent patterns can take hold. There is a predominance of L-form - think of it like left-handed - amino acids in meteorites and comets. Life uses the L-form, and it seemed chancy to think that L-form-based life came from a mix of L-forms and the mirror-image D-forms, both found in nature.
Research out of Arizona State University simulated a prebiotic environment, with a few more L-form amino acids than D-forms. The reactions that took place in their experiment continued the pattern and predominantly produced more L-forms. Life is a pattern that builds upon itself, a set of reactions gaining in complexity, through at least one more trial than errors.
Bit by bit, by trial, error and success, science hones in on the truth. An inveterate denial of theories on the basis of emotionally held principles is pointless, except that it does us the favor of reminding us what awaits human discovery.
The lobotomy surgery is finally over. KARL J. MOGEL promises that next quarter he will not only have images of the inside of his brain, but also a smashing new haircut. References are at ktkgalaxy.net/forb/mind, and you can send both ingenious and ingenuous e-mails to mind@ktkgalaxy.net.
© 1995 - 2003 by The California Aggie
Critics say it contains elements of intelligent design
By Laura A. Bischoff
Dayton Daily News
COLUMBUS | The state Board of Education voted 13-5 Tuesday to adopt science lesson plans, including a controversial 10th-grade lesson on evolutionary biology that has received nationwide attention.
Critics contend the lesson is based on errors, misrepresentations and inaccuracies pushed by supporters of intelligent design — the idea that life is so complex that a higher being must have had a hand in its creation.
"Ohio is now ground zero for the explosion of creationism that is sure to follow," said Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist at Case Western Reserve University and an organizer of scientists against intelligent design. Students, parents and teachers are "standing in line" to be plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this particular lesson plan, she said.
Florida State University constitutional law professor Steven Gey told the board that if a suit is brought and it advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, the state of Ohio would likely lose on a 6-3 vote.
But the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle praised the board's decision, calling it a victory for students, academic freedom and common sense. The Discovery Institute is a think tank focused on challenging Darwinism.
Discovery Institute spokesman Seth Cooper, who attended the meeting in Columbus, said the lesson is about science, not religion, and it does not deal with intelligent design.
Ohio State University biology professor Steve Rissing burst out laughing at Cooper's statement. Rissing, Princehouse and other Ohio scientists critiqued the lesson, Critical Analysis of Evolution, and drew links between its content and proponents of intelligent design.
The 19-member board made its decision after hearing from nearly 50 people — scientists, theologians, graduate students, science teachers and others — for almost eight hours.
Richard Hoppe, a biologist and Cleveland businessman who lives in Gambier, said, "In spite of frantic scrubbing by ODE (Ohio Department of Education), the lesson still contains so-called controversies in evolutionary biology that are not in fact controversies in that discipline; obscure, out of date and irrelevant citations; plain errors of fact and interpretation; and false definitions of terms."
The lesson is bad teaching method and bad science, he said.
"It presents a deeply flawed view of scientific endeavor, a view that is fueled by a sectarian politico-religious movement, not by authentic science," Hoppe told the board.
Catherine A. Callaghan, a retired linguistics professor from OSU, used this analogy to criticize the lesson: "If you're studying geology, you don't want a little evidence from the flat Earth society. And yes, there was a flat Earth society up until the 1990s."
But others disagreed, saying evolutionary biology should be critically analyzed.
"If evolution is true, it can withstand the scrutiny. If it's not, our students should learn to discern," said Jack Chafin Jr., an architect from suburban Columbus.
And Thomas Marshall, an engineer and environmental scientist, said the lesson represents good science and critical thinking. To withhold evidence challenging macroevolution would be a disservice to students, he said.
The controversial lesson is just 21 pages of the 12,000 pages in lesson plans the board is developing, said board President Jennifer Sheets of Pomeroy.
By state law, the new model lesson plans, which teachers are not required to use, must be adopted by June 30 so they can be used next school year.
In December 2002, the board adopted new science standards for Ohio's 1.8 million public school students.
The standards dictate what kids need to know to pass proficiency tests and graduate.
A push then to include intelligent design in the science standards failed, but the board approved a standard that students be taught how to critically analyze evolution.
Three 10th-grade biology lessons cover how to critically analyze evolution.
