“Academic Freedom” Bills Continue to Be Causing A Stir

In June of 2008, the first “Academic Freedom” bill was passed by Louisiana lawmakers and then signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal.  Special interests where beside themselves, claiming this bill would allow creationism to be taught in the public schools. What is their definition of creationism? Here is a typical example

“Unfortunately, it’s remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects “including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

“As we noted last month, a number of states have been considering laws that, under the guise of “academic freedom,” single out evolution for special criticism. Most of them haven’t made it out of the state legislatures, and one that did was promptly vetoed.”

Notice the intended exaggeration in order to attempt to discredit the bill which came out of desperation and frustration.  It’s a theme that gets repeated many times over by those who opposed the bill. So creation to them is teaching critical thinking skills that includes evolution rather than exempts it.  Since that time, we haven’t heard much from these groups about creationism being taught there.

But last month an “Academic Freedom” Bill was passed in New Mexico which caused quite a stir…Here is what the NCSE had to say…

“Before the vote, the sponsor of the bill, Thomas A. Anderson (R-District 29), rejected a characterization of HB 302 as an “evolution bill,” telling The New Mexican (February 8, 2011), “I’m just trying to protect teachers.” Dave Thomas of New Mexicans for Science and Reason countered, “This is really just a ploy to get creationism in the classroom,” to which NCSE’s Steven Newton added, “Allowing creationist teachers to attack evolution is an injustice to the education of their students, who will live and work in a world increasingly dependent on understanding science and technology.”

So if a teacher who is a creationist that is teaching evolution it would be considered an injustice that would invoke creationism in the classroom according to Steven.  It’s basically the same rhetoric from 2008 with a variant twist to it. These bills were partly inspired by the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision where it said…

“We will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

Here was what the school was teaching…

1) “The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.”

2) “Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.”

3) Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

4) “As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”

The school itself wasn’t teaching intelligent design principles during classroom time rather it made known to the students there was a viewpoint opposing evolution and if they wanted to know more there was one book in the library they could read. The other one watered down the idea and treated evolution as a hypothesis rather than a theory with its ever-growing complexity with new discoveries.  It could have went further using an example like this, discovering organic material on a fossil assumed to be 417 million years old is not a gap instead it’s a clear falsification of old earth ‘theories’.  Even though this particular example is fairly recent, there were other examples during that time to make the same statement.

The court’s ruling had no outlawed “Academic Freedom” Bills but guidelines that would required the teacher to criticize evolution. So how could a teacher then teach “critical thinking” skills? Every scientific theory has strengths and weaknesses. Evolution is no different. In fact excluding it from how students can learn critical thinking skills would make it a religion unto itself. Students should be taught about observations that are not matching up with its explanation such as the supposed 417 million year old fossil with organic elements still preserved in it which are normally broken down pretty efficiently by things like micro-organisms.

7 thoughts on ““Academic Freedom” Bills Continue to Be Causing A Stir

  1. “Special interests where beside themselves …”

    What are ‘special interests’, Michael ?? You talk in riddles …

  2. What are “special interests”?

    A content-free name for all groups of people Michael doesn’t like.

    The singular form of this noun is “liberal.”

  3. Michael is all for the teaching of religion in science class, under the guise of “academic freedom.”

    “Academic freedom” bills have as much to do with academics as pig iron has to do with pigs.

    I’ll believe Michael is a proponent of academic freedom when he invites me to teach an evolution class in Sunday School at his True Bible Believers Church. Then we’ll gauge the depth of his commitment to this lofty principle..


    It is passing strange that “academic freedom” bills mention only those theories denied by fundamentalists—typically evolution and global warming. Or subjects that are not even science, such as human cloning. We hear no talk of freeing teachers to discuss the demon theory of disease or the vitalism theory of chemistry or the caloric theory of heat..

    Even where huge amounts of scientific controversy actually exist, the “academic freedom:” proponents are strangely silent. Do we hear them beating the drums for academic freedom as to string theory or non-local quantum entanglement? One might wonder why not….

    Could it possibly be that the opposition to evolution is entirely religious, and not scientific at all?


  4. @Michael,

    In June of 2008, the first “Academic Freedom” bill was passed by Louisiana lawmakers and then signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal.

    As much as I personally like Bobby Jindal, (and yes, I do like him), singing the bill was a mistake. My personal liking to someone does not indicate a complete agreement with him.

    Every scientific theory has strengths and weaknesses. Evolution is no different.

    Did Michael just admit that Evolutionary theory had “strengths”?

  5. On the other hand, there is no use for speculation in creationism. Every path has led to a dead end, where it becomes inconsistent with the data and must be abandoned.

  6. @Michael

    Yes, it’s strength is in its speculation, not with the data its

    What is the data for Creationism? How is Creationism not full of “speculation.”

    How is “flood geology” not based on speculation?
    How is “post-flood speciation” not based on speculation?
    How is the “dragons are really dinosaurs” claim not speculation?
    And how is “irreducible complexity” not speculation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s