You are here
Two excellent opinion columns about evolution education appeared on January 19, 2005, on opposite sides of the country.
On January 17, 2005, the Cobb County School Board voted 5-2 to appeal the ruling in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., which ordered the removal of evolution disclaimers from the school district's textbooks. Announcing the decision, Kathie Johnstone, chair of the board, described Judge Clarence Cooper's ruling as an "unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools."
"[T]he Sticker adopted by the Cobb County Board of Education violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," declared U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper, in a forty-four-page ruling issued on January 13, 2005. Cooper's ruling requires the Cobb County School District to remove the disclaimers immediately and not to disseminate them again in any form. NCSE Executive Director Eugenie C. Scott commented, "This is another win for good science and good science education.
A bill calling for "balanced treatment to the theory of scientific creationism and the theory of evolution" was introduced in the Mississippi Senate and referred to the Committee on Education on January 10, 2005.
Following last year's debate over evolution education in the small Montana town of Darby, two bills have been proposed in the Montana legislature which take diametrically opposed stands on the place of evolution in the science classrooms of the state's public schools.
by Nick Matzke
On December 15, 2004, S 114 was introduced (by prefiling) in the South Carolina Senate and referred to the Committee on Education.
As predicted, the balance of power on the Kansas Board of Education [Link is broken] tilted in favor of anti-evolutionists after the November 2, 2004, election. When Kathy Martin replaces Bruce Wyatt on the District 6 seat on the board, the anti-evolution faction will have a 6-4 majority.
On December 6, 2004, the Grantsburg, Wisconsin, school board passed a third version of a resolution on its science curriculum by a vote of 6 to 1. Two previous versions of the policy were widely criticized as obvious attempts to require or allow the teaching of various forms of creationism, including "intelligent design," in the district's science classes. The policy states:
by Nick Matzke