Intelligent Design network, inc. P.O. Box 14702, Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66285-4702 (913) 268-0852; (913)-268-0852 (fax); IDnet@att.net www.IntelligentDesignnetwork.org

TOP

IDnet    SEAO   Report Summary   Poll Results  Overview of Modifications   Modifications

Introduction

On January 3, 2002, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO) and Intelligent Design network, inc. posted a web site that solicited comments on proposed Modifications to the Tenth Grade Life Sciences Section of a published draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards.

This report reflects comments received prior to 12:30 am, January 31, 2002.

The Draft Science Standards posted by the Ohio Department of Education only reflect science indicators and omitted to include other substantive provisions of the Draft Standards. In particular, the posted draft made available to the public and SEAO did not include the proposed definition of "science."

An early draft of the Front Matter to the new Standards (June 22, 2001) used a traditional definition of science, which could include the possibility of design as an explanation for phenomena in nature: "Science is an active process of investigating, learning, and thinking about the natural world." However, in an oral presentation made by the Ohio Department of Education (January 13, 2002), a naturalistic (materialistic) definition was used: "Science is a method of explaining the natural world using natural processes."

At this point, we do not know which definition of science is intended for use in the Standards. Thus the respondents to the SEAO/IDnet poll and Ohioans have not had the opportunity to comment on this critically important definition. The definition is important because it goes to the very heart of the controversy. By limiting explanations to only those which are consistent with a natural process, the definition seeks to incorporate Methodological Naturalism into the standards as a mechanism to censor all competing origins hypotheses.

The proposed Modifications and an "OVERVIEW" are appended to this report. Essentially the Modifications seek to have origins science in Ohio taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption. Elimination of an irrebuttable naturalistic assumption permits objective consideration of all the evidence bearing on the most important question of where we come from. It permits this historical area of science to be conducted per the scientific method where scientists seek to rule out competing hypotheses based on scientific investigation, observation and analysis rather than by assumption. Eliminating the naturalistic assumption permits "balanced" treatment of the evidence and treats Darwinian evolution as a hypothesis or "theory" rather than as a "fact."

Report Summary

The SEAO/IDnet Poll collected 309 usable comments. Comments that were duplicative, incomplete and in some cases non-responsive were discarded. Non-responsive comments from obviously fictitious respondents such as "Charles Darwin," "Barry Headinground" and the like were discarded .

The Poll sought the educational level and occupation of the respondent, an opportunity to "Agree" or "Disagree" with the proposed Modifications, and a comment form that permitted lengthy comments. The entirety of all comments are included in this report. None have been edited for punctuation or content. The report shows the raw data as our data base received it. We encourage your review of the written comments. In many respects, they are much more meaningful and informative than the raw data.

The names of respondents are shown where they have specifically granted permission to publicly associate their name with their comments. Where permission has been specifically refused or where the response is silent on the issue of permission, we have omitted the name and used the phrase "No Permission" to indicate the desired anonymity.

Of the 309 responses, 243 (79%) specifically "Agree" with the Modifications and 66 (21%) "Disagreed." However, among those who "disagreed" were 28 (9%) who provided comments that find fault with the proposed Ohio Standards and that essentially indicate concurrence with the theme of "objective origins science." These respondents are identified in the tables below under the caption "Disagree, but For Obj OS." The detailed listings under "Poll Results" also identify those in this category by the following statement that appears below their name: "Respondent's comments have been construed for report purposes as being for objective origins science." Thus, the total of those who Agree and who appear to favor objective origins science is 271 (88%).

The respondents as a group represent a high level of education, professional experience and expertise. A total of 83 respondents hold doctoral degrees, 78 (94%) of whom reflect agreement with the notion of objective origins science. The poll also shows that 71, or about 84% of those respondents that are or have been engaged in biological sciences favor objective origins science and that 91% of those engaged in teaching or education are of the same mind.

Teaching origins science also involves critical legal issues. All of the eight lawyers responding, including two professors of law, agreed with the modifications. None were opposed.

Ohio residents comprise 190 or 61% of the respondents. The others, which include many highly credentialed scientists, reside all over the world. This input is consistent with the considerable outside assistance received by the Department of Education.

A persistent complaint against design theory and objective origins science is that no "real scientist" or professional agrees with it. The comments show the hollowness of this claim. To underscore its inadequacy we have taken the liberty to list alphabetically all of those who hold doctoral degrees at the beginning of the list. This will enable readers who tend to look only at the beginning of a long list to note the large number of well-credentialed respondents that favor objective origins science."

The following comments by two scientists who "agree" with the proposed modifications, one a member of the National Academy of Science, summarize very well the consensus reflected in the report:

"I am a member of NAS, Chemistry Section. I have examined carefully the evidence on both sides of this debate and my conclusion [for the Modifications] is based solely on scientific considerations, no religious criteria." ["Philip Skell, PhD, Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Agree"].

"It is crucial that students understand 1) the important distinction between an empirical science and an historical science, and 2) that the latter is always strongly influenced by non-scientific world view issues, e.g. materialism, theism, etc. Large questions like "Where did we come from" necessarily raise deep philosophical and religious issues. It is important that the state not become an exponent of one view over others. ["David Keller, PhD, Biophysical Chemistry, Professor, Agree."]

We also encourage readers to visit the Discovery Institute web site http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php) that reflects a list of 100 highly credentialed scientists who recently signed the following statement:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This report was accompanied by the results of another poll about media treatment of Darwinian evolution. The Zogby Poll shows that over 80% of the public favor objective origins science such that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it."

Early last year 91 U.S. Senators voted for a provision (the Santorum Amendment) in the federal education bill (H.B.1) that encourages the development of curriculum that will help students think critically, "understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins science may generate controversy." This provision received favorable mention in the report of the House and Senate Conferees who recommended passage of the education act. The principal embodied in the Santorum Amendment is reflected in the Modifications and is included in recently introduced legislation in the Ohio Legislature, H.B. 481.

The following tables summarize in more detail the results of this poll:

We wish to thank all of those who took the time to comment on the Modifications.

Barry Sheets
Executive Director
SCIENCE EXCELLENCE FOR ALL OHIOANS

John H. Calvert
Managing Director
INTELLIGENT DESIGN network, inc.

Back to Top

IDnet    SEAO   Report Summary   Poll Results  Overview of Modifications   Modifications

1. Moorad Alexanian, Ph.D., Physics, Professor of physics, Agree

If notions of how things came into begin comes into science classes, then it is incumbent on the teacher to discuss the philosophical issues that are brought out by the students and give them equal and serious treatment. In physics, the notion of a Big Bang plays hardly any role in 99.99% of the achievements of physics that have given rise to all the technological advances we now enjoy. I believe the same is true in the biological sciences and its technological applications in medicine, genetics, etc. with regard to evolution. Evolutionary theory ought to be treated as a working assumption and not a philosophical position that goes beyond science. Of course, whenever philosophical views are discusses then it ought to be an open question and all ought to contribute equally. I do not understand the fear historical biologists have that such discussions would undermine the truly scientific issues involved. As a physics professor any student can raise any issue in my class about the assumptions that physicists make in order to carry on the study of nature. Biologist ought to similarly have no fears that open discussions of the assumptions being made by them will undermine the science that they are trying to teach. If questions of origins are part of the curriculum, then views held by the community ought to similarly be part of the curriculum. Note that biologists say that they "believe in evolution," which makes it quite clear that it is a matter of faith rather than science.

