This page is sponsored by Google Ads. ARN does not necessarily select or endorse the organizations or products advertised above.

(Indicators Only)

As of January 31, 2002

Dated February 4, 2002

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:

Respondents Engaged in Teaching and Education

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

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. Removed from web page at request of poll respondent

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 and hypothesis on unproven subjects of importance would be presented and 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.

124. No Permission, MA, Linguistics, religion and humanities, College Instructor, Agree

125. Don Covington, BA, Psychology, Management Consultant, Agree

Consistent with the newly discovered interest in honesty in science education, the proposed modifications emphasize presentation of ALL theories dealing with the origin and development of life. It is highly important that students' be given an opportunity to learn the full range of issues surrounding the teaching of biological sciences, and that they be made aware of the bias of naturalism that pervades current science education. Students should be taught that nothing in science makes sense except in the light of the evidence, and that whatever inferences are drawn from the evidence must be able to withstand the scrutiny of logic.

126. Brenda Craig, BS, Accounting, Accountant, Agree

127. Jeff Curran, MS, MBA, Sr Manager, CMS Communications, Agree

The summary of modifications was very well written. If we want our youth to be objective analysts, teaching them to explore and evaluate all potential explanations or solutions to a problem, then we need to allow for the modifications as stated in the summary.

Otherwise, whether in the science classroom or in the executive boardroom, our youth will not have been trained to consider all the viable options and therefore be trained to make myopic, ill-informed decisions.

128. Janet Dalton, A.S., Nursing, Homemaker, Agree

The Science needed to present a more balanced perspective.

129. Arthur Dalton, BS, Science, Manager, Agree

There needs to be a balance in teaching the subject of our beginning. Evolution and Intelligent Design taught together appear to a more balanced approach and more accurate.

130. Mark Darroch, BS, Biology, Student, Agree

A growing number of published scientific researchers have questions about some of the fundamental assertions of Neo Darwinian theory. It seems that in the interest of achieving the best public education possible, these reservations should at least be allowed to be discussed.

131. Roger DeHart, BS, Biology, Biology Teacher, Agree

132. George Detwiler, MAT Science, General Science, Jr/Sr. High School Science and Math Teacher, Agree

To present macroevolution as a fact is completely nonscience. It has not been proven; it cannot be proven. ALL data from All areas of science should be considered (including that data that directly contradicts evolution "science" and strongly supports the concept of intelligent design. To do otherwise is indoctrination in a religious belief (evolution). This is specifically prohibited by Supreme Court decisions. If this is not done, the matter should be challenged in court and it will be found unconstitutional.

133. Kevin Dill, B.S., Computer Science, Computer Consultant, Agree

Having studied and applied a logical science discipline, I am disturbed at how pieces of scientific observation can be applied to say that the theory of macroevolution can be construed as a proven "fact".

Many of the historic "facts" over the last millineum have been overturned by the continual application of true scientific method. With simple observations, we say that the sun "rises" in the East and "sets" in the West, and for hundreds of years, scientists asserted that the sun revolved around the earth... and yet we know that is untrue. Scientists naturally gravitate toward the most current theories because they are the only current explanations for what happens around us. However, the simplest explanation is almost never the "accurate" one.

Macroevolution has never been proven as absolute fact by evidence in a controlled setting. Only minor microevolution changes have been observed in a controlled study. To assert that macroevolution is anything other than a current theory is a deception.

The scientific viewpoint continues to change; a "truth" is never static. For hundreds of years, scientists have scoffed at the "religious" views of creation as unsubstantiated. Yet within the last few decades, scientists now believe that the entire universe came into being in a single instance and cannot explain what existed before the "Big Bang" other than a "void".

Macroevolutionists would have us believe that we can trace all current animals back through the billions of years to a few cells. However that is untrue. At best, we have fossil record "snapshots" in time. While similar attributes can be found among the snapshots, scientific evidence simply does not exist to track the "morphing" of one animal classification into another.

