State of Florida Evolution Academic Freedom Act Bill Essay Example

a teacher was fined for teaching the Darwin evolution theory, is also brought to mind. If passed, this bill, introduced by Ronda Storms, may face criticism similar to that which arose over the Butler Act (Larson 101).

Alan Hays sponsored a Florida House of Representatives bill that closely resembles the Alabama bill. The bill aims to remove the social and legal stigma surrounding the discussion of the Darwin theory of evolution in the classroom, allowing teachers and students to fully analyze and explore the topic. Despite its potential controversy, Hays insists that the bill is not controversial. Ronda Storms, who sponsored the bill, is thrilled with its progress. A vote of 21-17 is impressive, given the already sparked controversy surrounding the bill.

The ongoing dispute between science and religion has stirred controversy and remains a contentious topic. Previously, teachers who considered discussing criticisms of the evolution theory or students who expressed interest in it were labeled as religious zealots. In Missouri, Republican Party Representative Robert Wayne Cooper introduced a bill similar to the Florida one on April 1, 2008, which aims to expose students to scientific facts and theories, regardless of controversy, to help develop critical analytical skills (National Centre for Science Education). During the heated debate in the Florida house, both sides referenced cultural practices and the Tennessee Scopes Monkey trial ruling (Jeffrey 17). The bill initiator urged members to watch the contentious documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

In order to promote a bill, this documentary presents modern science in a convenient way. It is argued by Ben Stein that modern science is suppressing any negative views or criticism towards the evolution theory and other controversial

topics such as the holocaust. Additionally, academicians allude to evidence supporting Intelligence Design in human development (Caputo). Intelligence Design is an emerging perspective that suggests the universe can be better understood through an intelligent course, rather than through natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin. Intelligence Design accepts the presence of a Super Architect of the universe, without necessarily acknowledging the existence of God (Michael 34).

Proposed bills in Missouri and Florida may introduce intelligent design as an academic theory challenging the claims of Darwinism. However, opposition has been swift, particularly in Florida where support for evolution is strong. Despite this resistance, activists persist in opposing the legislation. Advocate Ronda Storms denies allegations that the bill promotes biblical teaching and asserts that section seven expressly prohibits promoting any religious doctrine or discrimination against religious beliefs. The aim of the bill is to prevent suppression of criticism towards Darwinism. (Storms 3)

According to Ronda Storms and her supporters, Darwinism should not be presented as an absolute truth but rather as a theory that can be subject to philosophical criticism. However, the ACLU strongly opposes this bill as it may result in the teaching of intelligent design - which is not grounded in scientific theory but rather unfounded ideas. In a press release on March 12th, 2008, Howard Simon (director of ACLU Florida) expressed concerns that allowing intelligent design to be taught would lead to embarrassment for the Florida legislature and therefore should not be allowed.The courts have confirmed that intelligent design is a religious perspective because of its dependence on supernatural forces, as noted by the ACLU of Florida. The proposed bill, which suggests analyzing concepts that question evolution,

has faced criticism for not including other contentious notions such as abortion. A writer at Sun-Sentinel.com believes that the intentions behind the bill are not transparent.

Critics of the Academic Freedom Bill fear that it may allow for the introduction of creationism into schools. They argue that instead of promoting certain beliefs, the bill should protect teachers' rights to present opposing views on topics such as abstinence and contraceptives. The bill's definition of "biological and chemical evolution" is noted to be ambiguous in a review.

The Florida Senate states that the bill lacks clarity on the problem it aims to solve as there have been no reported cases of discrimination against teachers or students discussing the evolution theory. Critics argue that the bill will only protect educators from criticism for classroom statements, without safeguarding freedom of speech. Democratic Senator Arthenia Joyner believes that the bill promotes a specific religious perspective that contradicts its creator's claims. She asserts that the bill will intensify the existing dispute between biblical creation beliefs and Darwin's theory of evolution. While some view the bill as a deviation from current scientific standards, others argue that it duplicates pre-existing provisions.

(Scott & Branch 42) The Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement recognizes that the present science standards enable thorough analysis of diverse scientific theories by teachers and educators. Nonetheless, it strongly maintains that widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution has not been achieved. Opponents of the bill contend that it is more inclined towards promoting creationism instead of providing students and teachers with an opportunity to comprehensively examine and evaluate the theory of evolution (The Florida Senate 2692). Democrats are primarily responsible for

opposing this bill due to valid reasons.

Despite making significant headway and achieving success in the house, further progress is required for the bill's passage in the senate. However, it is crucial to note that the bill does not advocate for intelligent design, as emphasized by Hays and Storm. To address criticisms, revisions and modifications must be made to address pertinent concerns. It should be evident to all members that this bill supports teachers' freedom of expression rather than promoting creationism.

Works citedhttp://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2008/Senate/bills/analysis/pdf/2008s2692.ed.pdf