So what happened? An update
April 14, 2007
To see a summary update concerning the NM Intellectual Freedom bills and resolutions, go to biological-origins-legislation-qa.doc
HB 506, SB 371, SJM 9, HJM 14
February 2, 2007
To support or not support!
February 2, 2007
Tell us why you support (or don’t support) the legislative measures for intellectual freedom currently being discussed during this 2007 legislative session.
(The active measures are SB 371, HB 506, and SJM 9. HJM 14 was tabled in the Judiciary committe on Monday, January 29th)
You can send your words directly to me at: gravitas_keller@comcast.net, and I will put your submission into a post , or you can post it yourself as a comment and let me know if you want it placed into one of the YES or NO categoris – ifreedom-YES, or ifreedom-NO
Rebecca Keller
Why I support the legislative measures, by Mike Edenburn
February 2, 2007
My name is Mike Edenburn, and I live in Peralta. I attended Albuquerque Public Schools, grades 3-12, graduating from Valley High School in 1965; I have two daughters who attended the Los Lunas Public Schools, K-12; and I have a five-year-old granddaughter who started kindergarten this year in the Las Cruces Public Schools. My wife, Laurel, served on the Los Lunas School Board from 1985 to 1991. I have a stake in New Mexico Public Education. After attending UNM and the University of Minnesota, I worked at Sandia National Laboratories as an engineer on a variety of national security programs for 35 years until I retired in 2004.
Throughout elementary, junior high, and high school, I learned about the evidence supporting the theory of evolution and that it seemed to be an undisputed fact. I believed that evolution was a fact, not really thinking much about it, until I was 46 and read a book called Darwin On Trial. In this book, Phillip Johnson explained that the evidence for biological evolution is not as strong as it is often claimed to be, and that there is significant scientific evidence showing its weaknesses. It made me angry that I had been shown only the theory’s strengths and not its weaknesses throughout school. Since then, I have looked more extensively into the science related to the origin and diversity of life and come to the conclusion that there is significant scientific evidence that questions the theory of evolution’s ability to explain how life started and attained its present diversity.
As my granddaughter progresses through twelve years of public education, I am pretty sure that she will be taught about the theory of evolution. Some of her teachers will probably give a naturalistic interpretation of evolution; that is, that life and its diversity are the product of an unguided process that is based only on matter, energy, natural laws, and chance. This naturalistic theory conflicts with my views and those of my daughter and son-in-law, and I hope that my granddaughter will be taught both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory so that she can make up her own mind about its validity.
While I do not expect or desire my views of life’s origins to be taught in the classroom, I would like for them to be respected. I believe that the proposed legislation will be a step toward respecting differing views on biological origins. I believe that teachers should be allowed, not required, to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of theories presented, without fear of discrimination, and I believe that our children and grandchildren should be allowed to reach their own conclusions about biological origins without fear of being penalized.
I understand that different teachers will make different decisions about which scientific information to present, and I may not always agree with the information selected; however, I believe that the instructional freedom allowed by this legislation will gradually open the door to an open and honest discussion of the scientific information and its strengths and weaknesses and will have both educational and scientific benefits. I urge you to seriously consider this legislation.
Censorship or Freedom – You decide!
February 1, 2007
On Monday, Jan 29th, the NM House Judiciary Committee tabled resolution HJM 14 on teaching objective origins science in the public classroom. The resolution, along with companion legislation which has not been tabled (SB 371, HB 506 and SJM 9) would help public school teachers and public school students investigate and speak freely about scientific information concerning biological origins.
And what is wrong with that?
It’s curious that in a nation that values and promotes student diversity, in a nation that encourages and educates students to be tolerant of individual differences, in a nation that protects a student’s right to individual expression, that this same nation would not at the same time protect a student’s right to investigate all scientific information concerning biological origins and that it would not allow students to think for themselves. This is nonsense!
It’s worse than nonsense. It is censorship! If a government is not allowing full disclosure and active discourse concerning any topic, whether it is politics or science, history or literature, it is promoting censorship.
And what message does this give our kids concerning science? That only some scientific information is allowed in the classroom, because other scientific information is “dangerous.” That only some questions are allowed to be asked, because other questions expose our own bias and secular religion? And that only some conclusions can be made about scientific data because other conclusions go against the secluar creation myth that we want you to believe in?
If a student is not allowed to see all scientific information about a scientific subject, that is censorship. And if a conclusion about scientific data is mandated by a teacher, a book, or even the authority of science, and students are not free to make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions, then that is indoctination, not education.
Is this what we want for NM students? Censorship and Indoctrination? You decide.
What Is Censorship?
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, such as public school teachers, school boards, and legislators to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.
What is being Censored in the Classroom today?
A new form of censorship has emerged over the last decade. Public school science classrooms, public school teachers, and public school libraries are not allowed to provide students with any material that challenges the current Darwinian view of origins science. Even peer-reviewed scientific literature that has been accepted by the scientific community is being censored from the public classroom (ref Icons – Gould paper). Students are often misinformed or the information is skewed in order to mold students’ thoughts into drawing a pre-determined conclusion about origins science. This is censorship and these actions remove the intellectual freedom our students need to develop the tools to be self-governors in a democratic society.
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ” —Thomas Paine, Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
