Education Icon Education
Evolution Icon Evolution
Free Speech Icon Free Speech

Oklahoma’s Academic Freedom Legislation Authorizes Teaching Scientific Criticisms, Not Creationism

Oklahoma_State_Capitol_Building.jpg

With the recent filing of academic freedom bills in Oklahoma, misinformation about what these bills actually protect is springing up in the media and from Darwin lobbyists — as it has many times before. Donald McLaughlin already addressed a claim from the National Center for Science Education that the bills — one in the state House and one in the Senate — are “anti-science”; let me clarify what they authorize teachers to present.

The NCSE reports:

SB 1322 would, if enacted, in effect encourage science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach anything they pleased — proponents of creationism and climate change denial are the usual intended beneficiaries of such bills — and discourage responsible educational authorities from intervening.

John Timmer at Ars Technica states that the House version permits educators to “teach whatever they want as long as they think it’s science, and nobody can discipline them.”

Slate’s Laura Moser writes:

As with the intelligent-design debate, there is no supremacy of fact; there are only “opinions about controversial issues.” And even if poor, God-fearing teachers are forced to discuss those pesky “existing scientific theories” of how the world was created, they are also allowed to discuss the potential “weaknesses” of said theories (like, say, their making no appearance in Genesis) without repercussions.

…I mean, anything that suggests the Earth wasn’t created in six days surely qualifies as “controversial,” right? If this law passes, teachers can teach pretty much whatever they want in any type of science class without getting in trouble. Because, you know, it’s all relative.

Pretty much whatever they want“? These attacks on the Oklahoma academic freedom bills are pretty much fact-free.

First, the bills only authorize teachers to present scientific information regarding controversial theories. As both bills state, “Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” Areas outside of scientific strengths and weaknesses are outside of the legislation. For information on scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary science, see Donald McLaughlin’s recent post, Casey Luskin’s accounts of uncertainty in origins science and controversy over evolution, and the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list (with more than 900 signers).

Second, Oklahoma’s bills would not authorize the teaching of creationism or other religious beliefs. Both the Senate and House bills note that they only protect “the teaching of scientific information and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”

As Casey Luskin has pointed out, “[I]f you’re teaching religion, then you’re not protected by an academic freedom bill. Since creationism has been ruled a religious belief by the Supreme Court, teachers who teach it would not be protected.” Clearly, Oklahoma’s legislation does not authorize teaching creationism.

Conversely, teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution is on firm constitutional ground. As the Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Aguillard, “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailingscientific theories be taught.” Under an academic freedom law, Oklahoma teachers could discuss controversial scientific questions about origins and evolution without fear of losing their jobs, delving into such issues as whether Galápagos finches provide evidence for macro- (or only micro- ) evolution, whether vertebrate embryos really are similar in their earliest stages, and whether DNA evidence demonstrates a grand “tree of life.”

SB 1322 and HB 3045, if enacted, would provide protections for teachers to engage in scientific inquiry on the subject of evolution, and thus contribute to better science education in Oklahoma. For more information about academic freedom bills, see our fact sheet “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Academic Freedom Bills.

Image: Oklahoma State Capitol, by James Johnson (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Sarah Chaffee

Now a teacher, Sarah Chaffee served as Program Officer in Education and Public Policy at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. She earned her B.A. in Government. During college she interned at Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler’s office and for Prison Fellowship Ministries. Before coming to Discovery, she worked for a private land trust with holdings in the Southwest.

Share

Tags

NationNews