Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

link to Arstechnica where I lifted these quotes fromLink to bill itself

The worst part? The inclusion of Scientology. IT'S NOT EVEN A RELIGION! It's a fucking business model for crying out loud!

Perhaps on that side of the pond. However, as you've probably noticed on this side, we've got people running for POTUS touting their superstitious nonsense as a badge of honor...... We're nowhere near "kick arse" level yet....

But this bill has nothing to do with learning about other religions. It has to do with origins of life and incorporating different religious beliefs about that subject. Where is the origins of life subject typically taught as it stands? In science class.

Right. How does that differ from what I said? Even more perplexing is that I received a jeer from DA who never does that sort of thing.....All I was saying was in response to PD and her comment about children and/or parents choosing whether or not to learn about different religions. I was pointing out that it's not that simple and that this bill is not about learning about different religions.If I am mistaken about something here, I would much appreciate if someone could clear up any confusion.Edited by hooah212002, : 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."

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 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.

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.

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

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

So you are suggesting PD provide a strawman attack as fuel for her letter? Or do you have something against atheists? Or are you suggesting PD is a creationist and as such, she should denigrate atheists in her letter? I know it's hard for people like you to realize the trouble atheists go through, but for you to suggest such a thing when it is completely unrelated and only serves to continue the degradation of the atheist label proves you to be not much better than the creationists themselves in this matter.

Of course I have vocal attacks on non creationist christians when said non creationist christians attack atheism like you did. You advocated the perpetuation of the demonization of atheists in your suggestion to PD. You, as a liberal wishy washy christian, deemed it acceptable to suggest that it was ok to use atheists as fodder.Explain to me why I should see the likes of you as any different from creationists?

The verbage of the bill has no such indication. What they are attempting to institute is the teaching of religious ideas and those do not constitute as being theories. Only in a laypersons vernacular does an idea constitute as a "theory" and this bill is about what is taught in school. Facts are taught in school, religious ideas are taught in a religious setting (church).

That is false. A hypothesis that includes data gleaned from the real world actually has weight whereas one that has ideas gleaned from superstition and fairy tale has none. Superstitious beliefs are not valid as a hypothesis worthy of a science classroom discussion so it is not possible for them to be on equal ground as actual scientific studies using actual empirical data.