You are here
On January 18, 2002 a new anti-evolution bill was introduced in the Washington State Senate and referred to the Education Committee. According to the bill's digest, SB 6500: "Finds that the teaching of the theory of evolution in the common schools of the state of Washington is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby unconstitutional and unlawful.
The Ohio Board of Education will hold a panel discussion featuring both advocates and opponents of including intelligent design (ID) in the newly drafted statewide science standards at its March meeting. The decision to hold the discussion came after a contentious meeting on Sunday, January 14th, at which lawyer John Calvert, of the Kansas based Intelligent Design Network, made the case for inclusion of the controversial field in the standards. Opponents of ID were not allowed to speak at the meeting.
Senate Bill 6058 was continued into the current session of the Washington state legislature on January 14, 2002. The bill would require "all science textbooks purchased with state moneys" to contain an evolution disclaimer very similar to that required in Alabama since 1995. The bill received its first reading in February of 2001 and was referred to the Education Committee, where it stalled. It was continued in April, 2001 in a special session, but again no action was taken.
by Eugenie C. Scott
On January 7, 2002, the US Supreme Court denied the appeal of Minnesota teacher Rodney LeVake to have his case for teaching "evidence against evolution" heard at the highest level. Mr. LeVake has no further appeals.
Science Excellence for All Ohioans, listed on their web site as a project of the American Family Association of Ohio, has posted on its web site a list of changes it would like to see incorporated into the new Ohio Science Standards. The purpose of the changes is to bring intelligent design into the science curriculum as a “viable alternative explanation for both the origin and diversity of life”.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Authorization Act which is headed for the President's signature does not contain the antievolution "Santorum amendment", though there is brief mention of the topic of evolution in explanatory materials appended to the law. The good news for teachers is that they will not have to teach evolution any differently as a result of the new legislation.
BackgroundSince the summer of 2001, a joint Senate-House conference committee has attempted to resolve the House and Senate versions of the Elementary and
On November 15, 2001, the Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) unanimously approved the latest version of the Science and Technology education standards proposed by the state’s Board of Education (BoE). This is the last step before adoption and implementation of the standards, which will be reviewed again in five years.
by Eric Meikle
The Alabama State Board of Education voted on November 8, 2001 to require that a statement referring to evolution as controversial be inserted in science textbooks. Since 1995 an evolution disclaimer (see below) has been pasted in Alabama's state-approved texts. Early this year the Board of Education adopted a new K-12 science education framework, the Alabama Course of Study: Science (ACOSS). Some observers had thought that Board might simply drop the previous disclaimer, given changes in ACOSS since 1995.
Minnesota school teacher Rodney LeVake sued his Faribault, MN, school district over his claim of a right to teach "evidence against evolution" and intelligent design theory. He lost in Minnesota district court, and lost at the state appeals court level. He has recently filed to appeal his case to the US Supreme Court. NCSE will keep you informed.