Antievolution legislation in New Mexico

[Judi Lynn]

Anti-evolution legislation in New Mexico
February 2nd, 2011
New Mexico anti-evolution 2011

House Bill 302, introduced in the New Mexico House of Representatives on February 1, 2011, and referred to the House Education Committee, is the fifth antievolution bill to be introduced in a state legislature in 2011. If enacted, the bill would require teachers to be allowed to inform students "about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses" pertaining to "controversial" scientific topics;The bill would protect teachers from "reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so." The sole sponsor of HB 302 is Thomas A. Anderson (R-District 29).


Describing the bill as "a train wreck waiting to happen," Dave Thomas, the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, a group that promotes science and science education in the state, told NCSE, "The proposed legislation is not needed by New Mexico's students or teachers. New Mexico's existing standards already protect students from religious indoctrination or harassment by their teachers. Furthermore, the bill is unconstitutional as written, and its passage and enactment will almost certainly result in expensive litigation."

HB 302 is similar to Senate Bill 433 from the 2009 legislative session. The most salient difference is that where SB 433 was limited to "biological evolution" and "chemical evolution," HB 302 is ostensibly about "controversial" scientific topics in general — of which the only examples offered are "biological origins, biological evolution, causes of climate change, human cloning." The sponsor of SB 433, however, told the Santa Fe New Mexican (March 3, 2009) that he conceived of his bill as covering "biological evolution, human cloning, global warming, you name a dozen different things."

A further difference is in the definition of the scientific information that teachers would be allowed to present to their students about "controversial" scientific topics. Both bills make a point of excluding information derived from religious "writings, beliefs or doctrines," but where SB 433 provided, "'scientific information' may have religious or philosophical implications," HB 302 provides, "'cientific information' may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets" — which would appear to be intended to cover "intelligent design" creationism.

More:
http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469

[chemp]

1. As Egypt cries "Revolution"

New Mexico replies "evolution."

Apologies to Bill Hicks.

[Igel]

2. It's a bigger problem than just creationists.

A lot of the kids I've run across are cynical enough that just doing regular science would be dangerous.

Take the Big Bang. There's evidence for it. But the scientific method doesn't rely on proof; it relies on lack of disconfirmation. A lot of things are "consistent" with it and aren't proof. There are fairly divergent theories about it. There are goofy bits that aren't resolved--strictly speaking, the theory may be contorted to fit some discrepancies and still be salvaged, but other things are sore points.

So, do you teach it and leave out the problem areas, so that if the kids ever run into them they realize that you lied in teaching it as absolute fact when it's squishable hypotheses? Do you teach the problems, guaranteed not only to let the kids who are creationists dismiss the theory but also the kids who want to be dismissive of school in general?

I've seen the same caviling about general linguistic theory, evolution, the Big Bang, the Standard Model, global warming, genetics and almost any other sufficiently complex theory or model. To some extent it's the lunacy that everybody has an equal right to a fact-free opinion as a consequence of the self-esteem movement. Far be it from anybody to be humble enough to say, "I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but this is what I've been told." I'm fighting my 7-year-old kid over this attitude, one that the school's foolishly teaching him to have.

The response that I've mostly seen is to denigrate the idea of "theory" and convert it into unassailable, unfalsifiable fact in all its details--a lot easier to teach but a method that'll take big chunks out of your buttcheeks when it comes back to bite you in the arse.

[SkyDaddy7]

3. The Big Bang Theory is far more solid than you make it out to be...

Yes, there are areas that are still unknown but the the theory is supported by observational evidence as well as it is able to make predictions that can be falsified.

We shopuld teach the kids the exact truth...Any other method is simply unacceptable & does nothing to further a childs understanding of how REAL science works.

If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize & would love to hear you explain.

I am not a scientist but I have a good enough understanding of the scientific method & the Big Bang Theory to know it is a pretty solid scientific theory.

Here, let a true scientist, an Astrophysicist named Neil Degrasse Tyson explain the Big Bang Theory...

Part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSU3SK7UFQM

Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TZR84Xs_z4

Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDghQjuqLnI

This is a wonderful video and Tyson's ability to explain science & especially the Big Bang Theory to us laymen & especially children is better than anyone I know!

[Mariano]

4. Read the (whole) bill

Has anyone actually read the bill or is it being reported as if we were Washington politicians who have to pass the bill in order to find out what is in the bill?
Get the info, read the (very short) bill:

http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/on-creationist-anti-science-and-anti-evolution-new-mexico-legislation-house-bi

[66 dmhlt]

6. I read the bill

And it's clearly a transparent attempt to get creationism into the classroom via "intelligent design". And "intelligent design" is nothing more than creationism tyring to wear a lab coat.

Describing the bill as "a train wreck waiting to happen," Dave Thomas, the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, a group that promotes science and science education in the state, told NCSE, "The proposed legislation is not needed by New Mexico's students or teachers. New Mexico's existing standards already protect students from religious indoctrination or harassment by their teachers. Furthermore, the bill is unconstitutional as written, and its passage and enactment will almost certainly result in expensive litigation."

(V)arious state agencies ... worry that the bill would allow the teaching of creationism, inviting litigation; observing that the state science standards already require students to understand the evidential basis for evolution....

http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469

I suggest YOU read Judge Jones' ruling on Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

[wizstars]

5. Happy Darwin Day!!

Why do we get this crap from people who are too stupid to be making our laws????

:shrug:

[Enthusiast]

7. There are no scientific weaknesses

in the theory of evolution. It is solid and verified with every piece of evidence and from every vantage point.