In Texas, HB2454 is designed to prevent discrimination against faculty and students espousing intelligent design (ID).
Sec. 51.979. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
This bill could face serious legal challenges if enacted. For example, what if a biology professor were to discuss ID as a serious theory in her science class? Does that fall under “conduct of research”? If so, it violates the ruling of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller et al, the anti-ID ruling in Pennsylvania. If the bill does not pertain to professorial teaching, it would still prohibit discrimination against students who present pro-ID material in their classes—presumably the prof couldn’t prevent the presentation of such nonscientific material. And of course, the bill would absolutely prevent discrimination against hiring a biology professor who is an adherent of ID or other forms of creationism (“alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms”). So, for example, a Texas university could not refuse to hire creationist astronomer C. Martin Gaskell, as did the University of Kentucky. I abhor discrimination against hiring simply because of someone’s religion, but adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor.
In Florida, SB 1854 requires that certain topics be taught in certain ways, and evolution is to be taught “critically.” In America, of course, that means that evolution be presented as “only a theory,” and its purported weaknesses mentioned at every turn. It’s a Trojan horse to let other theories (and you know which ones) be presented as valid alternatives.
An act relating to required instruction in the public schools; amending s. 1003.42, F.S.; requiring that the instructional staff of a public school teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution and certain governmental, legal, and civic-related principles; . . .
2. Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required to meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following:
a. A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution. . .
There are twenty-one other subjects mandated to be taught in certain ways, ranging from respect for the American flag through the Holocaust and the history of African Americans. But the placement of evolution as item #1 shows you what the bill is really aimed at. It is, according to the NCSE, the reworking of an earlier bill requiring the teaching of intelligent design. That wouldn’t fly legally, so its sponsor Stephen R. Wise, a Republican (of course) rewrote it to make it sneakier.
The NCSE says that this is the eighth antievolution bill to be introduced in state legislatures this year—and it’s only mid-March. I applaud the constant fighting of these brushfires by the NCSE and state organizations like Florida Citizens for Science, but antievolution brushfires will always keep appearing until religion loosens its grip on our country.