e teaching of theories that challenge widely held scientific explanations, for example in subjects like the origin of the human species or theories relating to global warming. It is clear, however, that the author is biased against the new bill because of her choice of language to describe each side of the issue, because of an imbalance in the type of evidence that she cites in each case and because of an inflammatory image of the 1925 “anti-evolution league” which is posted alongside the article on the newspaper’s website. The overall effect is to undermine the religious views of the majority of the elected representatives in Tennessee and to promote a materialist, non-religious world view as if it were the norm in the whole of American society.
Evidence from Robin Zimmer, identified as “a biotechnology consultant and affiliate of a creationist organization” is briefly cited, stating that “Critical thinking, analysis fosters good science” (Flock, 2012, p. 1). This is an edited extract from a longer article, and it makes very little contribution to the argument because it is a platitude that no one could argue against. Longer and much more targeted quotations from critics of the bill are provided and they use very colorful language which sticks in the mind of the reader. The phrase “monkey bill” is used to refer to the bill, referring to a previous law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of evolution.
The fact of the matter , however, that the 2012 bill is nothing like that previous anti-evolution bill. For a start it does not prohibit anything, and it does not prescribe anything either: it merely allows public schools to present a mix of views rather than a positivist scientific set of theories. Labelling the 2012 bill in such a way as to suggest it is a repetition of that earlier legislation is an unhelpful exaggeration which confuses the issue and misrepresents the modern bill. The quotation from the director of the National Center