Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

A committee in the Indiana state legislature OKs a bill aimed at getting creationism into public school science classes.

By | January 27, 2012

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, WEB GALLERY OF ART

By a margin of 8-2, the Indiana State Senate's Education Committee passed a bill designed to insert the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolutionary theory in public school science classrooms. Senate Bill 89, which the Republican-dominated committee passed last week, would give schools the freedom to decide if they wanted to allow "the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life," one of which is creationism.

According to The Times of Northwest Indiana, scientists and religious leaders in the state oppose the bill. "Creation science is not science," Purdue University professor of science education John Staver told the committee. "It is unquestionably a statement of a specific religion." Reverend Charles Allen, head of Grace Unlimited, an Indianapolis campus ministry, concurred, telling the committee that he would prefer students to be taught religion in a comparative manner rather than trying to "smuggle it in" to a science course.

Staver added that passage of the bill would likely stir up lengthy and expensive legal challenges in the state. "All that the citizens of Indiana are going to get from this bill are wasted legal efforts, lawyer fees, and penalties," he told the Senate committee, according to the Columbus, Indiana, newspaper The Republic.

And Staver's prediction may already be coming true. Indiana's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union released a statement arguing that teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional. "The idea that somehow our state legislature can trump the Constitution just doesn't make sense," the ACLU of Indiana's head lawyer Ken Falk said in the statement. "When lawmakers propose legislation they clearly know will end up in the courts, it wastes valuable time and resources, disrespects the legislative process, and confuses an already complicated issue."

The bill will now be considered by the full Indiana Senate, which, according to the Chicago Tribune, has until this Wednesday to win approval.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

January 27, 2012

How.  Unbelievably.  STUPID!!  Are these people??  In a country that thinks it is the most progressive democracy in the world, they attempt to enact some of the more regressive legislation on the planet??  People that stupid don't deserve to be able to vote.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 27, 2012

How.  Unbelievably.  STUPID!!  Are these people??  In a country that thinks it is the most progressive democracy in the world, they attempt to enact some of the more regressive legislation on the planet??  People that stupid don't deserve to be able to vote.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 27, 2012

How.  Unbelievably.  STUPID!!  Are these people??  In a country that thinks it is the most progressive democracy in the world, they attempt to enact some of the more regressive legislation on the planet??  People that stupid don't deserve to be able to vote.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 28, 2012

I agree with Richard Leakey on Creationism:  "I think it's an insult to both science and religion, each of which I respect considerably."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 28, 2012

Finally someone has the brains and the guts to do something right.   Now watch as the Evo-Faithful come out in force, desperately trying to hold on to their ideological monopoly.   Let the games begin ...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 28, 2012

The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record.  There is no “valid supporting dataâ€쳌 for evolution.  In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “proveâ€쳌 the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis.   In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality.  For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestorâ€쳌 that humans and primates share is God Himself.
 
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text).  Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationismâ€쳌, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis.  How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error?   You can’t do it.  That is why Creationism fails.  It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers. 
 
The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
 
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis.  The truth has been available for more than 18 years.  Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.
 
There are no "creation stories" in Genesis.  In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about.  You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years.  The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve".  Has modern science discovered that yet?Herman Cummingsephraim7@aol.com

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 28, 2012

I agree with Richard Leakey on Creationism:  "I think it's an insult to both science and religion, each of which I respect considerably."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 28, 2012

Finally someone has the brains and the guts to do something right.   Now watch as the Evo-Faithful come out in force, desperately trying to hold on to their ideological monopoly.   Let the games begin ...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 28, 2012

The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record.  There is no “valid supporting dataâ€쳌 for evolution.  In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “proveâ€쳌 the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis.   In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality.  For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestorâ€쳌 that humans and primates share is God Himself.
 
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text).  Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationismâ€쳌, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis.  How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error?   You can’t do it.  That is why Creationism fails.  It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers. 
 
The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
 
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis.  The truth has been available for more than 18 years.  Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.
 
