U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Nobody around here is a bigger fan of science than me. And I am also a huge proponent of keeping God and/or religion out of classrooms. I'm also from Oklahoma, so I've been keeping up with this one. All that said, I actually read the bill. It has been discussed at length on a local forum. It doesn't exactly do what Mother Jones reported. Although it is certainly a stupid bill that may even serve no real purpose other than a political stunt.
In fact, there is explicit language that curriculum must be followed.
Essentially, (from how I and others read it, including at least one lawyer) what it does is it makes it illegal for a teacher to fail a student that ARGUES against Evolution or even Climate Change. And it intends to promote a healthy dialogue on skepticism, essentially. Which...for me, is not the worst thing in the world, even if I believe Evolution is 1,000% fact. Having students debating this openly might actually have the reverse effect that these morons want.
The bill also says that the skeptical arguments have to be grounded in science as well. So it's not exactly a "Jesus Horse" argument at all. Although dubious science for sure, this is essentially about Climate Change skeptics. So it's less about Evolution, from what I can see. It's more about Climate Change.
So anyway, if a student has a 20 question test and answers "I don't believe in Evolution" on 10 of them, they are gonna fail. Period. Whereas if they answered "I don't believe in Evolution" on 6 of them and still got the other 14 correct, it would be illegal to fail them just because of their stance on Evolution otherwise. They can certainly still fail them for not doing the proper work in the classroom.
So I suppose it is legal (in OK) to fail a student, as we speak, for simply arguing against Evolution or Climate Change, because I suppose it is at the teacher's discretion? That's the only way this bill serves any purpose. This bill would make that illegal but the student still has to use the science on the classwork if the student wants to pass.
So...that's the way I understand it.
In fact, there is explicit language that curriculum must be followed.
Essentially, (from how I and others read it, including at least one lawyer) what it does is it makes it illegal for a teacher to fail a student that ARGUES against Evolution or even Climate Change. And it intends to promote a healthy dialogue on skepticism, essentially. Which...for me, is not the worst thing in the world, even if I believe Evolution is 1,000% fact. Having students debating this openly might actually have the reverse effect that these morons want.
The bill also says that the skeptical arguments have to be grounded in science as well. So it's not exactly a "Jesus Horse" argument at all. Although dubious science for sure, this is essentially about Climate Change skeptics. So it's less about Evolution, from what I can see. It's more about Climate Change.
So anyway, if a student has a 20 question test and answers "I don't believe in Evolution" on 10 of them, they are gonna fail. Period. Whereas if they answered "I don't believe in Evolution" on 6 of them and still got the other 14 correct, it would be illegal to fail them just because of their stance on Evolution otherwise. They can certainly still fail them for not doing the proper work in the classroom.
So I suppose it is legal (in OK) to fail a student, as we speak, for simply arguing against Evolution or Climate Change, because I suppose it is at the teacher's discretion? That's the only way this bill serves any purpose. This bill would make that illegal but the student still has to use the science on the classwork if the student wants to pass.
So...that's the way I understand it.