Source: https://ncse.com/library-resource/new-mexico-2009-sb433
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:30:18+00:00

Document:
TEACHING THEORIES OF BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS.
discipline or other discrimination for doing so.
teachers from adverse consequences for doing so.
issues related to Senate Bill 433.
ution, and Creationism, p. 52).
ndment “Establishment Clause” to the U.S.
by Section 22-13-15, NMSA 1978.
the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.
doctrine which is prohibited by Section 22-13-15.
the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
along with the vast majority of New Mexico's scientific community.
sectarian doctrine in public schools.
enacting SB 433 would invite litigation.
Synopsis: SB 433 creates a new section of the Public School Code to disallow the prevention of any teacher from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding scientific strengths or weaknesses pertaining to biological or chemical evolution and would protect teachers from adverse consequences for doing so. This bill would also prevent teachers from penalizing students for holding a position on chemical or biological evolution.
None for the Public Education Department (PED). Costs related to potential litigation could be high but are difficult to estimate.
The definition of “scientific information” in the bill indicates that it does not include information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines. However, it goes on to say that it may have religious or philosophical implications and still be scientific in nature. This would allow the teaching of theories of biological origins such as intelligent design or creationism.
According to the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, “There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. …arguments that attempt to confuse students by suggesting that there are fundamental weaknesses in the science of evolution are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory. Creationist ideas lie outside the realm of science, and introducing them in science courses has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts” (National Academies, 2008. Science, Evolution, and Creationism, p. 52).
SB 433 implicates the First Amendment “Establishment Clause” to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Art. 2, § 11 of the New Mexico Constitution. It also raises the question of whether it constitutes the teaching of sectarian doctrine in public school, which is prohibited by Section 22-13-15, NMSA 1978.
In Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a requirement that public schools teach “creation science” along with evolution violated the Establishment Clause and turned the proscription against teaching “creation science” in public schools into a national prohibition. More recently, the United States District Court in Pennsylvania in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) considered a case in which parents of school-aged children and a member of the high school science faculty brought an action against a school district and school board, challenging the constitutionality of the district's policy on the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology class, which required students to hear a statement mentioning intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. The court held that the policy amounted to an endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, that it violated the Establishment Clause under the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), and that it violated the freedom of worship provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The endorsement test recognizes that when government transgresses the limits of neutrality and acts in ways that show religious favoritism or sponsorship, it violates the Establishment Clause. The court in Kitzmiller went into an extensive discussion of the history of the intelligent design movement and the development of the strategy to challenge the teaching of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution. The court noted that the term “intelligent design” came into use after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards and called it “creationism re-labeled.” Based on the evidence submitted and an intensive analysis of the case law, the court concluded that the language of the policy, while attempting to sound neutral, amounted to an endorsement of religion. The language in SB 433 has the same problem because by stating that “scientific information” may have religious or philosophical implications; it essentially compels the state to require the teaching of theories that amount to religious doctrine. That would not only violate the Constitution but also involve the teaching of sectarian doctrine which is prohibited by Section 22-13-15.
As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test at page 612, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon's purpose prong “asks whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion. A governmental intention to promote religion is clear when the State enacts a law to serve a religious purpose.” Edwards, at page 583. The implication of SB 433 is that its purpose is to allow the teaching of theories like intelligent design without penalty. In considering the effects prong, the effect of promulgating a rule that would allow a curriculum change regarding theories of biological origins would be to impose a religious view of biological origins into the curriculum, in violation of the Establishment Clause. SB 433, if passed, would be subject to a court challenge based on the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
This bill does not implement or support the PED’s core performance measures and benchmarks.
NM Standards for Science already expect teachers to review current scientific knowledge supporting scientific explanations, making this change to statute unnecessary.
The NM Content Standards and Benchmarks for Science provide the expectations for instruction in high schools including those related to Biological Evolution which focus on understanding and analyzing the scientific data and observations which lead to scientists’ high level of confidence about the occurrence of evolution. Also in the NM Content Standards and Benchmarks for science, grades 9-12, is the Strand I, Benchmark II, Performance Standard #4 “Critically analyze an accepted explanation by reviewing current scientific knowledge.” Thus, the NM Standards include the expectation that students will review current scientific knowledge in all areas, including biology and chemistry. Furthermore, Performance standard #16 of Strand III, Standard I which states “Understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion” sets a basis for allowing students to form and maintain opinions as “reasonable people.” In 2006, the existing PED Science Standards received an “A” from both Quality Counts (Education Week) and the Fordham Foundation. The PED’s standards ranked seventh in the nation.
Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University and co-author of a widely-used series of high school biology textbooks, points out that “biological origins” is not a widely accepted scientific term, but rather a way of saying evolution without using that word. The definition of “scientific information” in SB 433 does not include some of the most important scientific defining properties, such as mainstream peer reviewing.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL?
The state will avoid likely litigation about enacting this bill and students will continue to learn the fundamental scientific concepts of biology and chemistry.

References: v. 
 Art. 2
 § 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v.