DOCSLIB.ORG

Interview with Glenn Branch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interview with Glenn Branch Interview with Glenn Branch Interview with Glenn Branch 1 Heslley Machado Silva 1Centro Universitário de Formiga (UNIFOR-MG) Glenn Branch is the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, where his work involves organizing resistance to attempts to undermine the teaching of socially but not scientifically controversial topics, such as evolution and climate change. He received the Evolution Education Award for 2020 from the National Association of Biology Teachers. He has written extensively about evolution and climate education, and threats to them, for scholarly journals, reference works, and popular magazines: his “The latest face of creationism,” written with Eugenie C. Scott, was translated as “Manobras mais recentes do criacionismo,” Scientific American Brasil 2009; 81: 82– 89. With Scott, he edited Not In Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong For Our Schools (2006). Branch is currently also coordinating NCSE’s survey research program, which recently produced a major publication: Eric Plutzer, Glenn Branch, and Ann Reid, “Teaching evolution in U.S. public schools: A continuing Photograph: Bob Melton challenge,” Evolution: Education and Outreach 2020; 13(14). 6| P á g i n a Conexão Ci. | Formiga/MG | Vol. 15 | Nº 4 |p. 6-5 | 2020 Interview with Glenn Branch 1. Tell us a little about the role of the [intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its National Center for Science Education, the non- creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” The governmental organization (NGO) in the USA intelligent design movement never really recovered where you work. What is its scope? from the blow. In the wake of Kitzmiller v. Dover, attacks on evolution in public education have NCSE was founded in the early 1980s, to serve increasingly eschewed calling for creationism to be as a national resource for grassroots organizations taught, instead favoring the strategy of belittling resisting the attempts to impose creation science— evolution. then the trendy form of creationism—in the public school system. NCSE continues to help people facing 3. Your organization has faced a similar challenges to evolution education, at the state, district, issue in relation to climate change. Tell us a little and school level. In 2012, NCSE added climate more about this form of scientific denialism. In change, like evolution a socially controversial topic in your opinion, why does it persist despite all the the United States, to its portfolio. Additional projects contrary evidence? currently under way include conducting research on evolution and climate change education; preparing and Climate change deniers vary. Some deny any disseminating model lesson plans on evolution, recent change in global climate at all; some climate change, and the nature of science; and aiding acknowledge that it’s real, but deny that human informal science education, especially in so-called activity is responsible; some acknowledge that it’s real science deserts, to develop relevant exhibits and and that it’s us, but deny that it will have significant activities. NCSE mainly focuses on the United States, effects on the world and our society; and some but we sometimes, when the need arises, collaborate acknowledge that it’s real, it’s us, and it’s bad, but with people abroad, including in Canada, the United deny that action can be taken to reduce, mitigate, and Kingdom, and Brazil. adapt to its impact. When NCSE first became involved with climate change, the first two forms of denial 2. You have been very active against the seemed to be the most prevalent; owing in part to the teaching of the latest incarnation of creationism, increasingly visible disruptions caused by climate intelligent design, in science classes. Tell us a little change, denialism seems to be shifting toward the less about the victories and difficulties of this battle. extreme forms. As with evolution denial, climate change denial The main victory was in 2005—exactly fifteen seems to be motivated by ideological, rather than years and three days ago, as I write—in a legal case scientific, concerns. Religious views appear only to called Kitzmiller v. Dover. In October 2004, the play a minor role in climate change denial, however. school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, voted to adopt a Rather, political and economic views—sometimes policy requiring students in the schools to “be made dubbed “free-market fundamentalism”—are the aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of drivers. International cooperation and government other theories of evolution including, but not limited regulation are generally acknowledged to be necessary to, intelligent design.” (I should explain that in the for a successful response to climate change; these United States, decisions about curriculum and provoke fears, among climate change deniers, of a instruction in primary and secondary education are one-world government and a massive redistribution of largely in the hands of local, rather than state or wealth, which are then transmuted into denial of the federal, government.) Eleven concerned parents filed underlying science. suit in federal court. The basic issue before the court was whether the 4. Brazil and the United States are policy endorsed a religious view, in violation of the currently