Just four days ago I wrote about how a Republican state legislator in Alabama introduced a “critical thinking” bill designed to sneak creationism into the classroom. These bills, which I’ve heard come straight from the Discovery Institute, are the last-gasp effort of creationists to get their failed “science” taught in schools after it’s been repeatedly thrown out by the courts. HB592, as I noted before, stipulates this:
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. . .
And the theories specified are, of course, these:
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.
Of course they don’t deal with the “controversies” over string theory, dark matter, the importance of neutrality versus selection, and so on. Nope, this is a religiously inspired bill despite its weasel clause that the bill “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.” That sentence is a bald-faced lie.
Now we have yet more nuttery from Alabama as Governor Robert Bentley (a Republican, of course) signed into law a “Student Religious Liberties Act,” HB1, sponsored by Mack Butler, the same Republican creationist who introduced the “critical thinking” bill. In the guise of promoting freedom of expression, which students of course should have (freedom to pray on their own, wear religious jewelry, and so on), it also mandates that students can’t be penalized for inserting their religious views into class assignments.
Here’s the bill, and the relevant section is this:
Section 3. Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the local board of education. Students may not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work.
Now I find that problematic, as well as deeply ambiguous. The bill first says that assignments shall be judged by “ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,” but then says that “Students may not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work.” When it comes to matters like evolution, these stipulations conflict. What if a student answers a question about life with a purely creationist answer? Should they be penalized?
Of course they should. As I always tell my students, they are under no compulsion to believe what I tell them, but on tests and in labs they are expected to disgorge what they’ve been taught: the scientific consensus. If they say that “God created the animals and Noah put them in an Ark,” they will be penalized. (Of course, if they give the right answer and then add, “But this is what I believe. . . “, then no penalty should be asssessed.) And this should also apply to the students of Alabama. I can see no other reason for that “religious content of their work” clause except to allow them to avoid real thought in favor of their faith.
Is there any other possible interpretation? At any rate, the residents of Alabama who are still rational should be deeply ashamed of their state. It’s systematically weakening science education in favor of promoting religion, and, as Jefferson realized, that just won’t do in a democracy.
Here are the two Republicans, grinning like Cheshire cats as they signed the bill into law—on the National Day of Prayer:
h/t: Tom
Why do those two guys look so much ALIKE?
They are from Alabama. Probably cousins.
Probably they are cousins on both sides of their families.
In Southern Alberta, where we lived before migrating to British Columbia, there were several colonies of Hutterites, who are not too far removed, in terms of dress and customs, from the Amish. The conventional wisdom surrounding Hutterites was:”When a Hutterite couple divorces, do they revert to being brother and sister ?”
I don’t like the two guys in the photo and I hate their politics and religion, but I don’t make redneck jokes about inbreeding and tooth decay because I think I’d make myself look as ignorant as a redneck looks when he tells a racist joke. I’ve called many right-wing bigots out on their racist jokes, but it always puzzles me when I see the same type of thing coming from people further to the left.
Thanks for speaking up.
It feels like religious nuts (such as the two schmucks in this photo) are much, much less tolerated these days. Is it the same in America? I hope it is.
Unfortunately no. At least, not noticeably.
That’s a strange, peculiarly American thing. Here in Australia, and in almost all of Europe, religious nonsense (the creationism and anti-women, gay rights stuff etc) is simply dismissed for the most part.
Wasn’t it your PM who recently dismissed climate change as a United Nations plot to take over the world?
LOL! Yeah, our Prime Minister is a total fucking idiot. Apparently our economy will prosper under his reign(like it did during his first term, *sarcasm*!), but there’ll be no fucking planet left to prosper in, if he is left in power. I wish death upon him!
Alabama saw what Tennessee had done, and proved they can be even worse. They’ve even outdone Mississippi. Congrats, Alabama, you are the worst state in the country, by most measures.
It often seems as though there is some kind of competition for stupidest legislation.
OMG those smiles…..I have an image of these two in my mind I cannot remove: They are wearing Pilgrim garb and attending a witch burning in Salem.
