New Mexico Republican Introduces Anti-Evolution Bill
The assault on science education continues:
If educators in New Mexico want to teach evolution or climate change as a “controversial scientific topic,” a new bill seeks to protect them from punishment.
House Bill 302, as it’s called, states that public school teachers who want to teach “scientific weaknesses” about “controversial scientific topics” including evolution, climate change, human cloning and — ambiguously — “other scientific topics” may do so without fear of reprimand. The legislation was introduced to the New Mexico House of Representatives on Feb. 1 by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson.
Supporters of science education say this and other bills are designed to spook teachers who want to teach legitimate science and protect other teachers who may already be customizing their curricula with anti-science lesson plans.
“These bills say, ‘Oh we’re just protecting the rights of teachers,’ which on the face of it isn’t wrong. But they draw big red circles around topics like evolution and climate change as topics to be wary about,” said Joshua Rosenau, a policy and projects director at the National Center for Science Education. “It suggests this kind of science is controversial, and would protect teachers who want to teach anti-evolution and climate-change-denying lessons in classrooms.”
The bill is one of five already introduced to state legislatures this year. While more than 30 such bills have been introduced since 2004, only Louisiana adopted one as law in 2008.
Rosenau said House Bill 302 will probably never see the light of day, as New Mexico’s representatives have bigger issues to deal with, such as their constituents’ financial hardships. If it does come to a vote, however, he said its chances are slim.
(…)
The bill’s introduction comes at a time when, according to a recent study in Science, only 28 percent of U.S. teachers overtly teach scientific concepts of evolution and 13 percent advocate creationism. Some 60 percent water down teaching evolution to avoid confrontation by students and parents.
“Supporters of anti-science education are trying to give cover to what’s already happening out there,” Rosenau said.
It wasn’t that long ago that legislators who introduced bill like this were a laughingstock. Now, it seems to be becoming more and more common. I can’t understand how anyone can think we’re giving students a 21st Century education when we’re not teaching basic science for fear that it might “offend” someone whose mind is still stuck in the 15th Century.
As a devout Christian, I can’t understand other Christians who want to mix religion and science. They’re completely different things. Why can’t Science just be the rules that God laid out for the Universe to follow?
I think some Christians get offended when scientists “disprove” the existence of God. This just betrays the lack of understanding of all concerned. Belief in God requires faith. If you have proof, there’s no need for faith. If you want to “prove” God exists, it seems to me you’re revealing your own lack of faith.
Anyhow, I’m with you on this one, Doug. If teachers want to teach religion, they should do it somewhere other than a science class.
It wasn’t that long ago that legislators who introduced bill like this were a laughingstock.
Yes, the Republican Party has been regressing quite quickly.
I can’t understand how anyone can think we’re giving students a 21st Century education when we’re not teaching basic science for fear that it might “offend” someone whose mind is still stuck in the 15th Century.
“Someone” being the entire right wing of this country.
Anyway, if God is all powerful, why are science books a threat to him?
Boyd Sez: “If teachers want to teach religion, they should do it somewhere other than a science class.”
State legislators should pass laws forcing Sunday Schools to teach Darwin’s ideas as an alternative to Genesis. What could be more fair? Everyone wins!
The evidence that you’re wrong on this point is right in front of you, mantis, and yet you still propagate the lie.
Individually, you might have some variation, but it’s quite clear the right wing in this country, collectively, has it’s mind stuck in the 15th century. Am I lying?
PRINCETON, NJ — There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
– Gallup, 2008
So you were only off by 40%. I suppose that’s close enough.
Boyd,
Do you vote Republican?
– Did you donate or volunteer to Republican causes?
– Did you vote for McCain/Palin
– Did you vote for a Republican Senator/Congressman?
– Did you vote for a Republican Governor/State Legislator?
– Did you vote for a Republican Mayor/Councilman?
– Did you vote for a Republican School Board member?
If yes, then you validate Mantis’ point, in our two party system when you support a party you support all of their points.
You don’t get to pick and choose, so while you are correct that 40% of Republicans may disagree with Creationism teaching by supporting the Republican party you agree with your leaders wanting to teach Creationism in science classes.
