With the upcoming b-day of Darwin, a few bills around the country have appeared. The first bill to surface is in New Mexico. Senate Bill 433 was introduced on February 2, 2009. It states…
“The department, school district governing authorities and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher, when biological evolution or chemical evolution is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to biological evolution or chemical evolution. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.”
The next bill which also surfaced this month is, House File 183 or known as the “”Evolution Academic Freedom Act,” which was introduced by the Iowa’s House of Representatives on February 3, 2009. It states the following…
“A teacher who is employed by a school district may objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution. A teacher who is employed by a school district shall not be disciplined, denied tenure, terminated, or otherwise discriminated against for objectively presenting scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution.”
On that same day, the previous bill from Iowa was introduced, Alabama also introduce a version of same type of bill, which states the following…
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.
Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of Alabama, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.
With Neo-Darwinists distorting interpretations of falsifications concerning evolution, there is a great need for these types of bills. For example, when it comes to a normal approach either an hypothesis or theory, the observations are proving the predictions as being false, in some cases it’s called a “surprise” by scientists, normally when data comes out like that, the hypothesis or theory would be concluded as false, but not in evolution.
Updates occur to accommodate new discoveries that conflict with fundamental predictions which are consistently falsified and there are quite a few of them. The updates over time make the theory extremely complex, something not ideal for a theory that supposedly consists mainly of strengths like teaching it as dogmatically as possible. Many evolutionists disagree with the details in what they believe how evolution works. Special interests like to pretend evolution has no weakness, but rather like to call it; “controversies” in the details. Some students realize this over time, that evolution is not as strong as they were taught because many expectations are not being meet in the theory of evolution.
Academic Freedom Bills like these are needed, even though it doesn’t advocate bringing in creationism into the science classrooms as an alternative which would be ideal, even intelligent design with it’s weaknesses. But it would allow a better teaching on the subject rather than masking it as just “controversies” but call it for what it really is and that is, weakness.