South Dakota’s 2017 Creationism Bill — Dead

Creationist bill, road kill

We learned the news from our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Their headline is South Dakota’s antiscience bill stopped. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

South Dakota’s Senate Bill 55, which would have empowered science denial in the classroom, was defeated in the House Education Committee on February 22, 2017. A motion to pass the bill was defeated on a 6-9 vote, while a subsequent motion to defer further consideration of the bill to the forty-first legislative day — effectively killing it — passed on an 11-4 vote.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It wasn’t that long ago when the thing appeared to be on a fast track to victory. Within the first two weeks of the legislative session, we wrote South Dakota Senate Passes Creationism Bill. The thing was moving “forward” at an amazing pace. It looked like there was no time to organize opposition.

But then we sensed that the Discoveroids were worried. We wrote Discovery Institute — Desperate in South Dakota? They were complaining about “dogmatic activists” who were working against the bill. After that we wrote Discovery Institute — More S. Dakota Desperation. They were putting out press releases about a creationist “scientist” who supported their bill. He was a signer of the Discoveroids’ list of Darwin-doubters — A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. We could tell their bill was in trouble.

Okay, back to NCSE. They say:

Among those testifying against the bill were representatives of the state department of education, the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, the School Administrators of South Dakota, the South Dakota Education Association, and Climate Parents, a national movement of parents, grandparents and families mobilizing for clean energy and climate solutions.

In the days before the hearing, there was a groundswell of opposition to the bill, as NCSE previously reported, from both state and national organizations, including scientific, science education, civil liberties, and environmental groups. And a petition organized by Climate Parents garnered almost 1450 signatures from South Dakotans opposed to the bill.

Very impressive work. After that they tells us:

The day before the vote, the Associated Press (February 21, 2017) reviewed the controversy over the bill, quoting teachers, parents, and scientists with concerns about SB 55, and citing a letter from Governor Dennis Daugaard in which he told a group of Augustana University professors that he views the bill as unnecessary.

One more excerpt:

SB 55 was one of four similar bills active in 2017, along with Indiana’s Senate Resolution 17, Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 393, and Texas’s House Bill 1485; South Dakota’s was the only of them to have been passed by a chamber of the legislature but is the first of them to die. About seventy such bills have been introduced across the country since 2004.

How very disappointing this must be for the Discoveroids. All they have to show for their expensive, multi-year campaign to promote such legislation are two successes — in Louisiana and Tennessee. Everywhere else, their silly bills have all failed to pass. That’s how we like it.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “South Dakota’s 2017 Creationism Bill — Dead

  1. Michael Fugate

    Klinghoffer is doing his “black is white” review of the Associated Press article and the proposed law.To paraphrase, he whines that the DI acolytes only want students to learn the weaknesses of evolution and nothing more – why does everyone misunderstand our motives?

    He also spins that the only reason scientists opposed the law is that they are so, so afraid of any criticism of evolution while citing a bunch of evolutionary biologists criticizing aspects of evolutionary theory as his evidence. Is he really that limited? Or does he think we won’t notice?

  2. Eddie Janssen

    I think Klinghoffer hopes Ahmanson won’t notice.

  3. How much of the defeat was due to the efforts of the National Center for Science Education – quickly getting the information out to the public, etc.?

  4. Obviously, facts aren`t going to make a difference to those in the grip of a delusion. Perhaps we might make progress when we discover why the mind behaves the way it does.

  5. @TomS: A lot, or so I would like to think.

  6. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty

  7. In the good old days the Tooters would send the Attack Gerbil (peace be to his mangy hide) to testify. He was a wonder to behold jibber-jabbreing away a mile a minute. Couldn’t tell if he was speaking forwards or backwards. When he was done the IQ in the room would have dropped 10 points or more and your ears would be numb. Ah, the glory days.

  8. An interesting comment by Americans United about this bill and its supporter, i.e., the Dishonesty Institute:
    South Dakota Legislators Stave Off Anti-Evolution Bill

  9. Klinghoffer is doing his “black is white” review of the Associated Press article and the proposed law. To paraphrase, he whines that the DI acolytes only want students to learn the weaknesses of evolution and nothing more – why does everyone misunderstand our motives?

    That’s exactly what the DI’ers want: to teach the (purported) weaknesses of evolution alongside the (alleged) strengths of creationism, ahem, “intelligent design” (mustn’t use the C-word where lawyers might hear), and never the reverse.

    Klinghoffer old boy, we understand the Discovery Institute’s motives just fine.