Princehouse, Rissing, Hoppe and other scientists found fault only with the one lesson.
Board members Martha Wise of Avon, Sam Schloemer of Cincinnati, Robin Hovis of Millersburg, Cyrus Richardson of Bethel and Jennifer Stewart of Zanesville voted against adopting the science lesson plans because Critical Analysis of Evolution was included.
Thirteen other board members, including Carl Wick of Centerville and John Griffin of Miami Twp., voted in favor of the science lesson plans. Board member Virginia Jacobs of Lima was absent.
Lynn Elfner, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Science, said the vote reflects a lack of education leadership from Gov. Bob Taft on down.
The Discovery Institute released a list of 30 Ohio scientists who supported the lesson as written. None of the 30 were described as evolutionary biologists.
The Ohio Academy of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, State University Education Deans, the Inter-University Council of Ohio, Ohio Faculty Council, Science Education Council of Ohio, OSU Senate and OSU Faculty Council, Case Western Reserve University and other education and science organizations opposed it.
Copyright © Cox Ohio Publishing
By LEO SHANE III
Gannett News Service
COLUMBUS -- Hours of criticism from mainstream scientists and several legal threats didn't discourage the state Board of Education on Tuesday from approving new lesson plans to teach evolution in Ohio schools.
The science model curriculum -- an optional set of classroom lectures and activities for science teachers -- includes a chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that recommends 10th graders debate several common critiques of the theory.
Supporters maintain the document simply fulfills a board compromise from 2002 to include critical thinking about evolution in science classes. But opponents label the section a cleverly disguised way of introducing public school students to intelligent design, which states a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
"The reason this is being picked out for scientific questioning is not because it is more controversial than other science; it's because some people object to evolution for religious reasons," said Rev. George Murphy, a Lutheran pastor from Akron and a former biology teacher.
"But this (lesson) encourages students not to take evolution seriously. I'm concerned about this as a scientist and a theologian."
Critics say the lesson plan includes hints of intelligent design arguments -- in the examples it uses to challenge evolution and in the print and Internet resources used to craft the language.
Catherine Callaghan, a linguistics professor at the Ohio State University, said the arguments included in the curriculum should be ignored because they come from unscientific sources.
"If you're teaching geology, you don't want to include a little bit of evidence from the Flat Earth Society," she said.
But the board approved the chapter by a 13 to 5 vote after rebuffing efforts to replace it with compromise language put forth by opponents.
Board member Jennifer Stewart voted against the measure, saying she believed the critical analysis requirement was covered in other lesson plans. She hoped her colleagues would remove the chapter so it could be debated further.
Several members said revised versions of the curriculum excluded a number of Internet links and literary references that took care of any perception that the chapter had religious influences.
"You've never heard me argue for intelligent design because I don't want it in there," said board member Michael Cochran. "But I don't see it in there."
He also criticized opponents' assertions that controversies surrounding evolution are fictional, and took exception at one biologist's characterization of evolution critics as "cartoons."
"It's clear after today the scientific community is not all of one mind on this," he said.
Faculty councils from five universities, including the Ohio State University, and the Ohio Academy of Science voiced opposition to the plan. But a number of individual academics also spoke Tuesday in favor of the controversial lessons, saying it encourages healthy scientific debate.
"Critical analysis is part of science," said Thomas Marshall, an environmental science professor at OSU. "Withholding this evidence would be a disservice to students."
The lesson plans approved Tuesday are one set of several model curriculums schools can use to teach science classes. Individual districts can choose to teach intelligent design. Last year Patrick Henry School District in northwest Ohio decided to include it in science lessons.
Board members who voted against the document predicted the state will be sued for introducing religion into public schools. Board member Martha Wise said she would consider filing suit herself.
Steven Gey, a law professor from Florida State University who attended Tuesday's meeting, said prior federal rulings have kept any sort of religious teachings out of public school classrooms.
"No one has won one of these cases yet," he said. "Once the courts are convinced it's some form of creationism, you're going to lose."
Originally published Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Copyright ©2004 Times Recorder
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Evolution lesson plan endorsed
By Leo Shane III
Enquirer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS - Hours of criticism from mainstream scientists and several legal threats didn't discourage the state Board of Education on Tuesday from approving new lesson plans on how to teach evolution in Ohio schools.
