Buttars and ID
I’ve largely left comments on State Senator Butters for my “best of science and religion” round-ups. That’s primarily because LDS Science Review has done a fantastic job on the issue. However I do think I’ll link to a Salt Lake Tribune article on Buttars. It seems Buttars has managed to get his highly controversial bill about evolution passed. It looks like it will likely get passed by the full Senate tomorrow.
General consensus is that it will be quickly judged unconstitutional. While I think the text of the bill is ambiguous enough to perhaps avoid constitutional problems, Buttars has been fairly in your face regarding the religious overtones to the bill. I think that unless one gets a strict textualist (Nate Oman, can you fill us in here?) that religious context will make the bill fail in constitutional muster.
So the only effect of the bill will be to waste several million dollars that could have been spent on much more worthwhile things and to bring embarrassment to the state.
I’m hoping, against hope, that either the house or Governor Huntsman will keep the bill from becoming law. Huntsman in particular has come out against the bill in the past. We’ll see if he vetos it. However word around the campfire is that Buttars is being very aggressive in political tricks to ensure that the bills gets past. (We’ll have to await future reports to see if those reports are as damning as I’ve heard several people suggesting)
I actually honestly never thought it would make it out of the Senate. So I never paid it much mind. But this is pretty scary. I’m really hoping that it will be stopped. There is perhaps one silver lining. This might force Pres. Hinkley to try and distance the church from this bill, given the inevitable bad PR it will bring towards the church. Perhaps this will lead to some more clarifications of the church’s position.
Thanks for bringing this up. I don’t mind covering it, but how many times can you say, “Oh no….Oh no!”?
Comment by Jared — January 22, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
So do you see any golden linings?
I think the only hope at this stage is a call from Pres. Hinkley to lawmakers. (Which isn’t beyond the pale given that this will hurt the Church’s PR)
Comment by Clark Goble — January 22, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
I wonder if most members and leaders of the Church would agree with you two (and me) that this would be bad PR for the Church. I think many, if not most, members see anything that stems the tide of secularization in our society as a good thing. I would be surprised if a) President Hinkley has as much of a problem with this bill as we do and b) if he did anything official about it.
Comment by Tom — January 22, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
“A call from Pres. Hinkley to lawmakers?” (ROTFL) Clark, you’ve got to be kidding. Or dreaming. Sometimes you guys are so out of touch.
Comment by Gary — January 22, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
That’s rich, Gary, coming from you.
Comment by anon — January 23, 2006 @ 12:16 am
Gary, even if you believe no death before the fall and related things and dispute that the church is, in fact, neutral on the topic, surely you’d agree that this will not help the church PR-wise.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 12:24 am
As I’ve said elsewhere the bill strikes me as very anti-science. It misrepresents the debate. By insisting that teachers stress that “scientists” disagree on certain subjects it makes it sound like there is a large amount of uncertainty in the scientific community. This is not the case.
Perhaps a more legitimate requirement would be for teachers to present the limits of what science can explain.
In any case, aren’t all Utah high school students allowed to have release time in which they can be taught whatever they want about the origins of life? Don’t force science teachers to inaccurately portray science. Why Senator Buttars thinks it is a good idea to legislate science is the real mystery here, not evolution. I hope that he tackles math next. Perhaps he could legislate the definition of pi to suit his beliefs.
Comment by a random John — January 23, 2006 @ 1:17 am
arj wrote:
Two words: F-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t.
I remember the time…not too long ago…when I held the honest belief, er, “knowledge” that the true science true religion were one and the same. Of course, revealed religion is the closest thing man has to truth sooooooo….
Teaching religious doctrines in a science class would be nirvana (not to be confused with Seattle grunge band of the same name…BTW, GO HAWKS!)…as long as was revealed religion, of course. But that opens another can of worms: which church has the truth, which authority-figure in the true church spoke by revelation from god and when, which parts, ad nauseum.
Life is so much simpler once one has been lobotamized…trust me.
