Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

Hey, but wait. STATES RIGHTS, remember? Which means that you're not entitled to an opinion.

I like it. It's not antagonistic, it reiterates your opening paragraph, and it's very clear and unambiguous.I'd love to know if you get a response when you send this letter, and what that response says.

I like your letter and would appreciate any follow-up if you hear back. It will be interesting to see how it's received. Good luck!

Remember, if you send a real letter, print. Today's politicians can't read cursive.

Well the letter is in the mail and I sent a revised version to my Senator chastising him for voting for the bill.I will post any responses I receive.Thanks to all for the suggestions and nitpicking.Hopefully it will make a difference.My avatar will stay as is until this issue is either rejected or unfortunately signed into law.

Is it common for you to generalize and stereotype a geographic area based on the opinions of one person? just curious.

I hear that, I was in Fort Wayne the last weekend in January, and it snowed melted, snowed melted, experienced my first white out, then an hour later it was sunny with blue skies.Still I dig Indiana from French Lick, to Jasper, to Greencastle, Indianapolis, to Kokomo, to Fort Wanye to Warsaw, every place has been great from my POV.

oh...yeah i forgot about that Dr. Strawman, thanks for the reminder.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

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.

Not that I can tell, though the only place I had any education out here was at George Mason University, and it was a science heavy area of study (geospatial intelligence). I have only lived here for 4 years.I would guess that the rest of Virginia (the real southern state), would be more like this though I am unsure. Northern Virginia is probably 50% transplants mostly people with jobs in support of the nations capital (I live 1.5miles from the POTUS). This is the Urban VA, its very yuppy, and very multicultural. These are some of the richest counties in America. Now the rest of the commonwealth, well that is a different story entirely.

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.

I guess the bill will have to be challenged then.All I got from it was when the origin of life comes up, they will teach various theories about this issue.Does anyone really know how life started on this planet?

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).

I think the problem is that the ToE doesn't deal with the origin of life, however Intelligent Design and creation stories do. If your pet idea is that everything was created or designed as it is now, then you get into the realms of evolution, since by default you're declaring it didn't happen. Many people in favour of teaching creation and intelligent design seriously believe that the ToE is all about the origin of life when it's really about the origin of diversity.

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.