These are worrying developments for the future of science education in our schools, and therefore for the future of science in this country. Politics and religious beliefs are being used to control education. Parents and politicians don't like what the facts say, and so they don't want their children exposed to the scientific basis for these findings.
This is not a case of academic freedom - it is another case of creating a controversy where none exists in the scientific community. Evolution and climate change are not issues where there are significant divisions within the scientific community. We aren't talking about an issue where great minds are divided on the final interpretation. When it comes to teaching science, not all theories deserve equal weight. If you believe in this argument, then you should, by extension, allow schools to teach that the federal government blew up the WTC or that the Holocaust didn't occur. "Controversies" exist in both cases, but neither are given any weight in any forums other than those of the radical fringe.
I'm all for teaching good science. My undergrad biology course talked about the controversies in the theory of evolution, for example. I don't think this is a bad thing, necessarily. It can be used as a valuable teaching tool: why is there controversy in some areas, and why don't the vast majority of scientists share these concerns. Also, it naturally introduces the idea of a theory and allowed one to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis - something lost on the politicians who drive the controversy.
The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.
...
For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it. Yet many conservative evangelical Christians assert that both are examples of scientists’ overstepping their bounds.
...
State Representative Tim Moore, a Republican who introduced the bill in the Kentucky Legislature, said he was motivated not by religion but by what he saw as a distortion of scientific knowledge.
“Our kids are being presented theories as though they are facts,” he said. “And with global warming especially, there has become a politically correct viewpoint among educational elites that is very different from sound science.”
This is clever: casting scientists as 'educational elites' has been a strategy used in the past. In this case, it's a bit odd. It's a bit like saying 'these folks - highly educated, experienced, and well-regarded scientists in the community' are somehow not to be trusted on science. That sounds like rejecting your doctor's advice, because of that elitist M.D. they earned, and going to a faith healer.
The bottom line is this: the controversy here is driven by the politics of these issues, not by the science.
