South Dakota Legislators Propose Bill That Would Allow Teaching of Creationism in Public Schools January 27, 2015

South Dakota Legislators Propose Bill That Would Allow Teaching of Creationism in Public Schools

In a bill that’s very similar to one proposed by Indiana legislators last week, South Dakota’s Senate Bill 114 would allow Creationism and climate change-denial to make their way into public school classrooms.

This is not a science textbook

The bill would:

… create an environment within all 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 scientific subjects taught in curriculum and coursework

That all sounds well and good… until you get to this part:

In addition, neither the Board of Education, nor any local school board, or school administrator may prohibit any teacher from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the courses…

Ah, yes. The “strengths and weaknesses” of theories like evolution, which are as solid as theories get in science.

The bill, which has a stated purpose to “encourage and protect the teaching of certain scientific information,” is sponsored by 10 senators and 12 representatives — all Republican. Of course.

As I wrote before, students can already “explore scientific questions” in class and teachers should make a good faith attempt to provide answers. Furthermore, science is all about asking questions. But that’s not what this law is about. The purpose is to make it possible to sneak Creationist and other anti-science ideas into public school classes under the guise of “teaching the controversy,” not discussing actual scientific controversies (which no one has a problem with).

Now would be a good time for South Dakota residents to raise hell over this bill and urge their elected officials to vote against it. Do it for the kids.

(Image via Shutterstock. Thanks to James for the link)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!