Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

This bill may be dead, but the author is still twitching. Feb 13, 2012 Opinion This person is an attorney. I have to hear from a creationist to explain why the need for creationism to be taught in the public school system in required classes instead of as an elective or in their own religious institutions.

if it was obvious then it would say it. what you are doing here is classic straw manning.

Hi Panda, That's exactly what they should be doing!If the religious right want to turn the US into a theocracy or just have publicly funded religion, then they should be god-damn honest and campaign for that. They should campaign to have the separation of church and state abolished. They would still fail, but at least they wouldn't be engaged in the kind of dishonesty that currently characterises the pro-creationism-in-schools lobby.Mutate and Survive

Preaching to the choir . . .No one is stopping creationists from doing the scientific research and presenting this research to scientists at conferences and in peer review journals. 3rd grade science class is not an appropriate arena for hashing out which theories have scientific merit.

You mean if it was obvious that religious beliefs would be NOT be taught in science class then the bill would clearly state it?Which class is most likely to teach theories? A required science class or an elective religious studies class?

Got a response today from my House Rep.
Since the Speaker of the House killed the bill, my rep didn't say much.

Not exactly on topic here, but probably not deserving of it's own thread.Right now we've got a whole slew of whackos in the State Legislature; it wouldn't have surprised me to see these go the other way.

Wow, what a coincidence!Who'd of thought all these bills would get proposed around the same time like this?/sarcasm

It is a relief to see that at least one elected official in Indiana understands why this bill was unconstitutional.

no, i am not the one stating what is obvious based on a personal POV, I am reading the letter of the law, instead of reading into the letter of the law. on a subject with no answer like say "the origin of life"? I would say both have an equal chance for discussion of theories, though I thought science was more concerned with observable evidence, and therefore would probably not dwell on something that there was no evidence for like the origin of life.

And any lawyer worth his salt knows how to hide intention with words. And similarly legislators (an excellent profession for a lawyer) know how to construct the letter of their nascent laws (AKA "bills") in order to hide the intent of those laws.A CPA friend once showed me some of the tax laws. Various congressmen wanted special tax breaks for themselves or for another party and they got those special tax breaks by getting tax laws passed. Of course, none of those tax laws expressed the desired intent, but rather hid that in the wording, in the "letter of the law". For example, one wanted to be able to write off a cousin in a mental institution as a dependent and so we have the "crazy cousin" tax law which very few can qualify for, one of those few being that congressman. And another congressman wanted to give a special tax break to a private school, so his law had qualification rules, including geographical location, that only that one private school could qualify for.We have a history of creationist bills that is literally decades long, starting from the 1970's, and from that history we also have a record just as long of the "letter of law" misdirecting wording that they have used to mask their intentions.No "personal POV" is involved here, just decades of experience.

Scientific approaches to origins are not theories, but ideas or hypotheses. If enough information is gathered such that one idea becomes dominant, and withstands repeated tests, it could rise to the level of a theory.Religious dogma is not "theory" as that term is used in science. Rather, it is the exact opposite. It does not rely on data, and on using that data to form and test an hypothesis, but tries to jump to the head of the line and proclaim itself a "theory," as in "Teach both theories" without doing any of the research and testing that is required in science.What a load of nonsense. It's not only wrong, but its a lie as we all know that science doesn't work that way. But I guess if that's all you got...Here are a couple of definitions of "theory." Feel free to point out how religious dogma and ancient tribal myths qualify.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

I'll see your american buffalo and raise you a bison.

so i should take your word for it, on what this really means, because you more trustworthy than anyone else?

Still sore about that huh? You know, it couldn't hurt. DWise has had years of experience in this stuff. The man knows what he's talking about.Mutate and Survive