experiencing the growth of science denial U.S. Constitution. The trial thus centered on questions movements. Give us some explanations why two such as: Are intelligent design and the idea that there countries so different in several aspects are are “gaps/problems” in evolution religious views? confronted with this phenomenon in a similar way. What was the board’s primary purpose in adopting the policy? And because the board’s defense was that the Well, not all science denial movements are policy was intended to promote science education, growing. Judging from public opinion surveys in the there was a further question: Is intelligent design United States, both evolution denial and climate science? NCSE helped to prepare the legal team change denial seem to have waned somewhat over the representing the parents, as well as their expert last couple of decades, although their levels remain witnesses (including three members of NCSE’s board high in comparison to those in much of the rest of the of directors), to answer these questions. developed world. (According to a recent multinational The judge presiding over the case concluded that survey by the Pew Research Center, by the way, it was “abundantly clear” that the policy was Brazilians were more likely than Americans to accept unconstitutional, adding, “In making this anthropogenic climate change but less likely to accept determination, we have addressed the seminal evolution.) And, for a lot of science denial movements, question of whether [intelligent design] is science. We public opinion survey data over time simply isn’t have concluded that it is not, and moreover that 7| P á g i n a Conexão Ci. | Formiga/MG | Vol. 15 | Nº 4 |p. 6-9 | 2020 Interview with Glenn Branch available, so it’s hard to know whether they are really effective in communicating about climate science with growing or merely increasing in visibility. fellow evangelical Christians. And I believe that it’s unhelpful to think that A handy document summarizing the current state there’s a single phenomenon — a war on science or a of the science of misinformation and its debunking is conspiracy against science, as various recent authors The Debunking Handbook 2020, freely available on- have described it — here. There are ways in which line at different forms of science denial are similar, of course. https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/debun By definition, they all involve denying principles of king-handbook-2020/ in English, German, Italian, and science that are widely accepted by the scientific Turkish editions — and a version in Brazilian community on the basis of overwhelming evidence, Portuguese is under preparation as I write! and they tend to converge on the same rhetoric for doing so. But different science denial movements vary 6. There has never been so much so much in their motivations, doctrines, tactics, scientific knowledge produced as there is today. strategies, and audiences that it’s hard to arrive at How do you think we can bring this kind of informative generalizations about science denial as a knowledge to the population and stop the whole. The title of a well-known paper from 1995 dissemination of and belief in fake news? hints at the problem: “Why Creationists Don’t Go to There are two questions there, and there isn’t a Psychic Fairs.” simple answer to either of them, but I’ll say a little It would be fair, though, to conclude that a about both. number of science denial movements have been To get scientific researchers to communicate disproportionately influential in the United States, with the public more often and more effectively, it’s primarily as the result of developments in national probably not enough to appeal to their public spirit: politics. In broad strokes, the Republican party in incentives and resources are necessary. NCSE has particular embraced evolution denial when it engulfed been experimenting in a small way with helping to evangelical Christianity in the 1960s and climate fund graduate students to do outreach in informal change denial when it was captured by the fossil fuel science education environments, especially to industry in the 1990s. The attitudes toward science in underserved communities. In this model, just as general engendered by these embraces, coupled with a graduate students are funded to do research or to teach, populist and anti-elitist strategy appealing to the they can also be trained in, and funded to do, outreach. increasingly rural and less educated base of the party, It’s too early to say yet whether this will ultimately be now makes the party hospitable to a wide (but not a successful model, but we can imagine a future in unlimited) variety of forms of science denial.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R
