Printer Friendly

Designing an intelligent curriculum.

In the last 30 years, there has been a steady stream of legal actions and proposed legislation in states--including Michigan, Indiana, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas--that underscores the continuing dissatisfaction of American citizens with Darwinian evolution enjoying a monopoly in the science classroom.

For left-wing secularists and humanists, the glory days of requiring public schools to exclusively teach evolution as the only scientific approach to life on Earth may be over. While "creationism" and "God" are still dirty words in public schoolrooms, "intelligent design" may yet see light.

Utah's Senate Bill 96 was passed by the Senate on January 23, 2006, by a 16-12 vote. It has now moved to the Utah House, where its fate is uncertain--it has supporters and detractors from both parties.

If passed, SB 96 would require the Utah State Board of Education to "establish certain curriculum requirements and policies relating to instruction on theories of the origins of life." In particular, the bill states that "if instruction is given to students on any theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, then that instruction shall stress that not all scientists agree on which theory is correct." Nor, continues the bill, should the instruction "endorse a particular theory regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race." Nowhere in the bill will you find the term "intelligent design," but that theory certainly comes to mind when one mentions "alternative theories of the origin of the human race."

Sponsor Senator Chris Buttars said, "Whenever anyone challenges the evolution people, they go berserk." He pointed out that evolution "is not a fact."

Although evolution has taken a direct hit in Utah, the battle still rages--while the Utah Senate was debating SB 96, a federal court judge ruled that intelligent design cannot be taught in biology classes in a Dover, Pennsylvania, school district.
COPYRIGHT 2006 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gilmore, Jodie
Publication:The New American
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 6, 2006
Previous Article:HSLDA gets family out of hot water.
Next Article:Insight into America's Uncivil War: a textbook about the Civil War's causes, conflicts, and long-term consequences is critiqued and found to be...

Related Articles
A Collaborative Approach for Creating Curriculum and Instructional Materials.
An authoring model and tools for knowledge engineering in Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
W.Va. school officials consider `intelligent design'. (AU Bulletin).
Revolution in evolution? The evolution vs. creationism controversy continues to influence public school curriculum.
Two-thirds of Americans want Creationism taught in schools.
Utah School officials reject 'intelligent design'.
Federal court clears way for Pa. lawsuit against 'intelligent design'.
Victory in Dover! Federal Court unmasks the Genesis of 'intelligent design'--and the lies that helped bring it into Pennsylvania public schools.
Evolution in action: the trials and tribulations of intelligent design.
Michigan school board flunks 'intelligent design'.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |