New Mexico Creation Bill Tabled

Posted 18 February 2011 by Dave Thomas

After a series of very strange stories on New Mexico's proposed House Bill 302 (see my earlier report for bill text and comments), Rep. Thomas Anderson's House Bill 302 was tabled on a 5-to-4 vote in the NM House Education committee this morning. Why were the stories strange?, Well, sponsor Anderson told the Santa Fe New Mexican that the bill was written by him, and not by the local Intelligent Design group (Measure clears way for teaching of 'intelligent design' by Steve Terrell, The New Mexican, Tuesday, February 08, 2011):

Both Newton [of the National Center for Science Education] and Thomas[president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason] said they believe Anderson's bill is based on model legislation from a Seattle-based intelligent-design think tank called the Discovery Institute. Anderson said he'd heard that accusation, but says the bill is his own. Though Anderson insisted the bill is not focused on evolution, it is being backed enthusiastically by an anti-evolution group in the state. ...

Then, Anderson told the Albuquerque Journal ("Sponsor: Bill Is About Teachers, Not Creationism," Dan Boyd, Feb. 16th) that

"My bill has been hijacked by people who want to talk about religious issues."

The local Intelligent Design group wasn't nearly as humble, having posted text almost identical to HB 302 for years on their "OriginsEducation" website. Oh yeah - there was also IDNet's full-page ad in Monday's Albuquerque Journal. The word from Santa Fe is that sponsor Anderson is now regretting getting involved with the bill - and perhaps is feeling he was "left in the lurch" by IDNet-NM. NMSR's page has links to stories and news videos here, and a chart of the bill's five-year-long evolution here. Discuss!

23 Comments

truthspeaker · 18 February 2011

You know what bugs me even more than dishonest, corrupt politicians? Naive, uninformed politicians.

D. P. Robin · 18 February 2011

truthspeaker said: You know what bugs me even more than dishonest, corrupt politicians? Naive, uninformed politicians.

Nah, the naive and uninformed can be educated; generally speaking, corrupt and dishonest stay that way. dpr

CJColucci · 18 February 2011

In other news, Anderson was shocked -- SHOCKED! -- to learn that about ganbling at Rick's nightclub.

nmgirl · 18 February 2011

I was at the hearing and it seemed that Rep Anderson was surprised by the vociferous opposition to the bill. His body language was also very interesting. He never turned to look at the IDiots that had gotten him to sponsor the bill, but focussed on the oppositions side of the room.

What was scary was the Public Education Department was there so support the bill.

Of course our new Secretary of Education is from the scientifically literate state of Florida.

Scott F · 18 February 2011

I love how the add claims that the evidence against evolution is being "censored" by the evil conspiracy of the "priesthood" of scientists. Because it is a "priesthood", science is a "religion", and the Constitution prohibits teaching religion in schools.

Evidently these people don't seem to understand the difference between a "religion" and a "philosophy".

Apparently the "Integrity of Science" can only be re-established by eliminating scientists.

OgreMkV · 18 February 2011

Why didn't he just ask a couple of science teachers?

You know like we ask politicians when we need expert advice on... ummm... well.... help me out here?

Stanton · 18 February 2011

Scott F said: Apparently the "Integrity of Science" can only be re-established by eliminating scientists.

Of course: scientists have no integrity because they do not subscribe to the blind religious dogmas Creationsts are enslaved to.

Flint · 18 February 2011

I'm willing to buy the "naive, uninformed" description in cases like this. I'm reminded of the news reporter in 1968 who expressed amazement that Nixon had been elected by saying "I can't believe he won. I don't know a single soul who voted for him!"

Even many politicians in the solid red states fall into this status of unrecognized sensory deprivation. They KNOW goddidit, they KNOW evolution is wrong, they've always known it. And all their friends have always known it too. In the back of their minds, they're puzzled about how anyone could possibly believe differently. Didn't their religious authorities TELL them?

The DI, now, is skilled at identifying "default creationists" in state legislatures, who simply take it for granted that every thinking person would automatically support legislation that tries to counter the "obvious stupidity" of evolution. It's like promoting applehood and mother pie - and getting unanimous support of the obvious is like finding a sack of money in the woods, politically speaking. Which makes them easy prey for the DI.