    Document generated on 10/02/2021 4:16 p.m. Geoscience Canada A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R. Wiles Volume 33, Number 3, September 2006 Article abstract The rejection of biological and geological evolution is a pervasive problem in URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/geocan33_3com01 science education. Recent events in the United States have brought anti-evolution activity to the forefront in media coverage of science education, See table of contents but Canadians are often unaware that such creationist, anti-evolution activity is present in Canada as well. In this article, various foreign and Canadian-based anti-evolution efforts that threaten biology and geoscience education are Publisher(s) discussed. These creationist organizations and their activities may adversely influence Canadian science curricula and public understanding of evolution The Geological Association of Canada and science in general. ISSN 0315-0941 (print) 1911-4850 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Wiles, J. R. (2006). A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada. Geoscience Canada, 33(3), 135–140. All rights reserved © The Geological Association of Canada, 2006 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Coverage of International Climate Change Policy • Chandra Lal Pandey and Priya A
    The Media and the Major Emitters: Media Coverage of International Climate Change Policy • Chandra Lal Pandey and Priya A. Kurian* Abstract News media outlets are crucial for the dissemination of information on climate change issues, but the nature of the coverage varies across the world, depending on local geo- political and economic contexts. Despite extensive scholarship on media and climate change, less attention has been paid to comparing how climate change is reported by news media in developed and developing countries. This article undertakes a cross- national study of how elite newspapers in four major greenhouse gas emitting countries— the United States, the United Kingdom, China and India—frame coverage of climate change negotiations. We show that framing is similar by these newspapers in developing countries, but there are clear differences in framing in the developed world, and between the developed and developing countries. While an overwhelming majority of these news stories and the frames they deploy are pegged to the stance of domestic institutions in the developing countries, news frames from developed countries are more varied. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic cli- mate change and the threat it poses to the planet, international policy responses— most notably in the form of a global climate treaty—remain fragmented and inadequate. The on-going negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are marked by a fundamental dis- juncture between
    [Show full text]
  • Science Denial As a Form of Pseudoscience
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63 (2017) 39e47 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Science denial as a form of pseudoscience Sven Ove Hansson Department of Philosophy and History, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Brinellvägen 32, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden article info abstract Article history: Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human Received 14 September 2016 civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been Received in revised form connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This 3 March 2017 contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudo- Available online 31 May 2017 science, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science Keywords: denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of Science denialism Pseudoscience pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male Climate science denialism dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is Creationism argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceived with these characteristics in Relativity theory denial mind. In particular, it is important to expose the fabricated fake controversies for what they are and to reveal how science denialists consistently use deviant criteria of assent to distort the scientific process.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Denialism: Organized Opposition to Climate Change Action in the United States
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341162159 Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States Preprint · May 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14299.18723 CITATIONS READS 0 208 1 author: Robert J Brulle Drexel University 57 PUBLICATIONS 2,770 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Green Money and the Environment View project Aggregate Public Concern over Climate Change View project All content following this page was uploaded by Robert J Brulle on 05 May 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Brulle, Robert J. 2020. Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States, pp. 328 - 341 in David Konisky (Ed.) Handbook of Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA. 24. Denialism: organized opposition to climate change action in the United States Robert J. Brulle Despite extreme weather events and urgent warnings from the scientific community, action to mitigate carbon emissions is stalled. Following the dramatic Congressional testimony in 1988 of Dr. James E. Hansen (Hansen 1988: 40), climate change emerged as a global issue. Since that time a broad range of actors with divergent interests have entered into the public arena and engaged in a struggle to control public discussion and understanding of climate change, and thus define appropriate policy responses. In this political struggle, efforts to take action on climate change have encountered substantial social inertia in the form of cultural, institutional, and individual resistance (Brulle and Norgaard 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenie Scott
    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
    [Show full text]
