S.D. plan allows evolution critique in class

Creationism would be easier to teach in South Dakota classrooms if a bill in the state Senate becomes law, according to a California-based nonprofit.

The bill would allow teachers to critique the "weaknesses" of scientific theories without worrying about state or local education officials. The bill also mentions biological evolution and global warming as disputable topics.

On its face, it appears to give science teachers such as Julie Olson more flexibility. Olson is a science teacher for Mitchell High School and the Mitchell School District's alternative high school.

"At first, it seems pretty innocuous," Olson said. "It's a sneaky way of getting it in there."

The bill raised a red flag for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif. The measure being proposed in South Dakota, Senate Bill 114, is similar to a 2012 law in Tennessee and bills that have appeared in Colorado, Missouri, Indiana and Oklahoma.

The kind of freedom granted by these proposals would make it easier for teachers to undermine scientific truths without repercussion, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education.

"It provides cover, for, as you might say, rogue teachers," Branch said. "We know most teachers won't do this, but we know that there are some."

This kind of legislation also is known as academic freedom laws, and much of these proposals are based on a model bill from the Discovery Institute.

The Institute's mission statement includes advancing intelligent design "rather than a blind and undirected process," according to the group's website.

But the model bill and South Dakota's do not advance intelligent design or creationism, said Casey Luskin, research coordinator for the Institute.

"If a teacher were to teach creationism in a state that has an academic freedom bill, they would not be protected by that bill in any way, shape or form," Luskin said. "We actually do not support teaching or pushing intelligent design in public schools."

Debating evolution doesn't mean invoking religion, Luskin said. His group's model legislation offers protection to teachers who question the science of evolution, so they don't have to worry about losing their job, Luskin said.

If something is written into curriculum, such as climate change or evolution, an academic freedom bill allows teachers to, in the case of South Dakota, "understand, analyze, critique, or review" without being stopped by school officials.

"Schools should teach the evidence for and against evolution," Luskin said.

Evolutionary principles are central to science, not just biology, and they're not up for debate, Olson said.

Olson is president of the South Dakota Science Teachers Association.

"I don't know what their arguments would be," Olson said. "What's the proof?"

Sen. Jeff Monroe, R-Pierre, is one of the authors of the South Dakota bill.

The bill wouldn't give teachers license to strike up a creationism-versus-evolution debate in class and would restrict them to working within the existing curriculum, Monroe said.

District officials pick science curriculum. If local officials approved intelligent design as an appropriate topic for science, teachers would then be able to use materials to teach it — but not before that happened, Monroe said.

Educators wouldn't have free reign to circumvent state science standards, he said.

"It's purely local control," Monroe said. "It just offers the possibility that there will be complete, open discourse."

Problem is, some teachers already teach creationism, Branch said.

A quarter of teachers in the United States spend at least an hour or two covering alternative theories to evolution in class, according to a 2008 survey, including creationism and intelligent design. About half of those said they present creationism as a valid alternative to evolution.

Legislation of this sort makes it harder to stop teachers from presenting fringe ideas in class, Branch said.

"They would still get in trouble if someone complained about it," Branch said. "But they do so already, successfully, in many places."