It’s in Alabama (of course), and in a bill introduced by a Republican (of course). To quote Pete Seeger, “When will they ever learn?” Well, the tactic of passing bills urging “critical examination of science”, a euphemism for “being able to give creationist alternatives to evolution,” has worked, at least in Louisiana and Tennessee, which have passed similar bills. It’s a sneaky and clever tactic, but it’s also a last resort, and it’s not going to allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught legally. (They are, of course, being snuck in under the radar by religious teachers.)

As Alabama.com reports, the new bill was introduced by Republican representative Mack Butler, a god-fearin’, flag-wavin’ True Amurcan who is, unfortunately, on the state House Education Policy committee:

Legislation that would allow Alabama educators to teach alternatives to mainstream scientific theories like evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning was introduced late last month in the House of Representatives. . . . The ACLU of Alabama is already speaking out against the bill introduced by Rep. Mack Butler, R-Rainbow City. The bill has yet to be considered in committee. “This is a thinly-veiled attempt to open the door to religious fanatics who don’t believe in evolution, climate change or other scientifically-based teaching in our schools,” said Susan Watson, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama. “It also opens Alabama to costly litigation that it just cannot afford.”

Well, we’ll see about that “costly litigation.” I’m not sure whether the Tennessee and Louisiana bills have yet been contested or litigated, for they’re “stealth” bills that, on the face of it, look innocuous. But their purpose is insidious. You can find the pdf of Butler’s Alabama Bill HB592 here. Below are the critical parts; note that Butler shows his hand by emphasizing the areas that might be seen as “controversial” (my emphasis):

Section 1. (a) The Legislature finds that an important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens. The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning. Some teachers may be unsure of the expectation 19 concerning how they should present information when debate and disputation occur on these subjects. (b) The State Board of Education, local boards of 22 education, public school superintendents, public school 23 principals, public school administrators, and public school teachers shall endeavor to create an environment within K-12 25 public 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 subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education.

Here’s the bit where they say that teachers can’t be penalized for pushing critical or “alternative” views’ (aka, creationism):

. . . (d) Neither the State Board of Education nor any local board of education, public school superintendent, public school principal, or public school administrator shall prohibit any teacher of a public school from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the State 19 Board of Education.

Finally, there’s the obligatory but disingenuous claim that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION:

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination for or against a religion.

If you look in the dictionary under “lie,” you’ll find the sentence above.

The Raw Story gives some details of Butler’s history (he is a Baptist, of course), as well as a selection of his Facebook posts. This one is a doozy:

If the intent of the bill isn’t transparent from what Butler says, you need new glasses (or a new brain). In fact, this shows clearly that the bill violates two of the three prongs of the Lemon Test, which mandates that any such bill must have a purely secular purpose as well as not serve to advance religion. Does anybody think that Butler’s purpose is secular, or that he’s indifferent about pushing Christian views?

Here’s one more contribution by Brother Butler:

Tell it, Mack! And God bless America!

h/t: Terence