Rather than calling for teaching intelligent design or Bible-based creationism (as previous legislative attempts have), the bills make no mention of these subjects. They instead describe evolution as controversial and attempt to bar school administrators from interfering with teachers who describe purported flaws in the theory. This runs contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus, which holds that there is no debate about the core principles of evolution: the only credible, and a thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development and diversification of all life on Earth
Tom Hutton, a senior staff lawyer for the National School Boards Association, stated that while state legislators have a legal right to craft laws that affect districts' policies as a general rule, he believes that some decisions are better left to local officials. He further suggested that these proposed bills, if enacted, could face difficult legal challenges. He further stated that despite their language stating that they are not promoting religious views, and wording to promote "scientific" rather than religious critiques, courts are likely to question the motives behind these bills, and their specific focus on evolution, and draw a conclusion as to "what's going on here."
Michael Simpson, a lawyer for the National Education Association stated that courts have generally refused to afford significant free-speech protections to teachers for in-class remarks. He further offered the opinion that the legality of these measures would depend on a number of unknowns, such as how the critical views of evolution-critical views were presented, and possibly the degree of congruence between them and other state policies, such as state science curriculum.
A variety of groups, such as the National Center for Science Education and Anti-Defamation League, criticized and are publicly opposed to the "Academic Freedom bills."