Senate debates evolution academic freedom bill

TALLAHASSEE (FBW) — The Florida Senate debated a bill to protect academic freedom of teachers and students who wish to consider criticisms of evolution April 17, focusing repeatedly on concerns the measure will allow Intelligent Design to be taught in public school classrooms.

For related coverage, click image.

The Academic Freedom Act, SB 2692, was introduced by Sen. Ronda Storms (R-Brandon) in response to new statewide science standards that have been the subject of debate since its release last October, with critics asserting the standards require a dogmatic acceptance of evolution.

“The bill is needed because the new science standards present the theory of evolution in a dogmatic way and assume its validity without critical thought or examination,” Storms told the senators in presenting her legislation. “The bill does not require any change to current science curriculum and evolution still will be taught as a matter of law when this bill passes.”

Storms, a former public high school English teacher, said the bill gives an “expressed statutory right protection for teachers to present scientific information that is relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution.”

For related coverage, click image.

A member of First Baptist Church in Brandon, Storms said: “All students will still need to learn and be tested on all aspects of the science standards, including evolution. The bill makes the existing science standards stronger because it allows the free-flow of scientific evidence and information about evolution to take place.”

Although Storms said in her opening statement “the bill does not authorize the teaching of creationism or even Intelligent Design,” and answered “no,” when asked by Sen. Don Gaetz (R-Fort Walton Beach) if the bill would permit teaching creationism or Intelligent Design, critics of the bill repeatedly challenged Storms on this point.

Sen. Nan Rich (D-Sunrise) and Sen. Steven Geller (D-Hallandale), the Senate minority leader, asked Storms a total of five times about Intelligent Design. Each time, Storms read language either directly from the bill or otherwise declined to further respond.

Intelligent Design has been held by one federal court to violate the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment, ruling it is a version of creationism, rather than a valid scientific theory.

Intelligent Design postulates that the intricate design evident in human beings and the natural world undermines Darwinism’s argument of a common ancestry for all living things evolving over billions of years by means of natural selection.

“The bill specifically says you may not teach religious doctrine. It’s specifically says that. I don’t know how else to say it,” Storms told Rich when asked if teachers who teach Intelligent Design could be disciplined under her bill.

Asked a second time by Rich, Storms said, “Mr. President, asked and answered.”

When pressed by Geller about Intelligent Design, Storms replied: “You may teach specifically, scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution. The bottom line is, if it is not scientifically based and if it is not scientifically relevant, the answer is ‘no.’ If it is, the answer is ‘yes.’”

When Geller asked a third time about Intelligent Design, seeking Storms’ personal view if Intelligent Design met the criteria of the bill, Senate President Ken Pruitt (R-Port St. Lucie), informed Storms, “you don’t have to answer that if you don’t want to… .”

Storms answered: “I absolutely believe that evolution should be taught in public schools. I also believe that we should teach the full-range of critical analysis of evolution. That’s what my personal belief is,” adding that as an English educator, “I’m more inclined to teach Shakespeare ….”

In a moment of levity between Geller and Storms while introducing his Intelligent Design questions, Geller told the Senate president he had one last question, “assuming I get the answer I want.” Storms, laughing, replied, “I can assure you, you won’t.” To which Geller responded, “I’m aware of that.”

Earlier in the debate, Geller challenged the bill’s finding that many teachers have experienced or feared discipline for offering views questioning Darwinism, asking for examples of such teachers.

Storms said teachers were ready to testify before one committee, but testimony was cut off because the panel was running out of time, adding, there “is no vehicle for them to lodge a formal complaint today.”

Storms said teachers are punished in less obvious ways, like getting “bathroom duty” or “bus duty.”

Other senators asked Storms if religious theories of origins – including Scientology, Raelism, Hinduism and Satanism – would be permitted under her bill.

“You’ll be glad to know that the bill specifically declines to promote any religious doctrine,” Storms replied to one senator.

On a voice vote, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Ted Deutch (D-Delray Beach) that would have allowed academic freedom to teachers and students regarding comprehensive sex education currently not permitted in schools requiring abstinence-only sex education.

Reflecting on the debate, Florida Baptist Convention legislative consultant Bill Bunkley told Florida Baptist Witness Storms “weathered the gauntlet.”

“With repeated questions about Intelligent Design taking center stage, Sen. Storms took the best the Florida Senate liberals had to fire against her in today’s floor questioning – from attempting a rogue amendment to teach wide open sex education without any parental involvement to discussing if the Raelians’ theory of man’s origins would be acceptable teaching,” Bunkley said.

No vote was taken. Final consideration by the Senate could come as early as April 23, according to Bunkley.

A companion bill in the Florida House of Representatives, HB 1483, was approved by a House council April 11 but differs significantly from Storms’ bill. House floor consideration has not been scheduled.