2. Francis Beckwith, PhD, Philosophy, Philosophy and Law Professor, Agree

I would add that one could justify these changes (especially the inclusion of Intelligent Design) by appealing to the importance of exposing students to reputable scholarship that critiques the materialist assumptions behind naturalistic evolution. For in U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court maintains that its holding does "not imply that the legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught." The Court asserts that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." In addition, the Court points out, with apparent approval, that the unconstitutional Balanced-Treatment Act was unnecessary because the state of Louisiana already did not prohibit teachers from introducing students to alternative points of view.

When applied to these suggested modifications, the Edwards test in fact justifies them. For naturalistic evolution provides an answer to the very same question Intelligent Design provides an answer: What is the origin of apparent design in biological organisms and/or other aspects of the natural universe? Evolution answers the question by appealing to the forces of unguided matter, the latter to intelligent agency. Same question, different answers.

Given the history of the teaching of origins in public schools, it is understandable why someone may see these modifications as being in line with statutes already struck down by the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that would not be a correct reading of those cases. What animated the courts, and what they found unconstitutional, were the transparent use of the Book of Genesis in the influence and content of the statutes. This is not the case here. In fact, the authors of the modifications raise just the sort of profound and interesting philosophical and scientific questions that I believe the courts thought were essential to a good education. It would be ironic if these modifications were rejected, for it would mean that a teacher, if she raised questions about naturalistic evolution on her own initiative, could be accused and convicted of the Socratic transgression of encouraging her pupils to think deeply and thoughtfully about the philosophical implications that flow from the Darwinian paradigm.

3. No Permission, PhD, Psychology, College Professor, Agree

4. Michael Behe, PhD, Biochemistry, Professor of Biological Sciences, Agree

These modest changes will serve to help students think more deeply about the nature of life.

5. Timothy Benadum, M.D., Chemistry; Medicine, Physician, Agree

I agree with the proposed modifications. The student should have a clear understanding what is fact and what is theory. Furthermore the worldview perspective of the theory should be delineated with its presuppositions to allow greater comprehension and insight.

6. Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology, College Professor (Biology), Agree

We should teach the controversey and not censor the problems with Darwinism.

7. Samuel Beshers, Ph.D., Biology, Lecturer and biological researcher, Disagree,

I wonder why you waste your time working to promote ignorance. It is clear from your site that your group does not understand, or more likely, refuses to understand, the most basic ideas about how science works, and what fact and theory are. None of you propose any scientific way in which design can be studied, because it is not possible to do so. Your activities serve no scientific, educational, religious, or other worthwhile aims. All you are doing is attempting to undermine public understanding and education, for your own reasons, which I simply can't fathom. Intelligent design theory is associated with "creationism" and religion, but I have yet to find the religion that upholds the ideal that ignorance and lack of understanding are the way to God or other enlightenment.

I expect it's hopeless, but I nevertheless urge you to look deep into your souls and ask yourselves, honestly: Why am I involved in this project? What good does it do? Do I really understand what I'm talking about, or am I allowing myself to be persuaded by the glib words of other people, whose agendas I may or may not agree with?

Please, open your minds and learn. Don't close off the world for yourselves and for others.

8. No Permission, PhD, Engineering, Engineer, Agree

I think a more balanced curriculum should be presented to students on the topic of the origins of life. There are many theories on this topic. One of the important aspects of education is to develop students critical thinking skills. Present the multiple theories on the origins of life and let the students decide for themselves. Therefore, I support the proposed modifications to include the theory for intelligent design.

9. No Permission., Ph.D., Biology, Executive Director Organization, Agree

10. William Bordeaux, D.A., Chemistry, College Professor, Agree

The theory of evolution, as it is presently taught, is fraught with both scientific and philospohical problems. Intelligent design continues to provide a thoughtful response to these issues and deserves to be included in the life science curriculum.

11. Robert Brown, Ph.D., Physics, Physics Teacher, Agree

12. Donald Calbreath, Ph.D., Biochemistry, College Biochemistry Professor, Agee

13. John Calvert, J.D., Law, Lawyer and Manager of IDnet, Agree

See Teaching Origins Science in Public Schools at http://www.IntelligentDesignNetwork.org/legalopinion.htm  the various reasons that the Modifications should be incorporated into the Science Standards.

14. Harold Campbell, Ph.D., Neurosciences, Associate Professor of Biology, Agree

I am less concerned that Intelligent Design be proposed as an alternate theory, than I am that the data related to macroevolution be fairly presented. As it is, neither students nor teachers are not encouraged to critically evaluate the material because portions of it are unfairly presented.

Frequently, contradictory data is presented as if part of a mutually supporting field of information (e.g. the early atmosphere is thought to have consisted of gases not contained in the Miller/Urey experimental flask yet the Miller/Urey experiment is constantly put forward as evidence for organic molecule formation in just such a non-existant early atmosphere).

Frequently, no distinction is made between the hypotheses generated from forensic investigations and those generated from bench science (e.g. in one text the authors state that denying all life derives from natural processes is equivalent to denying electricity and gravity. Yet, the conclusions derived from forensic sciences ought to be regarded as more tentative than the that derived from more directly empirical sciences.

Finally, nearly all texts conflate data with the conclusions naturalists draw from that data without distinguishing between data and conclusion (e.g. the so-called evolutionary tree illustrations where the actual data, contemporary and extinct species, are weighted the same as the lines naturalists draw between them).

15. Jack Cashill, Ph.D., American Studies, Writer, Agree

16. Charles Casteel, M.D., Medicine, Urologist, Agree

17. Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., Molecular Biology, Professor, Agree

Science thrives on attitudes of openness among its practitioners.Denying legitimate ideas about a subject as difficult to encompass in science as origins, is dogmatism at its worst.

Good science cannot afford dogmatism, and openness has always served the highest interests of science.

Please do not be responsible for excluding by arbitrary actions, considerations of origins other than strict Darwinian evolution.

In the mind of a third grader, flowers and insects didn't "just happen".

Putting into their hands textbooks that contradict that logic sounds like a recipe for turning students away from careers in science to me.

