After much criticism and debate, the Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 last Tuesday to take the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan out of the state's science curriculum.
However, the Achievement Committee in the Ohio Department of Education still must analyze the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan. That department will make the final decision to revise, replace or drop the lesson from the science curriculum.
Critics of the lesson plan said it opened the door to discussion of intelligent design in public schools, which violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution that mandates the separation of church and state.
All of us have an interest in doing what's best for students and achieving this had been hard with (the lesson plan) because belief
religion and philosophy had gotten involved and we weren't able to teach science said Ohio Board of Education member Jim Craig.
The lesson plan called for the critical analysis of evolution but did not directly mandate the teaching of intelligent design.
I believe that taking (the lesson plan) out of the curriculum is good for science
good for students and good for the state of Ohio
said Ohio Board of Education member Martha Wise. Even though the lesson plan did not mention (intelligent design)
it was tied to it.
The lesson had a bibliography citing the creationist book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Wise said. She also said the book Of Pandas and People - which was identified as an intelligent design text in a federal court ruling in Dover, Pa. that barred teaching of the subject - was used to create the lesson plan.
The board had received criticism from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, which gave Ohio a B in December for its state science standards, and Gov. Bob Taft, who said the board should drop the lesson to avoid a potential lawsuit over teaching intelligent design in public schools.
In January, Wise motioned to remove the lesson plan. That spurred much debate among state board members, but ended in a 9-8 vote keeping the lesson in the curriculum.
Last Tuesday, two board members, Carl Wick and Craig, who had voted against ousting the lesson plan, changed their minds and their votes, assisting in the lesson plan's defeat. Three supporters of the lesson plan were absent last week for the vote.
So many people seemed to be against (the lesson plan)
and it made me wonder
Craig said.
After thoroughly studying the lesson plan and listening to many critiques from scholars and scientists, he realized the lesson plan was not good and that the words 'critical analysis' had more to do with intelligent design than he had previously thought, he said.
Two years ago
I was in favor of the lesson because I thought it was good for students to have a lesson where they critically analyzed subjects
Craig said. I thought we should've had those kinds of lessons in other subjects
too.
Craig said the majority of the board was trying to get kids to think; it was not trying to get intelligent design in the lesson plan.
There is some tension on the board