The assault on science education continues:
No. The REPUBLICAN assault on science continues.
“Rosenau said House Bill 302 will probably never see the light of day, as New Mexico’s representatives have bigger issues to deal with, such as their constituents’ financial hardships. If it does come to a vote, however, he said its chances are slim.”
There’s a strong anti-yahoo presence in the state.
CETI -Center for Evolutionary and Theoretical Immunology:
Wow, Loviatar, what a completely obtuse and partisan-driven statement. With effectively only two parties in this country, we have to agree 100% with one or the other.
I can’t even calculate the willful ignorance in that statement.
So you were only off by 40%. I suppose that’s close enough.
Majority rules. Face it, you’re on the backwards, anti-science side.
I side with Boyd on this one. There are a large number of Republicans who don’t toe the party line on this one. Maybe not a majority, but a large number. But unfortunately, it IS the Republican party line. Wasn’t there some 2008 GOP presidential forum where not a single candidate would support the concept of evolution? This isn’t a case of some vocal minority in the party causing the ruckus, this is the absolute leadership of the party.
It is not a good thing for this country that one of the two major parties has, at its highest levels, abandoned the concept of evidence based action, of rigorous exploration of cause and effect, of the scientific method (perhaps the single greatest achievement of mankind in the past 500 years). At the highest levels, the GOP of today puts ideology and theory over reality.
Boyd,
The willful ignorance is on your side.
My example, I voted for Obama;
– D0 I like that he caved on the Tax Cuts for The Wealthy, no.
– Do I like that he caved on the Public Option, no.
– Do I like that he has kept Guantanamo open, no.
The point is while I do not like all of his policies my choices under our two party system are Obama and all of his warts or a crazy Republican.
Your choice was the crazy Republican, now you have to accept their warts (Creationism, Racism, Sexism, etc.).
There are a large number of Republicans who don’t toe the party line on this one.
Maybe they should rethink the fact that they belong to the know nothing party. Oh, I forgot, that’s a feature, not a bug. They’re the same party that thinks eliminating taxes will pay back the deficit.
MarkedMan,
Again, you’ve proved mantis and my point. I will go ahead and stipulate that both you and Boyd are correct, there is a significant number of Republicans who disagree with this State Legislator’ position. However, you’ll both have to stipulate that when you vote for leadership you then have to accept that leaderships position on things even when they are in disagreement with your own position.
Republican leadership has accepted Creationism as a valid scientific method and would like to have it taught in the classroom. That one is all yours guys. OWN IT
In addition to making sure science is not taught in science classrooms, but religion is, Republicans are also apparently declaring one version of the Bible as the only acceptable version. Hell, if it gives them the opportunity to attack the president and claim he’s not a Christian (Muslin!!!!111!!!), so why not!
“However, you’ll both have to stipulate that when you vote for leadership you then have to accept that leaderships position on things even when they are in disagreement with your own position.”
So, You accept the continued use of Guantanamo? The ordering of the assasination of a US Citizen?
Look, I don’t care how you vote, no matter which way you go you are going to be endorsing some unpleasant things. Yes, as such, you are a little bit responsible for those things, but I suggest you guys get off your high horses and if you can’t bring yourselves to agree with Boyd from time to time (as I do now) just keep it to yourself
People who live in grass houses shouldn’t stow thrones.
Boyd:
I have some sympathy for your position. I get the two party thing. But at what point will you have had enough? Is there a point at which you’ll have had enough? Or is loyalty to your party really the dominant consideration.
The system doesn’t work if people are loyal beyond a certain point. If you’re loyal no matter what then you empower the freaks and wingnuts. The party — with guys like you in their pocket — are free to go as far to the fringes as they like. And the first line of defense against that kind of extremism has to be people like you.
So you need to ask yourself: why are you a member of a party that attacks science, that practices dog whistle racism, that denies gay Americans equality, that is willing to bankrupt the country so long as the rich are well cared-for, that has as its most powerful spokesemen people like Limbaugh and Hannity and Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin.
I ask the same question of James Joyner: how low will you go in the name of party loyalty?