  • AIDS Denialism Beliefs Among People Living with HIV/AIDS
    J Behav Med (2010) 33:432–440 DOI 10.1007/s10865-010-9275-7 ‘‘There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS’’: AIDS denialism beliefs among people living with HIV/AIDS Seth C. Kalichman • Lisa Eaton • Chauncey Cherry Received: February 1, 2010 / Accepted: June 11, 2010 / Published online: June 23, 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 Abstract AIDS denialists offer false hope to people liv- example, claim that Nazi Germany did not systematically ing with HIV/AIDS by claiming that HIV is harmless and kill 6 million Jews (Shermer and Grobman 2000) and that AIDS can be cured with natural remedies. The current Global Warming Deniers believe that climatology is a study examined the prevalence of AIDS denialism beliefs flawed science with no proof of greenhouse gases changing and their association to health-related outcomes among the atmosphere (Lawler 2002). Among the most vocal people living with HIV/AIDS. Confidential surveys and anti-science denial movements is AIDS Denialism, an out- unannounced pill counts were collected from a conve- growth of the radical views of University of California nience sample of 266 men and 77 women living with HIV/ biologist Duesberg and his associates (1992, 1994; Duesberg AIDS that was predominantly middle-aged and African and Bialy 1995; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). Duesberg American. One in five participants stated that there is no claims that HIV and all other retroviruses are harmless and proof that HIV causes AIDS and that HIV treatments do that AIDS is actually caused by illicit drug abuse, poverty, more harm than good. AIDS denialism beliefs were more and antiretroviral medications (Duesberg et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from an HIV Denialist in the Hills of Thailand
    Lessons from an HIV denialist in the hills of Thailand Brian Chang Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA I spent a month volunteering with Dr. Mark,* a physician in community. Further, denialist movements often go beyond science, the hill tribe villages of northern Thailand, in the summer of 2010. becoming “a social movement in which large numbers of people He was born in Myanmar, graduated from medical school in India come together and propound their views with missionary zeal.”3 and founded a small grassroots organization dedicated to the health HIV/AIDS denialism itself exists in a spectrum, ranging from of hill tribe villagers. He spent the last five years moving from village the rejection of the fact that HIV is a virus, to the denial of the caus- to village along the mountainous Thai-Burmese border, working on ative relationship between HIV and AIDS. I read arguments from sanitation projects and seeing patients in makeshift clinics. He is hard Dr. Peter Duesberg, a prominent cancer researcher, member of the working, humble and is known for his fluency in eight languages, in- National Academy of Sciences and a key voice in denying that HIV cluding all six of the local hill tribe dialects. During my month with causes AIDS. I also read claims from groups like RethinkingAIDS, Dr. Mark and his organization, I helped build toilets, collect water an international group of over 2,500 scientists, doctors and journal- supplies and run medical clinics. ists “reevaluating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.”4-6 In fact, AIDS de- Through this experience and my discussions about HIV/AIDS nialists (including Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of the Post-Truth
    editorial The challenge of the post-truth era Science denial is not new but, in the digital age, evidence-based conclusions appear to be increasingly threatened by beliefs based on emotion and isolated personal experience. When confronting a post-truth world, scientists must defend the scientifc method and increase public engagement. few weeks ago the Nobel Prize in warming. Whether the science-sceptic public expenditure on research and development Chemistry was awarded to Frances H. and policymakers will heed this call for has more than doubled between 2000 AArnold for the directed evolution of drastic changes remains unclear. and 2015, with the US investing the most enzymes, and to George P. Smith and Gregory Pseudoscience also poses an immediate in STEM, followed by China and the EU P. Winter for the phage display of peptides and threat to public health in the form of anti- (https://go.nature.com/2IQdScc). In the antibodies. The Royal Swedish Academy of vaccination movements, which can lead to US alone the number of STEM jobs is Sciences recognized that the Nobel Laureates’ epidemics of otherwise preventable diseases. estimated to grow by 13% by 2027, a rate work used the principles of evolution, and A prominent example stems from a, now higher than that projected for non-STEM hailed the benefit it heralds for humankind. fully retracted, 1998 paper that alleged a link positions (https://go.nature.com/2yA1l88). The counterweight to this celebration is the between autism and the measles, mumps and But despite the high demand for STEM- fierce denial the theory of evolution currently rubella (MMR) vaccine.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Growth of Denialism Undermines Public Health