Comment by Watt Mahoun — January 23, 2006 @ 1:33 am
As I said, I think the way the bill is worded it is vague enough to perhaps be taken to refer to disputes within evolution. (i.e. punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism) But the context of the hearings for the bill were so overtly religious as are Buttar’s many public comments that I’ve come around to the position that I think it’ll be unconstitutional.
I suspect that the requirements from the Dover case are relevant. Here are Jones’ criteria.
I also question exactly what the problem Buttars is addressing. Afterall most of the people Buttars is worried about in education (the Mormon kids) already have religion taught to them in school (release time Seminary). It really looks like a solution in search of a problem even ignoring all the other problems.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 2:06 am
“fund a mentalist” is three words, not two. Plus, I have no desire to give any money to mind readers.
In statements that Buttars has made to the DesNews he seems to imply that his bill covers everything from the big bang to the origin of man. What the big bang has to do with biology is a mystery to me, but Buttars need not explain, only command from on high.
Clark,
I’m pretty sure that kids of other faiths get release time as well, and it is available to anybody that wants it. I know that Davis High had a Catholic release time program in the past, I don’t know the present state of things there. Not that my seminary experience give me any faith that kids will come out with a clearer understanding of complex topics. As far as I could tell, lesson #1 in seminary was that complex topics do not exist. If you bring one up you’ll be told that it isn’t an issue and to please not disturb the class by talking about things that don’t exist.
Comment by a random John — January 23, 2006 @ 2:16 am
You guys, I must be really dense. I don’t understand what is the problem. This seems to be desirable to me, isn’t it true that not all scientists agree? Isn’t it true that none can truly be proven?
Explain, please.
Comment by annegb — January 23, 2006 @ 10:59 am
I think Buttars would be showing a lot less bravado if he had to foot the potential legal fees. But sadly, they’ll come out of the pockets of all Utahns; I don’t think the Thomas More Law Center will make the same mistake twice.
Comment by will — January 23, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Clark, you are not entirely clear about what you find to be “scary”.
Perhaps Buttars is just another cog in the vast right-wing conspiracy. Is that what you believe?
Besides legal wrangling, what exactly is the most feared and awful outcome of Buttars efforts? Will schoolchildren instantly regress to Neandertals?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — January 23, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
For the moment, I don’t think this will reflect poorly on the Church as much as one might initially think.
First of all, Utah is not unique. Similar things (some worse) are going on in Ohio, Kansas, South Carolina, and Georgia. Of course there was also Pennsylvania.
Second, the Church has stayed pretty quiet and many are under the impression that the Church does not have a firm position on evolution. Whether it does or not (or what it is) is debated amongst us, but articles in the Deseret News and S.L. Tribune paint a moderate picture. So far, the Church has not seen fit to correct that perception.
Given that a lot of people in the nation are critical of evolution, the bill may make the Church look good in those people’s eyes.
In terms of PR strategy, the Church may be doing the best thing–stay quiet and let each side think the Church is with (or at least not against) them.
Comment by Jared — January 23, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Scary because a) it will result in bad press that I think is undeserved b) will be a waste of millions of dollars for when it gets judged unconstitutional c) reported strong arm tactics by Buttars d) will lower already abysmal science teaching.
Interestingly Hare Krisnas want their view of creation taught. (Not necessarily in Utah, but I think it illustrates the problem.)
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
And yet no one will explain what the fuss is. I have no context for this.
Comment by annegb — January 23, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
annegb,
You can get some context here.
Comment by Jared — January 23, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
annegb,
Part of the problem is that evolution is singled out, even though many school subjects are less established than evolution. If this goes to trial, Sen. Buttars will have to come up with a convincing non-religious reason for this. Good luck.
Another part of the problem is that the wording of the bill creates an impression that the basic fact of evolution is controversial among scientists, when, in fact, it isn’t.
Comment by will — January 23, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
Annegb,
The problem is there are scientists of some form which disagree with pretty much every theory. However there are three questions which should be answered with regards to this: 1) are the disagreeing scientists qualified to count as scientists in this particular field? (mathematicians don’t count in evolutionary debates) 2) what are their reasons for disagreeing? (motives don’t count) and 3) how many are there which satisfy the other two questions.
