Evolution

At the end of William Faulkner’s brilliant 1936 novel Absalom, Absalom!, Quentin Compson is asked why he hates the South, which leads to one of the most famous last paragraphs in American literature:

“I don’t hate it,” Quentin said, quickly, at once, immediately; “I don’t hate it,” he said. I don’t hate it, he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark: I don’t. I don’t! I don’t hate it! I don’t hate it!

Of course, as readers we know it’s quite clear Quentin’s repeated protests leave open the interpretation that he does, in fact, hate the South.

I was reminded of the novel’s famous paragraph after reading through an introduced bill by state Sen. Josh Brecheen’s that “does not propose that schools teach creationism or intelligent design” and “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine or set of religious beliefs.” The bill also notes, “This act is modeled on a Louisiana law which has not been invalidated by the highest court of the State of Louisiana or a federal district court. “ Does not. Shall not. Has not.

Just like Compson, Brecheen leaves the reader with an open interpretation: Why the repetition? Why refer to a law “that has not been invalidated” as a framework for a new law that is definitely not about something—intelligent design--that actually HAS been judicially invalidated. This is not about promoting intelligent design or creationism. It’s not. It’s not. It’s not! It’s not!

What Senate Bill 1742 proposes is this: The State Board of Education can help teachers promote “critical thinking, logical analysis, open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning.” In other words, it’s absolutely not, and I mean absolutely absolutely not, about introducing discredited ideas such as intelligent design in the classroom as an alternative to the theory of evolution, which is one of the bedrocks of biological science.

Again, the bill is absolutely absolutely not about challenging the theory of evolution even though Brecheen, a Republican, is on record arguing, “Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth.”

Those ideologues and purveyors of lies include high school teachers, college professors and the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Still, the bill is not (it’s not! it’s not!) a backdoor attempt to attack the theory of evolution or promote creationism.

I don’t oppose bills like this one. I really don’t. I don’t! I don’t! I don’t!

The National Center for Science Education recently posted an article on its web site commenting on how the proposed antievolution legislation in Oklahoma is now presumed dead.

Of course, the state Senate meets again next week. Who knows what could happen, especially this legislative session? But it does appear likely the legislation won't be approved.

The State Chamber, which must be concerned with Oklahoma's national image when it comes to science issues, should give an award to Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. OESE has consistently fought antievolution initiatives in Oklahoma, Undoubtedly, it will have to lead the fight again next year.

The most recent legislation, House Resolutions 1014 and 1015 were critical of Richard Dawkins, who recently gave a speech at the University of Oklahoma. Dawkins, a biologist and a former Oxford professor, is a noted author, an outspoken atheist and a supporter of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

According to the NCSE:

Both measures, if adopted, would have expressed the strong opposition of the Oklahoma House of Representatives to "the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma."

The resolutions garnered national attention this year and again made Oklahoma look backwards as the bills languished in the legislature. The state, given the current economic situation, can ill-afford this type of negative publicity, but given the current GOP-controlled legislature it’s probably safe to presume more antievolution and religious intrusion bills will come up next year.

In a related issue, Greg Lukianoff, writing for Huffington Post, gave national attention to an investigation of the University of Oklahoma over Dawkins’ speech.

In March, Lukianoff wrote:

… I just received confirmation today in a letter from the Open Records Office at the University of Oklahoma. The letter confirms that on the day of Dawkins' speech, Oklahoma State Representative Rebecca Hamilton requested substantial information relating to the speech from Vice President for Governmental Relations Danny Hilliard. Representative Hamilton's exhaustive request included demands for all e-mails and correspondence relating to the speech; a list of all money paid to Dawkins and the entities, public or private, responsible for this funding; and the total cost to the university, including, among other things, security fees, advertising, and even "faculty time spent promoting this event."

Lukianoff has apparently been seeking more information about the investigation, but has received no official responses. Last week, Lukianoff wrote:

. . . I have still received no official response from the legislature, Hamilton or anybody actually involved in instigating the Dawkins kerfuffle. Therefore, my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, is trying a different approach. Last Friday, we sent a letter reaching out to the Oklahoma legislature to tell them that rather than investigate speakers they don't like, they could instead devote their energies to protecting free speech and basic rights on campus. We pointed out the continuing problem of speech codes on campus and highlighted some of the worst abuses of free speech we have seen on campus in recent years, many of which I've covered here on the Huffington Post.