Oklahoma's repeat-offender Republican Creationist lawmakers take another run at science education

Every year, like clockwork, longstanding Oklahoma legislators in the state's house and senate introduce bills that try to find a way around the prohibition on teaching Biblical Creationism in American public schools.

These bills have been subjected to evolutionary pressure over the years, cross-breeding, mutating and speciating as their tactics are predated upon by courts and fellow legislators, and as such, watching each fresh crop of bills emerge is a bit like discovering a few more Galapagos finches and working out the unique environmental pressures that gave rise to them.

For five years in a row, State Senator Josh Brecheen has introduced Creatonism education bills, declaring that he wanted "every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution." The latest one, SB1322, climbs down from any explicit mention of Creationism, limiting itself to immunizing teachers who discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.

Meanwhile, Republican rep Sally Kern's HB3045, characterizes many branches of science -- biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics, and physics -- as "controversial" and allows science educators to teach any "facts" about these disciplines that they believe to be true, without regard to any kind of scientific consensus about objective reality. Although the three predecessors of this bill explicitly mentioned religion of their motivating factor, this version of the bill explicitly declaims any religious intent, and insists that it has no common ancestors with those exinct species that failed to pass evolution's tests.

The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics, and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

The bill responds to that uncertainty by ensuring educators can just teach whatever they want as long as they think it's science, and nobody can discipline them. Students, meanwhile, cannot be penalized if they "subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories." And the author makes sure to point out that none of this has anything to do with religion, just in case a casual reader ended up confused by its similarity to earlier bills with overtly religious motivations.

This year’s first batch of anti-science education bills surface in Oklahoma [John Timmer/Ars Technica]

Notable Replies

  1. Why not just give up and let them? Natural selection will then take over with the more intelligent parents leaving the State, so in 20 years or so when the economy has tanked it can be recolonised cheaply.

    [edit - this is in the spirit of Swift's ironic "Modest proposal", I don't really mean mean it. _No pasaran!_]

    [edit 2-
    The simple anti-evolution mob have acquired a new more subtle variant.
    Recently I was in a meeting and afterwards was talking to a recently retired academic, an economist. I was asked, quite seriously, whether I agreed that we have enough science nowadays - we don't need any more so we should stop spending money on fundamental research and spend it on education in literature, history and geography to produce a better educated and thus more progressive society.
    I'm afraid the weather being experienced on the Eastern Seaboard of the US may be the result of arctic air rushing in to fill the vacuum as my jaw hit the floor.
    Very weakly, instead of saying "You should try that on someone who doesn't know how little we know about a lot of important things" I merely remarked that we must agree to differ and moved on. But I did wonder if this was the same anti-science crap but with a new spin to take the obvious agenda off the table.]

  2. Because the students who are taught the "controversy" will grow up to vote. No student, no matter how fundamentalist and fucked up their parents are, should have to go through life poorly educated, especially if they're going to make adult decisions that affect other people.

  3. The bill responds to that uncertainty by ensuring educators can just teach whatever they want as long as they think it's science, and nobody can discipline them.

    This is why there's a curriculum. Teachers can't "just teach whatever they want." They have to teach true things.

    Students, meanwhile, cannot be penalized if they "subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories."

    Not even if that position is false? Forget evolution, suppose a student hands in a paper that says the moon is made of green cheese. Is the teacher forbidden to grade that paper?

  4. renke says:

Continue the discussion bbs.boingboing.net

92 more replies

Participants