Speaker right to keep science standards with school board

In declining to have the Ohio House debate whether so-called & quot;intelligent design & quot; should be part of the state's public school science curriculum, Speaker Larry Householder has chosen a sensible and logical approach to a controversy that is roiling the educational world. Householder's throwing the hot-potato issue back to the State Board of Education was a smart move. Now, we can hope that the board handles the issue as wisely.
At issue is whether the state's science standards should include & quot;intelligent design, & quot; a faith-based approach to life's origins, along with the accepted body of knowledge that constitutes the understanding of science around the world. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that creationism -- based on a literal interpretation of the Bible cannot be taught in public schools. Intelligent design, steps to the side of a strict biblical viewpoint but still maintains that that the universe had to have had an intelligent designer.
Proponents of intelligent design have backed down from their original demand which was to mandate the teaching of their ideas as the alternative to evolutionary science within the state science curriculum. Now they simply want science teachers to be allowed the opportunity to teach a point of view which has no grounding in legitimate science. To add fuel to the fire, Rep. Linda Reidelbach, R-Columbus, has introduced House Bill 481 that would require that students be taught all concepts regarding the origins of life and any surrounding controversies.
Overboard: Does she really mean that every science teacher should be schooled in every culture and religion's concept of origins and teach those beliefs in science class? Where would she draw the line?
Genetic research has proved that race has no basis in biology. Yet there are those who argue for the supremacy of the "white race." Do they deserve a seat at the science table, too?
What about those who suggest that creatures from outer space established life on earth. Do they get a piece of the science curricular pie, as well?
There are those who still maintain that American astronauts never went to the moon, that the space program is all an elaborate hoax. Their beliefs may be sincere, but do they deserve a hearing along with, say, NASA scientists?
The presidents of Ohio's 13 public universities are urging the State Board of Education to reject all challenges to Darwinian evolution in the new state science-curriculum guidelines.
In a letter to the board they state that there is no evidence to support the idea of intelligent design and that including the concept in statewide curriculum standards could undermine Ohio's economy by discouraging businesses from investing here.
We have no doubt that those members of the state school board are sincere in their beliefs. It's just that their beliefs betray a lack of understanding about current scientific knowledge and research.
They have heard from the presidents of all the state's public universities, and they have heard from their own panel of scientific experts. Like good scientists, they must accept the preponderance of the evidence.