There really are scientists which are a part of the flat-earth society. Should we attach disclaimers to geography and astronomy? According to such a bill, can we really teach anything at all in science since it seeks only confimation and disconfirmation rather than absolute proof?
The biggest problem with Buttars’ bill is that there really isn’t any disagreement with regards to the fact of evolutioin though there is lots regarding mechanism and path. Contrary to popular belief, science thriving on disagreement and uncertainty. This isn’t an excuse for us to invent disagreement and uncertainty when there is none. It is this which Buttars is trying to do. We have no reason at all to believe that humans didn’t evolve from earlier (not lesser) primates, though there are motives a plenty. We have no reason at all to believe that evolution isn’t a fact.
Buttars is right in that we shouldn’t overstate our confidence in certain scientifc theories, but this is simply not happening WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY regarding evolution. By his same reasoning, we shouldn’t overstate any disagreement or uncertainty either, but this is exactly what he is trying to do.
That is what is wrong with what he is doing.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — January 23, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Actually, this topic seems to generate a great deal of argument among scientists. Indeed, it seems to be _the_ eternally controversial science topic. If it was a done deal there would be little to argue about.
There’s plenty of literature in evidence that at least some reputable and qualified scientists disagree.
Perhaps such assertions depend on your careful qualification of “scientists”. If you categorically exclude everyone who disagrees with certain doctrines, then I suppose it is a true statement.
.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — January 23, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
Jim,
Sure there is lots of arguing regarding both the mechanisms and paths of evolution but there is no serious debate whatsoever regarding the fact of evolutiion. Buttars’ bill is trying to take the disagreement and uncertainty regarding mechanisms and paths and apply it to the actual fact, something which simply can’t be done. Therefore I stand by my assertion.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — January 23, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
Jim: There’s plenty of literature in evidence that at least some reputable and qualified scientists disagree.
That’s fine. The question is whether they disagree upon the basis of scientific principles or whether they are religious principles. A friend of mine was in grad school for physics and there was an other grad student there who was a fundamentalist Evangelical who thought everything had been created from scratch 6,000 years ago. He had no scientific justification for this. It was purely a matter of faith. Does that mean that New Earth Creationism should be put on par with the big bang in education?
The issue underneath all this is science. If people for whatever reason don’t trust science that is fine. Just don’t teach that in science.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
And that’s what it comes down to…Amen!
Comment by Watt Mahoun — January 23, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
Clark, the flavor of all your comments seems to belie your generously granted permission for people to distrust science. You obviously disapprove of people who hold such opinions, and consistently characterize them in the most negative terms. Apparently Buttars responds to a similar perception about the kind of instruction given to elementary students in science class. The consistent underlying message has long been something along the lines of “All creationists are just uneducated unthinking morons”. There is no good reason for a science class to teach such denigrating and insulting ideas.
Perhaps Buttars finds it pointless to play by a set of rules that apriori declare him and his ideas the loser.
Jeffrey, I disagree that Buttars must be attempting to wrest something from the situation that does not exist. I find nothing in Buttars arguments to the effect that science is unequivocally wrong or evil. He is not promoting Luddism. He simply wishes to reserve room for recognition that not all science is uncontroversial. In particular he focuses on teachings of human origins, for which the science questions are by no means nailed down. Buttars obviously has found that science teachers and curricula are sometimes too dogmatic and protective of their proprietary domain to allow such honest equivocation.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — January 23, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
The possibility that Butters (or any ID adherent) may feel their beliefs attacked by the existence of science is interesting…but beside the point, which is that science ceases to be science when mixed with religion. The same is probably true of mixing science into religion.
Keep them apart. Each have something to teach. We lose both when they mix.
Comment by Watt Mahoun — January 23, 2006 @ 8:25 pm
Jim, I think you are completely right that Buttars doesn’t want to play by the rules. But the effect is to impose religion on science and the courts judge that unconstitutional.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
Interesting bit of news out of the Trib today. First, as expected, the bill passed the congress and is headed to the house. But there was something interesting I didn’t realize.
