We will provide precise and complete refutations of all major ID claims, supported by and documented by legitimate working scientists and credible science organizations. Further, we will show that you could have also obtained these already existing refutations, and have either chosen not to do so, or have chosen to remain complicit in this misrepresentation.

Curtis Brickley, the primary proponent of this policy, has declared that the present practice of scientific inquiry is flawed and its practitioners conspire against those who would produce evidence "against evolution." This is an extraordinary claim and demands extraordinary evidence. Such evidence has not provided to the full board, or by you to the public.

Doug Banks has stated that "if evolution is being taught as a 'fact', we have a problem." However, you have not clearly stated why you believe that the scientific theory of evolution has been discredited, and have not presented to Darby parents and taxpayers evidence to support this assertion and thus the need for this policy. In the absence of this evidence, your actions must be unavoidably interpreted as seeking to introduce religious doctrine into our school.

Perhaps you think that the presentation and public testimony given in favor of the policy is enough to validate and justify the policy, and that you can remain passive in regards to presenting evidence. If you remain passive, the legal defensibility of this policy will then rest upon the strength of two variations of creationist argument raised against the theory of evolution in public testimony and Curtis Brickley's presentation; these are creation "science" and intelligent design.

Each of these is proposed by its apologists as a "scientific" alternative to the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, no court has ever recognized that to be the case. CS has been revealed in court for what it is, religious doctrine.

We will demonstrate that ID also is not valid scientific inquiry. It, like CS, has been fabricated by individuals and political organizations with a religious mission. The intent of ID organizations is the creation of a "lowest common denominator" version of creationism, acceptable to a maximum number of religious constituencies.

The esoteric nature of ID arguments is its strategic strength, as it is not easily critiqued except by knowledgeable scientists, and thus (as shown in the Darby debate) it can gain a great deal of political momentum that is not easily slowed by the few who recognize its claims are false. Although this has worked in the political arena, it will fail in the judicial system, where rigorous analysis replaces chaotic and ill-informed public debate.

We will demonstrate comprehensively and precisely the falsity of ID claims. ID is based on the writings of a handful of apologists; it is therefore relatively easy to analyze the actions, content and intent of each of these writers. Clear and unambiguous evidence of the artificial and false nature of ID is well documented.

A single general example (Dr. Evans' example of 26,000 new evolution articles and zero ID articles in the last 2000-2004 Nat. Inst. of Health archives) reveals yet again that ID is not to be found in legitimate science publications; we have found it mentioned only in the form of sharp dismissals. The absence of participation by ID apologists in normal scientific research, publishing, peer review and conferencing reveals the non-scientific nature of their argument, and leaves a planned imposition of religious values as the sole explanation for the activity of ID proponents, the reason behind ID, and its use in the creation of the objective origins policy.

We will demonstrate that the implementation of such a policy is designed to bring religious teachings into the public school classroom. The proposed Ohio Board of Education "Critical Analysis of Evolution" presents links to CS and ID Web sites as part of student study. This lesson plan is badly non-scientific, with false historical information, incorrect or missing footnotes, and footnotes directly from books on intelligent design, false definitions, outdated scientific information, and errors of fact.

The lesson plan wrongly defines a theory as a "supposition," whereas scientists formally define a theory as an explanation of phenomena built up from tested hypotheses. This plan was designed to permit the inclusion of ID claims, not to reflect the best science methodology. We will further show through bibliometric analysis that ID and CS both quote badly outdated information, and both ID and CS critique research errors and tentative findings that have long since been rectified; thus neither qualifies as "scientific innovation."

You are trustees of the school district's money. If you pass this policy at second reading, you will choose to risk a great deal of the district's money on opposing lawyer's fees and the costs of litigation incurred by both the district and opposing parties. If you pass the policy on second reading you will abrogate your greatest responsibility, the care of our children's education.

Your uncritical acceptance of the claims of the Rev. Brickley and the Discovery Institute demonstrate to our children the polar opposite of what you are claiming as the intent of this policy, the practice of critical thinking. There is a tremendous amount of available evidence that shows that this policy is wrongly conceived and that the arguments that it substantially rests on are gross distortions and outright lies.

As school trustees, you can exhibit due diligence and obtain this information yourselves before you give this policy final approval, or you can waste hard-earned taxpayer money to have attorneys and judges bring this evidence to you in a court of law.

Rod Miner and Martha Stomberg live in Darby.

---

Reader's Comments >>

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)   

---