Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

More anti-science nonsense.Now, in order to teach scientific theories of origins a teacher in Indiana also has to teach the creation myths of a variety of religions.That's sure to run into some problems with the Lemon test, eh?What a joke!Creationists just don't seem to learn. Wonder which school district will be first to cough up a million or so dollars for a court case dumping this legislation into the sewer where it belongs.

Creationist School Bill Looks Doomed in IndianaScience | AAAS

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.

​

On Tuesday the Indiana Senate approved a bill, S.B. 89, that would have allowed schools to teach "various theories on the origins of life." It didn't specify whether the instruction should occur in a science class or in another setting, but its sponsors made clear that they saw it as a way to challenge prevailing views on scientific evolution. The bill, which passed 28 to 22, drew widespread media coverage and triggered condemnations from scientific organizations in the state and across the country.

​

...

​

State education officials said that they have no plans to prepare a curriculum for such a course and that it would not be part of the state standards that teachers are expected to cover. Any decision to implement such instruction would be left to individual districts, they added. "That means to me they don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole," says John Staver, co-director of the Center for Research and Engagement in Science and Math Education at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Staver had testified against the bill at a Senate hearing and says he plans to do likewise if it does come before the House.

Here is a creation story for them to teach in Indiana. You're all for teaching this, I presume?

The Creation of Men and Women

​

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

​

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

​

California Indian creation story

Virtually every religion will provide you with an answer to that question.Unfortunately they contradict one another, and none can provide empirical evidence with which to differentiate among the thousands of answers.Science has some ideas, but I don't believe any one idea has yet reached the level of a theory.The difference is that science will follow the empirical evidence, while religions will stick with dogma in spite of any empirical evidence to the contrary.

Sure, we could teach a variety of things while we're at it! We could teach magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, naturalism, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, divination, "miracles," the unguessable verdict of history, hoodoo, voodoo, and all that other weird stuff.How about we just teach science instead, eh?And please don't use the term "theory" incorrectly. Here are a couple of good definitions:

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]

Creationism in Indiana schools? Not this sessionFile not found

INDIANAPOLIS — The leader of the Indiana House is shelving a bill that would have specifically allowed public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes.

​

Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma is using a procedural move to kill the proposal for this legislative session. ...

​

[snip]

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]

​

You totally ignored the essence of my post.Care to try again?