Anti-evolution legislation
[4] In 2001 former Republican United States Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania proposed an amendment, to the education funding bill which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools.
Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.On June 14, 2001, the amendment was passed as part of the education funding bill by the Senate on a vote of 91-8.
[12] Rather than calling for teaching intelligent design or Bible-based creationism (as previous legislative attempts have), the bills make no mention of these subjects.
"[13] Michael Simpson, a lawyer for the National Education Association stated that courts have generally refused to afford significant free-speech protections to teachers for in-class remarks.
[13] A variety of groups, such as the National Center for Science Education and Anti-Defamation League, criticized and are publicly opposed to the "Academic Freedom bills.
[18] On February 8, 2005, a pair of virtually identical bills were simultaneously introduced in the Alabama Senate and House (HB352 and SB240), again under the description of "The Academic Freedom Act."
[23] On April 24, 2008, David Grimes introduced an 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB 923) into the Alabama House and it was referred to the Education Policy Committee.
[26] In early 2006 Representative Sally Kern introduced an anti-evolution 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB2107) into the Oklahoma House, which passed it by a vote of 77-10 on March 2, 2006.
"[48] DI attorney Casey Luskin's statement at a press conference supporting the bill that, in his personal opinion, Intelligent Design constitutes "scientific information" (which the bill explicitly permits) was taken by the Miami Herald as an admission that "Intelligent Design could more easily be brought up in public-school science classrooms" under the proposed law.
[54] The American Civil Liberties Union also expressed concerns that these bills might make it easier to teach intelligent design as science in public schools.
[55] The bills were also opposed by Chemistry Nobel Prize-winner Harold Kroto who said, "it's an abuse of position not to teach science correctly to children".
[56] The Senate bill was later amended to define "scientific information" as "germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed research specific to the topic of chemical and biological evolution as prescribed in Florida's Science Standards.
Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, stated that a bill is needed that makes it easier for teachers to delve into criticism of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
[63] However, in introducing the LFF-suggested bill he also stated that the LFF "believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory.
"[64] Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described the bill as "all about God in biology class".
Founding members include prominent philosopher and critic of the intelligent design movement Barbara Forrest and veteran biology teacher Patsye Peebles.
[75] Conservative commentator John Derbyshire questioned the constitutionality of the law, and its likely effects: Some local school board will take the Act as a permit to bring religious instruction into their science classes.
Vast areas of evolutionary science are for all intents and purposes scientifically settled; textbooks and curricula used in the public schools present precisely such basic, uncomplicated, uncontroversial material.
[78][79] The bill was passed by the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education on April 30, 2008, but died when the Missouri legislative session ended on May 16, 2008.
[80] On February 10, 2009, Representative Robert Wayne Cooper introduced a bill (HB 656) to add a "new section relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution" to existing legislation.
So unless the intent is to introduce content that's not scientific, it's difficult to see why we need this.The bill died in committee when the South Carolina legislature adjourned on June 5, 2008.
[90] On February 3, 2009, a bill for an "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" was introduced into the Iowa Senate,[91] by State Representative Rod Roberts, R-Carroll.
More than 200 faculty members at 20 Iowa colleges signed a statement opposing a proposed state law: It is misleading to claim that there is any controversy or dissent within the vast majority of the scientific community regarding the scientific validity of evolutionary theory ... 'academic freedom' for alternative theories is simply a mechanism to introduce religious or nonscientific doctrines into our science curriculum.
[92]Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education said that the Iowa statement represented the first organized effort by college faculty members throughout a state to oppose this creationist strategy.