18 William Cirignani, J.D., Law, Lawyer, Agree

19. No Permission, PhD, Materials Science, Professor Emeritus, Agree

20. No Permission, Ph.D., Human Development, Now retired; formerly university admministrator, Agree

The modifications make it clear that the Dawinian theory of evolution is not dogma that must be accepted as fact throughout, but that it is still a theory that needs to be studied further.

21. William Dembski, PhD, Mathematics, Philosophy, Research Professor, Author, Agree

Darwinism has become an inviolable principle of modern science. Critical scrutiny of it is no longer tolerated and its proponenets exercise monopolistic control over all levels of the United States' educational system. That monopoly needs to be broken up, not least because it turns education into indoctrination. Alternatives and critiques of Darwinian evolutionary theory are currently on the table and being vigorously discussed at the highest levels of the academy. To teach only Darwinism is to give a false impression to students, giving them the sense that no disagreement exists concerning a theory (Darwinism) that remains highly controversial.

22. Paul Dennis, Doctor of Optometry, Optometrist, Agree

Science, of all disciplines, should be taught and understood with and by objective, unbiased, honest assessment of possible viewpoints. Theories should be presented as such with accompanying bodies of evidence. In the area of life origins, it is impossible (and not intellectually honest) to present ANY viewpoint dogmatically as proven fact, or scientific "law". All viewpoints should be discussed in this light, so students can form their own views based on the evidence available, not on narrow, biased views of the instructor. Hesitance to be objective in this area is a sad commentary on the education establishment, and the proposed modifications to Science Standards appear to me to be a solid step in the right direction.

23. David DeWitt, Ph.D., Neuroscience, College Biology Professor, Agree

The modifications to the Science Standards represent a more scientifically accurate and balanced approach to teaching about origins. It admits limitations to scientific knowledge in a postive way that is likely to promote a better understanding of the scientific method. Moreover, it is sensitive to students of faith while teaching them about evolution.

24. David DeWolf, J.D., Law, Law Professor, Agree

25. Russell Durbin, Ph.D., Biochemistry, Biomedical research scientist, Disagre

Evolutionary theory is supported by countless thousands of publications in peer reviewed journals. When any alternative theory reaches that standard, I hope it, too, will be taught in public school. As of today, there is not a single article that discusses, let alone supports "intelligent design theory" in the scientific literature.

26. Bruce Evans, Ph.D., Biology, College Biology Professor, Agree

One of the major problems that we must address in our pedagogy in public schools is the strict adherence to naturalism which pervades the curriculum. The proposed modifications would allow for an honest, open presentation and discussion of ideas that are scientific in nature but do not agree with strict neo-Darwinian principles. While it is true that most scientists believe that biological evolution has taken place, their belief does not make these tenets true or untrue. When we tell students that science is about allowing a free discussion of alternative scientific hypotheses and then we censor the politically incorrect hypotheses, we are being self-contradictory and deceptive in our teachings. We must allow the discussion of intelligent design ideas, whether they turn out to be right or wrong.

27. Donald Ewert, Ph.D., Microbiology/Immunology, Research Scientist, Agree

It is important for students to be able to differentiate between the observations or facts of science and the interpretations of those facts. Most of the initial statements give an explicit or implicit interpretation to the observations.

When interpretations of observations are made the assumptions that inevitably underly them should be explained. Then the student will be able to understand how two rational people can come to differnt interpretations of the facts. Science does not exist in a vaccume void of philosophical or religious beliefs.

The education system can do the next generations a great service by helping them to differentiate the facts from beliefs. The proposed changes help to accomplish this end.

28. Joseph Francis, PhD, Biolgoy, Associate Professor of Biology, Agree

Science education should include the teaching of all relevant and reasonable theories about the origin of life

29. James Graham, JD, Law, Lawyer, Agree

Having read Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Crick, Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others it is clear to me that Darwinian evolution does not provide a convincing answer to the important questions of the origin of life or the origin of the human race. The science curriculum in public schools should address these issues honestly and include discussion of the limitations and inadequacies of the various theories of origins without elevating any of them to the level of orthodoxy. Science has not provided a conclusive (or even compelling)answer to the question of the origin of life and any official science curriculum that says Darwinian evolution is the answer to this fundamentally important question is dishonest, infringes academic freedom and perhaps the First Amndment as well.

30. Doug Hansen, JD, Law, Attorney, Agree

The very future of science as a worthy pursuit is dependent upon a perception that science is an endeavor that is focused, first and foremost upon finding TRUTH. In order to be credible over the long haul, Science must be seen as the champion of following the empirical EVIDENCE WHEREVER IT LEADS, not forcing the evidence into a fixed, preconceived frame. If scientists and science teachers are seen as dogmatists, covering up, censoring or glossing over inconvenient inconsistencies, flaws, anomalies or controversies in the evidence, the advancement of science will inevitably suffer.

The suggested Modifications are most assuredly improvements in the text. They are improvements because they improve the accuracy and integrity of the text. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by eliminating (or fully disclosing) subtly hidden but unproven (and un-provable) crucial assumptions. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by stating tentatively those things that can only be inferred but which inherently cannot be verified by scientific testing and observation. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by directly teaching students about the nature, limitations and philosophy of science, especially as scientific inquiry relates to historical phenomena. They improve the quality and integrity of the text by insisting upon a clear and precise definitions of crucial terms, especially the term evolution itself, which when used without a clear and precise definition leads to needless misunderstandings, pointless debate and even deliberate obfuscation. The Modifications will promote improvement in the quality and integrity of science teaching itself by encouraging critical thinking about scientific endeavors.

In short, it has hard to imagine why these Modifications are controversial at all. We live in a society that values the "marketplace of ideas" and the lessons that can be learned by observing the competition among ideas in that marketplace. Science has always valued the competition among various "schools of thought." In most matters, science has sought to be non-dogmatic; to hold all of its conclusions as tentative. There is no reason why origins science should be held to a lesser standard. To the contrary, given the inherent and obvious impact of origins science upon religious thought, and given the guarantees of the First Amendment, there is every reason why government sponsored teaching of origins science should be held to a greater standard of precision, accuracy, full disclosure, honesty and open self-criticism than any other area of science teaching.

31. William Harris, PhD, Nutritional Biochemistry, Professor/Research Scientist, Agree

It is critically important that the presentation of theories of life's origins and development be tested against each other for the best fit. To allow presentation of only one theory and to assume that no other theory could be possible is inappropriate for public education.

32. David Hauge, JD, Law, Attorney, Agree

It is my belief that the concept of Intelligent Design, per se, should be part of any course which discusses the theory of evolution. I believe that Intelligent Design clearly qualifies as science (This would not include so called Biblical creation). The concept of Intelligent Design is getting more and more legitimate play in the scientific community, but yet, continues to be unfairly excluded from mainstream discussion in the education system. It is only a matter of time before Intelligent Design moves to the forfront on its own merrits. Why not stop the artificial exclusion of Intelligent Design here in Ohio by voting for these modifications.