Look, I don’t care how you vote, no matter which way you go you are going to be endorsing some unpleasant things.
The difference is the left puts a lot of pressure on their politicians on issues like those you mention, while all these Republicans I keep hearing are not anti-science, do nothing. The only somewhat well known conservative I know of who is willing to write against the anti-science nature of the Republican Party is John Derbyshire, and even he usually just does so to attack liberals for not supporting science in the right way (“ok, my fellow Republicans should believe in evolution like I do, but those liberals are such elitist meanies that it’s all their fault”).
We hear a lot about the “professional left” and how they’re not satisfied with Obama and the Democrats, and about the “split” on the left as a result. How often do we hear about the “science supporting right” and how they’re a thorn in the side of the Republicans? Oh right, never. Because they don’t exist.
if you can’t bring yourselves to agree with Boyd from time to time (as I do now) just keep it to yourself
I’m sure I would and have agreed with Boyd from time to time, but you can kindly kiss my ass. I’ll disagree with whom I went whenever I want, thank you very much.
tom p,
Its not throwing stones in glass houses, its holding up a mirror to what their party is doing in their name. If they can’t stomach it too damm bad.
Like Michael says, when is enough enough for James, Doug, Boyd, etc. Is power and loyalty to a party all that they can see – folks its not your parents Republican party – either change it or leave. And until the Republicans become the opposition party and not just the “enemy” (a term they’ve used) I’m going to continue to hold up a mirror to their overreaches (redefining rape, teaching creationism, Iraq war, etc.) so that their supporters can see the results of there donating, voluntering and voting.
For myself , I coming very close to the point where I can’t accept what the Democratic party is doing in my name (i.e. Tax Cuts for Wealthy, no Public Option, Guantanamo Bay) and no I don’t a clue as to what I will do when that time come.
Oh, by the way, a lot of the things the left is upset at Democrats for are compromises they had to make to get things done. Guantanamo Bay? I don’t like it, but what’s the alternative? The administration has tried very hard to solve this, but they are stuck with the mess left behind from the “Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws!” Bush administration. As for the assassination order for Anwar al-Awlaki, I’m not opposed to it. He’s a terrorist who has been directly involved with many attacks or attempts. I don’t really care one way or another what nation he’s a citizen of. I’m rather uneasy about the US ordering assassinations of anyone, but I recognize its a dangerous world and the CIA does some things that make me uneasy, but when it comes to proven terrorist masterminds, I can’t bring myself to oppose it.
Anyway, removing science from science classes and teaching religion instead is not a compromise that otherwise reasonable Republicans accept because it helps achieve their goals. That is the goal. And these sane Republicans I keep hearing about do nothing about it.
I’m not sure how this discussion came to be all about me, but I suppose by stating my opinion, I had a hand in that.
Anyway, anyone who thinks I’m a Republican is leaping to a conclusion. I vote for the candidate who most closely reflects my opinions and positions on issues that are important to me. There has never been a candidate from any party for any position that came anywhere close to matching all of my opinions.
I distance myself from policies and positions I disagree with, hence my comments here. I don’t blindly follow any elected official, or anyone else. Which I’m proud to say is a fairly unique philosophy regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum.
There is also a very pragmatic difference with the Repub’s and the Dem’s: There are many, many more times Republican congressmen are called on to adhere to the party line than the Democrats. For instance, when I lived in MD, Wayne Gilchrest was a very good Republican house member. But gradually he had to vote more and more with the leadership on ‘important’ issues, or he would be punished. Eventually he was primaried, with little leadership support, and tossed out. I’m not saying this type of leadership roundup doesn’t happen on the Dem side, just that it happens much less often and is much less effective. It’s why I vote straight Dem ticket now. I used to evaluate the candidates, but on the Repub side it doesn’t really matter what the candidates actual beliefs are. They will only be allowed to vote against the party line if their vote won’t matter. And even then, they will most likely be punished by the Tea Party or Club for Growth or Rushbo.
Despite all this, I still defend what Boyd said. It seems he feels the Repubs are the lesser of two evils. It makes the vote tough for him, but if he believes the Dems are worse, than it is either vote Repub or not vote.
