Creationists Have Designs on Ohio

In what may be a reprise of the theory of evolution controversy that beset the Kansas public education system a couple of years ago, the Ohio board of education is embroiled in a growing dispute between scientists and advocates of a new version of creationism called “intelligent design.” Using arguments that focus on academic freedom, the intelligent design proponents are pushing to have their alternative to natural evolution written into the state’s K–12 science standards.

The challenge to the theory of evolution arose when a committee of Ohio science teachers and other science education specialists wrote the first draft of new science standards for the K–12 curricula; in that draft, they limited study on the origin of life to natural evolution. Several members of the 19-member state board of education objected and asked that alternative theories, such as intelligent design, be included in the standards.

Intelligent design, a concept first developed in the early 1990s, claims that some biological systems are too complex to be explained by Darwinian evolution. Advocates assert that the complexity involved in such biological processes as blood clotting and the way bacteria propel themselves through fluid is beyond the reach of natural evolution and can only be explained by some “intelligent designer”—although supporters of the concept generally avoid saying that the designer is “God.”

After objections to the science standards committee’s recommendations on evolution were raised, the board of education held a debate on 11 March between two scientists and two members of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes intelligent design. The debate was dubbed the “Scopes Trial, Part II” by participant Lawrence Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University.

Krauss stressed during the debate that what was really under attack was not just Darwinism, but science itself. “We shouldn’t invent controversy where there is none because intelligent design isn’t science,” Krauss told the school board. “I wish we were talking about things that strengthen science and not dilute it.” In an interview, Krauss said the problem with such events is that, “the minute you agree to a debate, it adds to the credibility of the other side.”

Biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, the other scientist who participated in the debate, said the groups attacking evolution “are using politicians to try to short-circuit science itself.” While claiming to be scientific, he said, intelligent design advocates “attempt to use the political process to manipulate education to impose quasi-religious views upon science.”

The science standards committee submitted a second draft of the standards on 1 April that hold hard to the science-based theory of evolution. Another revision is expected after public comment, and the state board of education has promised to approve new standards by the end of the year. Complicating the issue is an effort by a few state legislators to pass bills mandating the teaching in science classes of intelligent design and other alternatives to natural evolution.

An attempt to incorporate alternatives to evolution into the Kansas public school curricula succeeded in 1999, but was later overturned after candidates backed by science and education groups were elected to the state school board (see Physics Today, April 2001, page 32 ). The issue is being raised again in an upcoming Kansas school board election.