Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
We were unable to send your email.
Click here to try again.
Dueling bills on teaching of evolution may not survive
By
Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler, Times Staff Writer
In print: Tuesday, April 29, 2008
TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Legislature may not weigh in on the state's new standards for teaching evolution after all.
Chalk it up to a difference of words between two lawmakers' bills, and the reality that there might not be enough time left this session to negotiate a compromise.
The House on Monday voted 71-43 for a controversial evolution bill (HB 1483) that adds to required public school curriculum a "scientific critical analysis" of the theory of evolution.
But the Senate rejected similar language last week, instead passing Brandon Republican Sen. Ronda Storms' "Evolution Academic Freedom Act," a more broadly worded bill (SB 2692) that spells out protections for teachers and students who question evolution.
Storms' bill expressly says that it "does not promote any religious doctrine."
And Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, insists his legislation "has nothing to do with religion."
"A true scientist is searching for the truth, and that's what we should be encouraging," Hays said. "This bill does not promote the teaching of religion."
But critics say that if passed into law, it would open the door for the teaching of religious theories like creationism and intelligent design.
Critics also argue the legislation isn't necessary because science standards inherently encourage critical thinking and discussion.
"This is silly legislation," said Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, D-Sarasota. "It corrects a problem that does not exist. It's the nature of science that all theories are subject to critical analysis."
But Monday's lengthy debate on the House floor might have been all for naught anyway.
Legislative procedure requires that the House bill now go back to the Senate for consideration.
Unless lawmakers there accept it, the bill cannot go to the governor to sign into law.
Storms said Monday that she knows her chamber won't pass Hays' proposal, so she will ask the House to consider and vote on her version.
"I have no choice," she said. "And I believe in miracles."
Hays said he'll try to get Storms' bill heard before session ends Friday, but he conceded it will take "a lot of lifting."
Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, House majority whip, said there is "not much appetite" in the House for Storms' proposal.
"I think we made our position clear already," she said. "The members are uncomfortable with the Senate version."
Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler can be reached at svansickler@sptimes.com or (850) 224-7263.
[Last modified: May 04, 2008 11:39 AM]
Comments on this article
|
by Kevin
|
May 4, 2008 11:39 AM
|
|
Great. A contest in the legislature to determine whose variety of stupid makes more sense.
Why is it you never see challenges to gravity and germ theory or wanting astrology taught alongside astronomy? Sure, no religious agenda here!
Morons.
|
|
by Anthony
|
Apr 30, 2008 3:28 PM
|
|
Its little things like not know the proper term for our legislators that will surely not get them voted out next time around. Nobody pays enough attention so we get what we deserve as citizens.
|
|
by Larry
|
Apr 30, 2008 8:47 AM
|
|
I don't much care whether these bills are good or bad -- I just feel that something is needed to counteract those infamous Kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County decisions (the Selman decision is now moot because it was set
|
|
by Andrew
|
Apr 29, 2008 2:58 PM
|
|
Go ahead and pass them. We already think you are stupid.
|
|
by scienceteacher
|
Apr 29, 2008 2:49 PM
|
|
I guess if it doesn't pass by Friday we can clearly say that Storm's prayers cannot be answered hence cannot be valid therefore not scientifically based on critical analysis, so let it die forever.
Her own words will prove ironically proph
|
|
by Kenneth
|
Apr 29, 2008 2:49 PM
|
|
I'm thinking there will be a lot of congressmen fired (due to the next election) for refusing to get things done. I'll make sure to post the names of those that couldn't concedeThe next congress will have more conservatives
|
|