There are no "creation stories" in Genesis.  In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about.  You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years.  The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve".  Has modern science discovered that yet?Herman Cummingsephraim7@aol.com

Avatar of: Scott

Scott

Posts: 1457

January 28, 2012

I agree with Richard Leakey on Creationism:  "I think it's an insult to both science and religion, each of which I respect considerably."

Avatar of: Jorge Fernandez

Jorge Fernandez

Posts: 1457

January 28, 2012

Finally someone has the brains and the guts to do something right.   Now watch as the Evo-Faithful come out in force, desperately trying to hold on to their ideological monopoly.   Let the games begin ...

Avatar of: Herman

Herman

Posts: 1457

January 28, 2012

The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record.  There is no “valid supporting dataâ€쳌 for evolution.  In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “proveâ€쳌 the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis.   In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality.  For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestorâ€쳌 that humans and primates share is God Himself.
 
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text).  Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationismâ€쳌, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis.  How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error?   You can’t do it.  That is why Creationism fails.  It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers. 
 
The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
 
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis.  The truth has been available for more than 18 years.  Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.
 
There are no "creation stories" in Genesis.  In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about.  You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years.  The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve".  Has modern science discovered that yet?Herman Cummingsephraim7@aol.com

Avatar of: Fredric L. Rice

Fredric L. Rice

Posts: 1457

January 29, 2012

I am all in favor of teaching occult superstition in the public school
system, that ensures another generation of uneducated, ignorant,
drooling cult savages which will be utterly incapable of competing
against my own sons in the global job market, sons who acquired legitimate educations.
Every cult's mythologies and occult delusions should be forced down the
throats of children, that way nations that actually teach truth and
science will be able to destroy the United States economically that much
more faster. http://www.SkepticTank.Org approves.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 29, 2012

I am all in favor of teaching occult superstition in the public school
system, that ensures another generation of uneducated, ignorant,
drooling cult savages which will be utterly incapable of competing
against my own sons in the global job market, sons who acquired legitimate educations.
Every cult's mythologies and occult delusions should be forced down the
throats of children, that way nations that actually teach truth and
science will be able to destroy the United States economically that much
more faster. http://www.SkepticTank.Org approves.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 29, 2012

I am all in favor of teaching occult superstition in the public school
system, that ensures another generation of uneducated, ignorant,
drooling cult savages which will be utterly incapable of competing
against my own sons in the global job market, sons who acquired legitimate educations.
Every cult's mythologies and occult delusions should be forced down the
throats of children, that way nations that actually teach truth and
science will be able to destroy the United States economically that much
more faster. http://www.SkepticTank.Org approves.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

Here's the motivation.  Its an incredibly cynical political exercise by those Republicans to get themselves reelected.  Regardless of whether the bill wins or loses its a win-win for them because of the growing anti-science movement in the paranoid delusional far right.  If the bill fails, which is probably what they're counting on, a highly motivated electorate will blame the defeat on their imagined enemies and give the bill's backers their vote.  If it should pass, they will have their far right supporters and a good portion of the disinterested majority who can easily be convinced that this is a fair compromise.  If it passes and goes to court (everyone playing the game is aware that this is not a sure thing despite the threats) they will most assuredly lose, but the drama can still be spun to their advantage.  If they can get it to the Supreme Court there's a good chance that the luddite conservative majority will set a new precedent for "balanced education" that redefines what an authoritative expert is, especially if a Republican is elected president and can stack the court even more.

Here's the thing: identification of science with extreme liberal politics and atheism (positions supported by only a small fraction of the electorate) is allowing far right politicians to successfully use science education as a wedge issue.  They can use it to build voter support among a highly motivated and sizable part of the electorate.  Proselytizing atheists who insist (wrongly) that science disproves religion (often in as insulting a way possible) not only fail to win converts, but they are significantly diminishing support for research.  This is not religion vs science.  It is political influence vs science. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

This is crazy. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It's a theory that among other things, explains through natural processes, the relationship between certain traits and the environment and how living and extinct organisms are related to each other, especially in the context of the passage of time. I admit that my summary does not include all aspects of evolution, but my point is that the notion that evolution explains the origin of life is incorrect.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

In the interests of His Noodly Appendage...a reading from the Letters of Bobby to the Kansas School Board:
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

My first though it is that this is political and Nuts.

On the plus side I believe schools get to choose whether to present this or not.

If a school decides to present this in a biology class (i.e. not in a religious class, or mythology class), then they should have to show the DATA supporting this creation theory alongside that supporting evolution, so students can make up their own minds from a scientific point of view.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

Looks like the KreationKlowns are out in full force...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

You are insane.

Avatar of: grub

grub

Posts: 2

January 30, 2012

Looks like the KreationKlowns are out in full force...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

Looks like the KreationKlowns are out in full force...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

Here's the motivation.  Its an incredibly cynical political exercise by those Republicans to get themselves reelected.  Regardless of whether the bill wins or loses its a win-win for them because of the growing anti-science movement in the paranoid delusional far right.  If the bill fails, which is probably what they're counting on, a highly motivated electorate will blame the defeat on their imagined enemies and give the bill's backers their vote.  If it should pass, they will have their far right supporters and a good portion of the disinterested majority who can easily be convinced that this is a fair compromise.  If it passes and goes to court (everyone playing the game is aware that this is not a sure thing despite the threats) they will most assuredly lose, but the drama can still be spun to their advantage.  If they can get it to the Supreme Court there's a good chance that the luddite conservative majority will set a new precedent for "balanced education" that redefines what an authoritative expert is, especially if a Republican is elected president and can stack the court even more.

Here's the thing: identification of science with extreme liberal politics and atheism (positions supported by only a small fraction of the electorate) is allowing far right politicians to successfully use science education as a wedge issue.  They can use it to build voter support among a highly motivated and sizable part of the electorate.  Proselytizing atheists who insist (wrongly) that science disproves religion (often in as insulting a way possible) not only fail to win converts, but they are significantly diminishing support for research.  This is not religion vs science.  It is political influence vs science. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

This is crazy. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It's a theory that among other things, explains through natural processes, the relationship between certain traits and the environment and how living and extinct organisms are related to each other, especially in the context of the passage of time. I admit that my summary does not include all aspects of evolution, but my point is that the notion that evolution explains the origin of life is incorrect.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

In the interests of His Noodly Appendage...a reading from the Letters of Bobby to the Kansas School Board:
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

My first though it is that this is political and Nuts.

On the plus side I believe schools get to choose whether to present this or not.

If a school decides to present this in a biology class (i.e. not in a religious class, or mythology class), then they should have to show the DATA supporting this creation theory alongside that supporting evolution, so students can make up their own minds from a scientific point of view.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 30, 2012

You are insane.

Avatar of: Michael Holloway

Michael Holloway

Posts: 36

January 30, 2012

Here's the motivation.  Its an incredibly cynical political exercise by those Republicans to get themselves reelected.  Regardless of whether the bill wins or loses its a win-win for them because of the growing anti-science movement in the paranoid delusional far right.  If the bill fails, which is probably what they're counting on, a highly motivated electorate will blame the defeat on their imagined enemies and give the bill's backers their vote.  If it should pass, they will have their far right supporters and a good portion of the disinterested majority who can easily be convinced that this is a fair compromise.  If it passes and goes to court (everyone playing the game is aware that this is not a sure thing despite the threats) they will most assuredly lose, but the drama can still be spun to their advantage.  If they can get it to the Supreme Court there's a good chance that the luddite conservative majority will set a new precedent for "balanced education" that redefines what an authoritative expert is, especially if a Republican is elected president and can stack the court even more.

Here's the thing: identification of science with extreme liberal politics and atheism (positions supported by only a small fraction of the electorate) is allowing far right politicians to successfully use science education as a wedge issue.  They can use it to build voter support among a highly motivated and sizable part of the electorate.  Proselytizing atheists who insist (wrongly) that science disproves religion (often in as insulting a way possible) not only fail to win converts, but they are significantly diminishing support for research.  This is not religion vs science.  It is political influence vs science. 

Avatar of: lostbear

lostbear

Posts: 2

January 30, 2012

This is crazy. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It's a theory that among other things, explains through natural processes, the relationship between certain traits and the environment and how living and extinct organisms are related to each other, especially in the context of the passage of time. I admit that my summary does not include all aspects of evolution, but my point is that the notion that evolution explains the origin of life is incorrect.

Avatar of: Eric Gosink

Eric Gosink

Posts: 2

January 30, 2012

In the interests of His Noodly Appendage...a reading from the Letters of Bobby to the Kansas School Board:
"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

Avatar of: mohamed

mohamed

Posts: 1457

January 30, 2012

My first though it is that this is political and Nuts.

On the plus side I believe schools get to choose whether to present this or not.

If a school decides to present this in a biology class (i.e. not in a religious class, or mythology class), then they should have to show the DATA supporting this creation theory alongside that supporting evolution, so students can make up their own minds from a scientific point of view.

Avatar of: grub

grub

Posts: 2

January 30, 2012

You are insane.

Avatar of: Michael Holloway

Michael Holloway

Posts: 36

January 31, 2012

You must know some really impressive grade schoolers.  Amazing.  Kids with the knowledge and understanding of the expert scientific community; able to process huge amounts of data and experience that would take a normal human life times to accomplish; able to sort through decades of carefully crafted pseudoscience propaganda from the ideologically driven anti-science education campaign and not be fooled.  The future is in good hands.

To be fair, maybe you're just unaware of the scope, history, and shear dishonesty of the anti-science education campaign.  "Equal time" and "let the kids decide" are two of their dishonest tactics.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 31, 2012

You must know some really impressive grade schoolers.  Amazing.  Kids with the knowledge and understanding of the expert scientific community; able to process huge amounts of data and experience that would take a normal human life times to accomplish; able to sort through decades of carefully crafted pseudoscience propaganda from the ideologically driven anti-science education campaign and not be fooled.  The future is in good hands.

To be fair, maybe you're just unaware of the scope, history, and shear dishonesty of the anti-science education campaign.  "Equal time" and "let the kids decide" are two of their dishonest tactics.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 31, 2012


http://www.trueorigin.org/evom... following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical
and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with
regard to evolution teaching in America. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the
policy acceptable:

"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved
theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state]
science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and
teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that
supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order
to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion
would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against
evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and
the diversity of life on our planet."

Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to
teach evolution as dogma.

Avatar of: R2D3

R2D3

Posts: 1

January 31, 2012


http://www.trueorigin.org/evom... following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical
and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with
regard to evolution teaching in America. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the
policy acceptable:

"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved
theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state]
science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and
teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that
supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order
to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion
would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against
evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and
the diversity of life on our planet."

Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to
teach evolution as dogma.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 31, 2012


http://www.trueorigin.org/evom... following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical
and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with
regard to evolution teaching in America. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the
policy acceptable:

"As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved
theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state]
science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and
teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that
supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order
to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion
would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against
evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and
the diversity of life on our planet."

Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to
teach evolution as dogma.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 31, 2012

You must know some really impressive grade schoolers.  Amazing.  Kids with the knowledge and understanding of the expert scientific community; able to process huge amounts of data and experience that would take a normal human life times to accomplish; able to sort through decades of carefully crafted pseudoscience propaganda from the ideologically driven anti-science education campaign and not be fooled.  The future is in good hands.

To be fair, maybe you're just unaware of the scope, history, and shear dishonesty of the anti-science education campaign.  "Equal time" and "let the kids decide" are two of their dishonest tactics.

Avatar of: dregstudios

dregstudios

Posts: 5

October 15, 2012

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom.  This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews
Life Technologies