Keep religion out of science class, AU advises Ohio officials. (People & Events).

Attorneys with Americans United have warned education officials in Ohio not to introduce religious dogma into science classes.

Ohio has become the latest battleground in the ongoing dispute over the teaching of evolution. Church-state separation activists in the state became alarmed recently when several members of the state board of education indicated their desire to introduce creationism into Ohio's science standards.

Ohio is currently redrafting its science standards, which serve as guidelines for classes offered in local public schools. The previous guidelines had been criticized by science educators as being vague and not mentioning evolution by name.

Now some Religious Right proponents want to go even further and introduce "intelligent design," the latest name for creationism. Some have also proposed removing references to the four-billion-year-old age of the Earth, since creationists, who base their beliefs on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, insist that the planet is only about 10,000 years old.

"I don't object to the teaching of evolution," said Michael Cochran, a board member. "But I do think that it is a theory ... which means it's not a proven fact about the origin of life. I think alternate theories should be part of the curriculum also."

Advocates of teaching evolution counter that the theory is no longer disputed in the scientific community and is taught without controversy in universities across the country. Intelligent design, they say, is merely an attempt to remove the overt religious references from creationism.

"It's not a science," Lynn Elfner, head of the Ohio Academy of Science, told the Dayton Daily News. "I can't say any more than it's not science."

In February attorneys with Americans United wrote to Jennifer L. Sheets, president of the Ohio Board of Education, and warned her that any attempt to teach creationism in Ohio's public schools may spark a lawsuit.

"The proposed changes would hamper the teaching of evolution while encouraging the teaching of creationist beliefs in several ways," observes the AU letter. "First, the proposed changes specifically require the teaching of `intelligent design.' `Intelligent design' posits that living things were designed by a purposeful being. The vast majority of the scientific community does not regard `intelligent design' as a viable scientific theory. In reality, `intelligent design' is weakly disguised creationism."