The science-model curriculum, an optional set of classroom lectures and activities for science teachers, includes a chapter titled "Critical analysis of evolution" that recommends 10th-graders debate several common critiques of the theory.
Supporters maintain the document simply fulfills a board compromise from 2002 to include critical thinking about evolution in science classes.
But opponents label the section a cleverly disguised way of introducing public-school students to intelligent design, which states that a higher power played a role in the creation of all life.
"The reason this is being picked out for scientific questioning is not because it is more controversial than other science; it's because some people object to evolution for religious reasons," said the Rev. George Murphy, a Lutheran pastor from Akron and a former biology teacher.
"But this (lesson) encourages students not to take evolution seriously. I'm concerned about this, as a scientist and a theologian."
Critics say the lesson plan includes hints of intelligent-design arguments - in the examples it uses to challenge evolution and in the print and Internet resources used to craft the language.
Catherine Callaghan, a linguistics professor at Ohio State University, said arguments included in the curriculum should be ignored, because they come from unscientific sources.
"If you're teaching geology, you don't want to include a little bit of evidence from the Flat Earth Society," she said.
But the board approved the chapter by a 13 to 5 vote after rebuffing efforts to replace it with compromise language put forth by opponents.
Several members said revised versions of the curriculum excluded a number of Internet links and literary references that took care of any perception that the chapter had religious influences.
"You've never heard me argue for intelligent design, because I don't want it in there," said board member Michael Cochran. "But I don't see it in there."
He also criticized opponents' assertions that controversies surrounding evolution are fictional, and took exception to one biologist's characterization of evolution critics as "cartoons."
"It's clear, after today, the scientific community is not all of one mind on this," he said.
Faculty councils from five universities, including Ohio State, and the Ohio Academy of Science all voiced opposition to the plan. But a number of individual academics also spoke in favor of the controversial lessons Tuesday, saying it encourages healthy scientific debate.
"Critical analysis is part of science," said Thomas Marshall, an environmental science professor at Ohio State University.
"Withholding this evidence would be a disservice to students."
The lesson plans approved Tuesday are one set of several model curriculums schools can use to teach science classes. Individual districts can choose to teach intelligent design.
Last year Patrick Henry School District in northwest Ohio decided to include it in science lessons.
Board members who voted against the document predicted the state would be sued for introducing religion into public schools.
Board member Martha Wise said she would consider filing such a suit herself.
Steven Gey, a law professor from Florida State University who attended Tuesday's meeting, said prior federal rulings have kept any sort of religious teachings out of public-school classrooms.
"No one has won one of these cases yet," he said.
"Once the courts are convinced it's some form of creationism, you're going to lose."
Copyright 1995-2004. The Cincinnati Enquirer
03/10/04
Scott Stephens
Plain Dealer Reporter
Columbus- A sharply divided state school board Tuesday narrowly approved a controversial 10th-grade biology lesson that scientists fear will allow creationism into high school science classrooms.
The board voted 10-7 to include the 22-page lesson, "Critical Analysis of Evolution," as part of the state's 547 pages of model lesson plans for science. The board then approved the entire package of science lessons by a 13-5 vote.
The state is now bracing itself for an almost certain legal challenge. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said it is monitoring the fate of the disputed lesson plan and whether it will sue. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 struck down creation science in schools on the grounds that it was a religion rather than a science.
"This is religiously bent and it's sending a message to local boards of education that they can circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court," said board member Martha Wise of Avon.
Tuesday's vote came after hours of testimony from more than 50 scientists, educators and clergy members, as well as months of intense lobbying from both sides. The board last month gave the lesson plan preliminary approval by a 13-4 vote.
To critics - including the Ohio Academy of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the faculty senate of Case Western Reserve University - the lesson plan represents one of the first successful attempts to wedge religion into a public school science classroom. They contend the plan is based on the tenets of intelligent design - the concept that life is so complex that a higher being must have created it.
"It fosters the idea that evolution should be doubted and questioned in some special way," said the Rev. George Murphy, pastor at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Akron and a former college physics professor. "I don't think it's the appropriate thing to be done in a 10th-grade science class."