The proposed Modifications should be incorporated into the Life Science Standards to present an accurate representation of theories as to the "origin of life". To censor alternative theories and select only the simplest is the act of a closed, ignorant mind... something that we are trying to avoid in Ohio education.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

134. Sharon Dodds, BS, Business Administration, Administrative Assistant, Agree

I support the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting ALL evidence, including evidence of "design."

135. Tim Dodds, BS, Accounting, CPA, Agree

136. Nathan Duriga, Student, Agree,

I believe that niether evolution nor intellegent design can be considered scientifically true, since niether is testable, observable, and repeatable according to the scientific method. Therefore both should be considered philosophical or religious views and be presented equally so that each person can make their own decision.

137. Geralvn Duska-McEwen, MS, Veterinary Pathobiology, Research Scientist, Agree

Biological evolution is not the only possible explanation to our origin, and it is important for children to understand this. While the teaching of evolution is certainly appropriate, it is the exclusion of other possibilities (in particular, the exclusion of the intelligent design theory) that I find objectionable.

138. Cherilu DuVal, BA, Fine Arts, Homemaker, Agree

I agree with the modifications to the proposed Science Standards, as they make the standards agree with true science, which is based on observation and experimentation and open to change, if the evidence so indicates. Without the modifications, the Science Standards resemble dogma, not the words of scientists.

139. No Permission, BA, Philosophy, Media/Public Relations Manager, Agree

140 David Elsensohn, Graphic WEb Designer, Disagree

It is stated in the proposed modifications that there is "no viable reason to exclude" design as an alternative. However, for an idea to be worthy of inclusion within the subject, that idea should have supporting evidence. In short, the reason to include a theory should not be because there's no reason it shouldn't, but because there IS a reason it SHOULD. There should be facts and observations to support it. Until it does, the idea is relegated to philosophy and theology... not science.

141 Melanie Elsey, BS, EDucation, Teacher, agree

I have requested that the ODE present a balanced perspective on the origin of life [biological evolution and design] on the website of the ODE. The modifications proposed on this website would be appropriate.

142 John English, BS, Engineering, Engineer, No Vote

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

I believe that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools as popular theories. Wwe should aslo teach them the skills to research the issues and decide for themselves which theory is more likely true.

143. Sandy Everett, BS, Criminal Justice and Education, Reverend, Disagree

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

I don't believe that evolution should be the only proposed theory of evolution. After all it is only a theory. Please change the wording so that all theories including creation will be included and taught as theories, not fact.

144. Pam Fallara, BS, Medical Technology, Medical Technologist, Agree

I agree that since Darwinian macro-evolution is still considered a theory and has not been proven as a fact that it should not be presented as the only choice. I agree that we see micro-evolution within a species but species to species evolution has never been proven and as such there should be shown that there is another theory that can be another answer...intelligent design theory. It is just as valid and actually fits the data better. But the main issue is that macro-evolution is a theory and not proven fact and should be presented as such. Science should be based on truth and facts and theories should be stated as such.

145. Michael Farley, M.S., Biochemistry, Graduate Student, Agree

146. No Permission, BS, Physical Therapy, Physical Therapist, Agree

147. Jeffrey Folkens, BS, Education, Public School Teacher, Agree

To teach the theory of macro-evolution without teaching other worthy theories, is to represent macro-evolution as a proven fact, instead of as the theory which it is. I view macro-evolution as a teaching of the humanism movement; and I see humanism as a religion because it functions as a religion. To exclusively teach macro-evolution is a violation of my family's first amendment rights, just as the exclusive teaching of creationism would be a violation of another's rights.

148. Ronald Foster, BS, Chemistry, Research Chemist, Agree

Clearly, the suggested modifications to the Life Sciences indicators represent a dramatic improvement in the objectivity of the presentation of the subject matter. These changes simply represent better science. Regardless of an individual's theological inclinations, there is a wealth of data about life on earth that is worthy of study. To deliberately disregard a particular perspective would be a significant loss to the educational process. As a professional scientist with 20 years of industry experience, it has been my observation that more open-mindedness is needed on many scientific issues. There is often a temptation to accept data and explanations that agree with our prejudices, and ignore those that disagree. It is critical that our educational system do a better job of teaching young people to seek a thorough understanding of the data before reaching a conclusion.