33. Douglas Hausknecht, PhD, Marketing, Professor, Agree

The debate recalls the Behavioristic versus Cognitive revolution of paradigms in Psychology. At present, cognitive orientations dominate, but the behavioral approach is taught as a contrasting opinion with defenders and evidence of its own. If intelligent design were taught as a similar "opposition view," the inclusion would satisfy the need to be fair and to let students choose their own preferred paradigm.

34. Scott Haynes, JD, Law, Attorney, Agree

As an attorney, I am compelled to discover and review evidence. If evidence can support multiple theories, let all of the theories into the debate and let each person make his or her own informed decision based upon the evidence.

35. No Permission, PhD, Botany, Assistant Professor, Agree

36. Roland F. Hirsch, Ph.D., Chemistry, structural biology research manager, Agree

37. No Permission, PhD, Biochemistry, Biology Professor, Agree

38. Conrad Johanson, PhD, Physiology, Scientist, Agree

Darwinism is just one model or theory for origins. More evidence is needed to prove Darwinian theory.

Alternative models, such as intelligent design, need to be seriously considered and debated.

It's important that all voices be heard. That's the American democratic way, and it makes for good science as well.

39. Lawrence Johnston, Ph.D., Nuclear Physics, Physics professor/researcher, Agree

I want students to have a broader view of Biological origins than the dominant view usually given in biotextbooks. Modern information theory shows that the huge amount of information in biological systems cannot come from a non-intelligent source.

Origins science is still a wide open field, none of the proposed solutions has worked out. It would be arbitrary in the extreme to exclude the likelihood that an intelligent designer provided the huge amounts of information required to produce the first cell. Students should be taught to consider all options, not be spoonfed an arbitrary viewpoint.

40. Michael Keas, PhD, History of Science, Professor of Natural Science, Agree

41. Bruce Keillor, PhD, Business Admin., Professor, No Vote

I am highly concerned that the Darwinian approach to creation is adopted as the only explanation for creation. While there are many educated authorities who accept this view, there are also a substantial number of authorities who recognize the shortcomings in the theory of evolution. One of the underlying tenets of science is that inquiry and discussion continues until irrefutable evidence exists to support one particular explanation. This is not the case with the theory of evolution as considerable gaps remain in its explanation for the origins of humans.

42. David Keller, PhD, Biophysical Chemistry, Professor, Agree

It is crucial that students understand 1) the important distinction between an empirical science and an historical science, and 2) that the latter is always strongly influenced by non-scientific worldview issues, e.g. materialism, theism, etc. Large questions like "Where did we come from" necessarily raise deep philosophical and religious issues. It is important that the state not become an exponent of one view over others.

43. No Permission, PhD, Philosophy, Professor of Philosophy, Agree

44. Jeffrey Koperski, PhD, Philosophy, University Professor, Agree

Intelligent Design should be taught as one of several contemporary positions critical of orthodox neo-Darwinism. These might also include self-organization/complexity theory, saltationism, and punctuated equilibrium.

45. Joel Lantz, PhD, Chemistry, Technical writer (Most of career: R&D), Agree

It is clearly necessary to present alternative theories of origins in Ohio classrooms. The proposed standards Modifications seem almost too gentle, considering the problems with macroevolution -- rarely admitted in public for political and philosophical reasons.

It is clear that macroevolution is driven by an unsubstantiated, naturalistic philosophy that assumes the universe  MUST be a closed system of material causes and effects, with no possible outside influence. Therefore, in that view, the human eye, machine-like proteins, and other seemingly designed entities MUST only have the appearance of design. They MUST have evolved, no matter how small the odds.

Therefore, students MUST not hear that examples of roughly all animal phyla existing today (and more) first appear suddenly in Cambrian fossils, representing a period as short as 2 to 3 million years -- too brief for macroevolution. Students MUST not realize that this "Cambrian explosion" inverts the evolutionary tree -- phyla first, diversity of species later. They MUST not know that key, still-published textbook "evidences" for abiogenesis and macroevolution are false or misleading, such as: 1950s experiments which made amino acids from gases that scientists now know misrepresent earth's early atmosphere; drawings that fake embryo commonality across multiple species; photographs that supposedly show adaptation of moths to tree trunks, though the moths don't normally land there and were pasted on.

Physicist Paul Davies' comments in a recent book are enlightening: "When I set out to write this book I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now convinced that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna."

Resistance to alternative explanations of origins is centered in the U.S., enforced by a powerful science elite. By contrast, the People's Daily, though presumably atheistic, published the following headline about Cambrian fossils in China: "Chengjiang Fossils Challenge the Theory of Darwin." A Chinese paleontologist noted that, " In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Hopefully, teachers and students in Ohio schools can soon criticize the government AND Darwin.

46. Robert Lattimer, PhD, Chemistry, Research Chemist, Agree

The modifications are great.

47. Garrick Little, PhD, Chemistry, Senior Scientist, Agree

I agree with the principles that have been used to justify the modifications to the proposed science standards. My position is that to claim evolution to be a scientific fact would at a minimum require a well established mechanism/explanation both for the origin of the first cell as well as a mechanism that clearly shows how increasingly complex life could have come into existence. I find that the field of evolutionary study cannot point to such mechanisms according to the norms of scientific rigor.

48. Paul Madtes, PhD, Biochemistry, Faculty, Disagree

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

I believe the lack of balance in instruction leads to inadequate preparation to be usccessful in science. Presentation of scientific thought ought to include both strengths and weaknesses, along with alternative explanations, and their strengths and weaknesses. This approach enables students to gain a better insight into the purpose and value of science.

49. Joseph Mastropaolo, PhD, Kinesiology, Physiology, Professor, Agree

50. Jeffrey McKee, PhD, Anthropology, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Disagree

The "Intelligent Design" network is attempting to "stuff the ballot box" with canned modifications that are bereft of solid science.

51. Scott A. Minnich, PhD, Microbiology, Associate Professor, Agree

I think the proposed modifications are consistent with the present body of knowledge. In fact, these modifications are more reflective of a true scientific position, ie., willing to question primary assumptions continually with data as it is collected. Accepting these criteria will foster better science education and is not promoting some type of fundamentalist infringment into the curriculum.

52. Thomas Morgan, DMA, Music Performance, Music Professor, Agree

It's time to tell our students the truth about origins. Let's give them all the information and let them make a choice based on knowledge. We should teach Darwinism, but give them the whole story. Stop giving the impression that we can explain everything by naturalistic processes. Let the students in on Darwinism's many problems. The ID movement is growing, and this information cannot be hidden any longer.

53. Paul Nesselroad, Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, Associate Professor, Agree

Naturalistic evolution has many problems (information generation, lack of fossil record, irredicible complexity...). It's time for the scientific elite to loosen their stranglehold on education and take the risk that some "unfortunate" ideas may find their way into the science classroom. Nobody wants that, but to hide behind the idea that there are no problems with evolution, in the long run, isn't doing our students any good. We must have free inquiry if we want to continue learning. "ID" meets the criteria of a scientific paradigm and is being brought to the table for consideration. Shouldn't our students know that?

