It’s in Alabama (of course), and in a bill introduced by a Republican (of course). To quote Pete Seeger, “When will they ever learn?” Well, the tactic of passing bills urging “critical examination of science”, a euphemism for “being able to give creationist alternatives to evolution,” has worked, at least in Louisiana and Tennessee, which have passed similar bills. It’s a sneaky and clever tactic, but it’s also a last resort, and it’s not going to allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught legally. (They are, of course, being snuck in under the radar by religious teachers.)
As Alabama.com reports, the new bill was introduced by Republican representative Mack Butler, a god-fearin’, flag-wavin’ True Amurcan who is, unfortunately, on the state House Education Policy committee:
Legislation that would allow Alabama educators to teach alternatives to mainstream scientific theories like evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning was introduced late last month in the House of Representatives.
. . . The ACLU of Alabama is already speaking out against the bill introduced by Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City. The bill has yet to be considered in committee.
“This is a thinly-veiled attempt to open the door to religious fanatics who don’t believe in evolution, climate change or other scientifically-based teaching in our schools,” said Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “It also opens Alabama to costly litigation that it just cannot afford.”
Well, we’ll see about that “costly litigation.” I’m not sure whether the Tennessee and Louisiana bills have yet been contested or litigated, for they’re “stealth” bills that, on the face of it, look innocuous. But their purpose is insidious. You can find the pdf of Butler’s Alabama Bill HB592 here. Below are the critical parts; note that Butler shows his hand by emphasizing the areas that might be seen as “controversial” (my emphasis):
Section 1. (a) The Legislature finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning. Some teachers may be unsure of the expectation 19 concerning how they should present information when debate and disputation occur on these subjects.
(b) The State Board of Education, local boards of 22 education, public school superintendents, public school 23 principals, public school administrators, and public school teachers shall endeavor to create an environment within K-12 25 public schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education.
Here’s the bit where they say that teachers can’t be penalized for pushing critical or “alternative” views’ (aka, creationism):
. . . (d) Neither the State Board of Education nor any local board of education, public school superintendent, public school principal, or public school administrator shall prohibit any teacher of a public school from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the State 19 Board of Education.
Finally, there’s the obligatory but disingenuous claim that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION:
(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination for or against a religion.
If you look in the dictionary under “lie,” you’ll find the sentence above.
The Raw Story gives some details of Butler’s history (he is a Baptist, of course), as well as a selection of his Facebook posts. This one is a doozy:
If the intent of the bill isn’t transparent from what Butler says, you need new glasses (or a new brain). In fact, this shows clearly that the bill violates two of the three prongs of the Lemon Test, which mandates that any such bill must have a purely secular purpose as well as not serve to advance religion. Does anybody think that Butler’s purpose is secular, or that he’s indifferent about pushing Christian views?
Here’s one more contribution by Brother Butler:
Tell it, Mack! And God bless America!
h/t: Terence
Again!?
b&
What a waste of government time, wading through these nuisance bills!
Not to mention money!
What are the alternatives to human cloning anyway? Is this a really, really roundabout way to talk about Adam and Eve gettin’ created?
Yeah, I wondered about that too. Maybe it just slams the whole idea as unholy and promotes unenjoyable sex between a married man and woman. 😀
Sex. Yeah, I considered that too but that’s hardly an alternative to a “mainstream scientific theory”. 😀
Well, unenjoyable for one of the partners anyway. Especially if the husband is homosexual.
I think it’s fundamentalist code for embryonic stem cell research.
Ah. Thank you.
“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information”
Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District states that intelligent design in creationism repackaged, and not science. If Mack Butler wants to protect ID, he will utterly fail with this bill. It’s sad that precious time will be devoted to discussing this bill.
This is a good documentary about Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI
This is what I thought when I saw it too.
I really cannot imagine how “critical thinking” can successfully excuse pushing religious doctrines into science classes.
Nonetheless, I am a foreigner, and it always amazes me that people are still trying this in America. Even here, where there is no separation and church (or synagogue) and state, a senior official at the ministry of education was fired swiftly for merely suggesting to consider bringing up intelligent design in science class.
If you can dig up press coverage of that event and get it to Professor Ceiling Cat, I bet he’d run a post about it.
b&
My time is extremely limited, so this is the best I could find in English: http://www.jewishjournal.com/on_the_other_hand/item/goodbye_gabi_avital_20101026 This article is critical his dismissal and downplays the evolution part, which is what caused the alarm that brought to him being fired.
As you can see, his views may sound familiar to anyone who deals with American conservatives, but they are extreme in Israel, even among religious people (creationism does exist in some ultra-orthodox communities, but global warming, for example, is generally accepted publicly as a fact).
