The Utah Senate took a preliminary vote on Sen. Buttars' anti-evolution bill on Friday and it passed; a final vote is expected on Monday, then it will move on to the house. The Salt Lake Tribune notes that the debate over the bill may well doom it in court:
Sen. Chris Buttars has tried to eliminate any possibility that his bill questioning the validity of evolution could allow for religious instruction in the classroom - and avoid the legal risks associated with such teaching.
But religion is the reason he proposed the bill and religion drove most of the debate Friday, as the full Senate gave its initial approval to SB96.
Comments on the Senate floor commending God's creation of man and condemning atheists for pushing their "religion," could potentially end up as evidence in court should the bill become law.
No question. Under the Lemon test, intent is indeed a major factor and a law must have a clear secular purpose. This is a serious problem for the anti-evolution folks because, try as they might to pretend otherwise, opposition to evolution is driven almost exclusively by religious fervor. No one could seriously believe that someone like Sen. Buttars rejects evolution for any reason other than that he views it as conflicting with his religious beliefs. He knows less about evolution than an average high school student.
In fact, that gives me a great idea. We don't allow people to practice in many fields without demonstrating that they have some expertise in it. We won't even let someone cut hair without a cosmetology license in this country. And yet we allow ignorant legislators pass laws on those issues without demanding that they know anything about them. I propose a new rule - before a legislator is allowed to propose a change or vote on an issue involving high school science standards, he must first at least be able to pass the AP exams in the basic sciences with a good grade.
This isn't particularly stringent. They really ought to show far more knowledge than that. When the state curriculum committees devise standards for biology, for example, they get a group of biologists together to write them, people whose experience and expertise make them qualified to determine what is important to know about it. Those who would interrupt their work for their political games should at least be able to do high school level work. What percentage of any state legislature do you think could get even a B on an AP biology exam? I doubt it would even be 25%.
- Log in to post comments
If past performance is any idicator of future performance, my guess is that the good Senator would score a 0 or 1 on ANY AP test. Very sad realy. I almost feel sorry for Donnie and Marie. IMO the only good thing to come out of Utah was Jim McMahon.
I don't think testing legislators is such a great idea. The most dangerous people are those who know something about the subject and consider themselves experts. On the other hand, some people who know nothing about the subject can be the most friendly towards science, since they have a respect for knowledge and experts.
Roman Werpachowski wrote:
The most dangerous people are those who know something about the subject and consider themselves experts. On the other hand, some people who know nothing about the subject can be the most friendly towards science, since they have a respect for knowledge and experts.
This makes no sense at all. If those who know nothing about the subject are friendly toward science becuase they have respect for knowledge and experts, it's because those with knowledge and expertise deserve such respect. In what possible sense are biologists the "most dangerous" in regard to deciding what is important to understand about biology?
I can't help it Ed, but everytime you start a post thread off with the name Buttar's i get the same image of the kid from SouthPark in my head.
"What percentage of any state legislature do you think could get even a B on an AP biology exam?"
State legislatures demand, through legislation, that their state's teachers demonstrate proficiencies both in achievement testing and in post-baccalaureate graduate work. In CA for example, all students now enrolling in graduate teacher certification university programs must pass a CBEDS test. CA also has a fulltime, well-paid, state legislature; and yet, i must agree with your less than 25% scoring rate, if they were forced to pass the same, extraordinarily-easy exam. States with part-time and/or voluntary legislatures might demonstrate lower score rates than that.
As for getting a B on an AP exam?? I would think much lower. Now that i think about it; those tests are available online now, because districts that do not have sufficient revenue and enrollment provide AP classes online to students who wish to pursue admission to the top universities. It wouldn't be that difficult to encourage lawmakers to demonstrate their proficiencies. One could also run a scan of a state's legislators high school transcripts used to gain admission to the top universities. AP and Honors coursework is required to garner the necessary points. This would be interesting. Great idea Ed.
Ed,
passing a high school exam in biology does not make you a biologist. I'd suppose many supporters of ID would pass these exams (they'd perhaps "lie" here and there about their true convictions) and then what would you do?
Besides, as limited as my knowledge of American law is, this idea is probably unconstitutional.
Roman wrote:
passing a high school exam in biology does not make you a biologist. I'd suppose many supporters of ID would pass these exams (they'd perhaps "lie" here and there about their true convictions) and then what would you do?
I didn't say that passing a high school exam in biology makes one a biologist. I said that by requiring such a test, we could insure that the legislators at least have some minimal knowledge of the issue they're pontificating about. If you can't even pass the high school biology exam, you surely have no business voting on how high school biology should be taught. That should be obvious to anyone, I imagine. Nor did I say this would be some foolproof solution to the ID situation, so the fact that some would pass it while disagreeing is irrelevant as well.
Besides, as limited as my knowledge of American law is, this idea is probably unconstitutional.
I don't see why. Legislatures have control over their own rules. And if it is, then fine, that just means the Constitution should be amended. It's still a good idea, regardless of the practicalities. It's not going to happen, of course. But that has nothing to do with my argument.
There was a time when the Utah legislature was populated by good people, especially skewed towards supporting education.
What's really odd is that ID tends toward false doctrine among the Mormons. One can only imagine that Buttars and his henchmen are hoping desperately that no other legislator bothers to call the Church Office Building to see what the views are.
Gov. Huntsman has been urged to veto, and probably would, I gather. His fortune comes from science-based business.
Still, it's sad when a state that once had the most educated citizenry in the nation falls so low.
Ed,
you wrote: "In what possible sense are biologists the <> in regard to deciding what is important to understand about biology?"
referring to a passage of mine: "The most dangerous people are those who know something about the subject and consider themselves experts."
I think it was clear from the context that "those who know something about the subject" refers to those who passed the easy exam, not to professional biologists, but maybe it wasn't so clear. Do you understand now?
Roman-
Ah, that does make a bit more sense, thank you for the explanation. I had completely misinterpreted it.