You are here
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, told the Guardian (March 21, 2006) that creationism should not be taught in science classrooms. "I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ...
Assembly Bill 8036 is back. Originally introduced on May 3, 2005, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution." It also charged New York's commissioner of education to assist in developing curricula and local boards of education to provide "appropriate training and curriculum materials ...
Not since the infamous Scopes "monkey" trial of the 1920s has the controversy over the teaching of evolution exposed deep divides between sections of the American public. The Kansas Board of Education's announcement that intelligent design would be taught alongside evolution ignited a nationwide debate over what constitutes science education and what are actually nonscientific approaches to education. At a time when many studies show that the U.S.
Robert T. Pennock, the Michigan State University professor of philosophy who testified for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover, assesses the outcome of the trial in a recent essay [Link broken] for Science and Theology News. "Creationists had been spoiling for this fight since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against so-called 'creation science' in the 1987 Edwards v.
In "On the Front Lines in the War Over Evolution," in the March 10, 2006, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Richard Monastersky reports on recent efforts to rally the scientific community to support evolution education -- "to recruit new troops," as he puts it, "for the escalating war against creationism and its spinoff doctrine, intelligent design."
On March 8, 2006, the South Carolina Board of Education voted 11-6 to reject a proposal from the state's Education Oversight Committee that would have significantly expanded the "critical analysis" language already present in the section of the new state science standards that deal with evolution.
A petition to amend the Nevada constitution to require the teaching of the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution was filed with the secretary of state's office on February 24, 2006. The "Truth in Science" initiative calls for students to be informed that "although most scientists agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported, a small minority of scientists do not agree," listing five specific "areas of disagreement" to be discussed.
House Bill 1228 (PDF), introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates on February 10, 2006, would, if enacted, require the state board of education to "prohibit the teaching or the discussion of the theory of intelligent design" in science classes and prohibit it from "requiring the teaching or discussion of the theory of intelligent design in any class." But there's a catch: HB 1228 would also require the board to "permit the teaching or discussion of the theory of intelligent design in humanities or
Senate Bill 96 was defeated by a 48-26 vote in the Utah House of Representatives on February 27, 2006. The bill was the culmination of about half a year's worth of public antievolution statements by Senator Chris Buttars (R-District 10), beginning with his announcement of plans to introduce legislation calling for the teaching of "divine design" -- "Divine design," he told the Salt Lake Tribune (June 3, 2005), "doesn't preach religion ...