Ohio Misgivings

Chris,

But in the hypothetical Ohio case, evolution defenders would have had to show how a lesson plan which does not directly mention ID nevertheless springs from the advocacy of the ID movement, and thus has religious inspirations.

I agree with you that it would be tougher than the Dover case, but there was a lengthy paper trail showing the Discovery Institute's involvement in the case, religious statements by several members of the board, and of course the "challenges" themselves, which were right out of Jon Wells' "Icons of Evolution". I noted also that again, this ain't the end of things, but I'm happy they've at least saved Ohio taxpayers the time and cost of a trial.

True, but a case like this really opens the door for some conservative judge to say, let's just focus on the substance of the policy, rather than its origins....in which case, you lose.

Chris, I agree, but in the end the goal is to purge from the public educational systems those conditions that foster the introduction of non-science into the science classroom. The Ohio BOE decision has done that. But, at the same time, we should be under no illusions that schools will magically avoid teaching ID/creationism or other unscientific beliefs. Even though the erstwhile Ohio standards had not become official and are now history, at least for now, the Ohio ACLU just sent a letter to the Toledo Board of Education requesting that their teachers cease and desist from teaching religious doctrine (my language, not the ACLU's) in science classrooms. It seems that per a well-researched article in the Toledo Blade significant numbers of classroom science teachers were teaching ID/creationism. Surpise! During my years in science eductional publishing I encountered large numbers of teachers, even in the suburbs of major metropolitan centers in the Northeast, who taught creationism openly, creationism mixed with evolution, or avoided both topics altogether. There is still room for enormous progress, if we can muster the political will.

Shouldn't the fact that evolution was singled out for "critical analysis" be a salient point in evaluating the substance of the policy? If this were really just an innocent attempt at good pedagogy, why not incorporate it across the entire science curriculum? (History too, while we're at it? Grammar, perhaps?)

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like there's a relevant pattern there that speaks at least to likely effects (and probably also to intent).

Why don't we declare Mission Accomplished and hold a big press conference in the Grand Canyon? The other side is mostly just sound and fury, maybe if we made more the press might actually get interested and LEARN something about the issues?

I think cases like this may be easier to win than one might suspect, even in front of a hard core conservative. Bear in mind Justice Scalia's words in his 1987 dissent in the Aguillard v. Edwards concerning the motivation of the Louisiana state legislators who had voted for a law mandating the 'balanced treatment' of Creationism:

"The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be."

Given the absolute mess that the DI folk have made of their PR strategy and the backgrounds of the sorts people who are usually behind 'Teach the Controversy' programs, it would seem to be almost impossible to mount a convincing case for a sincerely held secular purpose for any lesson plan that singled out evolution for criticism.

Chris,
But in the hypothetical Ohio case, evolution defenders would have had to show how a lesson plan which does not directly mention ID nevertheless springs from the advocacy
of the ID movement, and thus has religious inspirations.

I you look at the Lemon Test, the new curriculm has to pass all three prongs of the test. It clearly fails the first one, that is, does it have a clear bona fide secular purpose. By only challenging evolution, it would clearly fail. Here is a good link to explain it.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx

I disagree with Dior and Ken. A "critical analysis of evolution" that makes no mention of ID or Creationism could have a clear secular purpose. For instance, in the Selman v. Cobb County decision, Judge Cooper said:

"Based on the evidence before this Court at the summary judgment stage, the Court ruled that the School Board did not act with the purpose of promoting or advancing religion in placing the Sticker in the science textbooks. To the contrary, the Court found that the School Board sought to advance two secular purposes. First, the School Board sought to encourage students to engage in critical thinking as it relates to theories of origin. Second, given the movement in Cobb County to strengthen teaching on evolution and to make it a mandatory part of the curriculum, the School Board adopted the sticker to reduce offense to those students and parent whose personal beliefs might conflict with teaching on evolution. The Court was satisfied on summary judgment that these two purposes were secular and not a sham."

In the Dover case, where ID was mentioned, the ID Policy failed the purpose prong. In the Selman case, it passed the purpose prong. Chris Mooney is right in fearing a legal battle on a "critical analysis" policy. If a previous judge can be convinced that it has a secular purpose, another judge can be convinced again.

I agree that "a critical analysis" of evolution can (and should) have a secular purpose: all science deserves to be critically analyzed, especially at the level of high school biology. That's where, at least in theory, we're supposed to be training young minds to ask questions, to take existing scientific theories to the next level.

Evolution, just like many other well-established scientific theories, is inarguably correct in its basis premises. But that doesn't mean that it is fully understood in its implications, or without room for expansion and improvement in its formulation.

The problem with the Ohio curriculum is not that it challenged students to critically analyze evolution, it is that it asked them to critically analyze only evolution. Unfortunately, I think this is a distinction that is being overlooked most of the time.

There's another aspect. Almost certainly, the entity being sued would have been some local district in Vinton County or Holmes County or Coshocton County who took the Board's "critical analysis" BS to mean it's OK to teach creationism, and would have been nuked as Dover was.

In my remarks to the Board in January I referred to that as a "Dover trap" set for local districts by the State BOE. Father Michael Cochran talked big about "Let 'em sue us", but that's easy to say when he's not the one who'd pay the plaintiffs' legal bills as Dover will.

And in any case, as Tara said, the paper trail was very clear, especially after we analyzed the documents obtained from ODE by Americans United. A whole lof of material relevant to the Lemon "effect" prong was very clear in public comments emailed to the board, and the "intent" prong was clear in the public remarks and correspondence of Board Members and those with whom they are associated over the last couple of years. Discovery would have been great fun, since the AU documents provided so many potentially fruitful trails to follow up on.

Chris,

You have not been briefed on many of the details that would have come out if this had gone to trial in Ohio. The statements of intent by board members were not as colorful as in Dover, but the intent was just as clear & remember that it started here as a "two-model" evo-ID proposal & the label changed to "critical-analysis" in the course of the affair. Lots of pro-science people are disappointed that it won't be going to trial as it would have been an excellent case for documenting the ID => crit-analysis name change.

Also, remember that the FTE "transitional form" drafts were not even suspected when the Dover action began. There's no telling WHAT might have come out in Ohio if this had gone into discovery.

Me, I'm just glad my home state will be saved the embarrassment of a monkey trial.