The DI are also masters at stone deniability if their model legislation encounters educated people by accident. They're the moral equivalent of the terrorists who strung up the 4-year-old with grenades, pulled the pins and sent the child over to talk to those nice enemy soldiers. When the grenades go off, the DI is nowhere to be found.

I suppose as inadvertent point man, Anderson is perfectly acceptable collateral damage in the culture war. Easy to say he should have done his homework, should have known that opportunities too good to be true usually are. But of course, the DI targeted him because he didn't realize there was even any homework to be done.

mrg · 19 February 2011

The word from Santa Fe is that sponsor Anderson is now regretting getting involved with the bill - and perhaps is feeling he was “left in the lurch” by IDNet-NM.

This sounds like a person who had a vague general sympathy with ~~stealth creationism~~ ID and thought the rhetoric he was being handed sounded reasonable enough ... ... and failed to realize that he was getting on board the Crazy Train.

Ron Okimoto · 19 February 2011

How sad is it for any IDiot left that still supports the intelligent design scam, or for groups that still call themselves things like IDNET are willing to participate in running the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base? Where is the ID in the switch scam? How can a group that claims to have the science of intelligent design to teach possibly believe that running in an obfuscation scam where they have to be careful to not mention that ID ever existed is something that anyone with any integrity would think of doing?

The only IDiots left that still support the ID scam run by the perps like IDNET and the Discovery Institute are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. There are no possible other types of supporters left. The guys that lied to them about the ID science are running a bogus bait and switch scam on their own supporters, so what kind of supporters can they possibly have left? What kind of person would bend over and take the switch scam from the same guys that they know lied to them about the science of ID. Has anyone ever gotten the ID science to teach in the public schools? Since the answer is no one, what kind of dishonest or incompetent person would accept the bait and switch and bend over for a scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed?

Anyone that wants to support the bait and switch has to deal with this reality. It hasn't changed for over 8 years when Meyer ran the first public bait and switch on the Ohio State Board of Education. They wanted to teach the science of intelligent design, but what did they get to teach? No miracle has happened to make the bait and switch a legitimate endeavor. It is still as bogus and dishonest as when the Discovery Institute started to do it. Not only that, but they ran the bait and switch on their creationist supporters years before they lost in court, so they don't even have that excuse.

What kind of organization would still have ID in their name and run the switch scam where they can't even mention that ID ever existed?

Paul Burnett · 19 February 2011

"Rep. Thomas Anderson told the Santa Fe New Mexican that the bill was written by him, and not by the local Intelligent Design group."

I'm sure Anderson firmly believes that Lying For Jesus(TM) is telling the truth. Pitiful.

harold · 19 February 2011

Flint -

I’m willing to buy the “naive, uninformed” description in cases like this.

Meaning "just" naive and ill-informed, but not dishonest, I presume. After all, people can be naive of the facts and dishonest at the same time. But who are you talking about? Anderson, whose bill is in some way modeled on DI talking points, even though he denies it? At the very best, he took the unusual step of writing his own bill, as he claims, but even then he had to have been working from a template that was provided by local ID groups or the DI. His denials and evasions do not fit with the substance of the bill he introduced. Groups like IDNET, whose double-talking is hilariously noted in the comment by Ron Okimoto?

I’m reminded of the news reporter in 1968 who expressed amazement that Nixon had been elected by saying “I can’t believe he won. I don’t know a single soul who voted for him!”

I suspect that is not an incident that happened but a joke, based on the false stereotype that US journalists as a group are "liberal" (although that stereotype may have been less blatantly false in 1968). It's just the old "people who fail to support self-destructive and unethical right wing policies are 'out of touch' elitists, and mainly journalists or 'Hollywood' actors" meme. The point of the joke is that the "liberal" journalist is too stupid to understand the difference between a small biased group of like-minded individuals and a representative sample of the population, and also implies that he or she was ignorant of valid polling during the election cycle, despite being a journalist. Do you have a citation that shows that this actually happened, or could be a joke that sometimes gets repeated as an urban legend?

