Jump to content

Anti-evolution legislation

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mthoodhood (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 17 June 2012 (→Missouri bills: rm dead link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Intelligent design
Clockwork
Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Movement
Campaigns
Authors
Organisations
Reactions
Creationism

Academic Freedom bills are a series of bills introduced in state legislatures in the United States between 2004 and 2009. They assert that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.[1] Critics of the bills assert that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution.[2] An investigation in Florida of allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred.[3]

According to the Wall Street Journal, the common goal of these bills is to expose more students to articles and videos that criticize evolution, most of which are produced by advocates of intelligent design or Biblical creationism.[2]

They have spent years working school boards, with only minimal success. Now critics of evolution are turning to a higher authority: state legislators. In a bid to shape biology lessons, they are promoting what they call "academic freedom" bills that would encourage or require public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science.

— "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools", Wall Street Journal[2]

Timeline

  • 2001: Santorum Amendment
  • 2004: Alabama bill
  • 2005: Alabama bill
  • 2006: Alabama, Oklahoma, Maryland bills; Ouachita Parish School Board policy (Louisiana)
  • 2007: New Mexico bill
  • 2008: Discovery Institute petition and model statute; Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed released; Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina bills; Louisiana bill passed
  • 2009: Iowa, Oklahoma, Missouri, New Mexico, Alabama bills
  • 2010: Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
  • 2011: First attempt at repealing the Louisiana Science Education Act, bills in Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Missouri
  • 2012: Attempt to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act, Tennessee's bill passes, bills in Oklahoma, Alabama, New Hampshire, Indiana

Santorum Amendment

In 2001 former Republican United States Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania proposed an amendment, to the education funding bill which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools.[4] The language of this amendment was crafted in part by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, with Phillip E. Johnson, founding advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and "father" of the intelligent design movement, assisting Santorum in phrasing the amendment.[5][6] It portrayed evolution as generating "much continuing controversy" and being not widely accepted, using the Discovery Institute's Teach The Controversy method.

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

— Final text of the Santorum Amendment as included in the Conference Report[7]

On June 14, 2001, the amendment was passed as part of the education funding bill by the Senate on a vote of 91-8. This was hailed as a major victory by proponents of intelligent design; for instance an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute contained the sentence "Undoubtedly this will change the face of the debate over the theories of evolution and intelligent design in America...It also seems that the Darwinian monopoly on public science education, and perhaps the biological sciences in general, is ending."[8]

Scientists and educators feared that by singling out biological evolution as very controversial, the amendment could create the impression that a substantial scientific controversy about evolution exists, leading to a lessening of academic rigor in science curricula. A coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations signed a letter to this effect to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, which it was, but intelligent design supporters on the conference committee preserved it in the bill's legislative history.[9]

While the amendment did not become law, a version of it appears in the Conference Report as an explanatory text about the legislative history and purposes of the bill. Such a report may be taken into account if courts later need to consider the intent of the bill, but it has no legal force per se.

Overview

See also: Intelligent design in politics

Rather than calling for teaching intelligent design or Biblically-based creationism (as previous legislative attempts have), the bills make no mention of these subjects. They instead describe evolution as controversial and attempt to bar school administrators from interfering with teachers who describe asserted flaws in the theory. This runs contrary to the opinion of the scientific community, which holds that there is no debate about the core principles of evolution, which scientists regard as the only credible, and a thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development and diversification of all life on Earth.[10]

Consider, also, that there really is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary education. A teacher can't deviate from the accepted curriculum to present alternative lesson plans or to offer his or her own notions.

