Way back in 2006 Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill characterized the Missouri Senate as a “vast wasteland of Neanderthals.” I think a few Republicans legislators might have thought that McCaskill was praising their conservative chops, and that’s why members of both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly have been going all out to prove her right ever since. Take, for example, Rep. Rick Brattin’s (R-55) most recent attempt to undermine the teaching of evolution in our schools. He’s authored a bill, HB1472, to ensure the primacy of parental beliefs, specifically fundamentalist Christian belief about origins, over proven science. HB1472 would mandate that schools notify parents if evolutionary theory is taught, giving them the option of taking their children out of the classes. Since public school districts in Missouri can decide whether or not to teach evolution, this new bill would serve to undermine those districts that offer such instruction.*

Fighting the scourge of evolution seems to be Brattin’s main hobby; he’s been tilting at that particular windmill for some time, although his legislative efforts have mercifully been allowed to die quietly. His past bills differ from the latest, though, since the earlier ones attempted to mandate  teaching creationism or intelligent design. To give you an idea of the level of hilarity that Brattin is capable of producing, take a look his 2013 foray into the development of unscientific mandates for the teaching of science, The Missouri Standard Science Act. Dana Liebelson’s  Mother Jones write-up summarized a few – and only a few – of the howlers it contains:

HB 291, the “Missouri Standard Science Act,” redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a “hypothesis” is redefined as something that reflects a “minority of scientific opinion and is “philosophically unpopular.” A scientific theory is “an inferred explanation…whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy.” And “destiny” is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it’s “the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race.”

Before we can say anything more about this legislation, it’s necessary to be very clear that evolution, whether or not religious fundamentalists like it (and most don’t), is settled science. As Real Clear Science notes in its discussion of settled science that is widely misunderstood, “the mountains of DNA sequence data generated over the past several decades serve as ‘slam dunk’ evidence. The fossil record, which is impressive but far from complete, isn’t even necessary anymore. DNA can tell the story of evolution all by itself.” (If you’ve heard stories about scientists who doubt the fundamental precepts of evolution, you might find that this well-sourced blog post by David H. Bailey puts them into perspective.) The theory of evolution is central to understanding modern biology, which means that if you want your children to be scientifically literate – or just plain literate – they need to know what it is and how it works. To suppress the teaching of evolution not only shortchanges the children themselves, but the future communities they will live in and serve.

Consequently, legislation like Brattin’s has the potential to, as the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Glenn Branch, has noted, “eviscerate the teaching of biology in Missouri.” It also does so in a particularly objectionable way that depends on extending the concept of religious freedom past reasonable bounds. It’s as if I demanded that my child be exempted from learning geometry because I personally don’t believe in Euclid’s precepts.  

Brattin, who believes that the way evolution is taught is not “objective,” nevertheless describes his motivation in religious rather than objective terms, describing the teaching of evolution as “an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs … . What’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion.” While someone ought to give Rep. Brattin a primer that defines faith along with a few science terms (not to mention simple words like “objective”), it might also help reconcile him to the 21st century if he were to learn that evolution is not a problem for many religious folks who, unlike Brattin, understand that religion and science operate in different spheres. For such individuals, religion functions as a matter of faith and belief, while science consists of verifiable facts and, as Tom Krattenmaker put it in a USA Today column that excited a storm of angry comment from religious conservatives,  requires “no leaps of faith or life-altering commitments.”

As mind-bendingly stupid as this bill is, the sad fact is that in the unlikely event that Brattin finally gets some traction for his pet issue, it probably won’t make much difference one way or another for lots of Missourians. A segment on Kansas City’s KCTV news report on Brattin’s bill offered the following comments from students and parents from Brattin’s district:

But two teens from the Cass County town of Adrian said they don’t learn anything about evolution at their high school. When asked what they thought about teaching evolution, the one 16-year-old answered, “What’s that?” The other explained to the other, “It’s whether God is real or not.”

They said they think it would be good for students to learn about it.

The mothers of those two girls supported the bill, along with a number of others in the lawmaker’s home area.

“I definitely think parents should be notified if evolution is taught because I believe in creation,” said Drexel resident Tina Decavale.

Brandon Eastwood, of Harrisonville, echoed that support, and went a step further.

“Evolution is not taught in the Bible so it shouldn’t be taught in the class,” he said. “Even if I had to spend some time in jail I wouldn’t subject my kids to that nonsense.”

There but for the grace of enlightened school boards is the future for Missouri’s children. It is likely that the deficits will be made up in college – for those who go on to higher education – but those who don’t are condemned to ignorance. Don’t you think it’s time for some visionary state Representative, someone who is actually concerned about the state of education in Missouri as well as the future of young Missourians, to propose a standard that would mandate the teaching of established science, including the theory of evolution, in our schools? Where’s the anti-Brattin in Missouri? Too scared to come out of hiding and do something about the cycle of ignorance that produces sincere, passionate and thoroughly misguided politicians like Rick Brattin?

N.B. Here is a list of sources and materials on the teaching of evolution, creationism and intelligent design in schools compiled by the National Science Teachers Association. This site also has some interesting background.

