The first part of each year is a busy time for a blog like ours. That’s when most of the state legislatures are active and the creationist legislators keep us entertained. This year we’ve already written about six states dealing with creationist legislation — Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Some of them have more than one creationist bill in the works.
It all seems to be happening at once because there are at least 40 legislatures that convene in January this year, plus one (Maine) which got an early start in December. A few more convene in February. Most of those are in session only for a few furious months and will have adjourned by June. The rest of the year we have to scrounge around and go dumpster diving at creationist websites for amusement, but now the stories just keep coming and they almost write themselves.
Arizona is the latest state — the seventh — to introduce creationist legislation this year. As usually happens, we learned about it from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). They report: Antiscience legislation in Arizona, which says:
A new antiscience bill was introduced in the Arizona Senate. A typical instance of the “academic freedom” strategy for undermining the teaching of evolution and climate change, Senate Bill 1213 would, if enacted, …
And then they go through the familiar provisions of yet another anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism bill modeled after the Academic Freedom Act promoted by the Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. We’ve already critiqued their model bill (and explained how to defeat it) here: Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws.
The new bill is SB 1213. That’s probably the link for tracking its progress through the legislature. The sponsors are Judy Burges, Chester Crandell, Rick Murphy, Steve Pierce, Don Shooter, and Steve Yarbrough. Burges and Crandell are indicated as being “prime” sponsors, the others are co-sponsors. Here are their legislative pages: Judy Burges (no occupation given other then being a legislator), and Chester Crandell (no biographical information available).
This is where you can read the text of SB 1213. It’s all stuff we’ve seen before, but the Discoveroids’ model bill is slightly re-worked here and there. The bold font was added by us to the familiar Discoveroid phrases:
Science instruction; requirements
A. The state board of education, the department of education, county school superintendents, school district governing boards, school district superintendents, school principals and school administrators shall endeavor to:
1. Create an environment in schools that encourages pupils to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.
2. Assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Teachers shall be allowed to help pupils understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
B. The state board of education, the department of education, county school superintendents, school district governing boards, school district superintendents, school principals and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher in this state from helping pupils understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
C. This section protects only the teaching of scientific information and does not promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
Intent: The legislature finds and declares that:
1. An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens.
2. The teaching of some scientific subjects, including biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning, can cause controversy.
3. Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.
So there you are. Now Arizona has joined the list of states being burdened with this foolishness. The legislature is scheduled to adjourn in “late April.”
Update: Arizona’s 2013 Creationism Bill — It’s Dead.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
No one yet has said it better:
“You don’t need a law to teach critical thinking, that’s what science is. You need a law to teach creationism.”
– Zack Kopplin
I’ve been thinking about Zack’s quote, and it misses an important point. The point is that creationists think you need a law to teach creationism, but that will only work until someone comes along to say, “Hey, I won’t take this anymore!”, files a lawsuit saying the law violates the First Amendment, then the court strikes it down.
Unfortunately, in order for that to happen, you have to have someone willing to take that on. So far, in Louisiana, I don’t think that that has happened (despite the fact they’ve had the law on the books the longest). Nor has it happened in Tennessee. Many people who watch the PBS special on the Kitzmiller trial learn that that lawsuit tore the town apart. Do they look at the stupid creationists and the lying lies they told as the primary evidence for that happening? I doubt it. Most people would probably take away, “Well, if they hadn’t filed the suit, that never would have happened.” Maybe I’m too pessimistic on that, but that’s one possibility I think highly likely.
I suspect that the vast majority of science teachers continue to teach their classes the same way after these bills are passed as they did before. They aren’t the ones clamoring for this legislation. These bills just provide cover for the crazy ones, and hopefully there are only a few crazies actually teaching science courses.
Even in the Dover case, it was the school board who pushed the ID material, not the science teachers (as I recall.)
Is human cloning actually part of a high school curricula anywhere? Is the DI really so paranoid that they think this is a real problem?
Ed: “Is human cloning actually part of a high school curricula anywhere? Is the DI really so paranoid that they think this is a real problem?”
I suspect they just put it in there because it’s a hot-button issue. They probably would have included a mention of abortion if they thought they could have gotten away with it.