TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
School Science Bill Evolves To Squelch Religion Angle
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: April 12, 2008
TALLAHASSEE - House lawmakers have rewritten a proposal allowing science teachers to question or contradict the theory of evolution in class. The changes, they say, will ensure it doesn't usher religious proselytizing into public schools.
The revision is unlikely, however, to tamp down controversy over the bill, which responds to a new state requirement that requires the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The complaints continued Friday from opponents who argue that the changes still leave open the door to religiously motivated attacks on evolution.
As first introduced, the "Academic Freedom Act" from House sponsor Alan Hays and Senate sponsor Ronda Storms protects teachers who present "scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins."
That version already has cleared two Senate committees and awaits debate in the full chamber. Storms has said repeatedly that the bill's purpose is to protect academic freedom and promote critical thinking. She notes that the bill states it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."
ACLU Disputes Language In Bill
But groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union charge that it opens the definition of "scientific information" and "scientific views" so wide as to include theories rejected by the mainstream scientific community.
On Friday, Hays introduced an amendment during a House Schools and Learning Council meeting that struck out nearly all of the bill's original language. In its place, the bill requires that instructional staff in public schools provide students with "a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."
Hays, a Republican dentist from Umatilla, said afterward the change is significant.
"The amendment was offered because we felt that the original language had a greater risk of opening the door for religious teaching," he said. "We felt like the language narrowed it down, as the amendment says, to teaching the theory of evolution in a thorough way, with critical analysis of it."
All Hays wants, he said, is for students to learn "how to think, not just what to think" and for teachers to have the freedom to "pick apart and analyze" theories in class. It was clear Friday that his revisions had not quelled those concerns.
"It opens the door to the teaching of religious beliefs as a science in the classroom," said Courtenay Strickland, public policy director of ACLU Florida. "Calling something science doesn't necessarily make it science."
Rep. Martin Kiar tried unsuccessfully to convince the House council to remove the phrase "critical analysis," which he thinks would allow teachers to present creationism and other religious interpretations in class, in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
"If a teacher is able to critically analyze evolution in her classroom, many of our teachers are going to bring up creationism and they're going to espouse their ideas concerning that," said Kiar, D-Parkland.
Intelligent Design 'Not Allowed'
Hays said he thought the language would not violate the state or federal Constitutions. Later, he said he does not want religious teaching in science classrooms, and does not think his proposal would permit that to happen.
Asked about the prospect of teaching intelligent design - an alternative hypothesis to the theory of evolution that has been embraced by many religious activists - as science, he said, "As far I'm concerned, it's not allowed. I think the courts have been pretty clear on that."
Hays said he had consulted once with Storms about the revisions he was making to the bill, and that "her first impression was favorable." Storms did not return phone calls Friday.
Reporters Catherine Dolinski and Russell Ray can be reached at (850) 222-8382, cdolinski @tampatrib.com or rray@tampatrib.com.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( davidkc ) on April 12, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Repeat after me: intelligent design is not a scientific theory. With all the problems our state is facing, from skyrocketing property taxes to huge job losses, I'm glad to see that our legislators our focused on the top priority: watering down our schools' science curriculum.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( bummer ) on April 13, 2008 at 3:56 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
No matter how they try to hide it, this is a back door attempt to promote an alternative (religious) theory to evolution. The original bill gave the teacher the right to define science. Everything from creationism to scientology could be taught and protected under this ill-advised legislation. Keep politics out of the classroom!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tdaily ) on April 15, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"Repeat after me: intelligent design is not a scientific theory."
How about this ?
"Repeat after me: Evolution IS a scientific theory."
Evidence is still coming, but not all of it supports the theory. This bill seems to protect teachers that believe in science, and letting the science students see the evidence. If the contradicting evidence is systematically hidden, you're not teaching science, you're teaching dogma.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 15, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
tdaily writes: "How about this ?
'Repeat after me: Evolution IS a scientific theory.' Evidence is still coming, but not all of it supports the theory. This bill seems to protect teachers that believe in science, and letting the science students see the evidence. If the contradicting evidence is systematically hidden, you're not teaching science, you're teaching dogma."
What, precisely, is this "contradicting evidence" of which you speak?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( QED ) on April 15, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Why are physics, chemistry, and earth science not mentioned in the bill?
That Storms introduced this bill, and that the Discovery Institute's template was used for the original wording speaks more strongly than any pleading by creationists as they continue to try to evade the Establishment Clause by bait and switch deception. The new standards require no amendment, and certainly don't deserve a back-door for fundamentalists to insert their "wedge".
creationism = intelligent design = teach the controversy = critical analysis of evolution. The evolution of these terms has merely paralleled the string of court decisions against them in predictable chronological order.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on April 17, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
As long as the bill applies only to the teaching of evolution, it will be recognized as what it is - an inherently religious bill.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Desertphile ) on April 27, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Teachers must not have the "right" to ignore what nearly 100% of the world's scientists say is a fact (such as the fact that evolution occurred and occurs), or which the vast majority of scientists say is correct (such as evolutionary theory, which explains evolution). What next--- teachers having the "right" to "question or contradict" the Holocaust, or atomic theory, or the theory of gravity, or genetics? Teachers are required to teach that which is known to be true: that means teaching, in part, evolutionary theory.
Report Inappropriate Comments