Ohio Bill to Repeal Common Core Standards Faces Opposition from Evolutionists

School Books pdCOLUMBUS, Ohio – Evolutionists are angered by a proposed bill in Ohio that would cut the state’s Common Core education requirements, thus allowing for creation/evolution debates in the classroom.

As previously reported, several U.S. states have rejected the nationalized Common Core curriculum due to the standards’ promotion of debatable issues, including evolution and man-made global warming. In many cases, Christian homeschooling families and organizations have led the fight against the controversial standards.

In Ohio, parents and educators alike have expressed displeasure over the recently-adopted Common Core requirements in their state. Robert Coburn, school board president for Garaway schools in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, told state lawmakers earlier this week that the students are “being handcuffed” by the nationalized curriculum.

“The loudest concern from the teachers and administrators was that they feel there is a loss of time for true education through creative, personalized teaching methods,” Cobun explained, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. “They have voiced to me and other board members that they feel the children in their classrooms are being handcuffed by the new rules and regulations.”

In an attempt to repeal the controversial Common Core standards, Ohio Representatives Andy Thompson and Matt Huffman introduced legislation that would replace Common Core in Ohio with more traditional standards. The legislation, titled House Bill 597  (H.B. 597), was introduced to the Ohio legislature on July 29.

“I am happy to work with Rep. Huffman to move this bill through the House,” Thompson said in a statement.  “Ohio’s students deserve high standards that are proven to work, and the peace of mind that their privacy will be protected throughout the course of their education.”

“Americans view common core as an intrusion by the federal government into a very personal matter: the education of their children,” Huffman added. “This bill will work to address their concerns in order to find a solution.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Soon after Thompson and Huffman introduced the bill, evolutionists raised concerns over the legislation’s effect on state science standards. The concerns stem from a particular paragraph in the legislation that vaguely prohibits the “political or religious interpretation” scientific evidence.

“The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another,” the bill states.

When asked if H.B. 597 would open the door for in-classroom discussions of evolution versus creation, Thompson said students should frankly consider both sides of the argument.

“[The bill] gives some flexibility to districts to pursue what they think is most appropriate to their students,” he told reporters. “We want to have the ability to share perspectives that differ. Teaching one thing to the exclusion of anything else limits the discussion.”

As a result, evolutionists and some educators have harshly criticized H.B. 597 and threatened to pursue legal challenges if the legislation is passed.

“It’s totally appropriate for school districts to have conversations about a variety of theories,” reasoned Damon Asbury of The School Boards Association. “But to teach Intelligent Design in a science class is the wrong way to go about those conversations.”

However, Thompson says students should be free to discuss opposing viewpoints.

“I think it would be good for [students] to consider the perspectives of people of faith,” he told reporters. “That’s legitimate.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Reverend L.S. Goodwin

    There is no such thing as an “Evolutionist.” That’s like labeling people who acknowledge the existence of gravity as “gravitationists.”

    If you really doubt that evolution is a genuine process, kindly refrain from vaccinating yourself or your children, as you don’t “believe” in the science that makes vaccines work.

    • Thomas Prescott

      Thank you!

      Similarly, should those who accept atomic theory be called an “atomist”? What about those who accept the germ theory of disease, should we call them “germists”?

      This title of “evolutionists” is just a spiteful title issued by creationists in an attempt to reduce evolutionary theory to the level of their pseudoscience.

    • Rob

      Except we can SEE gravity doing what we say it does, so we don’t need to just “believe” in gravity. Contrast this with the fact that the human race has NEVER seen what evolutionists believe in, hence it can only be believed in and hence those who do are called ‘evolutionists’.

      • Riddles

        Actually it has been seen by others. Just because you close your eyes to it doesn’t mean nobody else sees it.

        Also here’s a fun fact, the theory of evolution has more evidence backing it up than the theory of gravitation. If one of the first thoughts you got to that was “but we know gravity is real” then you don’t know what a scientific theory is.

  • Rob

    Evolutionists do not want students to think – they want to be able to tell them what to think instead.

    Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact_

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact_

    (c) Where that belief *never happens* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact._

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    Why do evolutionists ignore what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen? They are only deceiving themselves and promoting anti-science.

    • Rob’s Debater

      Lungfish.

      • Rob

        What about lungfish? You’re claiming that’s “proof” populations of fish without lungs can “evolve” over generations to then gain lungs? Circular reasoning. Might as well point to a fossil and make up the same belief.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil/animal”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it is when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil/animal”

    • Thomas Prescott

      Rob, your claim regarding the lack of a transition of water to land animals is not correct.

      Ever heard of Tiktaalik roseae? Tiktaalik is the “missing link” from aquatic life to land life that many creationists claim doesn’t exist. This is an observable discovery that fills a blank in the tree of life.

      You want to know what is even more impressive? Tiktaalik’s existance was predicted using evolutionary theory BEFORE it was discovered. Not only was it’s existance predicted, but they were also able to successfully predict WHERE the fossil would be located and in what layer in the geological column the discovery would be made.

      Finally, as for your charge that evolution is not repeatable, that is not accurate.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html

      The observations that support evolutionary theory ARE repeatable. Additionally, experiments related to evolutionary theory have also been repeated successfully.