But supporters - including a group of 22 Ohio scientists who wrote to the board last week - counter that the lesson plan strikes a blow for academic freedom and by encouraging debate about Charles Darwin's theory that life evolved through natural processes.
"Are we about teaching students how to think, or what to think?" asked Christian Hogg, a parent and a supporter of the lesson plan.
The lesson plans the board adopted Tuesday are part of the model science curriculum based on academic standards its members adopted in late 2002. Teachers are not forced to teach the plans, but students can be tested on the standards to which they are aligned.
Although the 10th-grade science standards suggested discussion of controversies within evolution, they specifically stated that they did not represent an endorsement of intelligent design. Supporters of the lesson plan said it does not include intelligent design but reflects what Ohioans want taught in science class.
"We're sending a very strong message to the public that these are Ohio's standards with very strong input from the public," said board member Deborah Owens Fink, of Richfield.
© 2004 The Plain Dealer
Article published Wednesday, March 10, 2004
By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - The State Board of Education gave final approval yesterday to a model lesson plan for the study of science in Ohio's 613 public school districts, rejecting allegations that it was opening the door to God in the classroom.
There were immediate threats of litigation, and Florida State University law professor Steve Gey predicted before the board that the state would ultimately lose such a lawsuit by a vote of 6-3 before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The board, made up of elected and appointed members, went on to approve the curricula by a vote of 13-5.
At issue were provisions of the lesson plan entitled "Critical Analysis of Evolution - Grade 10" requiring students to critically analyze evolution, Charles Darwin's widely accepted theory that life on Earth evolved over time from a single-cell organism.
Critics, many of them university science professors, allege that the language of the lesson plan closely corresponds with writings about intelligent design, the concept that some intelligence had to play a hand in guiding the myriad of conditions that came together at the right time to create life.
Such discussion, they said, would be better left for social studies or philosophy classes.
"They can drive at age 16. Why shouldn't we teach them to critically analyze at age 16?" Jack A. Chapin, Jr., a Westerville architect, asked the board. "... If evolution is true, it can withstand the scrutiny, and if it's not, our students should learn to discern."
The scientific community initially pushed for a rewrite in 2002 of academic science standards spelling out what Ohio expects public school students to know and when they should know it. Scientists argued that the updates would better prepare the state for future research and science-related economic development.
Two years later, the proposed lesson plan to bring those benchmarks to life in the classroom has been rejected by the National Academy of Sciences, Ohio Academy of Science, and other organizations as undermining the theory of evolution.
"The advocates of this lesson emphasize that the plan does not contain intelligent design, creationism, or religious beliefs of any kind," said elected board member Robin C. Hovis of Millersburg, as he tried unsuccessfully to remove the controversial 10th-grade lessons from the broader science curricula.
"If that's the case, I wonder why it is that about 75 percent of the emails, letters, and phone calls that I've received in support of it have either quoted scripture or stated religious beliefs," he said.
Supporters of the plan argued that critics were seeing religion where none exists.
"We seem to be worried not about what's in the lesson but what could happen if this lesson were adopted and is put into place down the road," said board member James Turner of Cincinnati. "I don't think fear in 1920s Tennessee [during the landmark Scopes Monkey Trial] was appropriate in terms of how they thought about science, and I don't think fear in 2004 in Ohio is appropriate."
A month ago, the board dropped the Jonathan Wells book Icons of Evolution from its list of support sources for its lesson plan because the book was criticized as a guide to intelligent design.
Yesterday, the board dropped all references to Internet Web sites as sources, including those deemed by scientists to be quality sources for information on evolution as well as those criticized as promoting intelligent design.
Appointed at-large board members Emerson J. Ross, Jr., of Toledo and Sue Westendorf of Bowling Green voted to adopt the curricula.
Elected member Martha Wise of Avon, whose district stretches as far west as Lucas and Wood counties, opposed them.
"This particular lesson misrepresents science," Ms. Wise said. "It's not science. It is religion [in the classroom]. As such, this is against the law of this nation, the law as set by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Mr. Gey told the board that the Supreme Court in 1987 struck down a statute in Louisiana that it determined be a thinly veiled attempt to introduce religion to the classroom.
Jim Provance can be reached at jprovance@theblade.com or at 614-221-0496.