Creationist School Bill Looks Doomed in Indiana

[pokerfan]

Another fundy bill bites the dust.

Legislators in Indiana appear to have fallen short of their goal of injecting creationism into U.S. public schools, at least for this year. However, they did deploy a few new tactics in the never-ending assault on evolutionary theory by religious fundamentalists.

<...>

The original measure had mentioned "creation science" as one idea that could be taught. But before the vote it was amended to require that teachers also discuss "theories from multiple religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644843-creationist-school-bill-looks-doomed-in-indiana

[cbayer]

1. Good.

[pinto]

2. I support a secular "comparative study of religion in society" component in public curricula.

Yet, no more than that. There *is* a line, imo. And creationism as a component of evolution theory crosses it. A very slippery slope. To stretch the concept, when does E=MC2 in theoretical physics get challenged on religious grounds?

Glad to see this fail.

[cbayer]

5. One of my kids went to a Catholic high (recruited for baseball).

He was exposed to much more comparative religion studies than any of my other kids, and he really enjoyed it. It included the major world religions, as well as some alternate philosophical views.

But I agree. Creationism crosses the line. It would be like teaching that the world is flat.

[Tumbulu]

6. my sister teaches comparative religion

at a Catholic High School. She gets people to come from every imaginable religion to give presentations and the students have to pick some religion other than their own (if they do have one) and attend it's service. It is very illuminating for all. Good for the people who come to present their religion and interesting for the students to hear the representatives of each religion present their perspectives.

There is no place for creationism in a science class- if it is brought up anywhere- it needs to be in the religious studies department.

[pinto]

7. Agree. And, agree, comparative studies are a great piece in a broad, liberal education.

[Thats my opinion]

3. Creationism has no place in any science school agenda..NO PLACE! nt

[skepticscott]

4. Not even to teach

that "god" is the "process" by which evolution is driven? If that's true in any sense that reasonable people could take seriously, isn't it vital to an understanding of the process of evolution?

Either "god" is part of evolution or he/she/it/they are not. Much as you obviously want to, you can't have it both ways.

[pinto]

8. One, imo, is a subjective personal perception. The other, an objective impersonal perception.

Both open to study, discussion and consideration within those frameworks.

[skepticscott]

10. Stating that there is an underlying energy

different than the energies that are already known and described driving the process of evolution (and other things) is a truth claim about the physical world, and not a subjective, personal perception. It may be true or it may not be, but it can't be true for (as opposed to believed by) some people and not others.

[msongs]

9. god is not science, it is opinion with no evidence, i.e., faith nt

[Thats my opinion]

12. No theological concept, valid or vapid has any place in a school science class.

The word "God" should be verboten. If there is a class in philosophy, "process" may be a legitimate subject as a philosophical Whiteheadean notion, but not as a religious proposition.

[skepticscott]

13. Which is simply a reiteration of my point

that all theological concepts are entirely human inventions borne of expediency, with no connection with actual reality, and that claims to the contrary are baloney.

[edhopper]

11. So have the

Fundy morons stopped using "Intelligent Design" and gone back to Creationsim. Because I believe the SCOTUS pretty much ruled that Creationism is religion and violates the First Amendment. That was also what the Dover case was about, which they lost.

[skepticscott]

14. It's likely that someone with some legal sense

took a few people aside and pointed to Kitzmiller v Dover, Edwards v. Aguillard, and a few others, and told them that if they passed this law, they would get sued, have to spends tons of money defending it in court, lose big time, and get voted out of office for wasting so much taxpayer money.