Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

I don't know if it is different.I commented because K-12 biology classes either say nothing about origins of life, or are extremely tentative about abiogenesis. But, removing the abiogenesis material from the curriculum would be utterly unhelpful to a creationist, because it is the origin of species teachings that conflict with the origin of life as related in Genesis.Arguably, teaching evolution or any other scientific theory on the origin of species shouldn't even trigger the bad things in the statute.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ahh, ok. It's been a while since I've been in school and I didn't even finish and my oldest is only in 2nd grade. I just figured that at some point in biology lessons, origins was covered. I beg to differ. Remember: a majority of creationists arguments against evolution boil down to a strawman about abiogenesis. Even the creos that accept "micro"-evolution abhor abiogenesis. No, but the bill doesn't say anything about evolution. It says that schools "may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."

Yes, microevolution within a kind. In other words, creationists don't accept mch of anything.Biology taught without abiogenesis would be no less anathema to a creationist. The fact is that abiogenesis is a very minor part of the curriculum. It's usefulness to creationists is a way to wedge in creationism under the guise of teaching the controversy.Removing abiogenesis from the curriculum would still leave in common descent, with man having a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Do you really think that a creationist would be happy with being able to argue that God created unicellular life which subsequently evolved into every living and extinct species of multi-cellular life?

No and I am confused as to why you even asked me that. It seems as though we aren't quite talking about the same thing here or are talking past one another.

I think you're on the same page but a different paragraph

quote:

---

The governing body of a school corporation may
offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.

---

The Bill is referring strictly to the origins of life unless I'm misinterpreting. This, of course is not evolution.So technically, it shouldn't have much of an impact until the fundies realise that this means that they have to share their 'gospel truth' propaganda in a class with the heathens (everyone who is not YEC). By the letter of the law, the teaching of evolution should remain untouched. This is what should happen.Remember that the fundies are notorious for twisting language to suit their own purposes (it's just a theory). The clever manipulation here will be when the fundies then say that evolution is the origin of life and try to entangle creationism/ID with science again. This is what will happen.This is a classic trojan horse which is working exactly as intended. Lots of people will look at it and say 'well, that's ok - this is really just comparitive religion and abiogenesis isn't really important in high school level anyway. no big deal'. It's only later that they'll realise that the gate has been left open and the schools are infested with fundies...

quote:

---

This is a classic trojan horse which is working exactly as intended.
  —Wathog

---

Yes, we see dishonesty in the methods of creationists. Every time.

quote:

---

Lots of people will look at it and say 'well, that's ok - this is really just comparitive religion and abiogenesis isn't really important in high school level anyway. no big deal'.
  —Wathog

---

Then creation "scientists" will also insist that abiogenesis is part of the ToE and will refer to a source from 1960 by Kirkut, who wrote about a "General Theory of Evolution" in his book. Then these creationists will insist that this "General Theory of Evolution" is the same as the "Theory of Evolution".

quote:

---

It's only later that they'll realise that the gate has been left open and the schools are infested with fundies...
  —Wathog

---

Yes and it is going to cost some school district a lot of money in legal fees to fight a court battle. A court battle that has already been lost by creationists using the stealth method before. Every time.

I was trying to demonstrate why removing abiogenesis from the curriculum wouldn't leave a biology course that was even a tiny bit more acceptable to creationists. W-hog has expanded on this idea.

The point of my post was that, as a resident of Indiana, I still have another chance to write to my representative in the House and to the Governor to try and spark some common sense.I asked for ideas to compose a convincing letter.This is one letter that was written before the Senate vote. State Senate LtrHere is wording on a petition. SAY NO TO Indiana Senate Bill 0089!Here is one that seems to be in favor of the bill. It might give us an idea of the thoughts from the other side. Academic Freedom BillHere is a petition to support creationism curriculum. Support Creationist Curriculum in Indiana's Public SchoolsThese articles provide some quotes from Sen. Kruse who authored the bill. Opponents wonder if suit versus state will follow (8th one down)
Amended creation teaching bill passes Ind. Senate
Indiana Senate backs teaching creationism in public schoolsThe letters and petitions being written so far seem to address the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and that religion doesn't belong in a science class. These letters don't seem to be making a difference. Sen. Kruse feels that since there is a different Supreme Court, creationism might win out in a lawsuit.I feel that this thought from the creationist petition may be the emotional point being played. Here is a quote from Sen. Kruse from the 3rd article above: My rep is a doctor and a Christian (Methodist).Since the school vouchers were deemed constitutional, maybe the moderates feel this is a way for public schools to compete.
Editorials: Do schools really need this now?Facts don't seem to be working to break the spell. We need a way to push the emotional button just like the creationists are.Their concern is supposedly the children, but they seem to be missing the point that parents decide what their children are exposed to.I realize there is probably a hidden agenda, but trying to address that won't do much good in a letter to persuade.So anyone have any good angles to play up in a letter to persuade my rep and the Governor this isn't good for the children and will anger parents?

Would it be helpful to illustrate your correspondence with the arguments which are put forward for creation and against evolution? I'm thinking of some of the utter nonsense you'll find on sites like "Fundies Say The Darndest Things".I'd also include a list of everything that has to be ignored by creationists, such as radiometric dating, fossils, geology, genetics, to show that this isn't a choice between evolution and creationism, but between creationism and science. It may help to demonstrate the effect this would have on the standards of scientific knowledge amongst children affected by it.

Maybe if you argue that putting "creationism" up against the heaps and heaps of evidence for evolution will tend to make kids even more sure of evolution and that creationism is false. It could lead to a crisis of faith and end up creating far more athiests than they would want.I know it's sort of coming at the argument from an opposite angle, but considering the people who want this are religious, it might be more effective, especially if you're going for an emotional appeal.

I am inclined to think that science teachers in Indiana should embrace this legislation.They should get right into Genesis 1, and demonstrate that it is absurd nonsense.Let the fundies be the ones who go to court and ask that the law be declared unconstitutional.

I was thinking something like this too. Except, more along the lines of the text of the bill and it's INclusiveness (stating that not just christianity be taught). Once a child of fundie parents comes home saying how he learned about Vishnu or Mithra or Allah, you KNOW they will throw a shit fit. Of course, this is hoping that there will be teachers who are willing to teach different creation stories equally.

This Indiana legislation seems to be a case of "be careful what you ask for; you might get it." It allows a lot that religion will not like.

Heh........All that's needed is one brave teacher in a well-to-do suburban school who will do the Hindu creation first, and then very objectively go on to Scientology, Christianity, Yolngu, and Cree, treating all with exactly the same tone of voice. Repeal would come up within a week.

Indeed. However, like I tried to say in my response to PD, these seemingly will be taught/discussed in a science class/setting. That is where the problem is, IMO. These creation myths are most likely going to be given factual credence. It would be far better to have them in a comparative religions course, but as Nukes said, grade school age children have no business learning comparative religion outside of the home. It would be a course best left for High School at least, but the bill doesn't dictate either way. Instead, it focuses on teaching these as "origin" stories.