Editor:

I was saddened to see that SR 96, the anti-evolution bill designed by Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, has passed through a House committee. It seems now that this bill will actually be passed.

This is so frustrating because, though this bill has been crafted to avoid explicit religious motivation, its religious nature is unavoidably obvious. This bill spits in the face of the scientific method, replacing reason and evidence with conjecture and religious concepts.

I have now learned that if I ever want to pass something through Congress, I simply have to inject the word “scientific” in two places. This way, I can fool all the other legislators into thinking my idea is legitimate because they have no idea how to recognize something as scientific or not, having no formal training.

I’ve never heard of Chris Buttars performing any “scientific” experiments to draw his conclusions. I highly doubt Buttars could, if asked, properly explain the scientific method, yet he is making our laws governing how science ought to be taught.

Rigid analysis is required in any competent science classroom, yet Buttars has taken it upon himself to suggest himself as a scientific expert in the origin of our species.

His primary goal is to force teachers to say that the theory of evolution has not reached a consensus in the community.

This is a lie. No competent biologist questions that evolution has occurred-only how it occurred is up for debate. Few people understand that or even want to believe it.

Buttars claims that he wants to keep our young students’ minds open to “other” possibilities, but he himself is “disgusted” with the very thought of our common ancestry with chimpanzees. Does anyone else see the irony?

In response to academic (and religious) opposition to his bill, Buttars responded, “That professor they brought in from the BYU talking about (how) we evolved from chimpanzees, he don’t know that.” OK, as if his poor grammar isn’t enough, he also denies that an expert has credibility!

I think Mark Twain would have backed me on this topic when he said: “Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

Todd RaleighSenior, Biology