If Senator Jeff Monroe gets to recycle his creationism-in-disguise bills, then I get to recycle blog posts.
The District 24 Senator from Pierre has brought back his usual hobbyhorse, Senate Bill 59, a sham bill claiming that we need to let science teachers “teach the controversy.” Here, “controversy” is a trick word, trying to create a false equivalence between science and mythology, between empirical research and unprovable fantasies about a young earth and an intelligent designer who always escapes rigorous scientific inquiry with mere wordplay.
2020 Senate Bill 59 reads thus:
No teacher may be prohibited from assisting students to understand, analyze, critique, or review, in an objective scientific manner, the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught, which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.
2020 SB 59 varies by a word and a comma from 2019 House Bill 1270:
No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.
That bill copied Monroe’s 2017 SB 55:
No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.
That bill pared down Monroe’s 2016 SB 83:
Section 1. That chapter 13-1 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.
Section 2. That chapter 13-1 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:
The provisions of this Act only protect the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, nor may these provisions be construed to promote discrimination against any religion, religious belief, nonreligion, or nonbelief.
That bill dribbled out of Monroe’s 2015 SB 114:
Section 1. That chapter 13-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
The South Dakota Board of Education, local school boards, and all school administrators shall:
- Endeavor to create an environment within all elementary and secondary 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 taught in curriculum and coursework that is aligned to the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48; and
- Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific subjects such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, human cloning, and other scientific subjects that may cause debate and disputation.
In addition, neither the Board of Education, nor any local school board, or school administrator may prohibit any teacher from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the courses being taught that are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48.
Section 2. The provisions of this Act only protect the teaching of scientific information and may not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, to promote discrimination for or against any particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or to promote discrimination for or against any religion or nonreligion.
Section 3. By no later than the start of the 2015-2016 school year, the secretary of education shall notify all school administrators of the provisions of this Act, and the school administrators within each school district shall notify all teachers within that school district of the provisions of this Act.
The 2015 and 2016 iterations of this charade failed in first committee. In the first heady days of Trumpus Rex, Monroe’s 2017 sally made it all the way through the Senate and to second committee before collapsing. The 2019 bill got out first committee, only to fail in the House.
I know there’s no winning an argument about science or education with people like Senator Monroe and last year’s sponsor, Representative Tony Randolph (R-35/Rapid City), who don’t believe in science or education. I thus return to critiquing Monroe’s charade from a conservative perspective, as I did last year, when I noted that these bills do nothing:
Contrary to the anti-teacher attitudes of Republican radicals, our K-12 science teachers already have all the knowledge, ethics, and academic freedom they need to teach science objectively and promote critical thinking. No additional law is needed to guarantee this good practice; HB 1270 thus epitomizes the opposite of the principle that true conservatives (like me?) espouse: government should take no action that is not absolutely necessary [CAH, “Randolph Contradicts Gender-Science Gag Bill with ‘Teach the Controversy’ HB 1270,” Dakota Free Press, 2019.02.01].
True then, true now. Senate Education, please save everyone some time and effort: kill this bill quickly, and turn everyone’s attention toward real issues facing real teachers in the teaching of real science and other vital subjects.
Since we’re being technically precise, Mr. H, as you are wont to be with the languages and words and grammaratics and such, grudznick would point out that Mr. Monroe’s law bill this year varies by that one word, and TWO, count ’em, TWO commas. The comma after the word “review” is added Oxfordianly, and the comma after the word “taught” is added, perhaps because some new clerical rules imposed.
Despite this preciseness, because as you and I know sometimes a comma can be important, I submit the overgodders need a real uprooting this year. Mr. Monroe is probably up for election and people need to smite him.
And I get to recycle my post from FB General page: ye gods. Where do these people hide when they’re not in Pierre thinking up medieval laws to inflict on children’s lives?
Come to think of it, I might even put the YE GODS in allcaps, just for emphasis.
Most of the overgodders, Ms. Friday, live in districts that start with a 3, such as grudznick’s district.
And while we’re considering absurd, ludicrous, preposterously foolish and nonsensical religiously-founded bills, why the silence around these parts as to 1057?
thank you, Grudz, then I guess I’ll have to be the badguy for 2. Maybe I’ll aggrandize myself like our president does to claim badguyship for all districts that start with 2. Please don’t be distracted from the question at hand.
The bible, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, King James version or modern, isn’t a history book. It never was, nor was it ever intended to be.
The founders of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin and Zwingli – did not intend for schools to be teachers of bible sciences, for they knew there was no such thing. In fact, they were clear in their expectations that families were tasked with their children’s religious education.
The radiometric dating techniques that supposedly prove the earth is billions of years old are dependent on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been as low as they are today. As explained in the following article by esteemed Ph.D. astrophysicist Jason Lisle, there’s substantial scientific evidence that past radioactive decay actually occurred much more rapidly over a much shorter period of time:
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
Kurt, teachers already have the academic freedom, without SB 59, to analyze and discuss the scientific validity of Dr. Lisle’s findings alongside this statement:
“Biblical science” is a contradiction, inimical to both terms.
It would be convenient if radioactive decay rates were to change to accommodate a proposition. That would solve your problem. However, theories change to accommodate experimental evidence. If the theory cannot make a prediction in an independent and controlled experiment, then the theory cannot be supported.
If we could control radioactive decay rates, then nuclear waste would not be a problem at all. But nobody includes this principle as part of any nuclear waste management plan. There is no evidence whatsoever that radioactive decay rates change over time. Sorry.
We can break apart long-lived isotopes into pairs of shorter-lived isotopes with accelerators. We can consume uranium and plutonium in fission leaving shorter-lived isotopes behind. This is why it is incorrect to say the nuclear waste issue must remain a several hundred thousand year problem. Long-term it makes sense to do something in addition to isolation because you avoid building as many Yucca Mountains than are otherwise required.
Where’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster when we need him/her??
“‘Biblical science’ is a contradiction,” or perhaps more to the point an oxymoron.
This Dr Jason Lisle, Kurt?…. Dr Jason Lisle – creation.com
Dr Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Creationist Astrophysicist. Institute for Creation Research (ICR), USA. Biography. Most practising astronomers and astrophysicists believe …
Thank you for this article! How many creationists have done DNA ancestry sites? If you believe the results, then you believe in science and evolution of DNA on which the origin analysis is based. How many have had to get a new antibiotic when the first one didn’t work (yes – due to evolution of the bacterial resistant species)? As a science teacher, I do not need the protection of this bill as the state science standards which were adopted and approved by the State of SD already have argumentation from evidence multiple times throughout the K-12 science standards which were reviewed and revised by South Dakotans as per the ruling of the legislature after Common Core. I find it extremely hypocritical that they use legislation from other national organizations such as this. I also find this legislation blatantly misleading by not be forthright in their intentions (e.g. creationism and anti-climate change and who knows what else…). Science is always questionable and subject to change in light of new scientifically obtained, repeatable evidence. Do you question God and religion? not likely. How about faith – believing without evidence. Therefore religion is NOT science and does not belong in a science classroom.
Yay, Julie! Exactly. I remember talking once to a pastor who was very happy with his successful open heart surgery and (later) cancer treatment – and then started to talk smack about “godless scientists”. All I could say is, be grateful they were there to save your life.
And right on cue for a post about recycling (discredited ideas), Kurt’s post about radiometric dating.
5G is probably going to make recycling useless.