54. John Nichols, PhD, Mathematics, Professor of Mathematics, Agree

I find the modifications to be well-reasoned and professionally written.

55. Jay Nicholson, PhD, Entomology, Science Instructor, Agree

56. No Permission, PhD, Biochemistry, Medical Laboratory Director, Agree

Dear Educators:

Evolution as defined as random chemicals forming a single life form and subsequently transforming into a variety of life forms through DNA random mutations is scientifically impossible being in violation of the second law of themodynamics, the laws of probability, and information therory. If evolution is to be presented to students as an acceptable view of origins then certainly intelligent design should be taught. In my opinion, in studying the complexity and efficiency of cellular function, intellignet design is the intelligent choice. Sincerely, XXXXXXXXX, Ph.D.

57. Deborah Owens-Fink, PhD, Business, College Professor, Agree

We must make these changes to assure that our students are critical thinkers for the 21st century . Intellectual stimulation comes from considering all views. Students will be more engaged if we teach both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design. We can not and should not censure either view

58. Yougsoon Park, PhD, Biochemistry, Senior Research Scientist, Agree

I wonder why the definition of science is missing from the introductory provision?

59. No Permission, PhD, Oceanography, Oceanographer, Agree

In general, these revisions are quite good in that:

(1) they identify and eliminate much of the dogmatism invoked in the teaching of evolutionary theory; dogmatism is not science, presenting information in this fashion is counter to the stated learning goals of the science standards, and needs to be eliminated.

(2) they identify and eliminate the use of naturalism to justify theories, especially evolution, in science. Science should not be based upon naturalism; when it is, it rapidly degenerates into scientism which is neither good science nor good religion; rather its just another 'ism' looking for followers and converts.

60. Rick Petosa, PhD, Behavioral Science, Associate Professor, Disagree

The Intelligent Design constituency has failed to produce a substantive, scientific theory regarding the origins and adaptive nature of life on planet earth. Further, they have not produced a scientific literature to substantiate their touted theory. The mere criticism of current evolutionary theory does not substantiate their position.

61. Scott Piper, MD, Elementary Education, Teacher, Agree

62. James Brian Pitts, PhD, Physics, University Mathematics Teacher, Agree

The proposed modifications are very wise, and in fact rather mild. I cannot see how a well-informed person
could object to them, unless he or she is seeking to teach a naturalistic worldview in the Ohio public schools.

By the way, I attended Ohio public schools, in the Beavercreek system, for 8 years, and graduated there, though I now live elsewhere.

63. Andrew Repp, PhD, Mathematics, Highschool Teacher, Agree

The proposed modifications seem self-evident to me. If intelligent design theory can explain observed pheonomena as well as or better than darwinian evolution--and from what I've seen, it can--then only hidebound prejudice would advocate its suppression.

64 Jay Richards, PhD, Philosophy and theology, VP, Discovery Institute, Agree

65 Ralph Richardson, MD, Medicine, Physician, Agree

I am in favor of standards that promote the objective teaching of Origins Science. As the US Constitution dictates, and as the Santorum Amendment counsels, Origins Science should be taught with viewpoint neutrality with regard to religion or philosophy. In other words, the State cannot promote one hypothesis while censoring another in the science classrooms of our public schools, if both hypotheses are scientific in nature and have impact on religion or worldview. Intelligent Design Theory is science. To believe otherwise is to be misinformed about what ID theory actually is. I support the proposed Ohio Science Standards because they do not allow censorship of anything that qualifies as science.

66. Steven Robertson, PhD, Physiology & Cell Biophysics, Business Systems Designer, Agree

I support a full and comprehensive presentation of all sides of the "Orgins" debate. The growing body of scientific evidince that cannot be explained by the theory of macroevolution should not be omitted, suppressed or even marginalized in our schools just because Evolution is the only "naturalistic" theory for the origin of live on earth. This debate should be an unbiased search for truth. A unified comprehensive inclusive theory that explains all the observations made to date and which has great preditability for future observations is what I define as truth.

While Newtonian mechanics is valid for most of Nature it cannot explain atomic and subatomic behavior. In the same way the data collected on life thus far is quite compelling in its support for Microevolution but not for macroevolution. Very basic observations like the Cambrian Explosion of life cannot be explained at all by Macroevolution.

Seems to me we need a whole new theory to explain the great diversity of Life. Continuing to brain wash students that Macroevolution is fact we are just suppressing the creative potential of students and prolonging the introduction of an entirely new theory.

67. Miguel Rodriguez, PhD, Chemistry, Biochemistry professor, Agree

I don't consider a good education that one that teaches as certain what is uncertain. Thus, all possible explanations of life origins should be part of a biology program.

68. Ariel Roth, PhD, Zoology, Editor of Journal Origins, Agree

I agree with the modifications

69. Craig Rusbult, PhD, Curriculum & Instruction, Educator, Agree

This is an explanation of one reason for my agreement with the proposed modifications:

Science should be open. This is described very well in the indicator for Grade 10, Scientific Ways of Knowing #3, which explains that "scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data, or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism, and open communication are integral to the process of science." Based on my extensive study of science, scientists, and scientific methods, this description seems very accurate. I encourage you to apply this principle in the area of evolution education, by encouraging (instead of prohibiting) the "questioning" and "open communication" that are "integral to the process of science." Science should be open, not closed.

70. Marc Scarbrough, MD, Medicine, Medical Doctor, Internal Medicine, Agree

71. Duane Schmidt, DDS, Life Sciences, Dentist, Agree

Quite plainly, the way the standards were written presupposes the theory of evolution to be fact, when the only fact about evolution that is indisputable is that it is a band of suppositions and guesses, rather than a data-driven body of science. In the guesswork business, one guess is as good as another. Please read may article in NetWorldDaily.com, January 5, In the Beginning was What?

72. No Permission, PhD, Microbiology, Professor, Department of Biology and Earth Sciences, Agree

73. No Permission, MD, Medicine, Pathologist, Agree

74. Philip Skell, PhD, Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Agree

I am a member of NAS, Chemistry Section.

I have examined carefully the evidence on both sides of this debate and my conclusion is based solely on scientific considerations, no religious criteria.

75. Fred Skiff, PhD, Physics, University Professor, Agree

The modifications promote intellectual integrity and honesty. The credibiliy of the scientific community will be damaged if there is a dogmatic attachment to Darwinism. Materialism did not give birth to science and it should not be confused with science.

76. James Standish, JD, Law, Lawyer, Agree

It is time that public schools taught the divergent views about possible explanations for the origins of life. Presenting macroevolution as a monolithic orthodoxy denies students the academic openness necessary for them to form their own views on this much debated issue.

