Evolution

[Christopher T. Caplinger]

Just a short note on the posting of Alan Gunn:

He notes that "the text of the bills confirms my suspicion that they are
religiously, not scientifically, inspired; their descriptions of evolution
are scientifically embarrassing."

In light of the reduced staffs and budgets of many state legislators, and
their general lack of scientific expertise in any subject. Is it any wonder
that state legislators frequently offer 'scientifically embarrassing' support
for almost any bill that concerns a scientific issue. Therefore, it seems
more than a small leap to conclude that because legislators are poor
scientists that their motivations are a result of some kind of antipathy
toward science in general. Now I would concede that some of the sponsors of
these bills are motivated by their religious beliefs. And while that might
ultimately lead to a finding that such bills are unconstitutional, we should
be very careful not to begin pushing those with religious motivations from
public debates on any issue. And a bill is a bill and not a law. It is a
proposal which is to be debated and eventually voted on by a democratically
elected representative body. These bills at the very least are clear
expressions of the concerns of the religious citizens in these various states
that they feel as those the larger society and specifically their government
is hostile toward them and their views.