Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

Is it common in North Virginia for people to hold the opinion that science needs to be balanced by superstition? Just curious.

You will notice that I was asking a resident of the area if it was a common view that science needs to be balanced by superstition in the science classroom. Well, is it? It would seem to be a common view amongst Republican legislators in the Indiana statehouse. Just wondering if it was also common in Northern Virginia amongst the general populace.

That is about what I expected as well, and even more so for your neighbors to the west.I would also suspect that you could find a majority in some areas that would vote in favor of Jim Crowe laws and segregation. Some other areas would be in favor of poll taxes and poll testing. I could list dozens and dozens of racist policies that have been deemed unconstitutional that may in fact be voted into law if given a chance. Guess what? Those laws would be stricken down because they are unconstitutional. States can not enact laws that violate the constitution.There is clear precedent (e.g. Dover trial) for this bill being unconstitutional. I will again quote part of the judgement from the Dover trial:

quote:

---

We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are "normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) . Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District's science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.

---

I think this describes the situation in Indiana to a T.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

If we limit what is taught to just theories then that excludes all religious beliefs. I think it would be fine to teach students about the latest research dealing with the RNA World hypothesis and various ongoing scientific research that is looking at the origin of life. What is not ok is to teach religious beliefs alongside scientific research as if they are on the same level. I would be fine with an elective Comparative Religions course where religious beliefs can be put in the proper context.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

At least you admit that your arguments are based on semantics instead of substance. There is no faith in science. Science is the opposite of faith. In science, you test your ideas and disregard all ideas that can not be tested.What we should teach in science class is science, including the latest research on the origin of life if it fits with the curriculum. At this point, students are being taught that complex biomolecules do form through abiotic processes. This is backed by mountains of research. It is a fact. Other research on the RNA World hypothesis and other current working hypotheses will probably fly over the head of high school students. Research is being done in this field on these hypotheses, so if students do wish to work in these fields they will need to be educated on these topics, most likely in graduate school.

I can almost guarantee that it will if those laws are put into practice. They want to teach religious beliefs, not theories. If we already knew everything would we need to be educating and training new scientists?So how do we educate these new scientists? Do we teach them that life came about through magical poofing, so there really is no need to do any scientific research on the origins of life?

The problem is that we do know a few things. First off, we know that life started out with very simply. Therefore, we can throw out hypotheses that propose complex multicellular life spontaneously forming through abiotic means. Given DNA's lack of any enzymatic properties we can throw more weight onto RNA and protein based hypotheses. This also seems to be backed by comparisons of existing life where DNA appears to be a product of evolution and not abiogenesis.Even though the field of abiogenesis is not well developed there is still enough evidence to allow us to throw out many hypotheses and lean towards others. The problem for you is that you want to conflate scientific hypotheses with religious beliefs. They are not the same thing. Just because we may not have a solid scientific theory on the origin of life it does not open the door to religious beliefs in the science classroom. If your only hope of an argument is to play semantic games with scientific terms then you have lost before you even started.

Here is the wording from the bill:"The governing body of a school corporation 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."When it says "theories of the origin of life" what do you think it is referring to? It is all too obvious that it is referring to SCIENCE. The bill orders that if scientific theories of the origin of life that the teacher must also teach religious beliefs about the origin of life. Now which class do you think teachers mention the scientific theories regarding the origin of life? Could it be science class?

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?

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

Religious beliefs are not theories. Never have been. I guess that you are unaware that scientists are actively doing research in the field of abiogenesis? I would think that scientific research is a valid topic for science class?