You are here
A group of scientists in the United Kingdom is calling for a "statutory and enforceable" ban on teaching creationism in Britain's publicly funded schools, as well as for evolution to be included "at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools."
Was it unconstitutional for a teacher to describe creationism as "superstitious nonsense"? In 2009, a federal district court ruled that it was, in C. F. et al. v. Capistrano Unified School District et al. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision (PDF) issued on August 19, 2011, overturned the district court's decision "to the extent it decided the constitutionality of any of Corbett's statements" while upholding its grant of qualified immunity to James Corbett, the teacher in question.
When the Texas state board of education voted on July 22, 2011, to approve scientifically accurate supplementary material from established mainstream publishers, there was a loose end hanging.
In the wake of the Texas state board of education's July 22, 2011, vote to approve scientifically accurate supplementary materials and to reject creationist-inflected materials, newspapers around the state are rejoicing.
Pop the champagne corks. The Texas Board of Education has unanimously come down on the side of evolution. In a 14-0* vote, the board today approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers — and did not approve the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC.
The attempt to repeal Louisiana's antievolution law was discussed by the Christian Science Monitor (June 2, 2011), which explained, "The Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows teaching contrary to science on the grounds it promotes critical thinking, is increasingly serving as an inspiration to religious conservatives in other states."