More Evo-Creo News from NCSE

From the National Center for Science Education:

UPDATE ON EVOLUTION IN THE FLORIDA STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS

Support for the inclusion of evolution in Florida’s draft science standards continues to amass. Writing in the Orlando Sentinel (October 25, 2007), Mike Thomas quipped, “We are moving toward intelligently designed science curriculum in public schools. And by that I mean we are leaving intelligent design out of classrooms. By golly, Florida is evolving.” The standards are presently open for public comment for sixty days; Thomas reported, “Of 1,400 respondents to date, more than 80 percent support evolution.” A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education told Thomas that the draft standards are based on “[w]hat research says should be in the standards” and that nothing would be deleted from the standards in the absence of a research-based argument for the deletion.

Following previous editorials in Florida Today, the Tallahassee Democrat, and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando Sentinel (October 27, 2007) opined, “It’s taken seven years, but Florida is on its way to developing a science curriculum for the new millennium — one that requires teachers openly and vigorously to teach about evolution,” adding, “it’s important that the state Board of Education and Gov. Charlie Crist fully endorse these changes to ensure Florida’s children can compete in the increasingly technology-driven global marketplace.” Noting that evolution is one of the so-called Big Ideas of the science standards, the editorial concluded by proposing, “Let’s add one more big idea. In Florida, science should win out over politics when it comes to educating children.” …

visit NCSE for the entire report.

… and …

THE ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION ADDS ITS VOICE FOR EVOLUTION

The Association for Science Education — a professional association for teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000 members — recently issued a statement on science education, “intelligent design,” and creationism, reading in part:

***

it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific “theory”. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all.
Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.

***

The statement also cautions against presenting “intelligent design” as a case study of a controversy in science, commenting, “Intelligent Design …
cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial science,” and recommends that “it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory” if it is presented in religious education classes.

    Current ye@r *