149. Barbara Foster, BS, Business Administration, Accountant, Agree

It would be important to me to have evolution taught as the theory that it is, rather than fact. There are many areas of scientific study that have shown that genes can not mutate "better". And thus, that evolution is unlikely to have occurred. One article written in reference to this can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html

150. Linda Fox, BS, History, Technology Coordinator, Disagree

I consider this a blatant attempt to impose "creationism" on the schools of Ohio, and I object. All students deserve to be taught SCIENCE in science classes, not religion. There is NO ONE who promotes this point of view who is not a fundamentalist. It is another attempt to impose a "Bible-based" curriculum on the public schools, at taxpayer expense.

151. Beverly Fox, MS, Library Science, Technician Librarian, Agree

Darwin's therory of evolution includes a warning that students of evolution continue to seek proof for his theory which would prove or disprove it. The evidence collected to date does not support the macroevolution he described. why is this still presented to students a fact? I have tutored students in public school that are required to hand in worksheets with Darwinistis answers as fact. Students are being deprived of any opportunity to question Darwin's concept. Students are fully capable of comparing different ideas about prehistoric events and deciding for themselves about the evidence. Isn't this a more scientific approach - give the facts and keep an open mind about the unknowns?

152. John Frechette, BS, Plastics Engineering, Plastics Research Engineer, Disagree

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

Intelligent design should also be included. Darwinism is a theory and not a fact.

153. No Permission, Agree

154. Phil Futoran, M.Div., Bible, Pastor, Agree

As you would think it ludicrous and scientifically flawed for me to insist science be taught using only the Bible as a textbook, I believe it is the same for you to disregard scientific (including mathmatical probability) truths that seem to conflict with a pet theory (evolution). Please include these resonable modifications lest Ohio students learn, not just poor science, but faulty skills in reason and logic.

155. Christiana Gain, BS, General Liberal Arts, School Teacher, Disagree

I don't believe the proposed Science standards and modifications are in the best interests of the students.

156. Robert Garbe, BS, Registered Pharmacist, Agree,

If the public is ever to have confidence and trust in science or achedemia then they must be allowed to view both the pros and cons of the ID and evolution theories. To censure ID the most believed theory is an insult to laymen as well as scientists. Truth wins only in the arena of free thought. Censureship has always been doomed to failure or locked in repressive societies. I cant immagine why scientists who believe in evolution can't see this point unless they are afraid their reasoning is incomplete. Lay out the facts on this contriversial subject and let the data answer the question of origins.

157. Leslie Gardner, Administrative Assistant and Student, Agree

I am convinced that the modifications to the new Science Education standards proposal are correct and a balanced assessment of origin science theory.

158. No Permission, BS, Engineering, Technical Information Manager, Agree

159. Thomas Georgantis, MBA, Business/Finance, Business Program Manager, Agree

160. No Permission Gibson, Housekeeper, Agree

Darwin's Theory is just that " a Theory" it has not be proven was a fact. It should not be the only " Theory " of how the earth came into being.It should be teach that other "Theories" of the beging of time.

161. Barbara Gifford, MA, Educational Ministries, Youth Director, Disagree

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

It seems that the State would like to present Evolutionary Theory as fact. There is a huge lack of evidence to support the proposed changes. Since Evolutionary Theory, in particular Macro-evolution, lacks the support of hard physical evidence it seems the State would be supporting theory as fact (something respected scientists don't do) and therefore promoting a State religion which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States of America.

162. Constance Gleason, MS, Occupational Therapy/Neuroscience, Occupational Therapist, Agree

163. Terri Goubeaux, MST, Comprehensive Sciences, Teacher, Agree (Recorded as Disagree due to comment)

The lobbying efforts of groups like SEAO are trying to again bring the "Creation" controversy back into the classroom. The good, educated Christians in the State of Ohio will make sure that this not happen here.

