"Academic freedom" bill passes Senate committee

By DAVID DECAMP
Times Staff Writer

TALLAHASSEE — A Senate panel endorsed “protections” Wednesday for students and teachers who offer alternative theories to evolution — despite a report saying there’s never been a case alleging such discrimination in Florida.

Sen. Ronda Storms’ “academic freedom” bill, which won a 4-1 vote by an education committee, says teachers cannot be punished or denied tenure if they “objectively” present scientific information, even if it questions evolution. Students receive the same shield in their coursework.

“It’s interesting for me to note that the only folks who have brought up religion today have been those in opposition,” said Storms, R-Valrico, who suggested the bill helps foster critical thinking, not faith-based teaching.

The bill (SB 2692/HB 1483) has prompted stiff defense by cultural conservatives, and equally stiff objections from scientists and the American Civil Liberties Union — and renewed the debate over evolution and creationism in schools. The bill was introduced after the State Board of Education voted 4-3 last month to adopt new science standards that embrace evolution, but refer to it as a “scientific theory.”

But there has never been a case where a teacher or student has complained they were discriminated against because of science teaching or coursework, according to a Senate staff analysis. Storms, a former teacher, said they were afraid to come forward. Asked about the cases, she quoted messages she received that attacked her for the bill.

The analysis also warned that the ambiguous definition on key terms could expose teachers and districts to lawsuits. And the bill does not define who determines the objectivity of scientific information presented to students.

In fact, ACLU lobbyist Courtenay Strickland said if schools act on the bill, the civil liberties group would sue, as it did in a landmark Pennsylvania case that rejected creationism.

“The purpose of the bill as explained was to ensure that students couldn’t be punished for raising scientific objections to evolution. We didn’t hear from anyone today that suggested there were any kind repercussions for questioning evolution with science,” said Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, the lone dissent.

Sens. Lisa Carlton, Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Steve Wise, and Larcenia Bullard voted for it. Committee Chairman Don Gaetz and Vice Chairwoman Frederica Wilson were absent.

But Bullard, the lone supportive Democrat, had reservations. And she said she might not support it if a final Senate vote is taken.

“This is very confusing to me because I believe this is going to open the door for some serious problems in the public school system,” said Bullard, of Miami.

The bill still has to be approved by the Senate judiciary committee before a full Senate vote. The House bill, sponsored by Alan Hayes, R-Umatilla, hasn’t been scheduled for a hearing.

Scientists like University of South Florida professor Robert Meisels, who helped write the new science standards, said the bill is unnecessary and reflected a back-door attempt to allow faith-based ideology into science classes — where it doesn’t belong.

But John Stemberger, of the Florida Family Policy Council, countered, “There is significant debate – legitimate scientific debate – over the value of Darwinism.

Comments

[Dave W]

What a stupid bill. I feel so bad for the victims of Florida public education. I'm from rural western PA, the part of state where Rick Santorum had his strongest support, and we had none of this nonsense. It's amazing how some people in Tampa are so brilliant and educated, while others think Ronda Storms is good for the state.

[Drew Smith]

TP writes: "one with a half of a brain would conclude it's lack of creditablity. The only conclusion available is the intent to support such nonsence is pure dishonesty....By the way I work for a living...no more time to spare with you "Mental Midgets" Get a job"

Unable to sustain an argument, TP resorts to insults. No surprise.

[Drew Smith]

TP wrote: "How about the Billions and Billions years of mutational fossil remains? where are they"

I responded: Already fully addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

TP responded: "Gee Drew,
So you believe everything you read?"

No, I accept those arguments that are based upon evidence and logic, such as the one I provided a link to for you that fully addressed your question.

***

TP responded: "Wheres the physical evidence?"

The physical evidence has been described in the professional scientific literature for decades.

[Chris W]

TP - I assume you mean 'transitional fossils', not 'mutational fossils', and there are *lots* of them. How many would you like me to illustrate for you?

You are the past master of the oblivious tautology, btw: "information you read defys any reasonable or creditable logic" and then "lack of creditability" in the same sentence? Yeesh!

If you keep doing this "nyah, nyah!" hit and run bit, I'm going to have to conclude that you won't tell me what your evidence threshold is because you're afraid I can meet it.

[TP]

By the way I work for a living...no more time to spare with you "Mental Midgets" Get a job...Have a nice day

[TP]

Good Point Mike, but when the information you read defys any reasonable or creditable logic, one with a half of a brain would conclude it's lack of creditablity.The only conclusion available is the intent to support such nonsence is pure dishonesty. Have a great day

[Mike]

Ahh wonderful, the battle between the "unholy" crusaders Chris W and Drew Smith versus the "righteous and divinely enlightened" OC and random other creationist for the column square off once again. Who will win? Who, outside of the four of them will care? Will these questions ever be answered? Will Chris W and Drew Smith end the topic by asking questions that are generally avoided time and time again in these comment section while refuting the blasé "you haven't dug up the evidence yet so you are wrong".

Isn't it better, TP, to try to understand the concepts of what you read and do your best to observe them in a logical way than to believe the one thing you've read and shun the challenges to it?

[TP]

Gee Drew,
So you believe everything you read?....
What a joke...Wheres the physical evidence?

[Drew Smith]

TP wrote: "How about the Billions and Billions years of mutational fossil remains? where are they"

Already fully addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

[Drew Smith]

Offensive Christian wrote: "How about the lack of evidence supporting any information adding mutation."

Already fully addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[TP]

How about the Billions and Billions years of mutational fossil remains? where are they Chris...still waiting
Stop fighting the TRUTH Chris. You will be happy you did. Have a nice day
(by the way..I'm not a "Creationist" just someonethat happens to know the truth.

[Chris W]

OC, before you can talk about "lack of evidence" you have to speak to what evidence is lacking. You sound like a lot of creationists here, repeating what you think is a "gotcha" without explaining it (which makes those of us here who can tie our shoes without an instruction manual think you don't really understand it).

[Offensive Christian]

Drew,

How about the lack of evidence supporting any information adding mutation.

OC
http://offensivechristians.com

[Drew Smith]

Stemberger is quoted as saying "There is significant debate – legitimate scientific debate – over the value of Darwinism."

And on what basis does Stemberger conclude that this debate is either "significant" or "scientific"?

[Drew Smith]

Storms is quoted as saying: "It’s interesting for me to note that the only folks who have brought up religion today have been those in opposition".

It's interesting for me to note that the legislation is modeled on that provided by the Discovery Institute, the same folks whose Wedge Document had as one of its goals: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

It's also interesting for me to note that Storms has yet to provide any evidence that this legislation is needed.

[Mike]

This opens the door for teachers to "play God" in their classrooms. Unfortunately, if this passes, until a child speaks out to their parents who actually make a big deal out of it, a teacher will be able to strike down anything conflicting as unscientific to students in their class. I really haven't read many documents from first year high school biology students concerned with the avenues of evolution debated in a scientific manner. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is when they are learning some of the details in the first place. Why are we still trying to bring university debates to the unprofessional level of students vs. teachers? I really hope there's enough in our education budget to support the much deserved lawsuit if this is passed. (it does still have a long way to go, but our retarded legislature will surely aid it along)

[Sherman Dorn]

So evolution is constructed, but history is all about facts (http://www.shermandorn.com/mt/archives/001227.html).

[JLO]

"...won a 4-1 vote by an education committee"? Really? That's just sad.

[Ann E. Mouse]

Visit: endteacherabuse.org