So someone please explain to me why this bill is necessary even to those who dislike evolution? What a waste of taxpayer’s money.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Clark (#6) said, “surely you’d agree that this will not help the church PR-wise.”
I think the Church is quite capable of looking after its own PR. Besides, have you thought about what “a call from Pres. Hinkley to lawmakers” (#2) would do to the Church PR-wise? Wouldn’t that be like trying to put a fire out by pouring gasoline on it?
Comment by Gary — January 23, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
How would Pres. Hinkley telling them not to make a religiously oriented bill be problematic PR-wise?
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
Clark,
Rocky would blow a gasket!
Comment by Jim Cobabe — January 23, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
Actually I think Rocky would be thrilled if the church told a lawmaker not to invoke religion into an issue.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 23, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
A small devotional based on the subject of this post can be found on my blog under: Dear Mr. Fantasy.
Fascinating discussion today, all.
Comment by Watt Mahoun — January 24, 2006 @ 2:09 am
Clark (#31), I can see how you and a few others would be thrilled if the Church told lawmakers, “ID is false, evolution is true. Leave it alone.”
Dream on.
Comment by Gary — January 24, 2006 @ 3:32 am
That’s not what I was asserting in the least.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 24, 2006 @ 3:46 am
Gary,
What Clark would be “thrilled by” would be if the Church told lawmakers that their position is not “ID is true and evolution is false.” But then again the church already has said that.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — January 24, 2006 @ 4:10 am
From a 12/23/05 Deseret News article:
“It doesn’t hinder them about talking about evolution at all,” Buttars said. “They can talk about evolution from the Big Bang or life crawled out of the slime somewhere. But what they can’t do is . . . tell students, ‘This is how it happened, how you became man, you evolved from an ape.’ That is all I asked the State Board of Education to do in the first place, and they thumbed their noses at me.
“You don’t know how life began; nobody does in the scientific community,” Buttars said. “Therefore, you can only teach these things as theories. It’s a small step, but it’s a big step, and I can pass this bill.”
You know, once Buttars realizes that the text of his bill doesn’t cover the big bang and other aspects of creation not directly related to the “origins of life” he is probably going to have to draft yet another bill. Currently he seems to think his bill has it all covered though: I am still trying to figure out how a man that would say “They can talk about evolution from the Big Bang…” is qualified to tell science instructors what to teach. What class covers “evolution from the Big Bang”?
Comment by a random John — January 24, 2006 @ 10:27 am
a random John asks: “What class covers ‘evolution from the Big Bang’?”
This one, for example.
Comment by Chris Grant — January 24, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Chris,
I’ll be generous and assume that what you present is in fact what Buttars was talking about and keep my mouth shut on the idea that he is simply lumping all the things he doesn’t like about science together.
Comment by a random John — January 24, 2006 @ 11:53 am
Chris, fortunately the Buttars bill doesn’t affect classes at Harvard. (grin)
But I do agree in principle. I believe in Utah that in High School physics, chemistry and biology are separated out. There are some cross-overs (i.e. thermodynamics in chemistry and physics) However unless I’m mistaken in Junior High science is more vague and broader and thus really could cover both evolution and cosmology. (I don’t know)
Comment by Clark Goble — January 24, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
The subject of this thread has become a minor obsession for me recently. I you don’t mind, and since I’m not part of the Bloggernacle, I’d like to point you to my most recent post:
Wisdom of an Harlot
Which was inspired by the Vatican’s recent statements on Intelligent Design. I’d appreciate feedback comments.
Comment by Watt Mahoun — January 25, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Interestingly it looks like Huntsman doesn’t think the bill will reach him and gave a vague threat that might imply a veto.
The origins-of-life bill sponsored by Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, has already passed the Senate. But it could run into trouble in the House, where Majority Whip Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, has said he can’t support the bill.
Huntsman suggested the bill may never reach his desk and said if it does, then “we’ll do what we think is right” based on his previous opposition to mixing religious beliefs and science in the classroom.
“What I have seen most recently is not an origins-of-life bill. It’s been watered down to a relatively benign statement, and where it goes from here is anybody’s guess,” the governor said.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 27, 2006 @ 2:19 pm