Wait, which is it? Are students judged against academic standards or not? If a student injects their faith into academic work, and it contradicts the standard, which answer is correct? Is either answer, the standard one, or the faith one, OK?
Yikes.
In my mind (see @6) this is basically an open invitation for the students to proselytize the teachers in homework assignments and tests. “Do the assignment, but then if you include a paragraph telling your teacher why he/she is damned unless he/she finds Jesus, they can’t do squat about it.”
Yep, I agree.
What is going to happen, and probably already is the reality, is that teachers will avoid controversial topics entirely, especially evolution. That is the real intent, I think. Evolution is simply not taught in most Tennessee high schools.
There is no ‘theory of human cloning.’ Hopefully the courts will pick up on this obvious telltale that the authors are simply targeting subjects they don’t like.
I can understand that if the add-on is relatively trivial and uncommon, but I think that if students are regularly including long personal opinions in assignments, a teacher should be well within their rights to (a) warn students to stop doing that, and then (b) penalize them if they keep doing it. Especially with modern computers, it would be trivially easy for a student to fill a homework assignment such as an essay or “explain this phenomenon…” type question with irrelevant text. Google ‘New Testament in plain text’. Copy. Paste. This law says that the teacher can’t punish a student for doing that, as long as the irrelevant material happens to be their religious opinion. That’s wrong. A teacher should not be subjected to unwanted and educationally irrelevant religious proselytizing in assignments any more than the students should.
Yes, the “human cloning” reference, which is often in these bills, is looney. Is human cloning said by arrogant left-wing intellectuals to be possible? Does the religious right argue that it is impossible?
The wording of these bills makes it sound like that is the issue. But of course if human cloning is impossible, why worry about its implications?
I think they intended a reference to advocacy of human cloning, but the way they have included it is just plain silly.
I thought to myself in puzzlement: “But who advocates human cloning?” before realising they were thinking about stem cells.
At least, I think that’s what they were thinking. Maybe they have a grudge against identical twins.
Ever seen “The Sixth Day” with Schwarzeneggar?
Could they be referring to using embryonic stem cells?
They couldn’t be dumb enough to think an actual full new human type clone.
Could they?
I suppose some at the bottom would be thusly afraid.
Good grief.
(I am muttering to myself)
Yes to the first. That’s kinda the point I’m making; they are just creating a grab-bag of ‘stuff we conservatives don’t like’ rather than a list of actual scientifically controversial theories.
Assignments have word limits. If you’re wasting it with quotes from the Bible, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll have the necessary space to include all the required material.
I’m not proud to say that I did exactly that 60 years ago in high school. It wasn’t science of course, because evolution was never mentioned. It was in World History class that dinosaurs were said to have lived many millions of years ago. I gave the correct answer on a test and then added that I don’t believe any of this because the Bible says blah blah blah. I got credit for my answer, but I was warned that I could get in trouble if I kept on. I eventually recovered from my fundamentalism.
Reminds me of a high school student who said her favorite subject was biology. She went to a religious institution where they prefer man-made religious beliefs over what nature has told scientists and anyone else who will pay attention. She said she was a Creationist. I recommended “Why Evolution is True”. She said she only read books that supported her beliefs. She has eyes that will not see.
I would.then recommend that if she or her future children ever get sick with any form of bacterial infection, she should act strictly in accordance with her beliefs and insist that penecillin or whichever earliest-developed antibuotic be prescribed for treatment – after all, opting for the latest, most “effective” antibiotic gives credence yo the belief that such bacteria can develop a resistance to those which were developed earlier.
Comparing them to “Cheshire cats” is an
insult to all cats !
yeah, less grinning like Cheshire cats and more like d*gs with sh!t-eating grins. but even that is an insult to d*gs.
and sh!t.
Maybe jackals with shit-eating leers.
Certainly not human.
Math homework:
Explain the Pythagorean theorem.
a^2 + b^2 = c^2, or put another way, the area of a square formed on the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the area of squares formed on the other two sides of a right triangle, unless Jesus commands otherwise.
Math: 1+1+1=1
Science: What causes hurricanes? Homosexuality.
