Our increased dependence on government means that we now rely more than ever on elected officials to solve all kinds of problems, big, small, or even non-existent. It means that. While Republican ideals once called for less government, populists have overtaken the party, which means it now leans more toward activism.
We saw this during the recently concluded West Virginia General Assembly session, and an example of this is now becoming law. On Friday, Gov. Jim Justice signed SB 280, which reads:
“Public school boards, superintendents, and principals cannot prohibit public school classrooms from responding to student inquiries or answering questions about scientific theories about how the universe or life came to exist. Can not.”
Context is important here. Initially, the bill specifically opened the door for teachers of all grades to teach intelligent design as a scientific theory of creation. This was amended during the legislative process, resulting in an ambiguous law that is open to interpretation.
First, intelligent design is not science. It is a creation story based on religion. It's a matter of faith, not science. The scientific teaching of creation is evolution. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be the foundation of modern science.” Intelligent design is not supported by scientific evidence.
Second, this new law could also be interpreted as creating an opportunity for West Virginia teachers to proselytize about the origins of life. Fortunately, I don't believe science teachers would do something like that, at least I hope they don't. If they take their responsibilities seriously, they will adhere to science that requires continuous testing and refinement.
Third, imagine all the questions that school teachers receive from curious students. Questions and answers are an essential part of the learning process, and you should trust your teacher enough to expect them to be able to answer all your questions. So why does West Virginia need a law that says school officials can't prohibit teachers from answering questions about scientific theories? There were no first-hand accounts of the circumstances in which teachers faced punishment, only some second-hand accounts.
I suspect that rather than the legislators killing the original bill, the opposition watered it down in the hopes that it would have no significant effect. And perhaps that's what happens because of this law – nothing.
That's the best outcome, but it's vague and not guaranteed.
Governments do not necessarily need to “do something,” especially when the outcome creates uncertainty or is trying to address a problem that does not exist. In many cases, doing nothing is preferable and should be a legitimate function of government.
