Debate on the anti-evolution bill went on for an hour and a half. There were times when I was cheering and times when I could barely keep myself from punching my computer monitor. I just need to say this and get it out of the way: Rep. Hays is 100% ignorant when it comes to science. Following the example of Haysâ€™ own challenge, I will go ahead and throw that statement of mine out there and let you attack it any way you can. My statement will stand up to any â€œcritical analysis.â€ He actually wants science to produce some half insect / half monkey creature. Thatâ€™s what he seriously thinks is a transitional form. Yes, that was one of those almost punch the monitor moments. That and his invitation to everyone to go see the move Expelled.
OK, letâ€™s move on to the actual floor action, which started at about 12:04 p.m. The first order of business was Hays asking that the bill approved in the Senate replace his house bill. The motion was approved. This early in the action a shot of the House floor was shown and it looked like a ghost town. There had been a marathon consideration of amendments to the bill before this one, and it looks like everyone decided to take a bathroom and coffee break.
Next up was Hays proposing an amendment that would then take his House bill text and replace all the Senate bill text with it. I have to admit that I just donâ€™t get this move. The Senate bill is adopted in the House. OK. Now the Senate bill is completely gutted to be replaced by what was the House bill? I donâ€™t understand that. Furthermore, I wonder if that was even a smart move, seeing as how Sen. Storms had tried the same thing in the Senate and that body had shot the House text down. Would someone please educate me on all this?
Before that amendment could be considered, though, two amendments to the amendment needed to be reviewed. These amendments were filed by Rep. Kiar.
Kiar introduces his amendment to the amendment: His amendment makes Haysâ€™ amendment constitutional. It strips out the phrase â€œcritical analysis.â€ As it stands now, Haysâ€™ amendment is unconstitutional as it violates a long line of Supreme Court cases and even the constitution of the United States. The Hays amendment would permit teachers to bring religion into the classroom, Kiar says. Kiar then brings up that even atheists would be allowed to impose their views against religion on students. (Brandonâ€™s response: Kiar gets B for effort from me, despite his use of the atheist scare tactic. It looks like heâ€™s trying to pull out all the stops, but he actually comes off as sounding a bit overdramatic. He then drops a couple of letter grades for content in my opinion for not connecting the dots. He really needed to relay to the House the history behind the creationistsâ€™ use of the critical analysis phrase. With that information missing, I can see how others would just look at Kiar in puzzlement. He simply never drove home the point of WHAT exactly is unconstitutional and the history that leads up to WHY itâ€™s unconstitutional.)
After Kiarâ€™s introduction, there was a chance for questions.
Rep. Fitzgerald states that the Kiar amendment is a good one. He and Kiar have a back and forth about how science is one thing and religion is another. They each have their own set of standards and rules, so to speak. Fitzgerald says the Kiar amendment would protect scientific integrity. One has to understand that the critical analysis in Haysâ€™ amendment is vague. Critical analysis has different standards in different fields. Thus we have to make sure the critical analysis is right for a particular subject. Kiar adds that he is a devout Catholic and doesnâ€™t want a science teacher talking about religious subjects in the classroom. (Brandon responds: This has the appearance of a pre-staged little show. Fitzgerald is just trying to help Kiar highlight some concepts they felt were important. Was the Q&A staged? I donâ€™t know.)
Debate on Kiarâ€™s amendment to the amendment then kicks off.
Rep. Fitzgerald: commends Kiar for a great amendment. He repeats how it is good for the integrity of science education. He emphasizes that science has a particular, appropriate standard for critical analysis. It would be dangerous to allow other standards of critical analysis to interfere. It would be silly to allow the critical analysis used for poetry to be used in the science classroom. Not applying the scientific standards of true critical analysis thus raises possible constitutional issues. Religion might get mixed in with other subjects and that would be bad pedagogic practice and open a can of worms, politicizing the schools.
Rep. Hays: simply state that this is an unfriendly amendment and asks everyone to please vote no.
There is an absence of a quorum. A quorum call is held. After a couple of minutes, the business resumes, but there is some brief confusion about whether debate is closed or not. Several more people want to add something to the debate.
