Text of Buttars' Bill

Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has released the full text of his new bill. As expected, it's a train wreck. Throughout the last few months, he has seemed quite confused as to what exactly he wanted to argue against. First he indicated that it was the teaching of evolution itself, which he wanted to balance with "divine design". Then he narrowed it down to opposition to human evolution specifically. Finally, he indicated it was the origin of life he had a problem with. I don't think he knows yet:

What I have wanted to do all along is stop opinionated teachers from teaching human evolution as fact. Scientists disagree on the origins of humankind. Young students should have a fighting chance to appreciate the difference between theory and law.

Wow, where do you even start with such a bizarre combination of words? First, I love the word "opinionated" in there, as though what was taught in school was just a matter of opinion rather than scholarly consensus. You know, it's just like whether you prefer Larry Bird or Magic Johnson as a basketball player, just a matter of personal preference. Second, I love the fact that he refers to "scientists" rather than "scientists in the relevant field". When he says that scientists disagree on the origins of humankind, he is talking specifically about the field of physical anthropology. Can he name a single anthropologist in the entire world who rejects human evolution? I can only think of one, a German.

Lastly, he contrasts theory and law as though they were mutually exclusive things. This, I suspect, is because Buttars, like most uneducated Americans, thinks that in a scientific context the word "theory" means "wild guess" or "highly suspect conclusion". That, of course, is completely false. Now, on to the text of his bill:

(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over another.

Hmmm. Let's rewrite this slightly:

(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the position, location and motion of the Earth, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over another.

That's how a geocentrist would perhaps write such a bill, and it would be based upon precisely the same reasoning. All scientists don't agree, of course. You can find as many astronomers who deny heliocentrism as you can anthropologists who deny human evolution (exactly one in each case), and all it takes is one holdout to insure that not all scientists agree on any one theory. For that matter, why stop there? Why not:

(1) In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the causes of human disease and illness, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists agree on any one theory, or that the state endorses one theory over another.

That might be how a follower of Mary Baker Eddy would word such a bill. After all, there is an entire religion which denies that microbes are the source of illness and disease and refuses to follow the findings of mainstream medicine. I'm sure there are a few scientists among its adherents, meaning that not all scientists agree on that one either.

And after all, we wouldn't want some "opinionated" teacher making students think that they should use antibiotics when they have a bacterial infection. No, we should let students "form their own opinion" and encourage "critical thinking" by presenting "both sides" of the "controversy". For that matter, the same rationale would justify teaching flat earthism, holocaust denial and the "stork theory" of baby formation. See how easily this rhetoric can be used in pretty much any setting? There is no field, save perhaps basic math, where you have total unanimity of opinion on anything. It's interesting that Mr. Buttars only applies such rhetoric to an idea he personally opposes.