— Editorial, Washington Post[11]

Tom Hutton, a senior staff lawyer for the National School Boards Association, stated that while state legislators have a legal right to craft laws that affect districts’ policies as a general rule, he believes that some decisions are better left to local officials. He further suggested that these proposed bills, if enacted, could face difficult legal challenges. He further stated that despite their language stating that they are not promoting religious views, and wording to promote "scientific" rather than religious critiques, courts are likely to question the motives behind these bills, and their specific focus on evolution, and draw a conclusion as to "what’s going on here."[10]

Michael Simpson, a lawyer for the National Education Association stated that courts have generally refused to afford significant free-speech protections to teachers for in-class remarks. He further offered the opinion that the legality of these measures would depend on a number of unknowns, such as how the critical views of evolution-critical views were presented, and possibly the degree of congruence between them and other state policies, such as state science curriculum.[10]

A variety of groups, such as the National Center for Science Education and Anti-Defamation League, criticized and are publicly opposed to the "Academic Freedom bills."[12] [13]

Alabama bills

Between 2004 and 2006, a series of unsuccessful 'Academic freedom' bills were introduced in the Alabama Legislature.[14]

On April 8, 2004, the Alabama Senate unanimously passed SB336, the "Academic Freedom Act." The bill would have given teachers at public institutions "the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific, historical, theoretical, or evidentiary information pertaining to alternative theories or points of view on the subject of origins" and gives students the right to hold a "particular position on origins, so long as he or she demonstrates acceptable understanding of course materials." Before passage, it was amended so that "[t]he rights and privileges contained in this act do not apply to the presentation of theoretical information unless it is accompanied by scientific, historical, or evidentiary information."[15] On May 17, 2004, the Alabama House adjourned the 2004 legislative session without voting on the bill, allowing it to lapse.[16]

On February 8, 2005, a pair of virtually identical bills were simultaneously introduced in the Alabama Senate and House (HB352 and SB240), again under the description of "The Academic Freedom Act." These bills purported to protect the right of teachers "to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories" and the right of students to "hold positions regarding scientific views". In an attempt to avert Establishment Clause concerns, the bills both stated that "[n]othing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."[17] On April 5, 2005, a third, near-identical bill (also dubbed the "Academic Freedom Act") was introduced in the Alabama House (HB 716).[18] On May 3, 2005, the legislative session closed without passing any of these three bills, so that they lapsed.[19]

On January 10, 2006, another pair of identical bills (HB106 and SB45), closely resembling the previous bills, were again introduced in the Alabama legislature, again under the description of "The Academic Freedom Act".[20] On April 18, 2006 the Alabama Legislature again adjourned without passing them, again allowing them to lapse.[21]

On April 24, 2008, David Grimes introduced an 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB 923) into the Alabama House and it was referred to the Education Policy Committee.[22]

On February 3, 2009, Grimes introduced another 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB 300) which was again referred to the House Education Policy Committee.[22] It died in committee with the end of the legislative session on May 15.[23]

Oklahoma bills

In early 2006 Representative Sally Kern introduced an anti-evolution 'Academic Freedom' bill (HB2107) into the Oklahoma House, which passed it by a vote of 77-10 on March 2, 2006.[24][25] Also in 2006 Senator Daisy Lawler introduced another anti-evolution bill, based upon language in the Santorum Amendment, in the Oklahoma Senate.[26] Both bills (and two further, unrelated, anti-evolution bills) lapsed with the end of the 2006 legislative session.[27]

In February 2009 a bill titled the 'Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act' (SB 320) was introduced by Senator Randy Brogdon and died in committee the Oklahoma Senate.[28][29][30] The bill was nearly identical to the Act passed in 2008 in Louisiana.[31]

Maryland bill

A bill (HB1531) was introduced into the Maryland House of Delegates on February 16, 2006, to enact a "Teachers Academic Freedom Act" and a "Faculty Academic Freedom Act", that closely resembled the 2006 Alabama bills.[32] The bill lapsed with the end of the 2006 legislative session.[33]

New Mexico bills

In January 2007, two identical bills (HB 506 and SB 371) "relating to public education; providing for school science content standards and rules regarding the teaching of theories of biological origins" were introduced into the New Mexico Legislature and Senate by Representative W. C. "Dub" Williams and Senator Steve Komadina.[34][35][36] The bills died with the end of legislative session on March 17, 2007.[37]

On 2 February 2009, an identical bill was again introduced, this time by Senator Kent L. Cravens in the New Mexico Senate.[38] A Public Education Department analysis of the bill found that "[a]lthough the bill’s definition of 'scientific information' excludes information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines", the bill "goes on to say that scientific information may have religious or philosophical implications and remain scientific in nature", which led to the conclusion that "this point would allow the teaching of theories of biological origins such as intelligent design or creationism."[39]

