Tri-State Freethinkers have issued the following press release:
Cincinnati, OH – Tri-State Freethinkers have written a letter to Interim Superintendent, Stephen Stohla, regarding a lesson plan discovered on their school district web server that directs students in the study of Intelligent Design and its contrast to Evolution. Both the Supreme Court and Federal Courts have repeatedly and consistently rejected the promotion of creationism and intelligent design in public schools, even when proposed as an “alternative theory” as it appears Youngstown City School District intends to do.
We owe it to our children to make sure they are educated in the most current, accepted, and peer reviewed scientific literature so that they can be prepared to make decisions and be productive members of society. To “teach the controversy” of Intelligent Design or Creationism in our public schools falsely elevates the credibility of these religious stories and encourages the suspension of reason and logic when weighing scientific information. To require students to learn about religious dogma in the classroom is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
For more information regarding legal issues of teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools, please visit Freedom From Religion Foundation’s FAQ.
Below is an excerpt from the letter sent to the interim superintendent of Youngstown City School district.
It is our understanding that Youngstown City School District (YCSD) has a document hosted on its web server titled “SCIENCE: BIOLOGY UNIT #4: DIVERSITY OF LIFE (4 WEEKS)”. This document has been attached for your review. The first section states:
SYNOPSIS: Students compare the basis for evolutionary ideas beyond the fossil record and morphological comparisons, including molecular sequence data. The students examine the content of evolution and intelligent design and consider the merits and flaws of both sides of the argument.
The curriculum is teaching a non-existent controversy by showing students the “flaws” in the widely tested and accepted theory of evolution and watching YouTube videos from companies such as “Illustra Media” which pander to religious beliefs of creationism and intelligent design.
The Supreme Court struck down teaching “scientific creationism” in public schools. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, (1987). Federal courts have consistently rejected the promotion of creationism and intelligent design in public schools:
- Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding school’s prohibition on teaching creationism because permitting a teacher “to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would violate the Establishment Clause”);
- Webster v. New Lenox Sch. Dist. No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding valid a school board’s prohibition on teaching “creation science” because the board has a responsibility to ensure that the teacher was not “injecting religious advocacy into the classroom”);
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa 2005) (holding that a policy requiring students to hear a statement that intelligent design is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution violates the Establishment Clause);
- McLean v. Ark. Bd. of Educ., 529 F. Supp. 1255 (D.C. Ark., 1982) (permanently enjoining Board of Education from taking actions pursuant to a state statute mandating “balanced treatment for creation science and evolution science” because the statute violated the Establishment Clause).
The school district has a constitutional obligation to ensure that “teachers do not inculcate religion.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 619 (1971). Time and again courts exposed these proposals as an attempt to foist religious beliefs onto vulnerable schoolchildren, often after a costly legal battle.
We request that you investigate this matter immediately. If these allegations are founded, the document must be removed from your web server and any use of curriculum involving intelligent design ceased. Please promptly inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to protect the rights of conscience of your students.
We hope that this matter will be addressed quickly and will follow up with the school as needed.
