Deborah Owens Fink - CNN interview

Deborah Owens Fink - CNN interview
Two members of the Ohio State Board of Education now join me. They're on obviously differing sides of this debate. Joining us tonight from Cleveland, Robin Hovis, who voted to throw out the state guidelines, critical of evolution. Deborah Owens Fink, who voted in favor of those teaching rules. Thanks for being with us. (1/12/06)

DEBORAH OWENS FINK, OHIO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Thank you.

ROBIN HOVIS, OHIO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Good evening.

DOBBS: Let me begin first, if I may with you, Deborah. Is this really about just teaching religion in public schools?

OWENS FINK: Let me just be really clear that what we did in Ohio was the correct strategy, which is to have students critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. Merely looking at five aspects that are really debated within the scientific community.

We did not mandate specifically say, we do not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design, that was never our intent. And indeed what we're doing is good science.

DOBBS: So in point of fact what you're saying is, apply critical judgment, as any scientist would, any reasonable, logical, person would, to the science of evolutionary theory.

OWENS FINK: That's correct. And all of our resources, we give to students are from indeed scientific journals, like zoology and nature, and that's very different from what they did in Dover. I'm not familiar with the book "Pandas and People," but that's not a scientific journal.

We're having students debate those same discussions that are debated within the scientific community itself, very specifically, not about evolution in general but very specific aspects of it.

DOBBS: Rob Hovis, that sounds like an intelligent, if I may use the expression, approach.

HOVIS: It does. Scientists analyze the theory of evolution every day. There's no argument with that. The controversy arises when we try to confuse high school students about what science is by introducing non-scientific, faith-based concepts in science class.

DOBBS: All right now, where is there in this language the suggestion that it would be all right to introduce, for example, is applying critical judgment to evolutionary theory in Ohio, that you could introduce a religious explanation for the origin of species or the origin of life.

HOVIS: The five subheadings in the lesson plan "Critical Analysis of Evolution" come directly from four different books that have been written by known advocates of intelligent design.

DOBBS: And are they required as adjuncts to the curriculum?

HOVIS: Well, they form the body of the lesson plan, the five subheadings.

DOBBS: Well, that's troubling, Deborah. That sounds a little bit like intelligent design, doesn't it?

OWENS FINK: It is not intelligent design. We are asking students to look at articles such as "Limits to Knowledge of the Fossil Record." We're asking students to look at "Scientific America," "Uprooting the Tree of Life."

Mr. Hovis has evidently, not himself perhaps read this lesson, but we're asking students to look at things such as macro-evolution is more than repeated rounds of micro-evolution.

And let me emphasize too, our student are learning an awful lot about evolution. We have 10 contest turns (ph) on evolution and our standards got an "A minus" from quality counts and a "B" from Fordham. And the evolution got a three out of three.

Last time Fordham did this, they gave us an "F." You know why? Because we didn't use the word "evolution." The challenge is not what to teach but how it's taught.

DOBBS: Well, Rob, do you agree with that? It seems to me in any classroom, inspired teachers seeking to stimulate their students, should examine evolution, quantum-physics, critically. And to look at all of the changes and the evolution, if you will, of our knowledge. Does that make some sense?

HOVIS: The statement you just made makes sense, but the fingerprints of intelligent design are all over this lesson plan. Back through the paper trail, it leads right back to the earliest versions, which were submitted originally by the writing team, which contained in its bibliography, references to creationist Web sites and books from the Discovery Institute and known advocates of intelligent design.

There is no argument with bringing in scientifically-based challenges to any scientific theory. But intelligent design has been found by the courts not to be science. It is religion.

DOBBS: And religion, Deborah, Rob, let me ask you both as we are running out of time here. What would be wrong with teaching religion in our public schools?

OWENS FINK: I'm not an advocate for teaching religion in our schools. To be very honest, I'm a mother of four, my kids attend public school, I don't want the classroom, the public school classroom to teach my children religion.

DOBBS: When I say teach religion, let me back up and talk about comparative religion.

OWENS FINK: In a philosophy class that would be appropriate but certainly not in science.

DOBBS: How about you, Rob?

HOVIS: Dr. Owens Fink and I agree on that. I'm a Christian believer myself. And I think that American teenagers need more religion in their lives, not less. But it does not further that agenda to introduce non-scientific subject matter into science class and confuse them about what science is at a time when our country should be worried about its competitive position in the world economy. We need to be strengthening the integrity of our science education, not weakening it.

OWENS FINK: And that's exactly why students should learn to critically analyze every subject, particularly one that's taught so dogmatically.

DOBBS: Deborah Owens Fink, you got the last word. Robert Hovis, we thank you being with us. The Ohio State Board of Education well served by both of you. We thank you very much for being here tonight.

OWENS FINK: Thank you.

HOVIS: Thank you.