On March 21, 2009 the bill died in committee when the legislature adjourned.[40]

Discovery Institute petition and model statute

See also: Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

In February 2008, the Discovery Institute announced the Academic Freedom Petition campaign,[41] which it is conducting. The petition states:

We, the undersigned American citizens, urge the adoption of policies by our nation's academic institutions to ensure teacher and student academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner.[42]

The petition website also offers a 'Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution', and lists Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute, as the contact person for questions on it.[1]

Linkage with Expelled film

Expelled presenter Ben Stein, who stated "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."[43]

Pre-release screenings for legislators of the pseudoscientific film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which portrays proponents of intelligent design as being "persecuted", have been presented by actor Ben Stein.[2] There were special showings for Florida and Missouri legislators in support of Academic Freedom bills in those states.[44]

Shortly before the film was released on April 18, 2008, the producer of the film, Walt Ruloff, held a press conference on April 15 at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.. Ruloff announced his plans to use the Expelled film as part of a campaign to pass academic freedom bills in a variety of American states.[45]

Florida bills

On 29 February 2008, Senator Ronda Storms introduced an Academic Freedom bill (SB2692) in the Florida Senate,[46] which closely resembles both the Discovery Institute (DI) model statute and the previous Alabama bills.[14][47] Its sponsor in the Florida House of Representatives (as HB1483) was Representative Alan Hays, who claimed that the bill was simply drafted to allow teachers and students to discuss "the full range" of problems and ideas surrounding Darwin's theory without fear of punishment, but he and Storms were both unable to name any teachers in Florida who have been disciplined for being critical of evolution in the science classroom. Hays stated "I want a balanced policy. I want students taught how to think, not what to think. There are problems with evolution. Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half human?"[48] DI attorney Casey Luskin's statement at a press conference supporting the bill that, in his personal opinion, Intelligent Design constitutes "scientific information" (which the bill explicitly permits) was taken by the Miami Herald as an admission that "Intelligent Design could more easily be brought up in public-school science classrooms" under the proposed law.[49] The American Civil Liberties Union also expressed concerns that these bills might make it easier to teach intelligent design as science in public schools.[50] The bills were also opposed by Chemistry Nobel Prize-winner Harold Kroto.[51]

As far as I'm concerned, it's an abuse of position not to teach science correctly to children. Today they don't need to know how anything works. The technology is so good if something breaks they get it fixed. There's a large number of kids probably prepared to accept something without being too careful.

— Harold Kroto, Sarasota Herald-Tribune[51]

The Senate bill was later amended to define "scientific information" as "germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed research specific to the topic of chemical and biological evolution as prescribed in Florida's Science Standards."[52] Storms refused to answer repeated direct questions from senate Democrats as to whether teachers would be permitted to teach Intelligent design under her bill and whether she believes that intelligent design meets its criteria for 'scientific information'.[53] The bill has also been criticized for its inconsistency in only protecting the freedom of teachers to discuss anti-evolution arguments, but not other controversies (such as birth control and abortion),[54] but when Democrats introduced a proposal to have the bill's protection extended to sex-education Storms had it voted down.[53] The House bill underwent substantial modification and, as amended, requires "Critical Analysis of Evolution" to be taught. An attempt by Senator Storms to ease the bill's passage by substituting the heavily amended House version failed to win acceptance in the Senate, leaving two incompatible bills,[55] which died with the end of the legislative session on May 2.[56]

Detailed analysis of Discovery Institute language

A 'Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement' prepared by the Senate Education Pre-K - 12 Committee staff stated that:[3]

  • "Taken as a whole, the science standards [already] encourage teachers and students to discuss the full range of scientific evidence related to all science, including evolution."
  • "According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work."
  • The bill creates ambiguity in its lack of definition of "biological and chemical evolution" and "objective scientific information", because it is silent on how this bill would affect teacher discipline over the science standards and by employing the word "may" in the context of student evaluation.