    READING BETWEEN THE LINES How the growth of denialism undermines public health Espousing unproved myths and legends is widespread during the festive season, but some groups hold views contrary to the available evidence throughout the year. This phenomenon, known as denialism, is becoming more elaborate and widespread, and poses a danger to public health, say Martin McKee and Pascal Diethelm hristmas is a are not. Unfortunately, time when many confusion is encouraged entirely rational by the liberal use of the people whose term, such as when the views are based current British govern- Csolidly on empirical evi- ment uses the term “def- dence the rest of the year icit deniers” to attack suspend their critical fac- critics of its economic ulties and say things they policy, a group that now know to be untrue. Just in includes large num- case any young children bers of distinguished have picked up their par- economic researchers, ents’ copy of the BMJ, we among them several won’t go into detail except to Nobel laureates.8 say that the subject of these Although contempo- falsehoods traditionally rary usage of the term originates in the far north.1 is relatively recent, the Such stories are harmless concept of denialism and those telling them will, has been recognised when their children reach GERARDOGARCIA/REUTERS for several decades. A an appropriate age, abandon chapter entitled “Denial the pretence. Yet other people hold views that Denialism and its history of reality” in a 1957 book describing the are equally untrue and do so with an unshake- The term “denialism” has been coined to p henomenon of cognitive dissonance notes able faith, never admitting they are wrong describe this phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Examples of Pseudoscience
    Four Examples of Pseudoscience Marcos Villavicencio Tenerife, Canarias, Spain E-mail address: [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6700-4872 January 2020 Abstract A relevant issue in the philosophy of science is the demarcation problem: how to distinguish science from nonscience, and, more specifically, science from pseudoscience. Sometimes, the demarcation problem is debated from a very general perspective, proposing demarcation criteria to separate science from pseudoscience, but without discussing any specific field in detail. This article aims to focus the demarcation problem on particular disciplines or theories. After considering a set of demarcation criteria, four pseudosciences are examined: psychoanalysis, speculative evolutionary psychology, universal grammar, and string theory. It is concluded that these theoretical frameworks do not meet the requirements to be considered genuinely scientific. Keywords Demarcation Problem · Pseudoscience · Psychoanalysis · Evolutionary psychology · Universal grammar · String theory 1 Introduction The demarcation problem is the issue of how to differentiate science from nonscience in general and pseudoscience in particular. Even though expressions such as “demarcation problem” or “pseudoscience” were still not used, some consider that an early interest for demarcation existed as far back as the time of ancient Greece, when Aristotle separated episteme (scientific knowledge) from mere doxa (opinion), holding that apodictic certainty is the basis of science (Laudan 1983, p. 112). Nowadays, the issue of demarcation continues being discussed. Certainly, demarcating science from pseudoscience is not a topic of exclusive philosophical interest. Scientists and members of skeptical organizations such as the Committee for Scientific Inquiry also deal with this crucial theme. The issue of how to recognize pseudoscience not only affects academia.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Students Be Able to Opt out of Evolution? Some Philosophical Considerations
    Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:163–169 DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0222-4 EDUCATION ARTICLE Should Students Be Able to Opt Out of Evolution? Some Philosophical Considerations Robert T. Pennock Published online: 21 April 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 Abstract One new development in the ongoing creationism/ was going to hurt Alberta’s international image and make it evolution controversy has been the proposal to institute opt- “sound like Arkansas.” (CBC News 2009a) out policies that would allow creationist parents to exempt A similar controversy had arisen in the United States their children from any instruction involving evolution. By in Oklahoma earlier in the year. A proposed “Science way of an explanation of some of the philosophical issues at Education and Academic Freedom Act,” which followed play in the debate over evolution and the nature of science, the script of other so-called “Academic Freedom” bills that this article shows the educational folly of such policies. If Intelligent Design Creationists (IDCs) were lobbying for, evolution is taught properly, it should not be possible to opt included language that said students could not be “penalized out of it without opting out of biology. Moreover, if Intelligent in any way because [they] subscribe to a particular position” Design creationist criticisms of evolution and scientific on scientific theories. The key aim of the bill was to allow naturalism were taken as the basis for opting out, then the creationist material that would critique evolution and other effect would be even more radical and would require opting scientific theories, and opponents of the bill pointed out that out of science entirely.
    [Show full text]