A veteran state lawmaker wants to force public schools that teach evolution to also teach “intelligent design,” what its sponsor admits is just another word for “creationism.”
Sen. David Farnsworth said this is an idea proposed by one of his constituents. And he promised to introduce the proposal for discussion in the 2026 legislative session.
“If we’re going to teach that man came from monkeys, I think we ought to give a choice,” said the Mesa Republican.
But Farnsworth said it’s also an idea he personally backs.
The essence of the concept of “intelligent design,” what his measure references, is that certain features of living things are too complex to have simply evolved through natural selection. And what that means is that there had to be some higher power involved in all this.
And Farnsworth made no bones about the fact that while he is using the phrase “intelligent design,” he knows what this is really about.
“If it were up to me, I would just call it creationism,” he said, meaning that all aspects of the universe originated with a supernatural act.
The whole idea, however, drew derision from Sen. Mitzi Epstein.
“I think that understanding the scientific method is something that maybe we should request lawmakers to learn before they write bills,” said the Tempe Democrat.
“Evolution is a product of scientific method,” said Epstein who has previously served on the board of the Kyrene Elementary School District. “I don’t know what intelligent design is the product of.”
In introducing SB 1025, Farnsworth is rekindling a debate in Arizona that goes back more than four decades to when Mesa Republican Rep. Jim Cooper sought to ban the teaching of evolution. It failed to clear even the Republican-controlled Legislature.
Cooper eventually proposed something akin to what is in the Farnsworth bill, requiring both evolution and creationism to be taught.
He managed to get it approved by his colleagues, only to be vetoed by then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt.
And Farnsworth said he is under no illusion that such a major change in teaching standards can make it out of the Legislature, much less get the approval of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
“Whether it is politically feasible or not is questionable,” he said. But he told Capitol Media Services he believes it is the right thing to do.
Farnsworth said he isn’t trying to prohibit the teaching of evolution and any scientific evidence in support, which is in line with standards adopted by the state Board of Education.
“I thought that’s what we were offering was a choice rather than ‘You’ve got to believe that people came from monkeys,’” Farnsworth said. “Let’s be honest seekers of truth and look at all evidence and make up our own mind.”
But he sidestepped a question of exactly what science there is to back up the idea of creationism which, under his bill, also would have to be taught on equal footing with evolution.
“I don’t need to prove that to you,” Farnsworth said. “To me, it’s what I know in my heart is true, besides all the biblical references.”
And those who don’t see it that way?
“I honestly think that people that don’t think that we were created by God are not very intelligent individuals themselves,” he said. “I believe the best evidence is if we pray and ask God what the truth is, along with our diligent study.”
Epstein said the Bible and all other religious texts are “important, respected books that are part of people’s religion.”
“But they’re not a part of everybody’s religion,” she said. “And so we do not teach them in school.”
That still leaves the legal question.
In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed a Louisiana law that closely parallels what Farnsworth is proposing. It sought to forbid the teaching of evolution in public schools unless it was accompanied by instruction in the theory of “creation science.”
In that case, the majority concluded that the law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The justices rejected arguments that the law had a secular purpose of “promoting academic freedom.” And they said forbidding the teaching of evolution if creation science is not taught “undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education.”
Farnsworth, however, said he’s not going to get into a debate about all that.
“I’m not an attorney and I’m not even going to try,” he said.
Anyway, Farnsworth said, such court rulings are based on the flawed premise that there’s supposed to be a separation between church and state.
He said all that goes back to a letter that President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association and his use of a line that spoke about “a wall of separation between church and state.”
Farnsworth said all that was meant to do is say that government cannot mandate that people join a certain church. But he said courts have misinterpreted it.
“They are taking it as a mandate that we’re not allowed to talk about God in government,” Farnsworth said. “And that is a total fallacy.”
Epstein, however, said the concept of separation of church and state goes beyond the rights of individuals to worship. She said it also prohibits the establishment of a state religion.
“If you teach a particular religion in a public school, paid for by the state, then the state is awfully close to establishing a religion,” Epstein said.
And she sees teaching a theory of creation as teaching a religion—the essence of various court rulings.
Farnsworth, for his part, said he is not concerned about legal precedents, noting that the current Supreme Court has been more than willing to tinker with prior rulings.
“We have seen something shifting,” Farnsworth said. “And I’m an optimist.”Still, he said he recognizes there are hurdles.
“I believe that the whole system—not everybody—but the system basically is corrupt,” Farnsworth said.
“You’ve got a lot of corrupt judges and a lot of corrupt attorneys that really don’t care about the truth,” he continued. “I’ve got to hope that things will turn around and people will start being honest again.”
Farnsworth’s proposal is the latest of a long line of similar efforts in Arizona, even after the veto of the 1983 legislation, and even after subsequent court rulings slapping down mandates to teach intelligent design.
For example, Republican Sen. Judy Burges tried advancing an “academic freedom” bill in 2013 designed to help students analyze and critique “the scientific strengths and weakness of existing scientific theories.” It included not just the issue of evolution but also climate change, with Burges saying teachers should be free to argue that there is scientific reason to question their validity.
It never even made it to the Senate floor.
And in 2018, Republican Diane Douglas, then the state school superintendent, proposed making major changes in the curriculum for students.
For example, she asked the state Board of Education to eliminate requirements that students be able to evaluated how inherited traits in a population can lead to “evolution,” replacing that with “biological diversity.”
Douglas wanted a reference to the “mechanism of biological evolution” to be replaced with “change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations.”
And while the word “evolution” would remain in some other places, she sought to have that specifically be referred to as a theory.
“I personally believe that there is a place for intelligent design in instruction,” Douglas said.
She said the standards were being written “to allow our students to learn all the truths about evolution,” saying there is not just one theory.
In the end, the board on a 6-4 vote rejected her proposal, instead adopting standards that say, “the unity of diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.”
