SB96 "Sideshow" Legislation

The Deseret News quotes Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. as having said on Thursday,

"Sometimes, the frivolous and the less important capture headlines," Huntsman said. "The longer-term issues that we face as a state are those surrounding job creation, education, basic mobility, transportation, quality of life — we need to stay focused on those."
As governor, Huntsman said, "that's exactly where my focus is. I'm not going to get side-tracked on any sideshows."

I’m glad our governor is staying focused on what’s really important, because I’m obviously not. This website is all about the frivolous antic sideshow that is Buttars bill. I am the headlines! Ya! :^)

More down to earth, the Daily Herald had a great editorial opinion yesterday concerning this frivolous sideshow in which they detailed four reasons the House should kill bill:

The bill is flawed because it requires action on a false premise. It erroneously suggests that there are competing theories on the origin of life upon which various scientists disagree.

In fact, there is very little science of any kind suggesting how life began, let alone competing theories. The investigation has only just begun, and a bit of sketchy chemistry does not a theory make. But if there are no competing theories, then S.B. 96 is moot on its face and the State Board of Education should be free to ignore it. It requires an impossibility. Because multiple theories on the origin of life do not exist, schools by definition cannot endorse one theory or discuss the variety of others, even if they wanted to.

Its language is ambiguous and suppresses honest dialog.

Not only does S.B. 96 address the origins of life, it demands curriculum requirements "on any theory regarding ... the origins or present state of the human race." The latter phrase is incomprehensible, but we'd say it attempts to make reference to the theory of evolution -- which is an actual theory supported by a vast amount of external evidence. Evolution is widely accepted as fact, as the Big Bang is accepted as the starting point of the universe. There is overwhelming physical and mathematical evidence for both. The Big Bang was spectacularly reinforced by the WMAP probe launched in 2002. Suppressing a teacher's ability to report the wide agreement on these points is intellectually dishonest.

Even if the words of every teacher were monitored and controlled by the Board of Education, this bill would have no meaningful benefit.

The Utah Legislature does not need to protect the religious sensibilities of students in science classes, nor is this the proper role of the state. People have been balancing science and religion in their personal philosophies for centuries. If a teacher says that evolution is currently a widely accepted fact ... well, that is a reasonable statement that is not subject to challenge except from a few on the intellectual fringe. Worries that kids will lose their faith in droves because of an authoritative secular teacher are misplaced.

S.B. 96 is a thinly veiled attempt to force religious viewpoints into public schools. This is not the proper role of government, nor is it practical. If competing religious notions are treated as scientific theories, science class will bog down in philosophy.

Faith is the personal and private domain of the individual. In the quest for truth, one is free to choose science alone, faith alone, or some combination of the two. But that reconciliation process is a matter to be worked out by every free-thinking individual. It is not appropriate to encode this in law.

Science obviously cannot explain everything, nor does it claim to. The accelerating process of discovery raises questions that outpace answers as people continue to inquire, hypothesize, theorize and challenge. In the face of this explosion, all science does is attempt to explain things in rational -- rather than spiritual -- terms. It is proper for the public schools to pursue secular science without guilt, and for the schools to avoid muddying the water with faith-based arguments. Let that discussion happen outside of school, or at least in philosophy class.

(Now speaking for myself, I think an appropriate place to bring this topic up in a public school is in a government & politics class. It can be used as a case study on how public opinion is manipulated and how legislatures use deceptive language in an attempt to maneuver around the law.)

Religion and science are not necessarily incompatible, but whether and how they relate is not a matter for the Board of Education or the Legislature. This is the key. Faith offers some answers that science cannot. Certainly a great many people are convinced that their religious views are correct. But a person's sense of certainty does not turn faith into science.

Science and religion may enhance one another, but reconciliation must never be forced. That process is properly left to the individual alone.

This bill is badly in need of amendment -- or a quiet death. It is symbolism at best. At worst, it undermines independent thought and establishes the Utah Legislature as a tribunal of truth. That is what the Inquisition did.

Personally, I think a quiet death is best. Amen.