The Debate over Ohio Science Standards

By Ronnie E Cooper

On March 11, 2002, four highly qualified scientists presented their views on why the evolution model must either be taught as science dogma in all grades or why it must also include the scientific problems known to exist.

The evolution view says: do not teach both sides of evolution, only teach definitional evolution, teach evolution as fact or assumed fact without the confusing contradictions. The Intelligent Design (ID) side says: allow teachers to teach ALL the facts, allow legitimate debate, and correct known published errors in textbooks.

If this were math or literature, the teacher would correct errors in a text by telling students the corrections so they would not waste time trying to solve a misstated problem. The books would be corrected in the next edition. Incorrect information on evolution has not been corrected and its has been many decades.

Here are key issues introduced by two presenters at that debate.

Dr. Lawrence M Krauss (evolutionist, physics, Case Western Reserve University) stated his opponents say, "science standards use a little known rule to censure the evidence of design. The rule, which is usually unstated, is often referred to as the Methodological Method." He agreed by adding, "Actually this little known rule is the scientific method."

By this debaters misleading definition, Intelligent Design (ID) advocates are against the scientific method, which he equates as the same thing as the Methodological Method. But when questioned after the debate if the scientific method was a process that is repeatable, testable, and falsifiable, he agreed to this traditional definition. These two different definitions are the heart of the debate.

Dr. Krauss used, according to ID proponents, a straw man (easily defeated position) method to set up a delightful response that ID is against science. He substituted the term Methodological Method for "Scientific Materialistic" (Naturalism) as Science. In this debate and in the one in Ohio, Naturalism is the position he is defending, not the Methodology Method. Materialism as the philosophical opinion that physical matter in its movement and modifications is the only reality and that everything in the universe, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of physical laws.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of Methodology is a system of principles, practices, and procedures applied to any specific branch of knowledge. That is the position of creation science and ID. It is NOT the same as the definition for materialism and evolution that is being debated!

Dr. Krauss also stated "ID is ANYTHING you want it to be. It has NEVER been subjected to the molding and development that occurs when scientific ideas are subjected to years of experimental development and peer review." That is an overstatement at best. I've never heard it used that way.

It sounds like he is describing evolution, which I have heard and read described that way for decades. Evolution always seems to have an answer for everything. It is said to explain everything and is used as the unifying principle of science. Every disputed point is answered with, "we don't know yet, but we expect to find the answer." The peer review is to agree only on evolutionary conclusions. Disagreements rarely finish the review process, and then only if left as a yet to be discovered, naturalistic conclusion. There is plenty of smoke, but no fire in this argument.

Dr. Stephen C Meyer (ID, History and Philosophy of Science, Discovery Institute) asked the questions, "Is the appearance of design real or just apparent? Is this Natural selection or intelligent design? Should students be allowed to learn about this controversy? Is science the systemic search for the best solutions or just settling for the best naturalistic solutions?"

According to Dr. Meyer, "Science is the repeatable, testable, falsifiable scientific method that allows ALL conclusions based on the data to be discussed." Data not fitting some conclusions is not thrown away. ID specifically claims there is something we call intelligence and its discovery, measurement, or recognition is within the realms of science.

According to Dr. Werner Gitt, and the scientific laws of Information, this is consistent with ID because Matter + Information = Life. Life is not equivalent to Matter; And information comes only from an intelligent source.

In the Journal of Theoretical Biology [Vol 9, 1981, p 12], Hubert P. Jockey writes: "Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated…It would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarizing the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs."