Our Position Statement

  School boards can take four approaches when trying to resolve, the scientific controversy over the issue of origins and the development of species.
  1. Eliminate all references to origins and development of species from all testing. Neither Evolutionism or creation science would be tested for.

Teach the Controversy.  Dr.  Robert Lattimer, of the Ohio Science Writing team defines "teach the controversy" this way:

This calls for (a) presenting evidence for and against evolution, (b) adopting a definition of science that allows for consideration of all logical explanations for natural phenomena, and (c) permitting, but not requiring, teachers to discuss alternative theories (such as intelligent design). Since this approach does not mandate the inclusion of intelligent design, proponents for "teach the controversy" are not in principle opposed to the wording used in the OCS petition. Yet we certainly do not advocate an "evolution only" position on the science standards.

This option promotes academic freedom, critical thinking and a philosophically unbiased approach toward the interpretation of the observable evidence.

  3. Allow the teaching of creation science along side of the theory of evolution. There are ways to do this that strictly limit the theistic content. (1) Most Americans favor this option over all the others. (2)
  4. Remove evolutionism and teach only creation science. While this was once the practice of our country, and clearly was the intent of our founding fathers, it is the most difficult option of the four to implement today.

Our First Choice

Although most Americans favor option #3 (teach creation science along side of evolutionism), this is not what we are suggesting be done in Ohio at this time. We favor as our first choice option #2 (eliminating censorship of opposing scientific evidence). There are several reasons why we believe this to be the best option for now.

The scientific evidence for evolutionism is very weak. There is also considerable disagreement among evolutionists themselves about evolutionism (3) In spite of their frequent attempts to downplay the seriousness of these differences, they are indeed major ones.

Censoring the scientific evidence against evolutionism is a disservice to our Ohio students who deserve the best scientific education possible. We believe that the scientific evidence that allegedly supports evolution as well as the scientific evidence against it should be presented in an even handed, fair manner. Once this is done, in time, we suspect that most students will realize that the current theory of evolution presented in most text books is based primarily on the philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism, not scientific principals.

This option could satisfy parents, teachers, students school boards and groups such as the ACLU, because it is completely void of theistic content. After all, who really wants to take the side of arguing against academic freedom, critical thinking and teaching students how to think instead of what to think. We suspect that once board members and others have seen clear examples of the kind of good scientific evidence that actually exists to refute evolutionism (like what's in the book Refuting Evolution, which was given to the Ohio State Board of Education in 2000), that this is something they could feel comfortable supporting.

It is important when discussing this option to make a distinction between what is being taught in the curriculum and what is being mandated in testing. It is our position that the theory of evolution should be taught, warts and all, in the curriculum, but that it should not be mandated in any testing unless it is done in the balanced way we are recommending.

However, having said that, we strongly encourage students, Christian or otherwise, to study the theory of evolution (assuming that opposing scientific evidence is not censored) so that they can determine for themselves how weak/strong the evidence for it is. Christian students, as well as students with different or no religious convictions will benefit from this, as they gain a better understanding of the philosophy, ideology, and ultimately the humanist world view behind evolutionism. People who have adequately studied the controversy are in a much stronger position to refute evolutionism on scientific grounds. We feel that many progressive creationists, theistic evolutionists, day-age theorists and "gap" theorists would reverse their positions once they had the opportunity to receive, via an excellent and objective science education, the weak evidence for evolutionism, and an old earth.

If evolutionism is completely removed from the curriculum, it will still be in the minds and world views of those students and teachers who've already been taught it by a perceived authority, (teacher , professor) that evolution is a fact. It will still be in the minds of those Christians who've been deceived by it. To deprogram those who've been indoctrinated by years of evolutionism dogma requires explaining to them what's wrong with evolutionism from a scientific perspective, and letting them conclude on their own that it is not a valid scientific theory. Therefore, we would not favor at this time the censoring of any of the scientific evidence for or against evolution in the public schools.  We believe evolutionary dogma will always loose in a fair debate where only objective scientific evidence is presented.  Having said this, we think that those parents who object to having their children exposed to evolution on religious grounds should have the option to have their children opt-out on religious grounds in both the classroom and on testing.  

Our Second Choice

If for some reason the Ohio Board of Education (OBE) is unwilling to allow the opposing scientific evidence against evolutionism into the curriculum and testing standards, then we would have to insist that virtually all references to origins in the science curriculum and testing be completely removed. As things stand today, the children of Ohio are a captive audience to the high priests of evolutionism who insist on force-feeding them an atheistic, humanistic world view of origins that is rooted in the philosophies of naturalism and materialism. In spite of evolutionists claims to the contrary, it is being presented as "fact", not as a true "scientific theory". There is also little if any opportunity within the curriculum for the presentation of opposing scientific evidence. Not only is this bad science (because it forces a philosophical bias on the students instead of letting the evidence speak for itself), but it is also an affront to those who hold deep religious beliefs that are in direct conflict with naturalism/materialism explanation of origins.

Recommended contacts

School board members who are sincerely concerned about trying to find ways to teach the theory of evolution in a more balanced manner have expert help available to them. We recommend that they contact the following organizations for assistance:

For help in "wording" standards, proficiencies, etc., contact:

Institute for Creation Research
Answers in Genesis Ministries International

For possible free legal advice on whether your proposed wording is legal, contact:

American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)
Christian Law Association
Alliance Defense Fund

1. See Teaching Creation science and Evolution side-by-side.
2. See 50 surveys on creation science vs. evolutionism and 81% of Americans favor teaching creation science in the public schools for evidence of this preference by Americans.
3. See A House Divided.
Contact us   Home