James Standish, JD, MBA

77. No Permission, PhD, Biology, Agree

As a former teacher of high school biology and current research scientists I fully support the consideration of multiple ideas about the origin of life and its diversity. Modifications to the draft Ohio Academic Content Standards for Science suggested by Science Excellence for All Ohioans would greatly enhance the science curriculum in Ohio public schools. This could only result in students better prepared to meet and understand the complex world in which they live. More informed graduates will build stronger communities of citizens equipped to participate in those aspects of public life in which science impacts development of public policy.

78. Royal Truman, PhD, Chemistry, Research chemist and computer systems specialist, Agree

Some general observations. The current dominant biology framework, neo-Darwinism and its variants, has lost its plausibility in explaining the issues of major concern. Dissent and superior explanations are becoming virtually impossible to publish in research journals.

I must support any educational amendments which permit one to question, to critique, to evaluate. And best of all, to simply state like I do, that chance plus selection is incapable of explaining the vast majority of the truly interesting issues:

- the origin of the genetic code

- the physical and informational organisation of cells

- the precise developmental guidance from fertilized cell to full organism

- the origin of sexual reproduction

- the origin and regulation of DNA repair mechanisms

- the integration and automatic self-regulation of thousands of metabolic cellular processes

- the interaction of about 200 kinds of specialized cells into an integrated mammals into whole organisms

- the origin of intelligence, consciousness and will.

These and many other observations are not explainable by hand-waving materialist stories being claimed as "fact".

79. Jonathan Wells, PhD, Biology, Biologist, Agree

Science is the search for truth, and it works best when it follows the evidence wherever it leads - even if it undermines widely held theories such as Darwinian evolution. Accordingly, science students should be encouraged to consider evidence for and against Darwin's theory, and they should also be encouraged to evaluate the evidence for alternative theories such as intelligent design.

80. Terry Weston, MD, Biology major in college, Physician, Agree

To suggest that Darwin's "Theory" is the foundation for instruction in life's origin is to ignore the basis of scientific hypothesis and theory itself. It should be required to balance this unscientific approach to life's origins with other explanations such as intelligent design in order to teach science students to think critically of such processes.

81. Tim Wilkinson, Ph.D., Political Science, Professor, Disagree

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

The perspective that only biological macro-evolution should be taught in Ohio's public schools is intellectually dishonest. An increasing number of scientists and thinkers believe that other theories should be taught because much of the scientific data does not support the theory of macro-evolution. It is ridiculous for science teachers to present macro-evolution as if it has been proven. A balanced perspective should be taught to students. At the very least, students should be exposed to the intelligent design perspective in addition to the macro-evolutionary view. We do not live in the Soviet Union. We should not propagandize students with the reigning Darwinist orthodoxy. Rather, free inquiry is open to all perspectives. Present the facts, with various interpretations of those facts, and then let the students form their own opinions.

82. Joseph Yavornitzky, DDS, Dentistry, Professor, Human Anatomy & Physiology, Disagree

83. Henry Zuill, PhD, Biology, Biology professor retired, Agree

I am in substantial agreement with the modifications given, but I find that the last modification, Grade 12, Life Sciences #15, page 89, is too vague when "another mechanism" is given as a cause of change.

May I suggest that ecosystems appear designed because of ecological interdependence, and it is this that causes ecosystems to change whenever the other given changes occur. May I also suggest that ecosystems change when species are subtracted, as well as when added.

As written, it appears that ID, climate change, or new species, whenever they are inserted into ecosystems, induce change. I'm suggesting that ecosystem changes occur because of designed ecological interdependence responding to climate change or the addition or subtraction of species due to migration or (micro)evolution.

What do you mean when you say that ID, along with climate change and additional species due to migration and evolution, bring about ecosystem change?

84 Mustafa Akyol, MS, Political Science, Agree

I agree that the proposed Modifications to the Draft of the Science Academic Content Standards for Ohio should be realized. By deciding so, the State of Ohio will acquire a vanguard position in the paradigm shift that taking in contemporary science. The naturalistic philosophy has been masquerading itself as science itself since the 19th century. Darwinism has been the core of this great misconception. Now, thanks to the developments in many fields of life sciences, and the brave scientists who had the privilege to represent them to the public and to say that "The King is Naked", the Darwinist dogma is on the brink of collapse. As one of the great thinkers of our age, Thomas Kuhn, observed, such great revolutions in science realize despite a great resistance by the establishment, but eventually they do realize. The proposal to modify the textbooks in order to make them fit the realities of science seems to be an important step in this process. I hope it will realize and be an example for other states in the US and other countries in the world.

85. Galen Alexander, Disagree,

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

As someone brought up in the Christian faith, I accept, without reservation, that the Holy Scriptures are a profound and undeniable truth which explains the creation of the Universe and God's relationship with his creation, Mankind. Likewise, I can not ignore emperical evidence of dinosaurs and other life now long extinct.

Creationism, "Intelligent Design", or what ever you choose to call it, does nothing to discount prehistoric life. Events portrayed in religious texts and drawings from far flung portions of the world (almost identical in theme) from peoples who could not have had knowledge of other cultures indeed provide accounts of cataclysmic circumstances which, in perhaps a simplistic fashion, explain(s) the extinction of numerous species.

What Darwinian theory or thinking can not explain or demonstrate is how something can be made from nothing or, how something can evolve over time into something unrecognizable from its previous form. What was recognizable as a pig 250 million years ago remains today a pig though its form and habits have changed due to enviornmental adaptations. Fossil evidence exists of fish, whales, sharks, birds, snakes, mammals, etc., hundreds of millions of years old. Those species who survived or adapted to environmental catastrophy(s)are easily recognized from their ancestors. Some remain unchanged in any significant manner over eons of time.

Further, what evolution can not explain or demonstrate are the missing links in the chain of evolution which apply not only to the human species. Evolution would have us believe that humans evolved from apes. Modern science suggests that the DNA structure of apes is close to that of humans. I'm certain that with DNA being the building block of existance we could likewise find DNA similarities with other species.

Similar does not mean the same!

Scientists and acheologists have tried to prove or disprove scriptural accounts of history only to find in their attempts that Biblical (even ledgendary) renditions of events and places have a basis in fact.

Creationism and Evolution need be discussed in the same forum with a healthy respect and scrutiny of both. Each, in thier own way fill some gaps in our knowledge and provide a reason for our existance. The State in its education of our children has no right nor any reason to destroy thousands of years of established faith based on factual historical accounts to adopt a theory established only a hundred years or so which remains to this day unproveable.