Liam Julian, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution and editor for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (which advocates and researches education reform), lists a number of reasons why the bill is "a lousy idea for Florida's students and schools":[57]

  • It does not protect legitimate "freedom of speech", but rather "insulates teachers from being held accountable for their speech."
  • It further dilutes principals' autonomy over school functions, whilst holding them accountable for academic performance. "This is accountability without autonomy, and it's a recipe for failure."
  • "Principals would have no way to discipline teachers who are, say, presenting to students inaccurate scientific information ("who says it's inaccurate?") or deviating from the prescribed, state standards."
  • By forbidding penalizing students for subscribing "to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution", it opens the door for litigation any time a student gets marked harshly for a piece of work containing such a "position or view".
  • It "purports to shield public-school teachers who are vilified for questioning evolution's tenets. But a significant number of such teachers simply doesn't exist."

Louisiana act

A bill (SB561) named the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act," was prefiled on March 21, 2008 in the Louisiana Senate by the Education Committee chair, Ben Nevers, a Bogalusa Democrat. While its name is the same as the Florida, Alabama and Discovery Institute bills, the Louisiana version is modelled on a policy adopted in 2006 by the Ouachita Parish School Board with the backing of the pro-creationism Louisiana Family Forum (LFF). The bill contends that "the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects," and extends permission to Louisiana's teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."[58]

Nevers states that he was asked to sponsor the bill by the LFF, and that it should not be considered a creationism measure because it would pave the way for theories that also challenge opinions on global warming, human cloning and other topics. Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, stated that a bill is needed that makes it easier for teachers to delve into criticism of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.[59] However in introducing the LFF-suggested bill he also stated that the LFF "believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory."[60] Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described the bill as "all about God in biology class".[59]

On 21 April 2008 Representative Frank Hoffman, who was the assistant superintendent of the Ouachita Parish school system at the time it adopted the LFF-backed policy, introduced an identical bill into the Louisiana House of Representatives (HB1168).[61][62]

On 22 April 2008, references to evolution, global warming and other subjects were stripped from the senate bill and replaced with calls for more general changes in science classes,[63] and it was renamed the “Louisiana Science Education Act" (and renumbered SB733),[64][65] and was passed unanimously on April 28, 2008.[66] On 11 June 2008 the House bill was passed by a vote of 94-3. In response, Americans United noted that Louisiana legislators have repeatedly tried to water down the teaching of evolution, with previous attempts having been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, and suggest that this legislation "opens the door to teaching creationism in public schools, an action that is likely to spark litigation".[67]

On 12 June 2008, the day after the House bill passed, "concerned parents, teachers and scientists" formed Louisiana Coalition for Science, "[i]n response to numerous attacks on science education in the Bayou State". Founding members include prominent philosopher and critic of the intelligent design movement Barbara Forrest and veteran biology teacher Patsye Peebles.[68]

In late June 2008 Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal signed the bill into law.[69]

The legislation has been criticised by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology[70] and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, with the latter calling for its repeal.[71]

Missouri bills

On April 1, 2008, representative Robert Wayne Cooper introduced a bill to add a "new section [into state law] relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution" into the Missouri House of Representatives (HB2554). It would require educational authorities to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including such subjects as the teaching of biological and chemical evolution" and forbid them from "prohibit[ing] any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of theories of biological or chemical evolution." Previously in 2004, Cooper had introduced two unsuccessful bills (HB 911 and HB 1722) that called for equal time for intelligent design in Missouri schools.[72][73]

The bill was passed by the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education on April 30, 2008, but died when the Missouri legislative session ended on May 16, 2008.[74]

February 10, 2009 representative Robert Wayne Cooper introduced a bill (HB 656) to add a "new section relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution" to existing legislation.[75][76] It died, without having been assigned to a committee, with the end of the legislative session on May 15.[77]

Michigan bills

On April 30, 2008, a bill on "academic freedom to teach evidence regarding controversial scientific subjects" (HB 6027) was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives by representative John Moolenaar.[78] On June 3, 2008, an identical bill (SB 1361) was introduced into the Michigan Senate.[79]

South Carolina bill

A bill (SB 1386) was introduced in the South Carolina Senate on May 15, 2008 by Senator Mike Fair to amend the state's education code to provide:[80]

The State Board of Education, superintendents of public school districts, and public school administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a public school of this State from helping his students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner. This act does not condone the promotion of religious or nonreligious doctrine, the promotion of discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonreligious beliefs, or the promotion of discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. By no later than September 1, 2008, the State Department of Education shall notify district superintendents of the provisions of this act, and each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his district a copy of the provisions of this act.

