South Dakota Has Another One for 2019

It was only a few days ago that we wrote Strange Creationist Bill in South Dakota, about one of those “controversial issues” resolutions — the newest creationist fad that seems to be popping up all over the place.

But today that state has one of the traditional creationist bills. Our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) just posted this: Antiscience legislation in South Dakota. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

South Dakota’s House Bill 1270, which would allow the misrepresentation of science in the classroom, was introduced on January 30, 2019.

The bill’s language is brief and deceptively simple:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to protect the teaching of certain scientific information.


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.

Ah yes, “strengths and weaknesses.” Typical creationist nonsense — see Curmudgeon’s Guide to “Academic Freedom” Laws. As we said there, the only “weakness” of evolution is that it doesn’t rely on Oogity Boogity.

NCSE mentions similar bills that have been introduced in the South Dakota legislature in prior years. The most recent one was defeated in 2017 — see South Dakota’s 2017 Creationism Bill — Dead.

The new bill has eleven sponsors, two of whom are members of the state Senate. We’ve never seen Senators sponsor a House bill before. The bill lists the sponsors in this order, House members first: Tony Randolph, Drew Dennert, Julie Frye-Mueller, Taffy Howard, Chris P. Johnson, Steve Livermont, Sam Marty, Sue Peterson, Nancy Rasmussen, and then the two Senators: Senator Phil Jensen, and Senator Lynne DiSanto.

Obviously, all eleven of them are idiots, but NCSE points out that seven of those eleven are also sponsors of South Dakota’s creationist resolution that we wrote about last week. We’ll have to regard them as super idiots.

Here’s a link for following the progress of the bill: House Bill 1270. As of today, it’s just sitting in the House Education committee. The South Dakota legislature convened on 08 January, and will adjourn on 29 March. We’ll be keeping you advised, so stay tuned to this blog.

Copyright © 2019. 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

7 responses to “South Dakota Has Another One for 2019

  1. As I recall, it takes a super idiot majority to pass a bill in South Dakota.

  2. Laurettte McGovern

    well said, Doc 🙂

  3. All I can say is that creationists should be careful what they wish for. Suppose a “strengths and weaknesses” bill were to be applied honestly to both evolution and creationism (or ‘intelligent design”)? I suspect the results might not be what these people hope for.

  4. “I suspect the results might not be what these people hope for.”

    There is nothing to suspect. They would be howling with rage at the mere mention of their preferred version of creationism being shown to be false in the classroom.

  5. @Zetopan is an optimist: “…. being shown to be false …..”
    Creacrap is not even false – it’s unfalsifiable. Hence “goddiddid” doesn’t explain anything.

  6. The creationists wished for a conservative, religious judge in Kitzmiller and they got it! Judge John Jones, Republican, appointed by a Republican, Christian and all that. The creationists were dancing in the streets! Until the decision was handed down and that ratbag Jones followed the evidence and ruled against “intelligent design” creationism! Oh, the humanity!

  7. That’s why the Discoveroids are populated with the ranks of biology-busting lawyers (Casey: take a bow), isn’t it? so they could set us all straight about where Judge Jones went wrong; and how — in the alternate universe more really real than this one — a defeat should have more properly ended in total victory.