Josh Brecheen
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) just posted this news: Antiscience bill in Oklahoma. They say:
Senate Bill 1765 (document), styled the Oklahoma Science Education Act, is the second antiscience bill of the year. As is increasingly common with antiscience legislation, SB 1765 would, if enacted, in effect encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased — proponents of creationism and climate change denial are the usual intended beneficiaries of such bills — and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening. No scientific topics are specifically identified as controversial, but the fact that the sole sponsor of SB 1765 is Josh Brecheen (R-District 6), who introduced similar legislation that directly targeted evolution in two previous legislative sessions, is suggestive.
Josh Brecheen? We’ve run into him before. He tried the same thing last year, and the year before — see Oklahoma: Josh Brecheen’s 2013 Creationism Bill. When we first started writing about Brecheen’s creationist activity, his occupation was tractor salesman. That’s been changed. His official page at the Senate’s website — Senator Josh Brecheen – District 6 — indicates that his occupation is now Motivational Speaker.
This is a link to the text of Brecheen’s new bill: text of SB 1765 , but you’ll have to read it in Microsoft Word. It’s very similar to his bill from last year. We won’t copy the whole thing, but here are a few key excerpts, with the creationist code-words put in bold font:
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Oklahoma Science Education Act.”
A. The State Board of Education, school district boards of education, school district superintendents and school principals shall endeavor to create an environment within public school districts 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 controversial issues.
B. …. Teachers shall be permitted to help students 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.
C. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any school district board of education, school district superintendent or school principal shall prohibit any teacher in a public school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
D. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.
We’ve seen several such bills before. It’s loosely based on the anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism Academic Freedom Act promoted by the Discoveroids — who are described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. We’ve already critiqued their model bill here: Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws. In that same post we also recommended countermeasures.
Hey, Brecheen: If you’re serious about drafting a non-religious bill, then stop tap-dancing around with that bogus “shall not be construed” nonsense and include language that says: “This bill doesn’t authorize teaching creationism or intelligent design.” But of course, that’s the last thing you want, isn’t it?
The bill was introduced today, and it’s scheduled for its first reading on 03 February. It doesn’t seem to have any co-sponsors so far, and it’s not yet assigned to any committee. Maybe it’ll die, like all of Brecheen’s previous efforts. You can follow the bill’s progress here. The Oklahoma legislature is scheduled to adjourn on 30 May.
Even if this bill fails, Brecheen will try again next year. He’s a fanatical creationist, and he’ll never stop until he’s out of office. Want to see how fanatical? We wrote this about him back in December of 2010: Oklahoma’s Senator Josh Brecheen: Totally Crazed.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
I see that the latest version of the strengths and weaknesses bill has dispenced with overt mention of evolution (and human cloning etc). They need a full rewrite if they expect to fool anyone.
SM: “…his occupation is now Motivational Speaker.”
IOW he went from ordinary salesman to super-salesman. I wish I had never heard of that Commandment that forbids bearing false witness. Because it’s so tempting to do what he does. There are so many bogus arguments against evolution, and there are so many gullible people – mostly not hopeless fundamentalists – who’ll uncritically them, that I could retire comfortably.
“C. Neither the State Board of Education, nor any school district board of education, school district superintendent or school principal shall prohibit any teacher in a public school district in this state …”
Of this, NCSE wrote, “…SB 1765 would… encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased — … — and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening.”
NCSE is off a bit. The bill wouldn’t merely discourage the educational authorities from intervening, it would prohibit them from intervening. Big difference. A principal, superintendent or district could find itself in court if they tried to stop a teacher from teaching witchcraft, say, or astrology, pyramid power or any number of pseudosciences besides creationism.
How this could ever fly when legislatures everywhere are calling for tougher standards in our public schools is beyond comprehension.
The thing that really struck me is the remarkable similarity to the proposed bill reported on here — viz. four clauses addressing much the same points in the same order using similar wording. Is Brecheen joshing or have he and Bell been cribbing from the same source?
Be that as it may, allow me to crib, with appropriate revisions, from myself—
Of Josh Breechan’s career path, our Frank J notes
But that’s an allowed instance of Micro-Promotion–changes within a baramin or kind–and not an example of Macro-Promotion, which is impossible despite all the claims you godless Darwinists keep making.
I know this is true because Holy Scripture (in the book of Giveusthis 1:20-31) clearly states that the Grand Ol’ Designer created “tapeworms, mosquitoes, leeches, salesmen, shills, lawyers and dung beetles” on the Fifth Day, and humans on the Sixth Day.
Alas, there probably isn’t enough ‘meat’ in this article to warrant our Curmudgeon’s scalpel-like pen, but somehow I think it deserves at least an ‘honourable mention’ in the annals of this blog: What the Man With No Ass Crack Can Teach Darwinists and Creationists
“[R]espond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues”
Urgghh. That word “respectfully” gave me a shudder. Surely schools already have rules in place ensuring that the students treat each other respectfully? Why does science need an extra layer of respect? Is there a history bill that specifies “respectful” discussions regarding Holocaust denial or the like? Of course not. It’s only science that supposeduly needs it, and we all know why.
Given the subject of your linked story, perhaps “anals” would be the more appropriate spelling.
Again, it’s a Dover Trap. If passed any school that traipsed into creationism under the Invisibility Cloak of this legislation would run afoul of the Establishment Clause and be subject to suit in federal court. Just like Dover.
It’s disturbing that legislators like Brecheen have no familiarity or concept of the law. Just a bunch of bohunk, ex-tractor salesmen.
doc – I know a few ex-tractor salesmen, and they are intellectually head-and-shoulders above Brecheen 🙂
My tractor ain’t got no mud flaps!
An IH I hope!
Oh, Deere John…! 😀
“…you’ll have to read it in Microsoft Word…”
You can read it in Libre Office for nothing.
“…his occupation is now Motivational Speaker.”
He is an unemployed tractor salesman.
“…shall not be construed to promote…”
This tobacco advertisement shall not be construed to promote smoking.
“This act shall be known and may be cited as the Oklahoma Science Education Act.”
He is too big for his boots. Or perhaps OK has never mandated the teaching of science before.
I am feelng curmudgeonly.
Let me jump in here, you evolutionist M-F ers! (cool your jets, there. Massey-Ferguson tractor lovers, that is.)