Below is House Bill 207, prefiled in the Virginia General Assembly on December 27, 2013 by delegate Richard Bell (a Republican, of course). It is now in the education committee, and I have no idea what its chances are.
It’s one of those innocuous-sounding “teach-the-controversy” bills that is aimed at allowing teachers to present the “weaknesses” of both evolution and anthropogenic climate change. Lest you doubt that, here’s what Bell told a Virginia newspaper, as reported by ClimateProgress:
Bell told the Hampton Roads Daily Press that the bill was intended to protect teachers who might otherwise be disciplined for how they responded to questions from students about topics like evolution. He noted that since the state does not require teaching of alternatives to the theory of evolution, “introducing them into instructional discussion would not seem appropriate.” In his 2011 re-election campaign, he boasted of the endorsement of noted climate-change-denier Ken Cuccinelli II (R).
Groups like the Discovery Institute and Heartland Institute have pushed schools nationally to adopt curricula that embraces skepticism of science. The former’s “Teach the Controversy” campaign has encouraged educators to include in their lectures the “non-scientific problems” creationists and intelligent-design proponents claim to have identified in the theory of evolution.
I’m not sure what Bell means with his “not appropriate” caveat about teaching creationism, but if that’s the way he feels, why this bill?
Note that parts A, B, and C create a situation in which creationism and climate denialism are to be treated “respectfully”, surely falling in the “differences of opinion about scientific issues” category. Well, neither evolution nor anthropogenic climate change are “differences of opinion.” They are scientific conclusions, and if teachers pretend that they’re merely “opinions,” they’re sorely misleading the students. The only way to respond “respectfully” to students who suggest creationism is to say, “With all due respect, both evolution and anthropogenic climate change are facts,” and then present the supporting data. If necessary, one can explain why the opposing opinions aren’t supported by science. But there should be no “respect” implying that creationism and climate-change denialism are credible views.
Section D is what kills me: it’s a weaselly way to pretend that creationism isn’t a religious doctrine. Asserting that the bill should not be construed as religious doesn’t make it so: it’s a distinction without a difference. It’s like sticking a label on a cat that says, “Nothing about this animal should be construed as promoting the idea that it’s a felid.”
Shame on you, Virginia. If they wanted teachers to simply teach accepted science, they wouldn’t need to pass bills like this.
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
Offered January 8, 2014 Prefiled December 27, 2013
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 22.1-207.6, relating to instruction in science.
———-Patron– Bell, Richard P.———-Committee Referral Pending———-
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 22.1-207.6 as follows:
§ 22.1-207.6. Instruction in science.
A. The Board and each local school board, division superintendent, and school board employee shall create an environment in 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 scientific controversies in science classes.
B. The Board and each local school board, division superintendent, and school board employee shall assist teachers to find effective ways to present scientific controversies in science classes.
C. Neither the Board nor any local school board, division superintendent, or school board employee shall prohibit any public elementary or secondary school teacher from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in science classes.
D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to promote or discriminate against any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote or discriminate against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote or discriminate against religion or nonreligion.
2. That no later than August 1, 2014, the Board of Education shall notify each division superintendent of the provisions of this act. Each division superintendent shall notify all employees of the local school board of the provisions of this act by the first day of the 2014-2015 school year.