Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

Could they also include the origin stories of Superman, Batman, Wolverine, Iron Man, etc? Or does it specifically call out only the orgin of humankind?

I figure I need a different angle since facts aren't working. I think one would have to argue from a Christian angle to make any dent. I'm only one letter, but if I can create a spark who knows.Since my rep is or was also an MD, I didn't know if there was anything that might impact his profession.Here are a few comments from our local newspaper in the opinion section today.This gentleman said only six were listed of the hundreds of religions and concluded with: Apparently a teacher had been fired for discussing creation science in his chemistry class. This gentleman feels: This gentleman brings up Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and cosmologist, and Roman Catholic Priest. Those are some pieces from the opinion page. Other than a means to put religion in front of children, I don't understand why creation science needs to be brought into a science class? Couldn't I also argue that it is the job of the religious institution to teach origin of life per their belief? Why the school system?

quote:

---

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.

---

The second gentleman I quoted stated that they petitioned the school corporation in 2000 to present the evidence in support of special creation in science classes alongside evolution.It there one piece of supposed evidence for special creation that alongside evolution would look ridiculous to a physician?

I wasn't aware that there was any evidence for creation.Since he's a physician, maybe you could appeal to his thoughts on faith healing or self-diagnosis using WebMD or something. The fact that non-scientists are trying to push what is taught in science class would be akin to non-doctors prescribing medicine or diagnosing illnesses. When you add the religious aspect into it, you're even further down the rabit hole. See Scientology and their thoughts on Psychiatry (or Psychology, not sure which) and the whole "vaccines cause autism" scare.

I like the idea of teaching al of the different versions, buthae the same concern as hoa when he says The understanding of science amongst the general public is woeful already and I worry about giving up time in the science class to this sort of thing. I'm also concerned about the confusion this might sow.My son, in Year 7, has been taught about different religions in school, but they have been taught as part of religious lessons. However, none of it centred on origins and creation stories, but spent most of the time explaining religious festivals like Eid, Ramadan, Hannukah, Passover, Christmas. It's given him a good understanding of cultures he comes across, but he remains a firm proponent of evolution, based on his visits to the Natural History Museum. I've just quizzed him on this and,while he believes in God, he doesn't see what this belief in God has to do with evolution. To him it's like looking for a link between football and maths.

The little piece that mentions Scientology was put in there by a Democratic rep named Vi Simpson, who is my hero for this week. She added it to effectively "neuter" the bill, similarly to how a Texas rep tried (but failed) to sterilize the one here last year that allowed women who were forced to have a sonogram prior to an abortion to force the Y-chromosome donor involved in her situation to have a vasectomy.Site Not Configured | 404 Not FoundDemocrats Attack Abortion Sonogram Bill with Amendments | The Texas Tribune

I dont think you're going to find a bit of evidence for special creation that would look ridiculous to a physician since there isn't any evidence. I wonder if the information on the broken Vitamin C gene in humans and apes would work. Creationists ascribe it to The Fall, although why apes were punished as well is beyod me The guinea pigs must just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught in the crossfire. I have seen the broken Vitamin C gene being used as evidence that The Fall happened (on this very site think)

So her addition turned it into a comparative religion class that takes place in the science class. That might be another angle. Why turn science class or any other class into a comparative religion class when students can already take a comparative religion class to compare religions and their views on various subjects.Do we really want to start comparing a religious view of history in history class or a religious view of health in health class?

Would you have preferred they left it as it was, teaching only christian creationism?

The later would be more honest, but it would mean that the course would not be taught in public school.The above seems relate to purpledawn's point. Putting a comparative religion course into a science class, unless the science class was studying anthropology, would be totally out of place. I don't think we include other similar "sciences" in science class, so there is no constitutional compliant reason for such a curriculum.Although it doesn't come up much in discussion here, but I could imagine an effort to force a Creation/Flood friendly version of per-history into K-12 history classes.

quote:

---

Would you have preferred they left it as it was, teaching only christian creationism?

---

Not really the point of what I was saying, but I do need to make sure I'm not sparking them to do just that.Edited by purpledawn, : Wrong Avatar

How's this for a opener to the letter? Obviously spiritual crisis is something that parents will have to clean up, not the government. Christians should not want to cause family conflicts.Another thought concerns court costs. Wouldn't tax payers be paying for that should it happen? Not a good use of our money.Are fundamentalist and creationists in the minority among Christians?Is faith healing more a fundamentalist belief?
Would a doctor want that taught in health class along with healing beliefs from other religions?

I don't really like the above wording. I think a creationist would find it insincere.I think I'd comment on the possibly of atheist teachers ridiculing and denigrating Christian beliefs by giving equal weight and treatment to obviously bogus stories like the ancient Greek/Roman origin stories or to the creation story in Norse myths.And what if some teacher decides to present Bible type Creationism by using the Koran, and totally skips the presentation of Genesis? That would seem to me to be allowed by the Indiana legislation.Despite any fears I have that the original law might pass muster with the current Supreme Court, I think a law or school board policy designed to prevent the above types of mischief would not seem Constitutional even to Justice Scalia.

The quote box holds what I've written so far. The rest are just thoughts. My rep is an MD and a Methodist.

quote:

---

I think I'd comment on the possibly of atheist teachers ridiculing and denigrating Christian beliefs by giving equal weight and treatment to obviously bogus stories like the ancient Greek/Roman origin stories or to the creation story in Norse myths.

---

I saw that approach in a letter that was sent before the vote. My guess is that any school that entertains the idea of teaching creation science, would probably address the Christian loyalties of their science teacher(s). Supposedly the school system would still have a choice on whether to teach creation science or not.We start seeing good science teachers railroaded out and creationist teachers come in, we can probably guess what the school is planning.

Yes, indeed. Demonize those evil fucking atheists. Give people even more reason to be disgusted at the word atheist.

We have a Christian who also feels that creation should not be taught in the science class since it is a belief, but.. The second is also a Christian, but he is not for the bill and refers to an earlier guest column written on 1 Feb. Macro-evolution seems to be the issue. Are both their definitions correct?I did a search for macro-evolution to try and get an understanding of the issue. I found this post by Nuggin (Message 4) that gave a good idea of the difference between micro and macro. Are there any more good explanations of the difference? Any that might be of interest to a doctor?