Sometimes we miss a good story but with the help of our readers we usually catch up—even if it does take a year—or two.
Normally, we’d let a story this old slide into oblivion and chalk it up as one we missed. But this is just too bizarre not to go back and pick it up, thanks to a reader’s sending the slate.com link to the story our way.
The apparent ignorance of one state senator on the subject of evolution can only be described as surreal while the arrogance of a former state senator can serve to make us thankful she’s not around any longer.
During last year’s legislative session, Baton Rouge native Zack Kopplin, now a student at Rice University, was testifying before a state Senate committee on a bill to allow supplemental materials to be used by teachers in science classrooms.
The bill, SB 374 by Sen. Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) was just what the creationist legislators did not want because it provided for the teaching of evolution and global warming.
Kopplin, 19, describes himself as a Christian but opposes the teaching of creationism to the exclusion of traditional science. During the hearings, he was testifying about the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) that allows the teaching of creationism when Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) asked for a specific example of evolution.
Science teacher Darlene Reaves, responding to his request, described an experiment involving E.coli in which different samples were separated, and after several generations, one of the strains mutated and gained the ability to metabolize—an actual demonstration how the bacteria was able to evolve.
That’s when things got a little weird. Walsworth, ever alert for anything that might undermine the holy grail of creationism (if not overly enlightened about the bacterium that causes diarrhea from raw milk, undercooked meat and contaminated water), asked an incredulous question: “They (the E. coli bacteria) evolve into a person?”
Just in case you believe we’re making that up, here is the link to the exchange: http://www.youtube.com/embed/hQObhb3veQA?autoplay=&wmode=transparent
Ignorance on a scale of this magnitude is frightening enough but when that person is one of 39 senators who make laws that affect the rest of us, it’s downright terrifying.
Almost as bad was the haughtiness displayed by then-Sen. Julie Quinn (R-Metairie) during hearings on SB 70 by Peterson in 2011. (Both SB 70 in 2011 and SB 374 in 2012 were identical in calling for the repeal of LSEA and neither passed.)
Kopplin is again testifying when he is interrupted by Quinn. “That wasn’t what I asked,” she said, “and I am an attorney and I listened patiently to all the accolades that everyone has, all the little letters behind their names, doctor, etc. So, as an attorney, I am asking a question and I would like an answer to that question: do you support a law that prohibits the teaching of religion in the classroom?”
(First of all, when you are sitting on a Senate committee, Ms. Quinn, you are not an attorney; you are a state senator, no better or worse than the senator sitting beside you who might be a plumber or a horticulturalist. And your twice referring to yourself as an attorney while disparaging witnesses who went to school far longer than you to earn advanced degrees by referring them as having “little letters behind their names” is beneath contempt.)
Again, she asked Kopplin, “Do you support the promotion of religion in English class?”
Without missing a beat, Kopplin responded, “The Bible is always used in most English classes because it’s a classic piece of literature.”
Quinn throws up her hands at this point, scooting her chair back and shaking her head in apparent condescension as Peterson, seated at the witness table to testify on behalf of her bill, explained, “Promotion would be the key word in response.”
But then Peterson had her own rejoinder that again had Quinn, an ardent proponent of creationism, sneering in good, Christian derision.
“I don’t think Senate Bill 70 deals specifically with creationism in science classes and that’s why you see the plethora of people with ‘little letters behind their names.”
“I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful,” Quinn said somewhat defensively.
“I’m very respectful of over 40 Nobel laureates,” Peterson said. “I’m very respectful of the Association of Biology Teachers.” (Quinn rolls her eyes here and, mouth open, looks at her colleagues on the committee as if asking for help in shutting Peterson up.) “I’m very respectful of the Louisiana Association of Biology Educators,” Peterson continued. “I’m very respectful of the (unintelligible because the committee chairman attempted to cut Peterson off) Science Teachers Association, I’m very respectful of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and I’m respectful of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, as well as American Society for Cell Biology, and the Society for Vertebrae Paleontology and lastly, the American Association for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
“And yes, they have little, medium and big letters behind their names and they’re all suggesting that we repeal the act,” she said.
Here’s the link to their exchange. Watch the body language of Sen. Quinn. http://www.youtube.com/embed/3e2zPfsNe-w?autoplay=&wmode=transparent
Even though Peterson has twice failed to gain passage of her bill, word is she’s going to try again this year.
We can’t wait to watch and listen to the testimony to see which legislator will play the lead buffoon this time.
Louisiana Voice 
“if not overly enlightened about the bacteria that causes botulism and salmonella” ??? -neither of these are attributable to e.coli. better fact check. otherwise, this is an excellent exposé.
Apparently Sen. Walsworth wasn’t the only one “not overly enlightened.” You are correct and the corrections have been made. Thanks for the sharp eye.
Take it from one who spent hours on end testifying before and attending legislative committees for a couple of decades, respect for witnesses by committee members is variable at best and sometimes nonexistent. The most probable reason Senator Walsworth asked his question was that he he was not listening to Ms. Reaves’ testimony. Taken a step further, and to give him credit for having at least enough sense to have gotten elected to the Senate, he may have meant to ask if Ms. Reaves believed that all life, including humans, evolved from bacteria. As far as the issue, itself, is concerned, and to cite an attribution to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Legitimate arguments for teaching religion in secular schools are non-existent and fly in the face of one of our country’s most basic founding principles.
Sounds to me like Walsworth’s question was rhetorical. Many creationists argue that even when evolution happens, there is no evidence that one species ever morphs into another. I think that was his point; that evolution within a species is not an argument against intelligent design. It’s inter-species evolution that’s “the bad guy.” Whatever. It is still not an argument for including creationism in science class.
Creationism is not science, because it is not recognized generally by the scientific community as the best explanation for the known facts. Until then it has no place in science class. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are a part of science, and should be taught for what they are in science classes.
Wow! Makes you proud to be a Louisianian doesn’t it? Meanwhile Piyush is giving speeches that mainstream media are sucking up telling the GOP they’ve got to stop acting exactly like him. The sad thing is that these people act like they believe the shyster. Good to see the courts rule against him again in the retirement scam he pushed. He’s batting about .125 so far in the courts. Maybe there is hope yet.
its apparent e coli did evolve into our elected leaders
for sure!
btw, and ironically, on the subject of evolving from bacteria, if ms. reaves was suggesting such a thing, it wouldn’t be far from the truth:
Did bacteria develop into more complex cells much earlier in evolution than thought?
and also, species are always in the process of evolving. the process, however, usually takes much longer than there has been human thinking on the subject. with rapidly evolving species like bacteria, though, evolution has been taking place right before our eyes- think: antibiotic-resistant bacteria. the definition of evolution isn’t the morphing into new species, it’s the changes (or mutations) which persist in better adapted populations of any given species which defines evolution. over vast stretches of time, these mutations result in what are recognizable as entirely new species.:
The Theory of Evolution-Drug Resistance in Bacteria
and here’s another fascinating take on bacteria influencing our evolution (although in the case of our elected leaders, devolution might be at work):
Did bacteria spark evolution of multicellular life?
note: there are three links above. they don’t all show up as links in my browser, but if you mouse over them, they show up.
Oh so many stupid people in our legislature.