The Smug Baldy Speaks

There are fewer controversies in science that get people more worked up than the battle between creationists and scientists over the Theory of Evolution. On the whole, this tug of war typically pits faith against scientific rigor and observable data. Recently, in my home state of Alabama, there have been calls to inject something oxymoronically called “Non-Religious Intelligent Design” into our science classes under the auspices of “academic freedom”. That bill failed to pass the Alabama House, and here’s why it shouldn’t be resurrected: this “new and improved” intelligent design brings nothing new to the table, and as a whole still doesn’t qualify as science. Of course, that’s never stopped wild-eyed people from screaming for ID’s inclusion into our science curricula, has it?

One thing I find interesting is that creationists would resort to an ineffectual tactic like this in the first place. To illustrate what I mean, I’ll first present the failed bill, and then I’ll point out why it’s both unnecessary, and couldn’t possibly help creationists get what they want, which is more talk about religion and less talk about evolution in science classes.

First, you can read the contents of the bill here.

Now, the critique:

1. In section 2, there is a claim that “existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.” This is false. In fact, the ruling of Edwards v. Aguillard states:

We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

Which means - if you have a scientific critique of a theory, you can teach it if doing so enhances the effectiveness of scientific instruction. Simple and effective - teachers are allowed to teach science in Alabama schools.

2. In section 3 the bill states that every teacher in the State of Alabama, “shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.”

This is actually unnecessary since every teacher in the State of Alabama already enjoys this right. In fact, this right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Regardless, there’s no harm in providing special rights for teachers, right?

3. Section 5 is the kicker. It states, “Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education, shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views.”

This would be a get out of jail free card for every student for anything they want. If a student held a view that the earth was flat you would be breaking the law if you lowered his geography grade below an A+. If a student firmly believed that earth didn’t exist until they were born, you couldn’t attach a grade to that opinion if it came up on a test. In our educational system there is no metric for understanding that doesn’t require demonstration of that understanding. If you claim that dogs and cats are the same species, you’re wrong and clearly haven’t demonstrated your understanding of mammalian speciation. It’s a teacher’s duty to require demonstrations of understanding from their students, and if they have penalties for errors and mistakes in thinking, that’s part of the process.

4. Section 7 is also interesting, it says, “the protection provided by this act shall not be restricted by any metaphysical or religious implications of a view, so long as the views are defensible from and justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world.”

Since there is no empirical science or observation of the natural world that supports any metaphysical or religious claim, this section alone makes it impossible for intelligent design proponents and other creationists to increase the exposure of their views in Alabama classrooms. In other words, if you hold a view that has metaphysical or religious implications, you’re out of luck - because science can’t help you support your view.

That last part made me think a bit. Why would creationists push for an education bill that would ultimately forbid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design? Here’s why: Most people, including the bill’s sponsor Rusty Glover, don’t understand science enough to use it effectively.

More on that later.