Maggie Garrett Legislative Director

(202) 466-3234 1301 L Street, NW (202) 898-0955 (fax) Suite 200 [email protected] Washington, DC 20005

April 14, 2017

The Honorable Charles McCall Oklahoma House of Representatives 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Re: Oppose SB 393 – Bill Undermines Science Education and Threatens Religious Freedom

Dear Speaker McCall:

On behalf of its Oklahoma members, Americans United for Separation of Church and State strongly urges you to oppose SB 393. This bill would require public schools to encourage teachers to address “scientific controversies” and the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories. This bill would undermine science education and threaten the religious freedom of public school students and their families. And the likely result would be costly litigation. Oklahoma’s public-school students deserve better.

This bill is yet another attempt by the legislature to introduce religion into public-school classrooms. It’s clear the bill’s purpose is to discredit scientific theories: Teaching students to critique purported scientific weaknesses is just one of many euphemisms, such as “full range of scientific views” and “evidence for and against,” used to misrepresent scientific knowledge and undermine students’ education about .1 But implying that there is a scientific controversy around subjects like evolution, as this bill does, is just plain false.

Evolution “is the only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted in the scientific community.”2 Thus, arguments that students should learn about “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories” are unwarranted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports such theories,3 and will only harm students’ education.

SB 393, despite its seemingly neutral approach, would merely provide cover for those who wish to insert religion into the public-school science classrooms, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The bill clearly seeks

1 Barbara Forrest, Understanding the Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals 19-22 (May 2007), http://bit.ly/2oDEoKo. 2 Nat’l Acad. of Scis. & Inst. of Med., Science, Evolution, & 53 (2008), http://bit.ly/2nkoTGp. 3 Id. at 52.

to undermine students’ confidence in science, which will naturally cause them to seek another explanation. Thus, religious discussions in science classrooms will undoubtedly ensue—including discussions of creationism. Indeed, it comes as no surprise that the sponsor of this bill has previously introduced similar legislation, explaining that his goal was to require “every publicly funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution.”4

But the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have consistently and repeatedly held that state officials cannot promote religious alternatives to evolution, including creationism and all its variations.5 Moreover, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a case holding that “intelligent design” is a form of creationism,6 determined that highlighting the so-called weaknesses in the theory of evolution “distort and misrepresent scientific knowledge.”7 As a result, the Kitzmiller court prohibited the Dover Area School District not only from requiring teachers to refer to “intelligent design” in science class, but also from “denigrating or disparaging the scientific theory of evolution.”8 Because this bill has an unconstitutional objective—encouraging religious discussions in science classrooms—the inevitable result of this legislation will be a costly legal challenge.

Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms is not anti- religious. Indeed, many denominations have issued statements explaining that their faith and evolutionary theory are not irreconcilable. Over 13,400 Christian members from across the country have signed a letter stating, “We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.”9

Science is “limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.”10 The goals of science are narrow: Science cannot provide “‘ultimate’ explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world . . . [and it] does not consider issues of

4 Glenn Branch, Antievolution Legislation in Oklahoma, NCSE (Jan. 1, 2016), http://bit.ly/2nEKoFp. 5 See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968) (striking down a state statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools, and explaining that “the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any [religion].”); see also Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 591 (1987) (invalidating a Louisiana statute requiring the “balanced treatment” of evolution and “creation science” in the public schools and declaring the law unconstitutional because its “preeminent purpose . . . was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.”); see also Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir. 1999) (striking down an oral disclaimer casting doubt on evolution and referring to “biblical” alternatives); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a science teacher was properly required by his school district to teach evolution and refrain from discussing his religious views); Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485, 491 (6th Cir. 1975) (striking down statute requiring schools teaching evolution to devote equal time to other theories, including Biblical account of creation). 6 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 721 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Americans United served as co-counsel in this case. 7 Id. at 743. 8 Id. at 766. 9 Clergy Letter Project, “An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science,” http://bit.ly/1kOsNT4. 10 Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 735–36.

2

‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ in the world.”11 Rather, many people seek these important answers in religion. But only families get to decide what religious beliefs they will teach to their children. And for many, disparaging evolution in order to promote creationism conflicts with their beliefs. Because “[f]amilies entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family,” courts are “particularly vigilant in monitoring” whether religious beliefs—including creationism—are taught in public schools.12

Americans United is committed to protecting students’ and parents’ rights to have sound science, rather than religious belief, taught in public-school science classrooms and will not hesitate to challenge the introduction of religion into public schools. The court in Kitzmiller v. Dover recognized that the school board in Dover harmed the community’s students, parents, and teachers by dragging them into a “legal maelstrom, with its utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”13 Please don’t let this happen in Oklahoma.

Accordingly, we oppose SB 393.

Sincerely,

Maggie Garrett Legislative Director

CC: Members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives

11 Id. at 735. 12 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584 (1987). 13 Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 765. These costs would not be insignificant: The Dover Area School District paid $1 million in legal fees to opposing counsel after losing the Kitzmiller case.

3