Science and Religion Today » Science Education

Anti-Evolution Bills in Three States

Heather Wax — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:46:30 +0000

A few days ago, Robert Luhn of the National Center for Science Education rounded them up:

In the last day or so, we’ve seen two bills put forward in Missouri:

“Intelligent design” bill in Missouri
http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/intelligent-design-bill-missouri-007092

“A second antievolution bill in Missouri”
http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/second-antievolution-bill-missouri-007097

… and just last week in Indiana:

“Creationist legislation in Indiana”
http://ncse.com/news/2011/12/creationist-legislation-indiana-007001

“Opposition to Indiana’s creationist bill”
http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/opposition-to-indianas-creationist-bill-007042

… and … in New Hampshire!

“Antievolution legislation in New Hampshire”
http://ncse.com/news/2011/12/antievolution-legislation-new-hampshire-006996

“Monitoring antievolution bills in New Hampshire”
http://ncse.com/news/2011/12/monitoring-antievolution-bills-new-hampshire-007000

“The Granite Geek on New Hampshire’s antievolution bills”
http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/granite-geek-new-hampshires-antievolution-bills-007041

“Strengths and Weaknesses” Bill in Oklahoma

Heather Wax — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:03:45 +0000

As he announced at the end of last year, Republican Senator Josh Brecheen has, in his words, “introduced legislation requiring every publicly funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin’s religion.” The bill has now been pre-filed in the Senate.

The act labels “biological origins of life and biological evolution” as “controversial topics in sciences” and would require that state educational authorities “not prohibit any teacher from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses” of these topics. (Keep in mind that evolution is not a point of controversy or debate in the scientific community.) Regular readers of this blog will recognize the bill—with its “strengths and weaknesses” language—as another attempt to undercut the teaching of evolution and bring religious ideas like creationism and “intelligent design” into the science classroom.

As the National Center for Science Education points out:

the bill requires the state board of education to adopt “standards and curricula” that echo the flawed portions of the state science standards adopted in Texas in 2009 with respect to the nature of science and, for grades 8 through 12, evolution. For example, the content of SB 554’s D1, D2, D7, D9, and D10 are identical to sections 7A, 7B, 7G, 8A, and 8B of the Texas high school biology standards—all sections that were added or amended by anti-evolution members of the Texas state board of education … in order to encourage the presentation of creationist claims in the science classroom. No fewer than 54 scientific and educational organizations opposed these revisions.

Kentucky’s “Intellectual Freedom” Bill

Heather Wax — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:43:58 +0000

Republican Representative Tim Moore has introduced a new bill in the Kentucky House of Representatives that would let teachers promote “objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories” and “use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories.” Of course, the bill claims not to be promoting any religious doctrine—though, to many, the “Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act,” like other “academic freedom” bills, is a stealth attempt to sneak religious ideas like “intelligent design” into the science classroom.

Last February, Moore introduced a similar bill that would have allowed teachers to “use, as permitted by the local board of education, materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” That bill died in April.

Regular readers of this blog might also remember that Kentucky currently has a statute that allows instructors teaching evolution to “include as a portion of such instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible, and may accordingly read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation, thereby affording students a choice as to which such theory to accept.” The statute also says that for students “who accept the Bible theory of creation, credit shall be permitted on any examination in which adherence to such theory is propounded, provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.”

U.K. Scientists: Teach Evolution in Primary School

Heather Wax — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:04:14 +0000

The British Humanist Association is leading a campaign that calls on the U.K. government to “protect and promote science in the school curriculum, with the specific inclusion of the teaching of evolution in the primary curriculum.” In a letter sent to Michael Gove, the secretary of state for education, Richard Dawkins, Michael Reiss, and 24 other scientists and science educators explain that:

evolution is the most important idea underlying biological science. It is a key concept that children should be introduced to at an early stage so as to ensure a firm scientific understanding when they study it in more depth later on. An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology, from human behavior to the genetic basis of disease, to ecological relationships and how the environment affects the development and diversity of life on earth. As such it should be a central tenet, not, as is currently too often the case, marginal to the study of school biology.

One of the main reasons for the campaign, says Andrew Copson, chief executive of the association, is “the threat of creationism in science lessons in some schools.”

South Carolina Follow-Up

Heather Wax — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:11:29 +0000

South Carolina’s bill that would have allowed teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories” is dead.
Also dead is South Carolina’s religion “neutrality” bill, which would have required the State Board of Education to “examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism. Related to non-religion, the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs.” Any “offending” curriculum would have been revised or replaced.

What Texas Voters Think of the State’s Curriculum

Heather Wax — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:19:06 +0000

A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll asked Texas voters how they feel about the curriculum and textbook changes recently approved by the State Board of Education.
Of those surveyed, 65 percent said they “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of having an elective Bible course in public high schools, while 18 disapprove. When it comes to science, 52 percent approve of standards that “present evidence that is both supportive and critical of evolution,” while 28 percent don’t approve. And 60 percent approve of history standards that discuss “the Christian religious beliefs of America’s Founding Fathers,” with 23 percent disapproving. Overall, two-thirds of those surveyed said “too much religion in the schools” is not a problem, while 50 percent said “hostility toward religion in the schools” is a “major” problem.

Texas Voters: Experts Should Decide Curriculum

Heather Wax — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:26:26 +0000

A new poll shows that voters in Texas want education experts—not the state school board—to make decisions about public school curriculum standards and the content of textbooks. Only 19 percent think elected school board members should decide the curriculum, while 72 percent want the curriculum standards to be set by teachers and scholars. When it comes to parents, 78 percent want teachers and scholars to set the standards, with 69 percent feeling strongly about the issue. (Click on image for larger view.)

The poll was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund.

Missouri Follow-Up

Heather Wax — Mon, 17 May 2010 14:50:33 +0000

Missouri’s bill that would have allowed students to be taught the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of evolution, and which looked exactly like the “academic freedom” bill that died in the state last year, is also dead.

Evolution Magazine From More Than 80 Years Ago!

Heather Wax — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:16:37 +0000

University College London has posted 21 issues of Evolution: A Journal of Nature, a magazine from the 1920s and 1930s designed to “combat bigotry and superstition and develop the open mind by popularizing natural science.” Insightful stuff.
According to managing editor L.E. Katterfeld, writing in the first issue, the mission of the magazine was to:

be non-political, so that all upholders of academic freedom can support and use it no matter how they differ on other issues. It will be non-religious, never making any effort to reconcile science with religion. Nor will it make atheism its mission. It will carry the positive message of facts from every field of natural science and leave it to the reader to make his own mental readjustment.

Kentucky Follow-Up

Heather Wax — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:16:17 +0000

Kentucky’s “intellectual freedom” bill—which would have allowed teachers to discuss the “advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories” and use “materials in addition to state-approved texts and instructional materials for discussion of scientific theories including evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning”—is dead.