Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances ‘origins of life’ resolution to third reading after heated debate over curriculum language
Summary
Senate Bill 96, a resolution addressing how ‘origins of life’ topics are described in school instruction, cleared the Senate for third reading after prolonged debate and an amendment inserting the word 'scientific.' The vote to read for a third time was 17-12. Supporters said the measure encourages teaching multiple viewpoints; opponents warned it could invite non-scientific material into science classrooms.
On Jan. 19 the Utah Senate approved by a 17-12 margin a motion to read Senate Bill 96 for a third time after intense debate about whether the resolution would compel teachers to present non-scientific or faith-based material in science instruction.
Senator Butters, sponsor of SB 96, proposed floor amendments inserting the adjective “scientific” in two places to clarify that the bill would require teachers to present “scientific opposing views” rather than religious doctrines. Butters told colleagues the measure does not promote intelligent design or religious philosophy and that the goal is to encourage students to consider multiple scientific theories about origins of life. “There’s nothing in this bill about religious philosophy. All it’s asking is when you get done with teaching your evolution, it’s acknowledged that there is no consensus and there are other theories,” he said.
Opponents pressed that the common-law and curricular distinction between scientific theories and non-scientific viewpoints matters for classroom standards. Senator Hilliard called the measure a potential “slippery slope” toward legislative micromanagement of curriculum; Senator Hale and science educators noted differences between ordinary and scientific uses of the word “theory.” Some senators cited external opposition letters (including from the ACLU, as referenced on the floor) and warned of litigation risk if non-scientific materials were introduced.
After a series of amendments were proposed and rejected, the senate voted to read SB 96 for a third time by roll call (17 yeas, 12 nays); the measure was not yet passed into law on Jan. 19. The floor record shows supporters framed the bill as protecting students’ ability to examine competing explanations; critics warned it could open the door to non-scientific instruction. The next steps are third-reading debate and any final vote required to pass or amend the measure further.
The transcript shows both sides used examples and local anecdotes; the ACLU and other outside groups were cited by speakers as opposing the measure, and several senators urged clarification or additional drafting before final passage.