If I knew WEIT at the time, I’d bring it to Jerry’s attention, of course, but 5 years later, I don’t think that it’s blog material anymore
I’ll do a bit more searching and see if I can find enough that PCC might be interested in. Thanks!
b&
The language is boilerplate. It’s been used, in those exact words, in every state where such legislation has been introduced. I don’t know if it’s from the Discovery Institute or who it is.
Yes, This is exactly from the Discovery Institute….this is where he got it from.
Day of humiliation? Sounds oddly kinky, but when in Rome!
I know back then it referred more to being humble, but this really demonstrates a lot of what is sick about religion. This whole idea of subjection to a higher authority is power and control writ large.
Their minds are all warped and while they’re busy trying to please an imaginary being, they still get it wrong in real life. I am, of course, referring to all the weirdos in Texas who are kicking up a stink about some war games exercises because they think it’s preparation for Obama instituting martial law. SMH. Again.
It’s like spiritual S&M.
It would explain why religion enjoys as much popularity as 50 Shades of Grey.
Guess the goddies don’t need the black death as an excuse to become flagellants anymore.
What is it with the far right and denial of human caused climate change? Denial of evilution I can understand, but what is it about climate change?
Two words: “brothers,” and, “Koch.” Not necessarily in that order.
b&
Indeed. Legislation about climate change would interfere with Koch industries god given right to pollute the earth, sea and sky!
What I mean (really) is why the connection between climate change denial and fundamentalist Christianity. But maybe it is the Koch brothers et al.. Perhaps they have learned that their interests have a broader appeal if it comes from the pulpit.
Whether feigned or not, the Koch Brothers are quite devoutly Christian and supportive of Christian causes.
b&
They could be satanists and they’d still use the same tactics. They price we are paying for a 20th Century fuel source that will be all but irrelevant in two generations. Disgusting.
Satanists, surprisingly enough, tend to be rational, level-headed people. All the ones I’ve known about have been atheists who don’t even begin to believe in Satan…it’s something of a joke religion like Pastafarianism, but less ha-ha funny.
b&
Interesting!
Because the current climate change issue is spoken in Science, but they listen with Ideology. They don’t hear facts to integrate into their decision-making; they hear lies and alarmism aimed at changing their way of life. And since the bigger conservatives and traditionalists tend also to be the most religious, that pretty much sets the stage for religious devotees repelling inconvenient science that is more ambitious and socially relevant than quirky factoids, dieting advice, and engineering new tech.
That sounds like a basis for it. Here an Ideology is whatever status quo is important for your group (and here it is less gov. regulation and more consumption and industrial output). A scientist saying that this is causing a problem is an outsider, and as an outsider they are suspect. Any accepted ‘authority’ from in your group that steps forward and says that the scientists are pulling a fast one is seized upon as a reason to dismiss the science. It is a culture war.
This article pretty much sums this up.
The article you link is fine as far as it goes. As an academic, however, he pulls his punches. He leaves the reasons why climate change managed to find its way into the culture wars for the readers to mostly fill in on their own. Mainly, of course, it is money: “…following in the wake of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty that threatened the material interests of powerful economic and political interests, particularly members of the fossil fuel industry…” The propaganda apparatus that made climate change part of the culture wars was constructed with to do exactly that. If the same people who put the climate change propaganda apparatus together had succeeded in making Sir Walter Raleigh a true Amurican and convinced enough people that lung cancer is about Freedumb, we’d still be sucking down the second-hand smoke of Freedumb-loving diners in restaurants across the land.
Well, Mark, there’s an answer to that question…but how deep do you want to get into the psychopathology?
The basic delusion goes something like this: since Gawd is almighty, and humans are puny, powerless things, then OBVIOUSLY Gawd controls the weather, the sun cycles, the climate, the CO2 levels, the sea levels, and therefore we’re not responsible for anything. And certainly Gawd wouldn’t let anything bad happen anyway. In fact, it says so right in the Wholly Babble, in Genesis 9:11:
“And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”
This means that no matter where the CO2 levels go, the sea levels can’t rise to an unacceptable level. Like, to where the good white Xhristers live. It says so, right there.
I think it has something to do with the end times coming soon, such that any action would be just a waste of time, combined with the belief that God would never allow us to screw up his creation in the first place, but if he did, it’s our penance, and we don’t dare presume to play god anyway. More or less.
“Legislation that would allow Alabama educators to teach alternatives to mainstream scientific theories like evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning was introduced late last month in the House of Representatives.”
If we’re going after mainstream science why not throw in gravity (the devil sucks air in the middle of the earth to keep us from floating to heaven) and medicine (god gets mad and gives your newborn cancer.) I mean let’s have some fun!
Ugh, if you’re going to use euphemisms like “encourage debate” and “help develop critical thinking skills”, don’t immediately start talking about intelligent design and that “we came from monkey” nonsense. The whole point of stealth legislation is that you don’t make it bleeding obvious what you’re doing.
But then what can one expect from someone who doesn’t even understand that evolution doesn’t entail we “came from monkeys”? (Seriously, isn’t that something like Garbled Creationist Argument No. Umpteen ad nauseum?)
