You are here
There are signs that the impasse over South Carolina's science standards is nearing its end. As previously reported, the state board of education voted in March 2006 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.
Writing for the editorial board of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 31, 2006), Mike King reacted to the recent ruling by a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which vacated the decision in Selman v. Cobb County and remanded the case to the trial court for further evidential proceedings.
In a commencement address at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore on May 25, 2006, New York City's mayor Michael R. Bloomberg decried the political manipulation of science to further ideological ends, saying, "Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agenda ... Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it 'political science.'"
Featured in the May 25, 2006, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine is George J. Annas's article "Intelligent Judging -- Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom." Annas distinguishes three waves of activity seeking "to banish or marginalize the teaching of evolution" in the public schools: attempts to ban the teaching of evolution, attempts to teach "creation science" alongside evolution, and attempts to teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution.
The ruling in the appeal of Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al. -- the case in which a federal district court ruled that textbook stickers describing evolution as "a theory, not a fact" violate the First Amendment -- was issued by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25, 2006. The three-judge panel vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further evidential proceedings.