164. Prudence Greve, BA, Art, Housewife and mom, Disagree

165. Joseph Guthrie, MS, Chemistry (Analytical), Senior Chemist, Agree

166. Kim Haas, RN, Nursing, Disagree

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

I disagree with the life science indicators describing evolution. I do not agree with the indicators that suggest that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life. I believe that Darwin's theory should be taught in our schools as only what it is, a theory. Our children need to be presented with all theories in order to have an opportunity to come to their own conclusions.

167. Hobson Hamilton, Jr., Master of Education, Higher Education Administration, Assistant Director, Career Service, Agree

I strongly support the modifications to the Life Science Standards for Ohio. Thanks to Deborah Owens-Fink for taking a stand on this important matter.

168. Lisa Hay, BS, CPA, Accountant, Disagree

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

The proposed Standards do not represent good science in that biological macroevolution is portrayed as a proven fact, not a theory. Biological evolution (like creationism and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. I am not opposed to the teaching of evolution as a theory, but I believe that origins science must be presented in an equal and unbiased manner.

The standards should state that some scientists support the alternative theory of intelligent design.

169. Faith Herrington, Associate Degree, Biology, Homeschooling mother, Disagree

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

I think it is sad that in our age of "tolerance", that only one area of origins is acceptable, especially when there is such a large population that disagrees, with much scientific evidence provided.

170. No Permission, MS, Education, High School Administrator, Agree

171. Amy Hess, BA, Religion/Philosophy, Internet Programmer, Agree

I recognize that I am not a degreed scientist, nor am I a PhD. However, I hope my religion/philosophy degree allows me a little authority in the area of debate and logic and philosophy in general. While I have not pursued my PhD at this point, I have continued my education informally through private study, and have a particluar interest in the area of Evolution vs Intelligent Design. I appreciate the struggle the Department of Education is making in resolving this important issue.

I would just like to send you a note of my support regarding the Intelligent Design Network's assertion that both Intelligent Design and Naturalistic Evolution have religious implications. They do indeed. There are people who claim they can completely separate "science" and "religion" and say their scientific positions have no bearing on their faith. However, we philosophers know that in general, all disciplines fade into each other. Math and Science, History, Religion, Political Science and Art all affect one another. They can not be separated into neat little boxes. The Enlightenment's philosophies affected all these disciplines, and the disciplines affected one another. You will see the same thing through different movements in history.

Religion and Science are both searches for "reality". Some areas of reality can be best understood through faith, and some can be best understood through the scientific method. However, there are places where the two disciplines overlap - where science affects religion and religion affects science. Newton and Darwin were both spiritually affected by their scientific discoveries. One particular area where religion and science begin running into each other and butting heads is the origins debate. In the area of origins, there are many questions and very little you can observe directly. Scientists are forced to INFER from the evidence and that leads to INTERPRETATION of the evidence. And you will find that interpretation is usually based on a persons... ahhh... philosophies.

If scientists are purely naturalistic in their philosophical approach to science, they will find an evolutionary explanation feasible. If the scientists do not confine themselves to naturalism, they may interpret the very same evidence in a variety of ways, including intelligent design. The scientific community has taught students that Naturalism is the only acceptable philosophy for the 'real' scientist. If in 'reality' the true explanation is indeed naturalistic, then testing will support a naturalistic explanation. However, if in 'reality' the true explanation is not a naturalistic one, then the naturalistic scientists are forcing their explanations to fit their philosophy, and not necessarily to fit un-biased observation. Naturalism itself is a philosophic viewpoint, and cannot be proved through the scientific method. This is very important to realize.

In the origins debate, scientists with different philosophic viewpoints can come to a variety of conclusions based on the same evidence. Pure observable science would not produce a variety of conclusions unless there were room for personal philosophies.