History: Why did Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo? Homosexuality.
biology: life originated when God commanded it to do so. humans originated when God made Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam’s rib.
You left out the part about the talking snake.
What causes earthquakes? Uncovered breasts.
Boobquake.
It is a pity earthquakes do so much damage.
“1+1+1=1”
LOL
The square root of 2 is not an irrational number because all numbers are rational — or I will kill you (paraphrasing Pythagorus religious cult). Would that be OK?
Wait for it…
…on campus safe zones where discussions of atheism are forbidden because they make goddites feel unsafe, threatened, insecure, defensive, offensive, mommy-seeking, sky-daddy-seeking, unreasonable, cerebrally assaulted, or faith-leaking.
Sweet deal. Pi = 3, Poseidon controls tides and earthquakes, Earth is flat, there’s an endless supply of religious answers for all occasions. Here’s hoping some brave student will take one for the team and complete all their homework assignments and tests with religious answers.
A sweet deal for the legislatures, for sure. They get fundie votes out of it while the students, teachers, and school administrations pay the costs.
The mountains are pegs to stop the earth from shaking. (Koran)
So, if they are teaching the controversy, the teacher has full authority to go after Creationism? It’s amazing how few people understand the rule of what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It would be interesting to write up documents for primary and secondary school children that use extremely neutral emotionless language to “teach the controversy”. Then systematically shred one Bible story after another by treating each as a hypothesis, carefully discussing evidence that might support or refute the hypothesis, and then demolish each one. Parents would go berserk.
We don’t want to play tit for tat. Not only does it go against our own ethics (the whole ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ thing), but remember that the only places to pass such laws are places where the creationists will get far more mileage out of it than the skeptics. Okay, so in one classroom somewhere in Alabama one teacher uses the rule to discuss the flaws in creationism. In the other 10,000 classrooms, kids get miseducated about biology. Its a bad trade.
Not only that, but the teacher who did the right thing would be crucified (possibly literally) by the parents of his/her students. He/she would be fired on some pretext and would then be unemployable anywhere in the country. News outlets everywhere in the country would see to it.
I recently watched a one-hour documentary produced by the Discovery Institute in 2010 criticizing theistic evolution, and at least half of the criticisms are !*theological*! rather than scientific!!
The DI also has a Center for Science and Culture which is all about the alleged negative impact of evolution on culture which overtly includes erosion of traditional Christian belief.
They seem to believe they can overtly engage in this kind of rhetoric and than claim ID as not religious through a kind of legal compartmentalization.
Oddly, they seem to be engaged in some Lewis Wars with BioLogos, the latter claiming C.S. Lewis endorsed evolution, while the DUIRI (Discovering Under the Influence of Religion Institute) claims not.
From what I’ve read of the DI (both their own words and others writing about them) over the past few years, it seems that while they did their best to pretend back in Kitzmiller days (2005) that ID was scientific and not religious – something that Judge Jones saw right through – they have steadily moved towards an explicitly religious viewpoint.
The DI has been trundling along for about 17 years now. Ahmanson funds them to the tune of $2-4 million a year. Ostensibly the money is for “research” into intelligent design and related subjects, but they spend it all on political outreach; trying to convince school districts that its legal to teach ID, without actually suggesting what they teach or defending those districts when they inevitably get sued.
They look very happy in the photo.
Please don’t insult the poor Cheshire Cat🐱
Meanwhile, my state (Alabama) has a severe budget crisis. The shortfall is in no small part due to new legislation that has driven many immigrants from our state. Alabama is still a rural state. Much of our tax revenue comes from agriculture and most of the workforce has left the state in fear of being deported. There was a recent episode of HBO’s Vice on the subject. The plan to fix the budget crisis is to implement a state lottery as well as open out state up to more casinos. Just a few years ago, the Republican position was anti gambling, anti lottery (moral grounds they stated). With all of the problems my state has, I cannot believe that time is being wasted on stupid legislation such as this.
I will appreciate if someone will enlighten me: is there anything that forces them to teach evolution at all? Of course, here we all agree that they should, but since they cannot push religion into schools, I would imagine that they just try to avoid the whole issue.