86. Augusta Allen, MBA, Consultant, Economic Development, Agree

87. Nelson Alonso, BS, Student, Biochemistry, Agree

88. Susan Anderson, MBA, Business, Music Director, Agree

I believe that the proposed modifications to the Ohio Life Science Standards contribute to the Education Depaartment's desire to see good science taught in our schools. I support the proposed modifications because they honestly acknowledge that scientists do not always agree, particularly in theories related to origins of life. In order for Ohio's students to gain real

89. Chad Armbruster, BS, Political Science, Self Employed, Agree

90. Mike Arnett, M.S. Colonel, USAF, Operations Research, Agree

To dismiss the proposed modifications out of hand very subtly teaches that some scientific dogma are exempt from scrutiny using the Scientific Method. The State of Ohio should practice what it preaches (teaches) and apply the steps that say, "First, form a hypothesis. Second, test it."

91. Peg Ballou, B.S., Nursing, Mother, Disagree,

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

I disagree with the teaching solely of evolution in the area of life origins to the exclusion of other theorie which does not present a balanced education when so much evidence is out there for alternative methods. Sudden life form stata in fossil layers, explosions of new forms in various layers and the absolute failure of any slowly mutating variations in between are simply a few. Even solid evolutionists are beginning to rethink their views, so why would we subject impressionable students in "public" schools to a limited sphere of thought?

I submit that we present all the evidence to the students, and allow them to make up their own minds. Isn't this what the liberal education is all about?

92. No Permission, Agree

Growing up in the public school system and believing that everything I was taught in both high school and college was "fact" I never heard any other view until I was an adult. It is only a theory and yet is is taught as a truth. My oldest son's textbook states at the beginning the differing theories of our world, and yet the entire book is presented from an evolutionary point of view as if it is fact. I would much prefer that these modifications be incorporated into the Science curriculum, so that those reading are able to decide for themselves.

93. James Bardeen, MS, Environmental Management, Human Resources, Agree

Students need to be aware of the fact that there are many theories on the origin of life and the universe. The education systems' task ought to be, to provide students with knowledge of a few of different theories. Until there is a scientific law of our origins, there should be an even platform for the various theories.

94. Gary Barnes, A.B., Theology, Minister, Agree

It is a detriment to education to continue the crippling of young minds.

95. Dennis Baumann, A.B., History, Retired, Agree

The proposed modifications will lend credibility to the standards because they more fairly represent methods for evaluating each of the hypotheses.

In addition, the modifications more adquately represent accepted scientific standards for evaluation.

96. Linda Beck, BA, International Studies of Western Europe, Agree

I agree that the proposed Science Standards seem reasonable at first glance, however they perpetuate some fairly serious assumptions that have become commonplace in the current culture (such as when ideas that are still technically theories are prematurely regarded as fact). Some of these assumptions actually work against a truly scientific approach by setting unnecessary "rules of the game" that limit the scope of scientific inquiry or override it altogether. My fear is that in our great efforts to "keep religion out of the science classroom" (which I agree with wholeheartedly), we are also inadvertently teaching that it is fine to operate under prejudice and to not question.

97. April Beck, Student, Agree

98. No Permission, Electrician, Technical School, Physics, Agree

99. Connie Beck, LPN, Biology, Agree

I feel that Origin science should teach all theories equally and evolotion not as fact but theory. Let's be fair! Put everything on the table and let those in the classes come to their own conclusion. What are our schools and government officials afraid of?

100. No Permission, B.S., Biology, Teacher, Agree

101. David Bible, M.S., Biology, Business Owner, Disagree

The problem with modifying the Ohio Science Standards to include Intelligent Design is basically one of dissembling on the part of the supporters of Intelligent Design.

Their credibility should be seriously questioned.

First of all, they misuse the word theory. Scientifically, theory is used as the best explanation for the observations and data.

The Theory of Evolution based on the observations, experiments concerning the diversity of life. It is used to make predictions that are experimentally verified.

Teaching theories that provide explanations for biological diversity other than in a historical note is a waste of time.

Lamarcks theory was disproved years ago. Mendel's work in genetics is one of the bases supporting evolution, Paley is basically creationism/intelligent design.

Behe's theory of Intelligent Design is simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

I would suggest that the board members read through, Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller for an excellent critique of Behe's ideas.

The real problem with Intelligent Design that it has no scientific basis.

Science does not have the technology to measure the effect of an intelligent designer. It cannot prove or disprove an intelligent designer. This makes intelligent design a guess rather than a theory that provides a reasonable scientific explanation of biological diversity.

This suggested modification would introduce, into a science class, the teaching of religion, which is not the purpose of science class.

Materialism in science is not a bad thing. It is all science can measure. To give anything that proposes that there is a non-materialism, supernatural explanation is simply not science and has no place in a science class.

Although there are people that use science to prove there is no God, there is nothing about science that disproves any person's religious beliefs other than the belief that the Genesis creation story cannot be taken literally.

There is no need to object to scientific discoveries that clearly explains biological diversity.

An interesting comment, from a religious perspective about science, is that science only discovers what God created. If Science has discovered evolution, there is no reason to invoke the need of a creator or intelligent designer.

Please vote against the modifications of the Science Standards. The modifications have nothing to do with science and everything to do with teaching religion/non-science in a science class.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Bible

102. Karl Birti, B.S., Engineering, Project Manager, Agree

I think a more balanced curriculum should be presented to students on the topic of the origins of life. There are many theories on this topic. One of the important aspects of education is to develop students critical thinking skills. Present the multiple theories on the origins of life and let the students decide for themselves. Therefore, I support the proposed modifications to include the theory for intelligent design.

103. No Permission, BS, Elementary Education, Former Teacher and School Board Member, Agree

104. No Permission, Agree,

I think this is a wonderful idea. It would be nice for school kids to be allowed to hear all sides and to then decide for themselves which one they want to believe in, rather than only giving them one option.

105. No Permission, B.S., Journalism, Librarian Assistant, Disagree

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

I feel that design concepts as well as evolution should be presented in Ohio science classes to give students a balanced view of life science.

106. Linda Boutet, Marketing Director, Disagree,

For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

With regard to Life Science, I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting all evidence, including design hypothesis.

I reside in Hamilton County.

107. David Bradbury, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Regional Manager, Agree

For 20 years after serving in the Navy and graduating from the University of Michigan in 1949, I was a convinced and outspoken supporter of biological (macro) evolution.

In the early 70's I encountered a startling challenge by Dr. John J. Grebe, then Director of Research for Dow Chemical Co. Before the Texas State School Bd. he made a public offer of $1,000 ($10,000 in today's dollars) to anyone (Bd. Member or supporting scientist) who could offer even a single example of scientific evidence, or mathematical analysis, sufficient to elevate (macro)evolution to the status of scientific theory.

Like many, I set out to collect this easy money. I truly wanted to embarrass, and put an end to, such reckless challenges to what I had accepted as responsible science education and respected evolutionary authorities.

Within only a few weeks of independent examination of the classic references then (and still) cited as providing a scientific basis for the concept, I found myself compelled to acknowledge that Dr. Grebe's money perhaps wasn't in as much danger as I had initially presumed.

