You are here
"A mendacious bit of hucksterism" is Robert Camp's description of the "teach the controversy" slogan frequently used to promote the teaching of "intelligent design" in the public schools. And it's not just idle rhetoric. Rather, it's based firmly on the results of a survey that he conducted of the heads of biology departments in colleges and universities around the country.
One of the two antievolution bills introduced in the Mississippi legislature in 2005 died in committee, but the other passed through the Senate and is now under consideration by the House of Representatives.
House Bill 1531 (PDF), introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates on February 16, 2006, would, if enacted, establish the "Teachers Academic Freedom Act" and the "Faculty Academic Freedom Act" in order to "expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ...
The Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 at its February 14, 2006, meeting to remove both the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" model lesson plan and the corresponding indicator -- which called for students to be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory" -- in the state standards.
House Bill 1388 has died quietly in the Indiana legislature. Introduced on January 12 and referred to the Committee on Education, the bill died when the deadline for action by the full House passed in early February. HB 1388 was authored by Rep. Bruce Borders, who had previously announced support for teaching "intelligent design" in public schools.
House Concurrent Resolution 1043 (RTF), introduced in the Oklahoma legislature on February 7, 2006, would, if enacted, encourage "the State Board of Education and local boards of education to revise the recommended academic curriculum content standards in science to ensure that, upon graduation, all students can accomplish the following: 1. Use of [sic] the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theory of evolution; and 2.
The Kansas Association of Teachers of Science issued a response to the state science standards adopted in November 2005 by the state board of education, the Lawrence Journal-World (February 14, 2006) reported. "By redefining science in the Kansas Science Education Standards," the statement reads in part, "the KBOE is promoting intelligent design tenets that purport supernatural explanations as valid scientific theories. ...
According to early reports [Link broken], the Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 at its February 14, 2006, meeting to remove both the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" model lesson plan and the corresponding indicator in the state standards. The board's vote follows in the wake of a motion to remove the lesson plan during the board's January meeting, which failed 9-8.
Although a proposal to remove the controversial "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan from the Ohio model science curriculum was narrowly defeated at the January meeting of the Ohio state board of education, the proposal is likely to be renewed at the board's February meeting, thanks to both a thinly disguised reproach from Ohio Governor Bob Taft (R) and a stinging rebuke from a large majority of the committee that originally helped to develop the standards.
At a press conference in Madison, Wisconsin, on February 7, 2006, state representative Terese Berceau (D-District 76) announced her intention to introduce legislation in the state assembly which would, if enacted, prohibit the teaching of supernaturalistic pseudoscience in the science classrooms of the state's public schools.