Yes, the Georgia standards appear to mandate the teaching of “biological evolution.”
Most states have something similar, though because the states set curriculum standards rather than the federal government, you’d have to check each state individually to see whether they do or do not require it.
Reblogged this on whedonfreak976 and commented:
Um, I am religious, but even I think this law is a POS law.
I know you may disagree, but if a student wants to learn creationism, that is their choice and I do think their should be classes, however, I don’t think a bill should cut into education and try to force any student to take it.
We do not teach the battle of Waterloo in Algebra class, for it isn’t math and the purpose of a math class is to learn how to do math. Saying that does not disparage 19th century military history, it just recognizes that a math class is for learning how to do math. We do not teach the role of the Executive branch in the US federal government in French class, because the purpose of a French class is to learn how to read, speak, and write French. Likewise, we do not teach biblical creationism in science class because the purpose of a science class is to learn how to do science. Looking things up in Genesis and talking about how to interpret them is not how you do science. If you want to discuss the Genesis account of creation, that need to be done in another class.
And you can do that. In every school district in the US, parents and students are free to request their schools offer a bible studies elective class, and educators are free to offer such a class to their students as long as they can show the district that they can fill the seats and have a qualified teacher to teach it. But guess what? In the vast majority of schools, the interest just isn’t there. The problem with bible study classes is not ‘illegal supply’, its lack of demand. Don’t lay that at the feet of science; we aren’t responsible for it, and we won’t be giving up science class time just because in any given 500-2000 kid school you can’t even muster 20 kids who want a bible study class.
We do not teach the battle of Waterloo in Algebra class, for it isn’t math and the purpose of a math class is to learn how to do math.
But, you can have a class of creationism, I am not talking about putting it in with other classes, I think you misunderstood what I am saying. I think if someone wants to take a class of creationism, then that is their choice.
Which religion’s creationism would that be and under what category? There’s nowhere to fit creationism, especially if you mean biblical creationism.
A sample syllabus;
7:00am – 7:02am: Read Genesis 1 & 2.
Break
8:00am – noon: Mock and ridicule techniques toward creationists.
Lunch
Final exam question: Are creationists delusional? YES__ YES__
I suppose you could have a comparative religions course, but that would entail a wide scope of religions from an anthropological point of view and that would really defeat the purpose of those who want creationism taught in public schools.
If someone wants to study Harry Potter, is the school district obliged to offer a class?
They can already exercise their free choice by studying creationism or Harry Potter on their own, or organizing an extracurricular study group.
Eric addressed that above. Schools are free to teach Creationism in a Bible Studies class, and schools are free to have Bible Studies classes, funded by the government and taught by a proper teacher. The only caveat is the same as with all other optional subjects – there has to be a demand for it.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, and therefore don’t belong in a science class, any more than they belong in a French, math, or civics class.
If you want Biblical Creationism taught in your children’s school, you should get together a group of students and parents to lobby the school for a Bible Studies class. If you can prove a demand for the subject, you will be successful. If not, you can probably set up lessons at your church, where, imo, they belong.
I’m not so sure you can have biblical creationism taught in a US public school regardless of demand even as an elective. That is proselytizing and I don’t see how it could pass the lemon test.
Amen to that brother. Using public funds to teach religion in a public school. I am sure they do it illegally in Alabama but not in reality where other people live. Separation. Separation.
Dallas Independent School District, Dallas, Texas, with 57,000 students, teaches Bible classes in its schools. They also teach creationism and intelligent design along with evolution. I was told this much by one of the curriculum supervisors who happens to be a close relative of mine. The district refers to Texas House Bill 5 for authority, but I suspect they get by with it only because nobody with standing has objected forcefully enough. I don’t know any details.
Um, separation of church and state? There are plenty of creationism classes offered in Sunday schools and Bible study groups outside public schools.
True, but is there any harm in giving a student a choice, not mandating, but a choice to take something like that?
But why should tax-payers have to pay for classes on nonsense???