The National Center for Science Education described it as another "so-called 'academic freedom' bill aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution".[81]

Jim Foster, a spokesman for the state Department of Education, disputed the need for the bill:[82]

Science teachers are already free to discuss science. So unless the intent is to introduce content that's not scientific, it's difficult to see why we need this.

The bill died in committee when the South Carolina legislature adjourned on June 5, 2008.[83]

Iowa bill

On 3 February 2009, a bill for an ""Evolution Academic Freedom Act" was introduced into the Iowa Senate,[84] by State Representative Rod Roberts, R-Carroll.[85] More than 200 faculty members at 20 Iowa colleges signed a statement opposing a proposed state law:

It is misleading to claim that there is any controversy or dissent within the vast majority of the scientific community regarding the scientific validity of evolutionary theory ....'academic freedom' for alternative theories is simply a mechanism to introduce religious or nonscientific doctrines into our science curriculum.

Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education said that the Iowa statement represented the first organized effort by college faculty members throughout a state to oppose a bill calling for the teaching of alternatives.[86] It died in committee on March 13, 2009.[87]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Discovery Institute (2007). "Model Academic Freedom Statue on Evolution". Retrieved 2010-06-07. {{cite web}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ a b c d Simon, Stephanie (2008). "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-06-07. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ a b The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K - 12 Committee (March 26, 2008). "Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement" (PDF). Florida Senate. Retrieved 2010-06-07. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Cite error: The named reference "Impact_Statement" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Senate". Congressional Record: Proceedings of the 107th Congress, first Session (primary source). 82. Vol. 147. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress. June 13, 2001. Archived from the original (pdf) on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-07. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  5. ^ "The Biology Wars: The Religion, Science and Education Controversy". The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2005. Archived from the original on 10 June 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-08. That language, which was penned by Phil Johnson for Rick Santorum, passed the Senate as an amendment to the No Child Left Behind education bill, and eventually became part of the conference report for that legislation. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Santorum, Rick (2002). "Santorum Language on Evolution". Center for Science and Culture. Archived from the original on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. ^ "Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001". primary source. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2001. Archived from the original (pdf) on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ Foerstel, Herbert (2009). Toxic MIX?. Westport: Greenwood. p. 163. ISBN 0-313-36234-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  9. ^ "Language on evolution attached to education law". Washington, D.C.: The National Academys. Spring 2002. p. "From the Hill". Retrieved 2010-06-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  10. ^ a b c Cavanagh, Sean (2008). "'Academic Freedom' Used as Basis Of Bills to Question Evolution" (Subscription site). Education Week: Editorial Projects in Education. Retrieved 2010-06-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ Editorial (2008). "Creationism's Latest Mutation". Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-06-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  12. ^ National Center for Science Education (200). "ADL reiterates its support of evolution education". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. ^ Gefter, Amanda (2008). "New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US". New Scientist. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)(subscription required)
  14. ^ a b National Center for Science Education (2008). "Opposition to the bills in Florida". self published. Archived from the original on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. ^ 2004, Nick. ""Academic Freedom Act" progresses in Alabam". National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has numeric name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ Matzke, Nick (2004). "Alabama legislature lets SB336 die without a vote". National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  17. ^ National Center for Science Education (2005). ""Alternative Theories" Legislation -- Again". self published. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  18. ^ 2005, Nick. "Third 2005 Antievolution Bill Introduced in Alabama". National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: |last= has numeric name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  19. ^ National Center for Science Education (2005). "Three antievolution bills die in Alabama". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  20. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Two antievolution bills in Alabama". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  21. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Alabama antievolution bills die". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  22. ^ a b National Center for Science Education (2009). "Antievolution legislation in Alabama". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  23. ^ National Center for Science Education (2009). "Alabama antievolution bill dies". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  24. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Antievolution legislation on the horizon in Oklahoma". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  25. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Oklahoma update". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  26. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "A third antievolution bill in Oklahoma". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  27. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Respite in Oklahoma". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  28. ^ National Center for Science Education (2009). "Oklahoma antievolution bill dead". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  29. ^ Brogdon, Randy (2009). "Senate Rejects Academic Freedom Bill". Tulsa Beacon. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  30. ^ Brogdon (2009). "Senate Bill 320" (rtf). State of Oklahoma Senate. Retrieved 2010-06-09. primary source {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  31. ^ "Oppose SB 320, the "Science Education and Academic Freedom Act"" (pdf). Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  32. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Antievolution legislation in Maryland". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  33. ^ National Center for Science Education (2006). "Both antievolution bills in Maryland dead". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 29 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  34. ^ National Center for Science Education. "Antievolution legislation in New Mexico". self published newsletter. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  35. ^ Williams, W. C. "Dub" (2007). "HB 506". primary source. New Mexico Legislature. Retrieved 2010-06-10. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  36. ^ Komadina, Steve (2007). "SB 371". primary source. New Mexico Senate. Retrieved 2010-06-10. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  37. ^ National Center for Science Education (2007). "Antievolution measures dead in New Mexico". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-10. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  38. ^ Cravens, Kent L. (2009). SB 433 "2009 Regular Session". primary source. New Mexico Legislature. Retrieved 2010-0610. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Text "month 2 Feb" ignored (help)
  39. ^ Fox, Dorinda; Harrell, David (2009). "SB 433 Use of Science in Teaching Biological Origins" (pdf). primary source. 49th Legislature, 1st Session, 2009, New Mexico: Legislative Education Study Committee Bill analysis. Retrieved 2010-06-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  40. ^ National Center for Science Education (2009). "Antievolution bill dead in New Mexico". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 28 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  41. ^ Robert, Crowther (2008). "Motive Marketing and Discovery Institute Launch www.AcademicFreedomPetition.com in Support of Freedom for Teachers and Students to Challenge Darwinism". Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on 27 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  42. ^ "Academic Freedom Petition". Retrieved 2010-06-13. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  43. ^ Miller, Kenneth R. (2008). "Trouble ahead for science". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 10 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  44. ^ Chad Livengood (2008). "Intelligent design bill author wants debate". Springfield, Mo.: Springfield News Leader. p. A.8. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); line feed character in |accessdate= at position 11 (help)
  45. ^ Ronald Bailey (2008). "Flunk this Movie!". Reason magazine. Archived from the original on 12 June 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-13. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  46. ^ Morelli, Keith (2008). "Storms' Evolution Bill Lets Teachers Contradict Theory". The Tampa Tribune: Tampa Bay Online. Retrieved 2010-06-13. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  47. ^ 2008. "Anti-Evolution Legislation Introduced in Florida" (blog). Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 2010-06-13. {{cite web}}: |last= has numeric name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  48. ^ Caputo, Marc (2008). "Ben Stein weighs in on evolution fight". Miami Herald. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  49. ^ Caputo, Marc (2008). "Intelligent Design could slip into science class". Miami Herald. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  50. ^ Hensler, Brandon (2008). "Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught in Florida's Public School Science Classrooms" (Press release). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2010-06-13. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  51. ^ a b Scott, Anna (2008). "Evolution fray attracts top scientist". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Retrieved 2010-06-13. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  52. ^ Caputo, Marc (2008). "Evolution criticism bill weakened". Miami Herald. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  53. ^ a b Marc Caputo. "'Academic freedom' for evolution, not sex-ed". not found. Miami Herald. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)[dead link‍]
  54. ^ Mayo, Michael (2008). "Proposed Academic Freedom Act rife with mumbo jumbo". South Florida Sun-Sentinel. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  55. ^ National Center for Science Education (2008). "Antievolution bills continue to advance through Florida legislature". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 27 June 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-17. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  56. ^ Kaczor, Bill (2008). "Evolution bills die in Legislature as session ends". Miami Herald. Retrieved 2010-06-17. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) [dead link‍]