Rep. Gelber: If we adopt this bill, we will invite non-scientific issues into the classroom. Thatâ€™s what this bill is all about: finding ways to get religion into the classroom. When I have kids in the public schools, I donâ€™t want a teacher trying to navigate the thorny issue of religion. Faith should be left to the parents and the churches. The Board of Education already created a set of science standards and already made clear that critical analysis is required. This bill is only here to allow for religion in the classroom. Do not mix science and faith.
Rep. Waldman: (Unfortunately, I didnâ€™t catch exactly what he was saying. I got confused by his statements. I just got the impression that he is for the Hays bill.)
Rep. Schwartz: Actually want to debate later. Simply states that everyone should vote for Kiar amendment.
Iâ€™m not sure who spoke next. Maybe Rep. Jenne? This person just wants to relay to the House that recent polling shows that 99.85 percent of scientists support evolution. Evolution is quite simply valid. Evolution clearly happens in nature and is well supported.
Rep. Vana: Says that the Hays bill seems innocuous, but will actually allow religion in the classroom. Vana then read from some research papers being done by research institutes in Florida. As she reads them, she points out that each and every one has to do with the fact of evolution. This is cutting edge science. Letâ€™s not do a U-turn on our bicycles and head back to the dark ages. We must be clear on what science is and isnâ€™t. Letâ€™s not confuse students with what the entire world knows isnâ€™t science. We have to give our students the best education we can. This is the 21st century.
Iâ€™m not sure who the next person was. Maybe Rep. Legg? Whatâ€™s all this talk about separation of church and state? The bill just says critical analysis. The highest priority is getting our kids to think for themselves. They need the ability to have critical analysis. We should always be afraid of those who tell you what the truth is. We should be ashamed to say that kids in school should not be allowed to think of criticize or evaluate. Teaching something as the gospel stunts higher order thinking.
Rep. Coley: Iâ€™ve been following this for several months. We need to encourage critical thinking. A wise person said that if an idea is solid then it can hold its own and withstand critical analysis. I went home to help my son study for a biology test. It was about time periods and what life emerged during those time periods. I asked him if he was told where those life forms came from and he said no. We need to allow kids to look at such things and think about them and analyze them for themselves. These are our scientists of the future. If we limit critical analysis or are afraid of teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of something, then exploration is closed to us. We have gravity proven. But when a subject has gaps in it, then we need to allow students to critically analyze those gaps.
Rep. Geraldine Thompson: This bill opens the door to religion. Instructors will be burdened with many theories, some are Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim with regard to the beginning of life. There are a wide range of theories, but the science classroom is not the appropriate place for them. In science we need to stick with what is observable and proven. We have to make sure our students can compete with those in other countries. Vote yes on the Kiar amendment, please.
Rep Brown: I didnâ€™t get everything Brown said, but he essentially said that separation of church and state is a lie.
Rep. Hays: We have heard over and over again the flagship false assumption that so many people are making all the time. If you dare to question evolution, then you must be talking about religion. I donâ€™t want religion in the schools. It belongs in the home and church. Now, ask any scientist if they do this: if they believe a theory they have is correct, then they are not afraid to have it examined. Why be afraid to have it criticized? If you approve Kiarâ€™s amendment, you are gutting the whole purpose of this bill. This is just about making sure teachers can have this discussion in class. We want to make sure teachers can lead a discussion about critical analysis without fear.
Rep. Kiar in closing: I agree that religion should not be in schools. But Haysâ€™ bill is unconstitutional. Critical analysis makes it unconstitutional. Kiar then cites some court cases and runs down how they fit into todayâ€™s debate. Edwards v. Aguillard and Lemon v. Kurtzman.
There is again an absence of a quorum. Quorum call.
Voice vote on Kiarâ€™s amendment. Not adopted.
Next amendment to an amendment is introduced by Kiar. This one inserts the word â€œscientificâ€ into the bill language.
Rep. Kiar: This amendment is even better than my last one. Ensures any critical analysis will be scientific and not allow religion.
Rep. Hays: Says he will take the amendment without problem.
Voice vote taken. Amendment adopted.
Finally, the Hays amendment to the Senate bill is opened up for discussion.