Oh gee here we go with calling it nonsense, and of course you leave open the fact that the theist look at evolution as nonsense, but they have to pay for it. Get it? Try to see something from a different point of view instead of being condescending and always looking down on religious people.
Yeah, right: give them a choice between astronomy and astrology, and how about between faith-healing and medicine in medical school. Or ESP in psychology classes. Give me a break. Creationism is thoroughly debunked, and there should be no “choice” to teach discredited and bogus quasi-science. The only reason people want it taught is because it supports religion. Sorry, but the courts have nullified that. Don’t tell me you actually believe that creationist crap!
I’m saying they already have the choice to study Genesis. In principle, any school will allow this. In practice, the request is going to be treated exactly like any other request for a new elective: you must first show the school that you have 20+ interested students and a teacher qualified to teaching it.
Now, if you’re saying you think it should be part of the state standards and therefore a required offering at every school regardless of how many students would choose to take it on their own, I disagree with that. I don’t see any neutral or secular state interest in compelling students of all backgrounds to study one particular religion’s origin story. I might meet you halfway if you wanted to argue for a comparative religions core course. I don’t see a real need for it, but I think that yes a state could probably justify such a core course on neutral, secular grounds if it wanted one.
No, I am just saying that if someone wants to take a class, that should be a choice. See how many people want to take it and if they do, then
What if people wanted classes on alchemy or naturopathy or some other nonsense??
If children want to learn creationism they can. In the church of their choice. There are classes that teach creationism. They are called Sunday school.
I see no problem, provided they use a sensible interpretation of “penalize”. When asked “what is 2+2?”, the answer “My sincerely held religious belief is that it is 3” should not be penalized compared to writing nothing at all. Likewise, “2+2=4, but my sincerely held religious belief is that it is 3” should not be penalized compared to just “2+2=4”.
Just because an answer is “not penalized” doesn’t mean it gets full credit.
Yes, that may be your interpretation, not the state’s. I think “penalized” means “counted off in any way.”
They need to lose those cheesy grins!
If these kkklowns pass this statute, Alabama will need its version of John E. Jones III to step up — the federal district judge who chased the creationists out of the Dover Pa. school district, the way Saint Paddy ٍٍٍٍٍٍchased the snakes out of Ireland. (“Get these motherf*ckin’ snakes off of my motherf*ckin’ Emerald Island!”)
Or at least that’s how Saint Samuel, the greater quoter of Ezekiel 25:17, might put it.
Also, belated [Trigger Warning: Ophiophilists and the mythopoetic Gaelic-Celtic canonized]
“Here are the two Republicans, grinning like Cheshire cats . . . .”
Grinnin’ like a mule eatin’ a briar.
Not from or even near Alabama but the whole thing seems more than stupid. It is also unnecessary because most of the people do not send their kids to public school in Alabama. Maybe the very poor but these guys sure don’t care a hoot about them.
Anyway, public school in Alabama is not even average in ranking so this will really help.
Reblogged this on JerBear's Queer World News, Views & More From The City Different – Santa Fe, NM and commented:
In addition to the problems mentioned in this post, the “religious liberty” law has been interpreted elsewhere to allow bullying of LGBTQ students under the guise of religious rights.
If their motives weren’t so blatant, I’d actually partly endorse the ‘critical thinking’ bit. At my school, we’d sometimes be given an obviously false statement (‘everyone is the same height’ or ‘China doesn’t exist’ or something) and have to come up with our best arguments in its favour, and it was good training for thinking on your feet (and occasionally just lying). I think creationism would have been perfect for that. Although I don’t think anyone in early-nineties England had really heard of creationism.
These fundamentalist nutters have just enough flickering neurons to realize their numbers are rapidly declining and they want to plant their flag with legislation before they disappear. Of course in the future these crazy laws will either be repealed, unenforced, or simply ignored as relics of a more benighted age.
Jerry, you had better keep out of Alabama, lest you be arrested for breaking the law, specifically the part of the law that says the it “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.” You are construing precisely that and, therefore, breaking the law.
Clever phrasing, that. The law may not be construed to promote religious doctrine, but it may promote religious doctrine. It’s the construing that’s illegal, not the promoting.