      Many speciation events have also been observed by humans. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

      Evolutionary theory is a large body of facts combined together to create a model with predictive and explanatory power.

      • Rob

        Thomas, calling something a “transitional” animal doesn’t make it one.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it is when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

        Yes, and “lungfish” could be said to have been predicted to exist as well – means nothing as this is about science.

        Please cite the definition of science you’re implying: that we can make up things that never happen, then pretend if it makes a prediction, then that makes the belief that never happens that we can only believe in science.

        Cite what on that webpage shows what evolutionists believe in, b/c talkorigins is just that: talk. Giving reasons they BELIEVE In it doesn’t mean it’s been observed.

        The belief that your great…….great grandparents were reptiles doens’t explain anything. Science doesn’t require that mythological belief in the least.

        • Thomas Prescott

          Talkorigins.org is backed up by peer reviewed science.

          • Rob

            No, just talking about something that never happens is not science at all to begin with – it’s just talk, hence the name which unwittingly points this out.

      • Rob

        You claim predictions makes something science? Well then you’ve just elevated creation by God to scientific fact.

        Some evolutionists say we don’t have to observe something we want to call science.
        This makes creation by God scientific fact.
        Evidence:

        1 As predicted by the global flood: fossil record showing the flood with fossils of sea creatures found on mountain tops and high above sea level all over the world

        2 DNA similarity as predicted by a common designer re-using DNA information to create new designs

        3 Homology as predicted by a common designer re-using designs

        4 Speciation as predicted by two parents being able to create astronomical # of combinations, hence we’ll always see new types of a fish we’ve never seen before, while never seeing populations of fish ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

        5 Reptiles only ever remain reptiles, fish remain fish and so on for all animals. Observed scientific fact as predicted.

        6 Rapid burial of plants and animals all over the world due to the flood as predicted

        7 Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas as predicted
        by the global flood

        8 Sediment transported long distances as predicted by the global flood

        9 Rapid or no erosion between strata as predicted

        10 Many strata laid down in rapid succession as predicted

        11 Millions of instantly changed lives the moment profession of faith in Christ, as predicted

        12 World would hate the truth of Christ more than all the false relgious beliefs, which are of the world, as predicted

        13 Fossils buried between multiple layers, as predicted since layers were laid down rapidly, not over millions of years.

        and more

        So using evolutionists’ pseudo-science definition, creation by God is now scientific fact.

        Ready to get back to science and point out that we need to *show* what we claim happens to ever happen? Evolutionists won’t – as it refutes their beliefs – so they must ignore observable scientific fact and distort science at all costs.

        • Thomas Prescott

          I don’t have the time to provide responses to all of your claims here, as you have made many. However I will pick out a few that I can demonstrate as false or non-sequitor and work from there.

          Don’t get me wrong, the rest have been debunked as well, but I’d have to go outside what I know to answer them.

          \\1 As predicted by the global flood: fossil record showing the flood with fossils of sea creatures found on mountain tops and high above sea level all over the world\\

          Uplift is the cause for why we see fossils of sea life in mountains. This is an especially bad argument.
          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

          \\2 DNA similarity as predicted by a common designer re-using DNA information to create new designs\\

          This is also a prediction that can be made by evolutionary theory, and is 100% compatible with it.

          \\3 Homology as predicted by a common designer re-using designs\\

          Evolutionary theory accounts for this as well.

          \\6 Rapid burial of plants and animals all over the world due to the flood as predicted\\

          Where is this global flood layer in the geological column?

          \\7 Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas as predicted
          by the global flood\\

          Rapidly? Many layers took thousands of years create, such as the White Reefs of Dover.

          \\9 Rapid or no erosion between strata as predicted\\

          What is the grand canyon, then?

          10 Many strata laid down in rapid succession as predicted

          \\
          11 Millions of instantly changed lives the moment profession of faith in Christ, as predicted\\

          So? This is a non-sequitor Rob. There are many good people who consider themselves a Christian to accept the age of our earth and evolutionary theory.

          \\12 World would hate the truth of Christ more than all the false relgious beliefs, which are of the world, as predicted\\

          So what? See #11

          \\13 Fossils buried between multiple layers, as predicted since layers were laid down rapidly, not over millions of years.\\

          Sigh…
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

          • Rob

            There is no refutation / debunk – those are valid predictions made by belief in God. Saying “no they’re not” in so many words doesn’t refute that fact – it just shows that beliefs that come with predictions does not make something SCIENCE.

            Ready to get back to SCIENCE, which is about things that actually happen rather than things we can only believe in, like the belief of evolutionism? Evolutionists need to distort science to pass off their belief system as science when it’s nothing of the kind.

            Here’s what IS observable, repeatable scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life. Evolutionists ignore this scientific fact, make up beliefs contrary to it, where these beliefs of theirs can only be believed in and never happen. Anti-science to the core.

  • Will

    “several U.S. states have rejected the nationalized Common Core curriculum due to the standards’ promotion of debatable issues”

    Scientist offered MANY debates to you and you’ve either declined or lost it without admitting. Start by learning that part of your favorite book about humility… and try applying it to your belief for a moment.