There was no verifiable, repeatable, empirical evidence anywhere then (or even today) as required to elevate the fascinating concept of evolution to the compelling status of valid 'theory'. ALL the claims responsible for the on-going controversy are but unverifiable 'interpretations', 'extrapolations' or 'deductions' going beyond the evidence being observed. With a little clear thinking it becomes increasingly apparent that upwards of 90% of all current disagreement in this controversy is due more to careless, or slippery, semantics than to actual scientific differences.

Evolutionary textbooks invariably introduce 'science' as being based on empirical criteria (physical observations and experimental confirmation. Unfortunately, they do NOT go on to apply this criteria to the concept of evolution itself.

Much the same problem exists with similarly imprecise, vague and frequently misunderstood meanings for other key terms as 'evolution', 'religion', 'theory', etc. within these texts.

A properly precise glossary definition of terms -- and the faithful use of these definitions throughout our textbooks is a reasonable and non-controversial recommendation -- and is pretty much all that is being proposed in the modifications proposed.

P.S. This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or does) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public.

David A. Bradbury 1/28/02

108. Frank Brown, BBA, Airline Pilot and Business Owner, Agree

I FEEL THAT SCIENCE SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ALL THE THEORIES & HIPOTHESIS ON UNPROVEN SUBJECTS OF IMPORTANCE WOULD BE PRESENTED & DISCUSSED.

109. No Permission, B.S., Art Education, Principal,

110. Lee Bulls, M.A., Religion, Minister, Agree

111. Laurie, Calvert, B.J., Journalism, English Teacher, Agee

I wholeheartedly agree with the Standards because they take the bias out of the teaching of science. At last, we look at the causes of life and it's complexity without philisophical or religious a priori assumptions!

112. Chris Canzurlo, BBA, Computer Science and Management, Computer Analyst, Agree

113. Kathleen Capretta, BBA, Business Administration, Homemaker, Agree

114. Glyn Carpenter, Master Devinity, Counseling and Theology, Information Technology Business, Agree

At the heart of this issue seems to be the question of "integrity". Intelligent Design is as "scientific" as what is commonly termed "evolution". Conversely, "evolution" based on the assumption of philosphical naturalism, is no less a belief system with religious implications, than IDT. Why should science assume philosophical naturalism? Instead, surely it's better, (plus there must be more integrity), in following the scientific method, without being restricted to allowing only naturalistic explanations, and see where the evidence leads.

115. Kari Carpenter, BA, Literature/English, Teacher at home, Agree

Today is January 24,2002. The comment section on the ODE website is already closed in order to "collect the data." I am disappointed, as I only just received info on this today. But I read the suggested modifications listed on this site, and I agree with them. Changes should have been made 20 years ago to texts in order to include the possibility of an intelligent design theory.

It enrages me that there is no inclusion of it as another possibility.

116. Angel Carpenter, Housewife, Home School Mom, Disagree

As a God fearing woman and mother I feel that these new science standards and modifications are unacceptable. If my children were in the public school system I would not want this being taught to my children. As a home schooling mom I would not teach this to my children due to the fact that we are Christians and beleive that the Lord our God created the earth and everything on it, including the human race.

117. Pamela Case, Office Administrator, Disagree,

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

I have strongly question issue #21 and #22 on the Life Science section for the 10th grade. Strictly teaching evolution is becoming less and less appropriate as other equally compelling theories such as the design hypothesis are raising dramatic scientific questions to the Darwin, Mendel and Larmarck theories.

118. Joy Chaney, B.S., Computer INformation Systems, Systems Engineer, Agree

The State of Ohio needs to teach all theories of our origin equally. To do otherwise is to promote one theory over another. In promoting one theory over another, you are forcing a belief system onto the student rather than allowing them to study all of the theories and make their own decisions as to what they believe. How unscientific is that course of action?

While participating in science fair as a young student I was taught to gather ALL data equally and to weigh the evidence without bias in order to come to an objective and scientific conclusion. To do otherwise is to taint the data and skew the results.

The logical and scientific approach should allow all theories, including evolution theory and design theory, to be taught side by side. Comparing and contrasting the theories in an unbiased, intelligent, and logical manner. This would fit into the Life Sciences Standards for Ohio, since evolution would still be taught and mentioned by name right alongside design theory.

Students would be taught and tested on both theories, and experiments could be conducted in the class to test the theories. There is no logical reason that both theories can not be taught to students. The theories are unique enough that students would be able to differentiate between them.

Many well respected scientists including Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, and Stephen Hawking have all stated cases and/or belief in the design theory. To ignore design theory is to throw out and ignore the experiments, thinking and teaching of the three most brilliant minds of the 20th century.

In conclusion I would respectfully suggest that to teach evolution alone to our students is to limit their scientific devolopment. It will inhibit their free thought and analytical skills. It will arrest the imagination and quest for higher thought. That in turn will weaken the future of science as a whole by producing an entire generation of scientists who lack the skills necessary to objectively evaluate evidence. The greatest learning will come by presenting multiple theories, and allowing free thought and science to thrive.

119. Jeff Colborn, B.S., Business, Materials Manager, Disagree

120. No Permission, B.S., Allied Health Professions, Occupational Therapist,

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

Darwin's theories and concepts should not be given greater credibility than design hypotheses and concepts. Design hypotheses should be taught as equally valid theories. Testing should reflect design hypotheses to have equal validity to Darwin's and other theories.

121. Candy Collette, Homemaker/Clerk, Agree

I don't have a problem as a genreal rule with our students being taught "Darwin's Theory", only as long as the concept of creation or whatever you choose to call it is presented as well. We need to have fair and unbiased concept put before our kids in order for them to make an intelligent judgement. It is no different than asking them to check out all avenues before buying a car or making any major decesion in their lives. I strongly urge you to make sure that "all" views are given a fair and balanced place in our science education. No one "theory" should be required in order for our students to graduate. That is part of the thinking and judging process to choose for themselves what they belive. I will make sure that all of my friends know about this and that they too will make their voice known to you. I appreciate your ear and your time and consideration of my opinion.

122. Pam Cornstock, BBA, Business, Homemaker, Disagee

(For report purposes, comments are recorded "for objective origins science.")

I vote AGAINST presenting ONLY Darwinian evolution as in regard to instruction of the origin of life. I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting ALL evidence, including evidence of "design."

Darwinian evolution is not a proven fact. It is a THEORY. Evidence for all theories, including design should be presented in a neutral format to allow students to examine the evidence and reach their own conclusions.

123. No Permission, BS, International Business, Agree

The goal of education is to help students expand their thought process. Educated people have learned how to take various options into consideration and determine which one(s) are worthy of furthur study. It is only right that all the options and opinions be set forth in front of the educated student. Only in this way will students be able to take all options into consideration and, in so doing, learn to expand their minds.