Proposed Controversial Science Topics Education Bill

Questions and Answers Summary - March 2009

What is the legislation’s purpose?

  1. Teachers may not be prohibited from informing students of scientific strengths and weaknesses pertaining to controversial scientific topics when taught in the public school classroom.
  2. Students will have the right to hold their own views on controversial scientific topics without penalty.

Why is the legislation needed?

  1. Teaching about biological origins and possibly other scientific topics raise controversy concerning basic religious and philosophical beliefs.
  2. Legislation and litigation have not resolved whether or not teachers are permitted to teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of controversial scientific topics. This legislation would affirm such teaching in this state.
  3. "Experts" and threats of litigation intimidate teachers and school districts who attempt to teach both strengths and weaknesses pertaining to controversial scientific topics. (Rio Rancho Public Schools received threats of litigation after adopting science education policy 401.)
  4. Some students feel pressured to compromise their beliefs about controversial scientific topics during discussions, testing, and preparation of research papers.
  5. Teaching the strengths and weaknesses of a theory advances critical thinking and good science.
    A 2003 Zogby poll found 68% of New Mexicans in favor of teaching both strengths and weaknesses of Darwin’s theory; 19% opposed; 13% undecided.
  6. Current NM science standards adopted in 2003 call for critical analysis of evolutionary data, but the critical analysis standard may be removed in the future without guiding legislation.

What are the motivations behind the legislation?

  1. Intellectual freedom—students should have the right to reach their own conclusions.
  2. Scientific objectivity—objectivity cannot be attained when relevant scientific evidence is suppressed.
  3. Religious neutrality—scientific objectivity is the only way to attain religious neutrality.
  4. The legislation does not allow teaching religious views in the science classroom.
  5. The legislation does not address intelligent design.

Does the legislation comply with existing law?

  1. The majority opinion in U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard (1986) stated that legislatures may be able to require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Note that the proposed legislation allows but does not require such critique.
  2. Edwards ruled that creation science cannot be taught in public schools. The proposed legislation also excludes teaching religious views as science.
  3. U.S. District Court’s Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruled that intelligent design is a religious view. The proposed legislation does not address intelligent design and has none of Kitzmiller’s aspects.
  4. The proposed legislation has the secular purpose of promoting intellectual freedom and objective science, it promotes neutrality with respect to religion and thus does not advance nor inhibit religion, and it seeks to prevent government entanglement in religion by its neutrality. It passes all three prongs of the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
  5. Scientific information that has religious implications is not at odds with the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause (Edwards v Aguillard, 1986). All scientific information on biological origins has religious implications.
  6. The No Child Left Behind Act favors teaching the controversy about theories of biological evolution.

Will the legislation be expensive to implement?

Teachers who wish to critique theories related to controversial scientific topics can supplement existing educational materials. No new textbooks or training programs are needed. Material is available at a nominal cost.

Does scientific evidence for weaknesses in neo-Darwinian theory exist?

  1. There is a large and growing body of scientific evidence that challenges aspects of the Darwinian theory.
  2. Small changes in a species observed over a short time were thought to imply that large changes happen over a long time. This was the observation that drove Darwin’s theory, but there is no scientific evidence that accumulated small changes can change the basic type of an organism.
  3. The fossil record shows basic types of organisms suddenly appearing and remaining unchanged for millions of years with no uncontested intermediate forms. The Cambrian explosion is an example where most phyla appeared about 600 million years ago with no intermediates between them and previously existing one-celled organisms.
  4. Modern understanding of the cell shows cells to have complex functional integration with information stored as DNA; molecular machines (protein complexes) that do the cells work and manufacture other molecular machines; transportation networks with paths, molecular vehicles, and controlled passages; and separate compartments with different controlled environments. This complex functional integration defies a Darwinian explanation.
  5. No natural environment has been found where amino acids can assemble into proteins outside the cell. Proteins can only be assembled from “left handed” amino acids. Naturally occurring "right handed" amino acids will destroy protein function.
  6. DNA information is read and replicated by molecular machines. Molecular machines are manufactured using information from DNA. DNA and molecular machines require each other to function. They form a complex interactive system that defies a Darwinian explanation.
  7. Modern biology is starting to adopt an engineered system paradigm for cells and their functions.

Download PDF of Q&A Summary