“I’m sure I would and have agreed with Boyd from time to time, but you can kindly kiss my ass. I’ll disagree with whom I went whenever I want, thank you very much.”
To the extent that when the individual in question agrees with you, you say FU!!!! YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT BECAUSE YOU DON”T SEE THINGS THE WAY I DO ALL THE TIME!!!!!
Never mind logic? Never mind the oppurtunity to forge a bridge of mutual agreement that actually SOLVES one or 2 of our problems?
Mantis, I agree with you about 90% of the time, but not this time. Not only are you being an idiot, you are being a stupid idiot. When a person says something that you can agree with, your response is to say, “BUT you are an idiot because you don’t agree with me ALL the time!!!! And, and and … it’s all your fault!!!!”??????
And no, I won’t kiss your ass. You are acting like an idiot, and sometimes somebody needs to tell people that (Lord knows, it would have saved me a whole lot of money and heart ache if some had said the same to me). If you can not accept that… it is your problem…. unfortunately it is mine too.
“I’m not sure how this discussion came to be all about me, but I suppose by stating my opinion, I had a hand in that.”
Boyd, it is simple: once again you said something that a few of us liberals could find no fault with. You were then attacked for some of the things you have said that no liberal could agree with. HOWEVER… some of us liberals chose to focus on the points we could agree on… others did not.
I for one, appreciate the chance to accomplish something positive that we both agree on. (I will write your congress person if you write mine)
It is a start.
“As for the assassination order for Anwar al-Awlaki, I’m not opposed to it. He’s a terrorist who has been directly involved with many attacks or attempts. ”
Mantis (I swear, I am not picking on you) According to whom? The man has never had a day in court. His Father tried to give him a day in court and it was thrown out because “all he has to do is turn himself in”….
Tell me, would you, for even a second consider, turning yourself in to a gov’t that had already decided to kill you? Would you?
Really?
To the extent that when the individual in question agrees with you, you say FU!!!! YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT BECAUSE YOU DON”T SEE THINGS THE WAY I DO ALL THE TIME!!!!!
Ahem. This is what you wrote:
if you can’t bring yourselves to agree with Boyd from time to time (as I do now) just keep it to yourself
So if I don’t agree with someone some of the time, I shouldn’t voice my disagreement ever? Does not compute.
Never mind logic? Never mind the oppurtunity to forge a bridge of mutual agreement that actually SOLVES one or 2 of our problems?
What bridge of logic? What difference could it possibly make that Boyd and I both think religion shouldn’t be taught in science classes? He’s still going to vote for whoever screams “Tax Cuts!” the loudest, and won’t care a whit about anything else. This is my point about the right in this country in general and Republicans in particular.
Not only are you being an idiot, you are being a stupid idiot.
Not just an idiot, but a stupid idiot? You seriously wrote that?
When a person says something that you can agree with, your response is to say, “BUT you are an idiot because you don’t agree with me ALL the time!!!! And, and and … it’s all your fault!!!!”??????
I didn’t disagree with Boyd’s original statement at all. He wanted to argue that the right isn’t uniform in their anti-science stance. I find that to be a largely empty point, as those they vote for the same anti-science idiots anyway.
And no, I won’t kiss your ass.
Whatever. My point was clearly that I’m not going to refrain from commenting just because you think I shouldn’t.
If you can not accept that… it is your problem…. unfortunately it is mine too.
It’s really not, though. You can just ignore me. It’s not that hard.
Loviator
It is not “throwing stones in glass houses”, it is stowing thrones in grass houses. (old joke, if OTB ever puts up an “Old Bad Joke” thread, I will tell it)
*”For myself , I coming very close to the point where I can’t accept what the Democratic party is doing in my name (i.e. Tax Cuts for Wealthy, no Public Option, Guantanamo Bay) and no I don’t a clue as to what I will do when that time come.”*
For my ownself, I will continue to vote Dem…. and write my letters, and send in my dues to the ACLU, etc
Does it do any good? I don’t know but it is something… and when I come across a conservative who says something I agree with????
Why would I argue?