It is my opinion that students be TOLD that there are different philosophies that affect scientific explanations so that they can be aware of the differences between evidence and interpretation - and so they can be aware of the philosophies that color their own interpretations of evidence. They should know that excellent scientists exist on both sides of the origins debate, and that the issue of origins is not at all as cut and dried as those with a naturalistic bias would tell them. Both sides have something valuable to add to the debate, and both sides have true, observable science to back their conclusions.

I hope this is helpful to you. My best wishes to you all as you work to come to a decision on this matter.

Sincerely,

Amy J. Hess

172. Matthew Hexter, BS, Former Ohio Certified Educator, IT Consultant, Disagree

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

Regarding your indicators for Grade 10, they are very unbalanced in your view of evolution, specifically, indicators 2 and 19-24. As a former public school educator, the goal was to provide my students with a *balanced* view of all sides, not one that was heavily weighted to one side based on preference. Has this changed? I would therefore urge you to either remove these indicators or add additional indicators that also teach about creationism and a comparison between the two approaches.

173. Beth Hill, BS, Teacher, Agree

The State of Ohio has an obligation to its citizens to present all theories of origin in the teaching of life sciences. To do otherwise is to teach students WHAT to think rather than HOW to think. By incorporating the proposed Modifications to the Science Standards, Ohio can achieve an unbiased balance in the teaching of origins that does not favor any one theory.

174. Jami Hinson, Homemaker, Disagree

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

Teaching evolution as the only possible origin of man would be disasterous. If you do, you should also teach that the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese.

175. Steven Hodges, BS, Youth Pastor, Bible, Agree

Lies that are taught about evolution's support from science should not be taught. I do not propose creation by Jehovah God is taught, but I do propose that we stop lying about "facts" that have been known to be false for years in order to support a theory that most scientist to not even support anymore.

176. Nancy Hoffman, Operations Specialist, Agree

I believe that many theories and ideas of creation should be offered to the students. Give me all the options and I will be able to form an informed opinon. Give me one theory and it is often taken as fact which it is not.

177. Karen Housholder, BA, HCDS, History and Government, Speaker/Writer, Agree

A primary, and most essential, goal of learning is to teach students how to decipher what is factual, from that which is theory or falsehood. The proposed Science Standards fail to accomplish this. Not only do they present the theory of evolution as fact, which it is clearly not, they do not present another alternative theory. Intelligent Design is every bit as reasonable a theory as Evolution. Indeed, many think more so. Origens science is an Historical science, which cannot be verified in the laboratory by repeated testing. The criticism that Intelligent Design is not acceptable as a theory because it has not been tested and verified is thus irrelevant. The theory of evolution has never been tested or verified either. Both theories do present a reasonable explanation. The evidence for both theories should be presented, not just those in support of one or the other. In any case, most Americans want their children to be exposed to all the information. When this does not occur public schools can open themselves up to the charge that they are more interested in promoting an unproven theory than they are in equipping students with the tools they need to think for themselves.

178. Michelle Houston, BS, Education, Administrative Assistant, Agree

I strongly agree that both evolution (as a theory) and design should be taught in the public schools.

179. Michael Houston, BS, Social Work, Sales, Agree

180. Rick Howeard, BS, Business, Quality Technician in Aircraft MFG Plant, Agree

181. Stephanie Hughes, BS, Biology, Educator, Agree

From a purely philosophical standpoint, there is strength for a prime or first mover - an organized, creative, logical entity or force - that was the causal agent of dynamic complexity. If the laws of thermodynamics are viewed as laws (as of yet to be broken), one cannot assume scientifically that these forces operated any differently in any other era. The law of entropy cannot be changed from digression, or chaos, to one of building up to complexity, simply to fit a theory. There have been no actual transitional forms of living or once living organisms to place credence to the last statement of the theory of evolution, and that being adaptations by organisms for survival can give rise to a new unique and separate organism. That is not to say there are adaptations within species that give them a survival edge, but one does not find evidence of new separate species from this.

