Florida will need science to address the many challenges that lie ahead. Yet the new science curriculum for public elementary and secondary schools, proposed in late September 2026 by the Florida Department of Education, is notable for the near-disappearance of two pillars of contemporary science: the theory of evolution and climate change.
The theory of evolution is the central explanatory framework of modern biology. It provides the basis for understanding species diversity, the adaptation of organisms, and several critical phenomena in medicine, such as antibiotic resistance. Its near-complete omission from the learning objectives risks undermining students’ understanding of the life sciences and compromising the intellectual coherence of the young people who will lead us tomorrow.
The marginalization of the concept of climate change raises similar concerns. In a state particularly vulnerable to coastal flooding and hurricanes, understanding climate mechanisms is a scientific necessity. The absence of references to climate change in the new science education standards raises questions
about the ability of future generations to cope with the natural changes they will face.
Geologist Bred Dupke, a professor of earth sciences, wonders how he could teach the unit on fossils without teaching the theory of evolution and climate change.
This direction would mark a significant step backward from the previous curriculum. The current revision raises important questions about the school’s educational mission versus ideological indoctrination. Can a government determine what
is scientifically true or false based on the partisan ideology of elected officials?
Education Commissioner Henry Mack says he wants to shield science education from ideological influences. Yet the theory of biological evolution and climate change are based on objective observations, not on ideological or religious influences. On the other hand, what the new curriculum proposes is a gradual phasing out of certain fundamental scientific knowledge in favor of an ideology.
Can a state simultaneously seek to attract high-tech and biomedical companies, train engineers, address the challenges of the future, and reduce the prominence of fundamental scientific concepts?
In recent years, restrictions on books in libraries (2,304 cases documented by PEN America for the 2024–2025 school year), bans on discussing certain topics (racial, sexual) in the classroom, and a series of restrictions imposed on universities have revealed growing censorship and repression of academic freedom and access to knowledge.
Education brings about lasting cultural change and has long-term social consequences. It is one of the most powerful tools available to political authorities to rapidly advance—or, conversely, set back by several decades—a population.
The curriculum has not yet been adopted. It is currently under review, and its content could be modified before its final submission. Many parents disapprove of it.
The controversy in Florida extends far beyond the fate of two scientific concepts.
It calls into question a democracy’s ability to preserve the intellectual conditions necessary for its own functioning.
Translated with Deepl