Public-school science teachers who want to teach 'intelligent design" alongside evolution and want to challenge the accepted scientific views about global warming would be protected under a bill introduced in the House.

Rep. Tom Anderson, R-Albuquerque, said Tuesday that his House Bill 302 is not intended to promote intelligent design or creationism. When a reporter said he wanted to talk about Anderson's "evolution bill," the lawmaker replied, "I don't have an 'evolution bill.' "

Anderson said, "I'm just trying to protect teachers. ... I'm trying to prevent another Galileo," a reference to the father of modern physics, who was tried during the Inquisition as a heretic.

But the bill has been attacked by scientific organizations both state and national.

The bill says the state "shall not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so."

The bill lists several protected "controversial scientific topics" including "biological origins, biological evolution, causes of climate change, human cloning and other scientific topics that are often viewed by society as controversial."

Similar bills have stalled in the Legislature in recent years. A 2009 bill never got a committee hearing. However, as a result of last year's election, intelligent-design supporters got a boost in the Legislature. A majority of incoming freshmen representatives told The New Mexican they believe that creationism should be taught in schools if evolution is.

Dave Thomas, who teaches classes at New Mexico Tech in Socorro, is president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason. He said in an interview Tuesday that the state has good science standards for its schools, which he said protects students from "religious indoctrination" by their teachers. "This is really just a ploy to get creationism in the classroom," he said.

"Allowing creationist teachers to attack evolution is an injustice to the education of their students, who will live and work in a world increasingly dependent on understanding science and technology," Steve Newton, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education, said in an e-mail Tuesday.

Newton argued that high-paying manufacturing jobs of the future will be in biotechnology — "an industry that assumes workers understand evolution." Therefore, he said, New Mexico students would be put at a competitive disadvantage "if their teachers, under HB 302, are given cover to adulterate science education."

The bill says it "does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine or religious belief."

Anderson said Tuesday if someone used his bill to teach religious tenets in school, "I'd go after them. I'd bring them down."

But opponents argue any teaching of creationism as fact is tantamount to promoting religion.

Newton said "academic freedom" bills represent a "current trend in anti-evolution activity" nationwide. Court decisions since the 1980s have discouraged creationism backers from seeking a ban on evolution or requiring equal time for creationism in the classroom.

Both Newton and Thomas said they believe Anderson's bill is based on model legislation from a Seattle-based intelligent-design think tank called the Discovery Institute.

Anderson said he'd heard that accusation, but says the bill is his own.

Though Anderson insisted the bill is not focused on evolution, it is being backed enthusiastically by an anti-evolution group in the state.

Joe Renick, head of the state chapter of the Intelligent Design Network, said in an interview Tuesday that evolution is a "dogma" pushed by "a priesthood whose underlying philosophy is scientific materialism."

The motive of Charles Darwin — whose On the Origin of Species is the foundation of evolution science — was "to get God out of nature," Renick said.

Renick's group has distributed a "Fact Sheet" about the bill that, among other things, argues, "Teaching the strengths and weaknesses of a theory advances intellectual honesty, critical thinking, and good science."

A. Kim Johnson, a former president of the New Mexico Academy of Science, The Coalition for Excellence in Math and Science Education, responded in an e-mail, "It is not 'good science' to teach those things that are known by the mainstream science experts to be false."

The bill has been referred to the House Education and Judiciary committees. Anderson said a hearing hasn't been scheduled.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com

ON THE WEB

• New Mexicans for Science and Reason: www.nmsr.org/leg2011.htm

• A site created by Intelligent Design Network, New Mexico Division: www.originseducation.org/