Montana Bill Would Ban Teaching Science

Montana Bill Would Ban Teaching Science

I nearly started the sentence by saying "well, this it--things cannot get any dumber", but then I realized how many times this statement has been wrong. This time it was Montana Senate Bill 235 that triggered it. If that bill became law, science would be banned in schools in Montana. Ah. Ah. Kevin, I have trusted you to this point and was ready to send you large checks every month. Now, I am not sure because it cannot be real." Here's Montana's state legislature admitting that it is, and here's its text: K-12 education's purpose is to teach children the...

I nearly started the sentence by saying "well, this it--things cannot get any dumber", but then I realized how many times this statement has been wrong. This time it was Montana Senate Bill 235 that triggered it. If that bill became law, science would be banned in schools in Montana. Ah. Ah. Kevin, I have trusted you to this point and was ready to send you large checks every month. Now, I am not sure because it cannot be real." Here's Montana's state legislature admitting that it is, and here's its text: K-12 education's purpose is to teach children the facts of the world in order to better prepare them for their future ...,. To do this, children need to be able to distinguish between scientific fact from scientific theory. WHEREAS, a scientific fact must be observable and repeated, and if it doesn't meet these criteria, it can be considered speculation. Higher education is available to investigate, debate and ultimately come to a scientific conclusion of fact, or fiction. BE IT ACTIVATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATIVE OF MONTANA NEW SECTION. Section 1. Section 1. (1) Science instruction cannot include subject matter that isn't scientific fact. (2) The content area standards may not contain any standard that requires curriculum or instruction on a scientific topic. (3) The office of public education shall ensure that science curriculum guides are based on scientific facts. (4)(a). The trustees of school districts shall ensure that science curriculum, instructional materials, and textbooks used in the district are based on scientific facts. (b) A parent can appeal to trustees' non-compliance beginning July 1, 2025... to the county superintendent, and then to the superintendent for public instruction (5) This section is intended to be strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted by the legislature. (6) In this section, the term "scientific fact" refers to an indisputable, repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. Emphasis added. If this became law, then students in grades K-12 would only be taught "scientific facts" and any other information would be removed from their textbooks. The facts are all that matter. If you were to ask the bill's sponsor, he would likely say that there is nothing wrong with this. Section six is the real kicker. It limits the definition "scientific fact" only to "an indisputable, repeatable observation of natural phenomena." This is irrefutable. This bill would make it impossible for children to learn about any disputeable "scientific fact." This would mean that everything is possible if it were taken literally. It is possible that the sponsor doesn't mean it to be taken literally. Even if he did intend, basic chemistry and physical physics may still survive. The kids would still be able to count and do other things. However, the use of the word "indisputable," would severely limit what can be taught under "science." (I know I don't have to explain this to anyone, but let me vent for a few paragraphs. You could even argue that this would end the scientific method, which is fundamentally about disputing facts and trying to prove hypotheses. It wouldn't eradicate it, but it would be difficult to teach Montanans about it. Although Sen. Daniel Emrich is correct to state that scientific facts should "observable" or "repeatable", he is clearly unclear about the concept of "theories" as shown in the preface to this bill. Theories are not considered speculation. It works in Montana, according to repeated studies. My guess is that Emrich is after stuff like the theory of evolution or the theory of climate change, but he doesn't actually say so. While he can disagree with those things, he has First Amendment issues when trying to ban teaching them. As the preface states, children must know the difference between scientific fact or scientific theory. However, legislators should also. Emrich sponsored a bill...