* Sentence slightly edited for clarity.

Missouri educators, along with those in 45 other states, have officially adopted the Common Core, a set of educational standards for the study of English and mathematics. It was developed by organizations like the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers with input from “teachers, parents, school administrators and experts from across the country together with state leaders.” The purpose? To develop a tool for educators:

High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of clear expectations that are aligned to the expectations in college and careers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad.. Unlike previous state standards, which were unique to every state in the country, the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, …

So keep in mind that these standards reflect input from individuals from all fifty states. They are no more than benchmarks to help educators develop curriculum in areas in which many states are currently failing to teach effectively, and implementation is left to the states.

But, whoa! That’s apparently a little too much for the intrepid (not to say paranoid) members of the Missouri GOP. Republican Senator John Lamping, along with some other members of his political sodality, want to, in the words of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “put the brakes” on the adoption of the Common Core and have introduced legislation to do just that. They’re worried about lack of legislative oversight, claim to be worried about loss of “parental control,” and, wouldn’t you know, are beating their little tin drums about the expense of the required computer-based assessment – a curious concern from lawmakers who otherwise think that the state can afford to cut taxes for corporations and high earners.

And just what does the legislative oversight that these GOPers value so highly look like? Consider legislation introduced by GOP pack member, Rep. Rick Brattin, which would “require that the state’s elementary and secondary school students, and even people taking college courses in public universities, learn about creationism in addition to real biology.” Noted in Mother Jones by  Dana Liebelson:

HB 291, the “Missouri Standard Science Act,” redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a “hypothesis” is redefined as something that reflects a “minority of scientific opinion and is “philosophically unpopular.” A scientific theory is “an inferred explanation…whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy.” And “destiny” is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it’s “the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race.”

The bill requires that Missouri elementary and secondary schools-and even introductory science classes in public universities-give equal textbook space to both evolution and intelligent design (any other “theories of origin” are allowed to be taught as well, so pick your favorite creation myth-I’m partial to the Russian raven spirit.) “I can’t imagine any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with this,” Meikle says. “The material doesn’t exist.”

While HB 291 may be the worst of this stupidity, it isn’t the entirety; another bill, HB179, constitutes a somewhat subtler attack on good science education, but with the same goal: to get intelligent design into the schools. Creationism and intelligent design may be okay for churches which depend on faith to inspire belief and for home-schoolers who aren’t held to very rigorous standards, but it isn’t science. As Daniel Luzer observes, intelligent design is no more than “a form of creationism dreamed up by the politically reactionary Discovery Institute in order to get around prohibitions against the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools.”

If this sort of lame-brained “oversight” is what we can expect from our legislators, I say give us a big helping of the Common Core, the sooner the better.

Previously:

HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)

Well, yeah (February 7, 2013)

Others are starting to notice the crazy in the Missouri General Assembly:

Science & Technology

Rick Brattin, Who Wants Anti-Evolution Lessons In Missouri Schools: “I’m A Science Enthusiast”

By Sam Levin Thu., Feb. 7 2013 at 7:00 AM

Missouri Representative Rick Brattin, a Republican, has introduced a bill that would mandate schools across the state give “equal treatment” to the theory of evolution and so-called “intelligent design,” which is similar to creationism.

Why?

“I’m a science enthusiast,” he tells Daily RFT. “I’m a huge science buff….”

Enthusiast? Gee, if it wasn’t for that pesky scientific method we’d all be enthusiasts.

At Mother Jones:

Anti-Evolution Missouri Bill Requires College Students to Learn About Destiny

-By Dana Liebelson

| Fri Feb. 8, 2013 12:21 PM PST

Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and “destiny” get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religion-it’s all in the name of science….

….Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education, disagrees. “This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange,” he tells Mother Jones. “And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design….”

Face palm.

Yesterday Representative Robert Cooper (r) introduced a bill to allow the gross distortion of science education in Missouri. Somebody call PZ Myers.

HB 1651 Protects teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding biological and chemical evolution

Sponsor: Cooper, Robert Wayne (155) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Funderburk, Doug (12) ……….etal. LR Number: 3681L.01I

Last Action: 01/14/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB1651

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

We musn’t upset the Pastafarians.

Why don’t we just call it “The Practical Definition of Micromanagement Act” and leave it at that?

The bill language:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1651

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES COOPER (Sponsor), FUNDERBURK, EMERY, DAVIS, SANDER, SATER, STREAM, GRISAMORE, RIDDLE, SCHAD AND POLLOCK (Co-sponsors).

3681L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.335, to read as follows:

           170.335. 1. The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, superintendents of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary 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 controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

           2. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

           3. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

           4. No later than the start of the 2010-2011 school year, the department of elementary and secondary education shall notify all public school superintendents of the provisions of this section. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his or her school system a copy of this section.

[emphasis in original]

Ah, sponsored by the usual suspects.

Uh, shouldn’t science education be based on, you know, actual science, not the “equal and opposing viewpoint” treatment of crackpot musings? Just asking.