As well, similarities of design between species does not mean transition of organisms to other species. It simply means that the design is creative, worthwhile, and works. One argument, the Operin Haldane (sorry for the misspelling) model, though very specific, and to some degree successful in laboratory settings, cannot be a cogent argument for a pre-existant earth climate that is conducive to protein synthesis, to ultimately bring about the synthesis of DNA, and later, lead to higher forms of life. So, if this fails, we must look at Darwin's tennants of evolution as simply a theory. We, as explorers of science, must broaden our thinking and searching to intelligently entertain other viewpoints that can be studied, evidenced, and extrapolated on for new horizons in origins.

182. Steve Hughes, MS, Business, Real Estate, Agree

This language is very objective.

183. Ray Hunter, BS, EE, Engineer, Disagree

Theory sould be taught as theory and facts that can be proven through the scientific process should be taught as facts.

The theory of evolution as "Darwin" and followers have stated it is a THEORY. Not fact and cannot be proven. In such faith based studies it is best left this way.

184. Christopher Huseer, Business Owner, Disargee

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

I believe that we were created by our lord and father (GOD) who gave his only begotten son to save us from sin and eternal damnation and that each and every person on this planet should be allowed to come to their own conclusion. During my school years I was not given the appropriate information to be allowed to make that choice early in life. This was solely due to the fact that the only information given was Darwinism as a standard. How can we possibly expect any different outcome for the future generations of our country if we don't give them the right to choose based on all of the information. Step back and take a good look at the basis for the attack on our country today. Is it based on Christianity or Darwinism. Thank GOD for the christian leaders of our country. Please don't condem our country to a life lived as the primates did. Survival of the fittest. Allow our children the opportunity to do as God commands us to do and that is the 2nd greatest commandment of all. ( Love your neibor as you love yourself. ) Mark 12:31

185. James Elchert, BS, Business, Estimator, Agree

Regarding the "life science" portion of the State of Ohio proposed science standards at the grade 10 level, I strongly favor the state taking a constitutionally neutral stand by presenting all evidence, including evidence of "intelligent design", to Ohio students.

Thank You.

186. Tammy Jeffrey, BS, Photography, Digital imaging, Agree

Some might seem to think that modifying a few little words here and there is silly and a waste of time. But little words can change the belief structure of people. Darwin at first, had a theory. Now it is fact. Not that it is truely fact, but that it has been called fact for a couple of generations and has been accepted as fact. I have no problem changing these little words to correctly represent the truth; Darwin has a theory.

187. Celtie Johnson, Associate Degree, Chemistry/Biology, Electronics Communication Technician, Agree

Nothing is more inappropriate in science education than to censor information and suppress critical thinking and inquiry. Every scientific claim, including evolution, must welcome all challenges from alternative theories, if it wants to continue to be held up as true, i.e., for real.

If, however, the search for truth is no longer the primary goal of science, then parents, students, administrators and teachers deserve to be immediately notified.

188. No Permission, Agree

189. Jack Juron, MBA, Accounting and Finance, Real Estate Developer and Broker, Agree

In my view, the faith of creationists seems at least as reasonable as the faith of evolutionists. Meditate, for example, upon the 10 billion integrated cells in the cerebral cortex of the human brain. Darwin himself admitted drawbacks of the evolution theory in trying to explain complex organs, such as the eye. He stated that to believe that an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone. Furthermore, the kidneys contain approximately 280 miles of tubes and filter 185 quarts of water a day from the blood. The heart pumps 5,000 gallons of blood a day. It beats about 2.5 billion tiems in an average life time. And, all of these complex systems function together! Can evolution really account for all of this? An honest assessment of available information must conclude that there is powerful evidence to support the theory that the universe and all that is in it is a designed creation.

Why not teach a balanced view? It only seems reasonable.

189. Regina Kalbfell, LPN, Disagree

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

Since when do we teach an oppinion as a fact? If you are going to teach a theory, teach both sides of the theory.

