Truth in Science.
This organisation states that its area of initial focus is to be the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of life.
Their concerns seem to include the following:
1. Teaching on this subject has been “dogmatic and imbalanced.” Darwinian evolution is presented as uncontroversial and the only credible or scientific theory.
It is clear that evolution is controversial amongst the general population and amongst a substantial minority of parents. In this situation it is important for science teaching to go no further than the clear evidence warrants. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields believe that the evidence for common descent is convincing. However the history of the development of evolutionary thinking is on a backdrop of special creation thinking. Students cannot really grasp the complex nature of how science develops without appreciating the difficulties that Darwin faced. So from a historical perspective it is important to understand the alternative ways of thinking from a purely naturalistic view.
Where science becomes a simple platform for atheism as Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers and Daniel Dennett and others advocate this is clearly going to cause signficant difficulties for far more people than evangelical creationists.
We actually know very little about the origin of life and it is important to stress this in science lessons. We actually know very little about the origin of the data required to build different types of living organisms and this should be stressed. It is crucial that parents should be confident that science lessons are focusing on what we know rather than what we hope will turn out to be true.
2. Other explanations of origins are sometimes misrepresented. Children should be given fair and accurate representations of alternative views.
It is hard to understand anyone objecting to this concern. Any fair minded person should want the truth to be told even about people they strongly disagree with. If creationist views are misrepresented those misrepresentations should be corrected as soon as possible. Attacking straw men is a waste of everyones time.
3. The way origins are taught in science lessons fails to address the concerns of a large minority of parents about a purely naturalistic view.
I have commented on this in my remarks above. There is plainly a large minority of UK parents who are unconvinced by the entirely naturalistic explanations of life and the universe and who believe that alternative explanations should be presented to their children. Science education is always going to be a collaboration between scientists and parents. It behoves scientists to tread very carefully in this area unless they want to risk the situation of a confrontation with strongly held religious views of a large number of parents. Compulsory education demands great sensitivity to parental concerns.
4. Some evidences presented for evolution in some texts are flawed and inaccurate.
I understand that this is a very sensitive area but it is clear from my own experience that bad examples of teaching and textbook materials persist in this area far longer that they should have done and improvement of accuracy here should be welcomed by all.
If I have understood the aims and objectives of "Truth in Science" then I am strongly in support of what they are seeking to do.