HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 22, 2006 Chris Butters is a State Senator from the state of Utah. Recently he has proposed into the state Senate “SB96 Public Education- Instruction And Policy Relating To The Origins Of Life”. It’s a small bill, only three pages. Yet these three pages have launched him into the national discourse. Not because it’s a momentous bill, or because any one thinks it will have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the lives of people living in Utah. Everyone is talking about it because it is the latest misguided attempt to defame the Theory of Evolution to a states school children. Everyone is waiting to see how the lawsuit over this bill will turn out, and make no mistake. If by some curse of legislative ignorance it passes, there will be a lawsuit. You can’t say a whole lot in three pages, and really if you read the bill you can sum it up in much less than that. Most of the three pages are taken up with required Senate legalese to define applicability and so forth. The only real intent of the bill as written is to emphasize that “not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct”, and that the state board of education “not endorse a particular theory” regarding the same. Under the provisions of this bill the state board of education is tasked with creating curriculum requirements that would emphasize these points. Senator Butters is already on the defensive with this bill. He is making statements to local newspapers trying to ward off accusations of religious motivations. "I challenge anyone to say that somewhere in those lines that I'm trying to promote religious philosophies," "My bill from the get-go never included anything about intelligent design, creationism or any faith-based philosophy." (Source for quotes: Salt Lake Tribune, http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3423895#) Senator Butters, honestly, if you were going to issue a challenge you could at least make it a difficult one. The opinion of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) made very clear that singling out the Theory of evolution among all the other scientific theory’s taught in public schools could only have a fundamentalist religious motivation. No, SB96 does not ever specifically mention God, ID, Creationism or Religion in any form. The important part here however is not what is being said, but what is so conspicuously left out. In the same way that ID’s silence on any postulated designer is so deafening, so here the lack of any actual competing theory’s to add to the curriculum is also very curious. Again I site Kitzmiller vs Dover. Even though ID is very careful not to explicitly mention religion or God, the lineage of the idea of intelligent design is very clearly spelled out, so that its true motivation is unavoidable and blatantly unconstitutional for inclusion in a curriculum. Similarly here, when the suit is brought, this bills lineage, as the latest attempt to insert unwarranted assaults on the Theory of Evolution, will be likewise unavoidable. The real question the Senate needs to ask itself in considering this bill is “What other theories might the school board be obligated to consider under this bill?” Can you hear the crickets chirping? The plain truth of the matter is that there aren’t any. Lets be clear about this. THERE ARE NO COMPETEING SCIENTIFIC THEORYS FOR THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES! The details of the mechanisms for the changing of the properties of species are debatable, but that animals change and adapt over time is considered settled. Nothing else makes any sense. So what exactly is the school board to do if this bill is passed? There are no competing theory’s to consider. You can’t include ID because that has already been deemed conclusively unconstitutional for inclusion in school curriculums. To follow the provision that requires an emphasis on the fact that “not all scientists agree” is nothing more than bashing evolution. Trouble is that’s been included in the decision too. The Dover School Board is now permanently enjoined from requiring teachers to “denigrate or disparage” the Theory of Evolution. So you cant follow either provision without possibly running afoul of the law. So in reality, if this bill is passed you really haven’t accomplished much at all. The school board cannot legally take any action in connection with this bill. In fact it would seem that all this bill really is is fodder for a lawsuit, and it doesn’t even have much chance of winning. At the end of SB96 are a couple blurbs that I find interesting. First: “Any costs associated with the enactment of this bill can be handled within existing budgets.” I suppose this is an official sounding way of saying that there are no funding appropriations attached to supporting the bill. I wonder if Senator Butters is taking into account the cost of the lawsuit that will be initiated against the state pursuant to this bill. You think he’s considered the cost of paying not only for the defense, but also the legal fees and damages of the plaintiffs when the bill is inevitably defeated? Its going to take a long time for this all to play out in court, and we all know that time is money. Lawyers and judges time especially is not cheap. Second: “Based on a limited legal review, this legislation has not been determined to have a high probability of being held unconstitutional.” I know you can’t tell while your reading this, but I had to pause for the laughter to pass before I could start typing again. The legal review must have been very limited indeed, because this statement is just plain ridiculous. I wonder if the lawyer Senator Butters consulted on this was from the Thomas More Law Center. Go ahead and give them a call Senator, I’m sure they have some pertinent advice for you regarding their recent defeat. ------------ About the author: William A. Hurt is not a writer by any means, just an occasional participant in the debates that interest him. The author is currently serving over seas with the active duty military and is an active member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Help keep Church and State separate, www.ffrf.org Email: freethoughtadvocate@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