190. No Permission, CEO of XXXXXXX, Ltd, Agree

191. Shaun Kapusinski, BS, Marketing, Student, Agree

If truth is what each educated individual is searching for, then it is truth we should be teaching. In the recurring event of the unknown, a bias towards one theory is not an education at all; it is an opinion. As a product of the Ohio School Board system, I am thankful to have had teachers who were not biased towards one opinion, but rather taught based on a foundation of truth and recognition of any and all possible explanations for the unknown.

192. Steven Kasiguran, BRE, Religious Education, Educational Administration, Agree

I believe that the proposed Modifications improve the scientific objectivity and academic integrity of the proposed Science Standards. The classical Darwinian viewpoint is treated fairly as theory, origins science is accurately defined as a historical discipline, and no attempt is made to direct students to any religious viewpoint.

193. Jacke Kawalec, Homemaker, Disagree

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

In regard to the life science, there are many beliefs concerning the design concepts of the beginning of life, mankind and the universe. To test children on their knowledge, when that knowlegde,in part, is based on their beliefs that are taught to them from birth is ludicrous. I strongly agree with Dr. John Calvert in his position concerning the teaching of an alternative hypothesis to evolution. This would indeed allow the State of Ohio to remain neutral.

194. No Permission, BA, MT, ASCP, Biology, Agree

195. John Keller, BS, Forest Management, Natural Resource Professional, Agree

196. Melody Klockner, BS, Nursing, Registered Nurse, Agree

I believe the proposed modifications are very valuable to achieve an unbiased view of the science of origins. The children of Ohio should be able to learn the evidence for design as well as evidence for (macro)evolution instead of being forced to assume that the THEORY of macroevolution is scientific fact. It is not, as the continuing debate between well-respected scientists on both sides of the issue shows. What better way to promote true thinking, rather than simple memorization of the content of a book, can one have? Let them see both sides and make up their own minds!

197. Samuel Knisley, MS, Mechanical Engineering, Senior Project Manager, Agree

My 7th grade daughter just completed the Science chapter on evolution at North Canton Middle School. I was disappointed in the treatment of evolution as the only possible explanation for our existence. Many of the early scientific "findings" (since disproved or significantly modified) were used in support of the theory as fact. It is obvious to the non-biased observer that Design Theory is at least equally supported by the scientific evidence (if not more so) than evolution theory. We do our students (and nation's founders) an incredible disservice to notpresent a fair and unbiased presentation of Design Theory as alternative theory to evolution.

198. Todd Koonce, BS, Business, Finance, Agree

I feel that it is ok to present evolution as a theory, but at the same time it is only fair that if evolution is going to be presented, creation should also be presented to student, leaving students with the option to choose which theory they will believe.

Thank you,

Todd Koonce

199. No Permission, MS, Physics, Graduate Student Researcher, Agree

200. Brett & Heidi Kulp, Disagree

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

The draft standards are satisfactory in most areas, but the proposals in the area of origins science exclusively support the teaching of biological evolution (Darwinism). The proposed standards are one-sided in favor of Darwinian evolution. I support the proposed modifications by the SEAO as follows; SEAO has proposed Modifications to the draft standards that would reflect (a) the wide gap between microevolution (minor genetic variation) and macroevolution (descent of all life from a single common ancestry), (b) the naturalistic (materialistic) nature of evolutionary theory, (c) the historical (tentative, unprovable) nature of origins science theories, and (d) intelligent design theory as a viable scientific alternative to Darwinism.

201. Eleni Lang, BS, Computer Science/Mathematics, Computer Programmer, Agree

I believe that in teaching Life Science all theories should be presented to the students in a completely objective manner. None of the thoeries should be presented as fact.

202. Eric Lanier, BA, Telecommunications, State of Ohio Claims Specialist, Agree

The presentation of such a discredited theory as Darwinian Evolution as fact is not intellectually sound. To present it as a theory along with other theories is reasonable. To arbitrarily exclude intelligent design theory from science education is closed-minded.

203. Richard Lanser, M.Div., Theology, Medical Technologist (microbiology), Agree

Having been trained in both the biological sciences and theology, I can give my wholehearted support to the recommendations. They do not esp