Anti-evolution in Missouri

Our neighbors to the east are getting in on the fun. From NCSE:

House Bill 656, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on February 10, 2009, and not yet referred to a committee, is the latest antievolution "academic freedom" bill. The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including such subjects as the teaching of biological and chemical evolution*," and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."** "Toward this end," the bill continues, "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses*** of theories of biological and chemical evolution.*"

*First issue: As with other "academic freedom" bills, what is the purpose behind singling evolution out for special treatment? Why not encourage students to "explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion" in all areas of science? Why are these skills only important when discussing evolution?

**Second issue: The controversy surrounding this theory is a social controversy, not a scientific one. Any uncertainty that exists relates to HOW it happened, not IF it happened.

***This is the recurring theme of these types of bills. Since it's been ruled unconstitutional to prohibit the teaching of evolution, or to encourage the teaching of religious-based alternatives, the new strategy is to set evolution up as being a theory full of weaknesses. This is a back-door attempt to promote a particular set of religious beliefs.

The bill continues:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

Religion involves a faith in some sort of supernatural power. By definition, naturalism is a way of looking for answers about nature in nature. Trying to set scientific naturalism up as an opposing religious belief is not only illogical, but it also cheapens both science and religion. Additionally, the methods of science involve "methodological naturalism", which means that scientists seek the answers to questions using METHODS that are natural. "Philosophical naturalism" is atheistic, but is not a requirement of science.

This paragraph not only tries to make science look like a religious belief, it actually goes a step further and tries to equate science with atheism. Labeling evolution as inherently atheistic is another back-door way to promote a Christian Fundamentalist agenda.

The nice thing about bills like this is that they typically die in committee. Let's hope this one follows that pattern.