Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

Not just with the Lemon Test. I'm sure that all those fundamentalist Christian parents are just dying to have their children actually learn about other religions. Remember, we're talking about a religion that depends utterly on maintaining ignorance.

You accept micro-evolution. OKMacro-evolution is the accumulation of micro-evolution. OK.What is your question?

The theory of evolution is part of science. As such, it does belong in the science classroom. The driving purpose of science education is that the students learn the leading ideas of science, which includes evolution.It actually should be in creationists' interest for evolution to be taught in science class, so that the creationist kids can learn what evolution is so that they can oppose it most effectively. As in the most simplistic expression of Sun Tzu's teaching of "know your enemy".And yet, creationist Christians (since there are far more non-creation-science Christians) vehemently oppose the teaching of evolution, meaning that they do not want their own children to learn enough about evolution to be able to oppose it. Why is that? Could it be because if their children were to actually learn what evolution really is, as opposed to the outright lies that their parents are teaching them, then they would realize that all that their parents have been teaching them are nothing but outright lies?Here's the real creationist nightmare, that teachers would present creationism and expose it for the complete and utter bullshit that it is.

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.