J. Biggs · 19 February 2011

I hope that the bills introduced by Senator Brecheen and Rep. Kern suffer the same fate in Oklahoma. Unfortunately there are large Republican majorities in both houses, and the new Governor is also Republican. Unlike Rep. Anderson, Senator Brecheen makes no bones about the fact that his bill is all about teaching Creationism in science class. Also, Rep. Kern is a well known religious ideologue who has stated she thinks homosexuals pose a greater threat to the U.S. than does Al Qaeida. I have e-mailed several Senators and Reps. and only one has responded that they won't support it, and that was the Senate minority leader.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 19 February 2011

harold said:
I’m reminded of the news reporter in 1968 who expressed amazement that Nixon had been elected by saying “I can’t believe he won. I don’t know a single soul who voted for him!”
I suspect that is not an incident that happened but a joke, based on the false stereotype that US journalists as a group are "liberal" (although that stereotype may have been less blatantly false in 1968). It's just the old "people who fail to support self-destructive and unethical right wing policies are 'out of touch' elitists, and mainly journalists or 'Hollywood' actors" meme. The point of the joke is that the "liberal" journalist is too stupid to understand the difference between a small biased group of like-minded individuals and a representative sample of the population, and also implies that he or she was ignorant of valid polling during the election cycle, despite being a journalist. Do you have a citation that shows that this actually happened, or could be a joke that sometimes gets repeated as an urban legend?

It is in fact a more-or-less real incident, but the attribution to a "news reporter" is dead wrong. The speaker was Pauline Kael, film critic for the New Yorker magazine, and she wasn't exactly expressing incredulity at Nixon's victory; if anything she was commenting on the political narrowness of the circles she traveled in. In a 1972 article the New York Times reported her as saying

"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."

Flint · 19 February 2011

It is in fact a more-or-less real incident, but the attribution to a “news reporter” is dead wrong. The speaker was Pauline Kael, film critic for the New Yorker magazine, and she wasn’t exactly expressing incredulity at Nixon’s victory; if anything she was commenting on the political narrowness of the circles she traveled in.

But of course, that was the point I was trying to make - that perhaps in terms of religion, this was Anderson's environment. To him, creationism seemed obvious, shared by everyone he knew, taken for granted within his circles. And the DI is skilled at identifying such people who have not had occasion to notice that their circles are insular. (And it might be relevant to note that almost no elected representatives write their own bills. Doesn't happen. Bills are generally written by lobby groups or other external interested parties, and then vetted (and usually modified somewhat) by the representative's staff. Sometimes they actually read the bills they submit, but most of the time they're content with a precis written by a staff member. And most of the time, a staff member's thumbnail sketch is all they know about almost every bill submitted by anyone else either. In car racing terms, the representative is the driver, not the pit crew. I'd be very surprised if Anderson knew what "his" bill grew out of.)

Robert Byers · 22 February 2011

This all points again to how the whole issue of who decides what is taught in American schools, to American kids, with American wealth, about matters important , historical, and interesting to Americans since the Pilgrims should be decided by a free, Democratic, involved, intelligent, people.
How'bout Americans!!
(with some Canadian advisors properly funded)

eric · 22 February 2011

Robert Byers said: This all points again to how the whole issue of who decides what is taught in American schools, to American kids, with American wealth, about matters important , historical, and interesting to Americans since the Pilgrims should be decided by a free, Democratic, involved, intelligent, people. How'bout Americans!! (with some Canadian advisors properly funded)

That's exactly what happened. A state representative proposed a local bill. The public discussed their objections with him and their other representatives in an open forum. As a result of this discussion, the bill was tabled. That's pure, straight-up representative democracy in action. You just don't like the results.

Robert Byers · 25 February 2011

eric said:
Robert Byers said: This all points again to how the whole issue of who decides what is taught in American schools, to American kids, with American wealth, about matters important , historical, and interesting to Americans since the Pilgrims should be decided by a free, Democratic, involved, intelligent, people. How'bout Americans!! (with some Canadian advisors properly funded)
That's exactly what happened. A state representative proposed a local bill. The public discussed their objections with him and their other representatives in an open forum. As a result of this discussion, the bill was tabled. That's pure, straight-up representative democracy in action. You just don't like the results.

Well lets keep talking. Lets remember talk in politics only counts if it can change things. So it must be up to the public to decide on whether there should or not be censorship on origin ideas.

