In New Mexico, the Legislative Education Study Committee has analyzed the stealth creationism bill (disguised as “academic freedom”) we recently noted, and discovered that it’s … a stealth creationism bill.

While it is difficult to predict the actual outcomes if SB 433 were enacted, the bill analyses by PED and HED, as well as the analysis by the Office of Education Accountability (OEA), all raise questions or concerns about the provisions of the bill.

The PED analysis raises these points, among others:

* Although the bill’s definition of “scientific information” excludes information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines, SB 433 goes on to say that scientific information may have religious or philosophical implications and remain scientific in nature. The PED analysis states that this point would allow the teaching of theories of biological origins such as intelligent design or creationism.

* PED quotes 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.”

* Pursuing this legal point, the PED analysis cites several court cases in which efforts “to impose a religious view of biological origins into the curriculum,” as SB 433 seems to do, have been found to violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. This analysis also says that SB 433 implicates Article 2, Section 11 of the state constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, and Section 22-13-15 NMSA 1978, which prohibits the teaching of sectarian doctrine in public schools.

* Finally, the PED analysis suggests that enacting SB 433 would invite litigation.

The OEA analysis questions some of the premises behind the bill:

* that the theory of evolution lacks scientific validity; and

* that teachers and students need protection when addressing “relevant scientific strengths or scientific weakness pertaining to biological evolution or chemical evolution.”

(Hat tip: wrenchwench.)