  57. ^ Julian, Liam. "Academic Anarchy". Tampa Bay Online. Retrieved 2010-06-17.
  58. ^ National Center for Science Education (2008). "Antievolution legislation in Louisiana". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-06-17. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  59. ^ a b Sentell, Will (2008). "Author denies bill lets creationism slip into schools". The Advocate. Retrieved 2010-06-17. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  60. ^ 2008, Sylvia. "Bill allows teaching creationism as science". Hammond Star. Retrieved 2010-06-17. {{cite news}}: |last= has numeric name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  61. ^ Forrest, Barbara (2008). "Analysis of SB 733, "LA Science Education Act"" (PDF). self published. Retrieved 2010-06-18. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  62. ^ "HB1168 Bill history" (primary source). Louisiana State Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2010-06-18. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  63. ^ Sentell, Will (2008). "Evolution talk cut from bill". The Advocate. Retrieved 2010-06-18. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  64. ^ staff (2008). "Our Views: Just another waste of time". The Advocate. Retrieved 2010-06-18. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  65. ^ "SB561 Bill history" (primary source). Louisiana State Legislature. 2008. Retrieved 2010-06-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  66. ^ National Center for Science Education (2008). "Louisiana antievolution bill passes Senate". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-06-28. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  67. ^ Americans United for Separation of Church and State (2008). "Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion Into Public School Science Classes, Says Americans United". self published newsletter. Archived from the original on 29 June 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-28. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  68. ^ Louisiana Coalition for Science (2008). "Press Release: Reject SB 733". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-06-28. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  69. ^ Barrow, Bill (2008). "Science law could set tone for Jindal". New Orleans Metro Real Time News: The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 31 July 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-29. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  70. ^ Petsko, Gregory A. (2008). "President's Message: It Is Alive" (PDF). American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Retrieved 2010-06-28. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  71. ^ Terry (2008). "PRESS RELEASE - Paleontology society urges repeal of [[Louisiana Science Education Act]]". Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Archived from the original on 26 July 2010. Retrieved 2010-06-30. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |fisrt= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  72. ^ Cooper, Robert Wayne (2008). "HOUSE BILL NO. 2554" (primary source). Missouri House of Representatives. Retrieved 2010-07-03. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  73. ^ National Center for Science Education (2008). "A new antievolution bill in Missouri". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-03. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  74. ^ National Center for Science Education (May 19, 2008). "Missouri antievolution bill dies". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2008-05-20.
  75. ^ National Center for Science Education (February 17, 2009). "Antievolution legislation in Missouri". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-03. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  76. ^ Cooper, Robert Wayne; Sutherland; Emery; Sanders; Neives; Cox (February 10, 2009). "House Bill 656". Missouri House of Representatives. Archived from the original (primary source) on 28 May 2010. Retrieved 2010-07-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  77. ^ National Center for Science Education (May 15, 2009). "Antievolution bill dead in Missouri". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-03. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  78. ^ House Bill 6027 (2008), Michigan House of Representatives
  79. ^ National Center for Science Education (January 30, 2006). "A second antievolution bill in Michigan". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  80. ^ SB 1386, South Carolina Senate
  81. ^ National Center for Science Education (May 14, 2008). "Antievolution legislation in South Carolina". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  82. ^ Greenville Sen. Mike Fair seeks to open debate on teaching of evolution, Tim Smith, Greenville Online, May 16, 2008
  83. ^ National Center for Science Education (March 18, 2005). "Antievolution legislation in South Carolina dies". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  84. ^ Roberts, Rod; Carroll (February 3, 2009). "House File 183" (primary source). Iowa Legislature. Retrieved 2010-07-13.
  85. ^ Brian Morelli (Feb 27, 2009). "Evolution bill raises ire of UI professors" (subscription site). Press - Citizen. Iowa City, Iowa. p. A.3. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  86. ^ Peter Schmidt (February 25, 2009). "Iowa Professors Mobilize Against Measure on Teaching Alternatives to Evolution". subscription site. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  87. ^ National Center for Science Education (March 16, 2009). "Antievolution bill dead in Iowa". self published newsletter. Retrieved 2010-07-08. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anti-evolution_legislation&oldid=498060401"