M. Kim Johnson · 25 February 2011

Anderson was, I believe, dissimulating just a tad when denying knowledge of the original intent, which would have been right for the creationists who backed it. Interestingly, they had the essence of this bill up (draft dated the end of September of last year) on a creationist web site. Anderson still could have claimed that the last sponsor brought him in on this, but didn't tell him everything. The problem, of course, is always that they cannot help but carrying unique, and to them unknown genetic language along that seems to have been mutated from earlier bills- e.g., human cloning and global climate. They weren't there before. And even with them employing a million monkeys typing, it's really hard to believe that no one (especially the sponsor) did not know the this relatively complex mutation was somehow duplicated from Louisiana two years ago.

Then again, maybe they used 2 million monkeys typing. Yeah - that must be it!

Stanton · 25 February 2011

Robert Byers said:
eric said:
Robert Byers said: This all points again to how the whole issue of who decides what is taught in American schools, to American kids, with American wealth, about matters important , historical, and interesting to Americans since the Pilgrims should be decided by a free, Democratic, involved, intelligent, people. How'bout Americans!! (with some Canadian advisors properly funded)
That's exactly what happened. A state representative proposed a local bill. The public discussed their objections with him and their other representatives in an open forum. As a result of this discussion, the bill was tabled. That's pure, straight-up representative democracy in action. You just don't like the results.
Well lets keep talking. Lets remember talk in politics only counts if it can change things. So it must be up to the public to decide on whether there should or not be censorship on origin ideas.

And yet, you still can not explain why it's so imperative to teach Creationism, which is nothing but religiously motivated pseudoscience, in place of actual science. If you dislike the idea of Americans following the law in order to teach science in science classrooms, instead of religious propaganda, why not move to Canada? Oh, wait.

Flint · 25 February 2011

Well lets keep talking. Lets remember talk in politics only counts if it can change things. So it must be up to the public to decide on whether there should or not be censorship on origin ideas.

But of course, the discussion isn't whether religious ideas should be censored. They are not, never have been, and should not be. Instead, they are recognized as not being scientific ideas, and excluded from science classes in favor of actual science (of which there is far too much to cover as it is). Mr. Byers might be astounded to learn that there actually ARE classes focused exclusively on the origin myths of a large number of religions around the world, including his own. These are actually taught, and the students are expected to learn them and pass tests about them. That is a LONG way from censoring those ideas! (I recently attended a presentation on the origin myths of the Acoma tribe in New Mexico. I found it imaginative, and certainly extensive. Much more detailed and comprehensive, and covering a much longer period of time, than the Genesis tales. A lot more characters involved as well. But not censored, by any means.)

Robert Byers · 2 March 2011

Flint said:
Well lets keep talking. Lets remember talk in politics only counts if it can change things. So it must be up to the public to decide on whether there should or not be censorship on origin ideas.
But of course, the discussion isn't whether religious ideas should be censored. They are not, never have been, and should not be. Instead, they are recognized as not being scientific ideas, and excluded from science classes in favor of actual science (of which there is far too much to cover as it is). Mr. Byers might be astounded to learn that there actually ARE classes focused exclusively on the origin myths of a large number of religions around the world, including his own. These are actually taught, and the students are expected to learn them and pass tests about them. That is a LONG way from censoring those ideas! (I recently attended a presentation on the origin myths of the Acoma tribe in New Mexico. I found it imaginative, and certainly extensive. Much more detailed and comprehensive, and covering a much longer period of time, than the Genesis tales. A lot more characters involved as well. But not censored, by any means.)

So many times here has this been discussed. Creationism is not banned in origin subjects because its "claimed" to be a inferior standard of investigation (science said to be a high one). Its banned because of invoking the constitution made in the 1700's. Its censored because its said to be illegal. Get rid of this illegal law and then talk on what is science etc. First things first.

ben · 2 March 2011

Creationism is not banned in origin subjects

There's no such thing as "origin subjects" so I wouldn't worry about it. Were you referring to science class?

because its “claimed” to be a inferior standard of investigation.

It's not claimed to be an inferior standard of anything, it's shown, repeatedly, in court, to be a transparent attempt to hijack science education in the service of sectarian religious apologetics. "Congress shall make no law...."

Its banned because of invoking the constitution made in the 1700’s.

Yeah, right there. 200+ years of not letting religious nutcases like you run the government according to your old book of fairy tales.

Get rid of this illegal law

You're a moron, pure and simple.