Randy Yohe Published

‘Intelligent Design’ Bill Signed Into Law

School desk and chairs in empty modern classroom. Empty class room with white board and projector in elementary school. Primary classroom with smart board and alphabet on wall.
President of the American Federation of Teachers of West Virginia Fred Albert said the bill does nothing, since intelligent design is theology, not science.
Rido/Adobe Stock
Listen

A new law tries to define how a teacher might answer a student’s question of how life began. Senate Bill 280 says a public school teacher is not prohibited from responding to questions about scientific theories of how the universe and or life came to exist.  

Dubbed the “intelligent design” bill, supporters say they hope the vaguely written legislation would open the door to teaching divine creation alongside evolution.

President of the American Federation of Teachers of West Virginia Fred Albert said the bill does nothing, since intelligent design is theology, not science. 

“This was another bill that was looking for an answer for something that doesn’t really exist,” Albert said. “Teachers answer many questions throughout the course of the day, and I think we should trust our teachers’ value in what they do in the classroom and believe that they’re going to make the right choices in how they answer questions of their students.”

Albert said there will be no ”chilling” effect, or any teacher fear of how they answer questions. He said teachers will continue open discussions about the beginning of life.  

“Most teachers would be honest in their responses to a child,” Albert said. “Sometimes your answer is that your own foundation is what you believe, but you don’t try to persuade someone else in a classroom to believe what your beliefs are. A teacher would say, ‘this whole subject of how we came into being is very controversial, and perhaps this is something that you should talk with your family about.’”

A 2005 federal ruling found presenting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was unconstitutional because it expressed a Christian viewpoint.