A college newspaper in Massachusetts reports on a talk by Darwinist biologist Kenneth Miller and rewrites history in the process:

In 2002, Miller joined a debate in Ohio, where the theory of “intelligent design” was almost incorporated into education. As a result of the efforts of Miller and other scientists, the school board voted 15 to 0 in favor of prohibiting the teaching of “intelligent design.”

If Prof. Miller supplied the information for the above statement, he appears to have entered some kind of alternative universe. Members of the Ohio State Board of Education did not ban the teaching of intelligent design in 2002. Instead, they adopted the following benchmark for student learning: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)” As the wording of the Ohio benchmark makes clear, the Ohio Board declined to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. It did not prohibit the teaching of design. There is a huge difference between declining to mandate something and affirmatively prohibiting it. At the same time, the Ohio Board did require every student to be able to “describe how scientists continue to… critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” This requirement produced the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” model lesson plan adopted by the Ohio Board in 2004 over stiff opposition by Darwinists. Ironically, by requiring students to know about scientific criticisms of evolution but refusing to mandate the teaching of design, the Ohio Board was following the recommendation of Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer, not Darwinists like Ken Miller. It was Meyer who proposed that the Ohio Board require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, but not require them to learn about design theory.