Bias Killed Darwin-Critical Curriculum Proposal
By Jim Brown
January 25, 2005
AgapePress
A parent in California has sued his local district over its exclusion of science materials that present weaknesses and criticisms of evolution. Larry Caldwell’s lawsuit alleges the Roseville School District rejected his proposed curriculum because he is a Christian and school officials do not want to inform students of the controversy surrounding Darwin’s theories.
Caldwell says if the district truly wanted to promote tolerance and diversity of thought, it would not be employing such a glaring double standard. He says the materials included in the proposed curriculum included textual materials written by a highly qualified scientist as well as video curriculum materials.
‘Everything in those materials was based on peer-reviewed scientific articles,’ the Roseville parent says, ‘so these were criticisms that come from mainstream science. It’s just that they won’t allow them to be talked about in biology classes.’
Caldwell says when he presented the curriculum to the Roseville District school board, officials did everything they could to prevent his proposals from being debated in public or acted upon by the board. He in turn sued the school district, alleging that his free speech, equal protection, and religious freedom rights had been violated.
“The irony is, under California law in particular, we’re told by the courts that the goal of public education is to expose students to a clash of ideas in the free marketplace rather than indoctrinating them in one point of view,” Caldwell points out. Nevertheless, he says, by rejecting a scientifically legitimate curriculum that teaches students about the truth about the scientific weaknesses and criticisms of Darwin’s theories, “what they’re doing here is indoctrinating students in one point of view.”
Caldwell’s complaint against the Roseville Joint Union High School District cites expert testimony that the biology text the school board did adopt, which has Darwinian evolution as a unifying theme, was not scientifically “accurate,” “objective,” or “current” as required by state law. The complaint also notes that the science expert, who holds a doctorate from the University of Illinois, felt such a text, if used, should be supplemented with scientific criticism of the theory of evolution.