But there is one thing I think I can do… I can indisputably prove that our Representatives cannot make a more worthless nor ridiculous bill than the one they made to substitute SB96 and passed to the House floor.
Read it for yourselves, here is SB96 Second Substitute for your review:
53A-13-101.7. Curriculum and policy on instruction relating to the origins of life.I wish I was dreaming. Comedy!
(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze scientific instruction regarding the origins of life and the origins of species, to consider differing scientific viewpoints, and to form their own opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that any scientific theory, hypothesis, or instruction regarding the origins of life, or the origins of species has been indisputably proven, or that the state endorses any one theory or hypothesis.
(2) The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements, consistent with Subsection (1), relating to scientific instruction of students on the origins of life and the origins of species.
(3) The curriculum requirements described in Subsection (2) shall require that if scientific instruction is given to students regarding the origins of life, or the origins of species, then that instruction shall stress that no scientific theory, hypothesis, or instruction regarding the origins of life or the origins of species has been indisputably proven.
(4) The State Board of Education shall:
(a) make rules, pursuant to Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, to fulfill the requirements of this section; and
(b) ensure that all policies and positions of the State Board of Education relating to scientific instruction regarding the origins of life or the origins of species:
(i) do not endorse any particular theory or hypothesis; and
(ii) stress that no scientific theory, hypothesis, or instruction regarding the origins of life or the origins of species has been indisputably proven.
2 comments:
First ... I think that the very fact that the legislation is writing such legislation is bad.
The wording of the bill doesn't seem that bad to me. The bill seems to be a poorly written restatement of the scientific method.
My reading of the bill is that, in order to encourage critical thinking, evolution should be taught as a hypothesis and not as a postulate. It is good for students to know the difference between a postulate and hypothesis.
My guess is that a teacher fulfills the requirement simply by reviewing the scientific method.
As for educational theory. Students tend to be more engaged in a subject when it is presented as a hypothesis to be questioned rather than as a fact.
There is a little bit of a problem, here, of course, in that the legislation is suggesting evolution always be treated as a hypothesis. And you really don't want to have more than one hypothesis on the table. In the scientific method, you put forward a hypothesis and test it until you feel comfortable, then your start treating the first hypothesis as a postulate and forumalate a new hypothesis.
For example, after accepting evolution as a framework, you might ask a question like: Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? With the state mandate that evolution can never be treated as a posulate, you have a more complex logical structure with two hypotheses on the table.
It is icky but not untenable.
The real scary thing with any such nebulous legislation like this is in what people read between lines, and the administration of the bill.
I am really not that terribly affronted with the wording of the legislation as with the fact that the legislature is meddling in a place where they shouldn't meddle.
I think it is good for a school to have a policy that evolution be first presented as a hypothesis. Such policies are best set at the school level.
Do the words "indisputably proven" have any teeth? I mean, in court, wouldn't a plaintiff have to prove that the defendant either "endorsed" a specific theory (eg "evolution") over another, or explicitly stated that a particular theory (eg evolution) has been "indisputably proven"?
I personally endorse evolution, and am fine with calling it a theory, as we continue to improve it. It's by far the best theory. If I had to add a little creation science (eg "Poof, let there be Evolution and DNA!"), I'll bet I could get everyone thinking AND having fun at the same time. I might even challenge students to invent some of their own Creation Science; if nothing else, we could see how both the theory of evolution and creation science come from the creative minds of humans.
Meanwhile, as a parent, we all have the responsibility of adding perspective to whatever life experience our kids have, especially when it comes to their daily experiences in school. If I were religious, I might add religion at home. As a skeptic and science advocate, I did my best to enlighten my kids, and encourage them to think and question and decide for themselves. Who even cares about a little creation science in school? It's an opportunity to show our kids how other humans think about life, even it IS totally wrong!
Taking this to an even bigger picture, look at religious fundamentalism around the world. It's a fact of life, and will be for who knows how long. It's even evil in ways, at times. (Yes, evil exists, and it is man-made.) Different kinds of religious fundamentalism even exists here in the US. Talk about this with your kids, and use it as a way to teach about other people and cultures, and their foibles. AND advocate for what you think makes more sense.
I think this kind of legislation really isn't going to matter much. Let them be themselves and act foolish for a while. Even if there are negative effects, I see this as experimentalism in democracy, and I don't see this as a national movement. Most scripture literalists surely feel threatened by reality; be kind, and give them a little space. We are not their enemy.
Post a Comment