News Media Icon News Media

In Ohio Darwinist Admits Plan to Burn Evolution Critics

Today some Darwinists pressed the State Board of Education in Ohio to stop teaching students about the many scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism. In the course of a discussion as to whether or not to dumb down the teaching of evolution in Ohio, it was revealed that some Darwinists are not tolerant of those with whom they disagree.
One Ohio State Board of Education member challenged Ohio State University Faculty Senate representative Jeffrey McKee with an e-mail he admitted writing. Writing about two university faculty members who are critical of Neo-Darwinism, McKee said:

“DiSilvestro, Needham have become viewed as parasitic ticks hiding in the university’s scalp, who just got exposed by a close shave. I learned in Boy Scouts to twist the ticks when taking them out, so their heads don’t get embedded in the skin. Others prefer burning them off. What fate awaits OSU’s ticks remains to be seen.”

Indeed what remains to be seen is whether McKee will twist his colleagues heads off, or just burn them out.

This reveals the mindset of so many Darwinists: they are not tolerant of those who dissent from their views. So dogmatic are they that they not only oppose the teaching of the views of scientists who dissent from Neo-Darwinism, but they refuse to co-exist with them in the university setting. So much for academic freedom and collegiality. If there were any doubts about Darwinist dogmatism, this lays them to rest.

In 2002 Ohio adopted sound, reasonable science standards:

Life Sciences Benchmark H
Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. 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.)

What could possibly be objectionable about such a standard?
Another indicator in the standards requires students to:

“Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

How horrid! Those poor students be subjected to such a requirement.
In 2004 Ohio adopted the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan.

Lesson Summary:
This lesson allows students to critically analyze five different aspects of evolutionary theory. As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together. Using library and Internet sources, groups of students will conduct background research for one of the aspects of evolution in preparation for a critical analysis discussion. Students also will listen to, and take notes on, their classmates’ critical analyses of evolution theory. Again, one wonders how anyone could object to students being subjected to a critical discussion of important scientific concepts?

Thankfully, the Ohio board did not give in to pressure to dumb down the teaching of evolution. The Critical Analysis of Evolution model plan remains in place and students in Ohio will continue to learn about evolution in a non-dogmatic, and objective manner which helps them form the critical thinking skills necessary to train as good scientists in the United States.

Robert Crowther, II

Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and 20 years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist. From 1994-2000 he was the Director of Public and Media Relations for Discovery Institute overseeing most aspects of communications for each of the Institute's major programs. In addition to handling public and media relations he managed the Institute's first three books to press, Justice Matters by Roberta Katz, Speaking of George Gilder edited by Frank Gregorsky, and The End of Money by Richard Rahn.