Rep. Planas: Says he is speaking from the middle. During this debate he is hearing from extremes of both sides, but very little room left in the middle. It is possible to have religion and accept science too.
Rep. Fitzgerald: This bill is set upon a false premise. Talks about Galileo being forced to recant the idea that the earth goes around the sun. â€œIt still moves,â€ Galileo said. Science is based on reality apart from our knowledge. The evidence is before us. â€œIt still moves.â€ This bill purports that there is a problem in the first place, and there isnâ€™t. The problem doesnâ€™t exist! There is a mountain of facts explaining evolution. We can see evolution in fruit flies. Understanding evolution led to the discovery of DNA. Genetic research is based on evolution. This bill claims to open analysis, but it in fact closes it. It denies the FACTS! Compare evolution to gravity. You can test gravity by going to the roof. You wonâ€™t jump off, will you? But evolution is better understood and supported than gravity is. This bill is all about some people of religious faith being offended by what science has discovered. They then try to use the power of the state to impose their thinking on the rest of us. They try to take away the power of the scientific community. This bill is actually a threat on your religious liberties. You should be offended. (Brandon responds: This was an outstanding, impassioned speech for reason. My summary here doesnâ€™t do it justice at all. Once the session recording is available, you really need to find this part and view it. Itâ€™s a keeper!)
Rep. Gelber: I donâ€™t even know why this bill is here. This issue already was before the Board of Education. We, the legistlature, have entrusted other bodies, such as the Board of Education, to do this kind of work. The standards allow for critical analysis and have evolution mentioned 42 times in the document. The experts worked on those standards. If you are worried about the teaching of evolution in schools, then you shouldnâ€™t want this bill because it will MANDATE its teaching. Let the experts work this out, as they already have. Thatâ€™s what they are there for.
Rep. Kiar: The amendment you all approved makes this terrible bill a little better, but it is still bad public policy.
Rep. Vana: I wonâ€™t support this bill because it chooses to give evolution special attention. If we are going to attract the best and brightest to our state, we canâ€™t have this bill. She then quotes from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kroto concerning Scripps not coming here if this debate happened a couple of years ago. We shouldnâ€™t want critical analysis of 1+1=2. We are sending a clear message to the world that we are not poised to be a leader in research.
Rep. Brandenburg: (I lost my connection and so didnâ€™t hear this part.)
Rep. Altman: Claims that not allowing critical analysis makes it dogma and a religion of its own. Without critical analysis, learning stops.
Rep. Weatherford: If 98 percent of so of scientists are behind evolution, then why are you afraid of this critical analysis?
Rep Kelly: Gelber asked why are we debating this. We are debating this because it is important to the citizens. What are we frightened of? He then reads from the amended bill, putting emphasis on the inclusion of the word scientific. These arguments about religion are nothing more than strawmen. If we wanted to teach religion we could then teach such-n-such from the Bible. Kelly then quotes about three things from the Bible. But we arenâ€™t teaching those things. With this theory of evolution, itâ€™s impossible to go back in time and replicate our origins. Thus you are forced to make choices and presuppositions.
Rep. Nick Thompson: This bill just presents more information and options for students. It gives them choices.
Rep. Jordan: There is probably truth to everyoneâ€™s statements here. He then gives a short history lesson about the falsity of separation of church and state.
Rep. Attkisson: We should trust our teachers. This bill allows the minority to have their say and protect them.
Rep. Hays in closing: Points out Rep. Fitzgerald and calls him the personification of why this bill is needed. If you are true scientists, you will put your theories out there to be criticized. Evolution is dogma. It has holes in it. If you think there is no debate in science over evolution, like Fitzgerald claims, then go see Expelled. There are NO transitional fossils. We donâ€™t want students to be parrots being told what to think. We want to teach them how to think. Why are you so afraid? This protects freedom of speech. Find for me where a fly turned into a monkey or a monkey turned into a man. This talk about religion is nothing more than hot air.
Haysâ€™ amendment then passed on a voice vote and the bill will move to its third reading and final vote next week.
There was a little bit more. But I have to walk away from the computer for a bit. Comments are open. What is your take on all of this?