Mantis; why do you find it so hard to agree with those “on the other side” when they say things you agree with?
There is nothing you say I can truly disagree with (well, maybe one ore two) and yet when somebody from the right tells me “You are correct.” I do not argue.
You on the other hand…..
**””If you can not accept that… it is your problem…. unfortunately it is mine too.””**
*”It’s really not, though. You can just ignore me. It’s not that hard.”*
Unfortunately, it does not matter if I ignore you or not, the question is am I going to get painted with the same brush as you? The answer is “Yes.” (and no it is not your fault, that is life, but do not pretend that your words have no affect on others)
According to whom?
Do you even know anything about the guy? His involvement in terrorism is not exactly in dispute, despite what his poor father says.
The man has never had a day in court. His Father tried to give him a day in court and it was thrown out because “all he has to do is turn himself in”….
Tell me, would you, for even a second consider, turning yourself in to a gov’t that had already decided to kill you? Would you?
So you want him to have his day in court without actually being in court?
“Not just an idiot, but a stupid idiot? You seriously wrote that?”
Yeah I wrote that… Because you wrote this:
“I didn’t disagree with Boyd’s original statement at all. He wanted to argue that the right isn’t uniform in their anti-science stance. I find that to be a largely empty point, as those they vote for the same anti-science idiots anyway. ”
And you vote for the same anti civil rights idiots anyway???
Mantis, WE AGREE…. I just don’t see myself as being so pure of spirit.
“So you want him to have his day in court without actually being in court?”
Yes.
I do not know what else to say. You are now reaching deep into the depths of Dick Cheney’s soul. May God (if there is a God) have mercy on yours.
Mantis; why do you find it so hard to agree with those “on the other side” when they say things you agree with?
I don’t. As I said, I didn’t dispute Boyd’s original comment in the slightest. I’m just a little more realistic about what that actually means than you are. A lot of libertarians are very pro-science, but most of them I’ve ever known continue to vote for people who are actively anti-science, pro-ignorance, and don’t do much at all to pressure them otherwise. So we could have a bunch of fun discussing evo devo and gene switching or whatever, but this is a political blog, and policy wise, libertarians always end up supporting the backward ass party, despite their tendency to disagree on science. So what does it matter if we are in agreement? Let’s all have a cupcake.
Unfortunately, it does not matter if I ignore you or not, the question is am I going to get painted with the same brush as you? The answer is “Yes.” (and no it is not your fault, that is life, but do not pretend that your words have no affect on others)
Sorry, I didn’t realize you meant that my combative attitude will reflect poorly on you. What can I say? I used to be more polite. I’ve had enough. I’m sick of what their doing to this country.
And you vote for the same anti civil rights idiots anyway?
Which anti-civil rights idiots did I vote for?
Sigh…..
Kevin Phillips got there early with American Theocracy.
The evangelicals are just different than the older, conservative (in other senses of the word) protestant religions. They are “charismatic,” right? In the sense that belief can trump any particular factual reality.
Put in the best light, they learn this stuff at father’s knee, and good on them for loyalty. But, they should have a little awareness that more traditional protestants taught it a bit differently. They don’t have that perspective. “Christianity is” for them, that charismatic thing.
(They like Adam Smith, but punt on the rest of the Scottish Enlightenment.)
“Which anti-civil rights idiots did I vote for?”
Didn’t you say you voted for Obama? I did too, are you not as disappointed as I? Appaerently not… By your own words it is OK if someone is killed because someone else says they are a terrorist… never mind the rules of law, never mind evidence in court, never mind…. oh hell…
Let’s kill ’em all and let God sort them out….
‘Kevin Phillips got there early with American Theocracy.’
Indeed……
Republicans are so Funny , They never fail to make me drop on my stomach & role on the floor …..
What the creationist cannot deal with is that the science and the resulting facts do support evolution, a common ancestor and the time line. The creationists a re broken records in that they continue to cite the same issues “Copy and Pasted” as though they haven’t been debunked already. If there case was so strong they would not need to rely on nefarious means to achieve their goals. They act with the lack of moral behavior sighting God as their excuse. I think God can take care of himself – if he even exists.
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