With a bit of luck science teachers will strike back by using science lessons to display just what a bit of critical thinking does to ID theory.
Or to some of the bible stories, including the resurrection…
Got provincialism?
You’d think a guy from Rainbow City would be a little more progressive.
According to this twit Butler’s tweet, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington celebrated a day of “Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer.” I’ve never heard of such a thing (and it sounds kinky).
How did Washington and Jefferson satisfy the “humiliation” component — a moment of silence to contemplate the shame of owning chattel slaves?
The wiki is a little vague, but says that congress instituted these days and that Washington and Jefferson merely went along with it.
It also says this:
Yeah, I came up with similar info about “day of prayer” and “day of prayer and fasting.” But I have no idea where Butler came up with “humiliation.” (I’m guessing the dumb sumbitch meant “humility,” but even that, I find no mention of, certainly none for May 24, 1774, the date Butler gives.)
I would be entirely unsurprised to learn Butler simply parroted something he read, from someone who read it somewhere else, etc, etc, ultimately just being one of those “truthy” factoids the internet seems to be choking on.
“The thing about stuff on the internet is that it’s hard to verify and often bullshit.”
– Benjamin Franklin
In their day the word was more closely associated with humility than embarrassment.
It’s probably not true that any American child can grow up to be President.
It is obviously true, however, that any Alabama boy with enough brain function to slip on a pair of loafers can fetch up in the state legislature.
To be on the “Education Policy committee” don’t you need one first?
Well, Ken, there’s certainly precedent at the federal level. Here is an actual quotation from Paul Broun (R-GA), who sat on–one cannot simply make this shit up–the Committee on Science and Technology!
And he’s been married four times. Like all of the others, a cafeteria Xhrister, picking and choosing which WHICH delusions to follow.
“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. There’s a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.”
Former Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has been married four times, you say? Well, there’s only one rational explanation for that, given that Jesus unambiguously stated:
Obviously, then, Broun’s first three wives were damnable “fornicators.” (I’m sure Broun discovered the unfortunate fact of their “unchastity” on his honeymoon night(s), when he went to consummate the marriage(s), since a believer like him no doubt follows the Scriptural proscriptions against premarital copulation.)
I mean, wow, what are the odds? Poor, unlucky bastard. Let’s hope the fourth go-round for this good, God-fearing Christian gentleman turns out to be the charm.
Don’t educators already have the right to challenge scientific thought? I’m pretty sure that’s what parochial schools are for. and sunday school. and christian colleges.
Why oh why oh why didn’t the North just let these morons go in 1861?
Mainly because they insisted on taking all their property, including their human “property” (the folks they called “slave”) with ’em. Likely would still own their ancestors today, the North would’ve just let them secede. (Otherwise, though, a capital idea, letting the Rebels go.)
…still own their “descendants” today, that should be…
Is Butler becoming an endangered species in North America? I hope.
So, ARE the similar laws already on the books in Tennessee and Louisiana being challenged or not? It would seem that the “stealth” language may be slippery enough, or vague enough, to stand in these places. And if so, it may stand in many more places as well. Is the FFRF not taking on these laws? See:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html
“Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City”?
How about Rep. Mack Butler, R-Somewhere-Over-the-Rainbow City is more like it?
Oz at least has interesting wildlife and decent infrastructure – even if it has a witch problem. I am not sure these folks would be up for maintaining that.
” Mack Butler, a god-fearin’, flag-wavin’ True Amurcan” —
I think we can shorten that to “Murkn”. I used to use “Merkin” but mixing my EM inspiration with your U usage, and thinking long and hard about the topic, I think Murkn will do. Or should it be Mrkn?
Oh, by all means PLEASE keep using ‘Merkin!
It just seems so…apt…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin
The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning.
This is standard language for these “freedom of speech” bills, promoted by the Discovery Institute. (They usually add the Big Bang and global warming to the list). It is also illogical — at least for the “human cloning” part. They want teach that biological evolution didn’t happen, neither did the chemical origin of life, and as for human cloning … what? If they think human cloning can’t happen, then why worry about it or its consequences?
By putting the three on an equal footing they are revealing that they have not given any thought to what they are saying.
These Idiots drive me nuts! don’t employ anyone who was educated in Alabama or Louisiana would be a good rule of thumb, I expect if this nonsense carries on, they’ll have the dumbest “Scientists” in the US, why have any Hypothesis or Theories about anything,? we don,t need any , “GOD” did it.lol
It is a ridiculous idea that we need healthy debate voiced in the public school classroom as to the merits of whether atheist evolution made our monkey forebears or god’s creation made Adam, Eve and the talking snake. There should not be a debate between ignorance and knowledge. Leave the debate to the experts who debate their claims based on the evidence at hand. So far the debate has shown convincing evidence as to WEIT.