Anti-Science bill passed in Indiana

Although the bill as written could be used to create a comparative religion class, its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science classes. The original text of the bill explicitly mentioned creation science; it has since been modified to mention a variety of religions, including Scientology. In a brief interview, Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/indiana-senate-passes-bill-putting-religion-in-science-class.ars

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html

evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.ZumaJones07

Your just being facetious right.... please say you are.

it's not called the Fact of Evolution so the theory can't be all trueZumaJones07

it's not called the Fact of Evolution so the theory can't be all trueZumaJones07

Depends...is it an additional class on religious study? I don't recall hearing anything about Indiana removing the teaching of science in school so I don't think it's replacing it. In addition.....is an elective?

You know what else is a johnny come lately theory? Relativity, let's never do any more scientific work using the theory again.

Although the bill as written could be used to create a comparative religion class (actually, based on the revised text, the comparisons between different religions is arequirement),its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science ****s. (Does he sit on/havepower over school boards where curriculum is chosen? If not, it really doesn't matter what he "hopes for.")The original text of the bill explicitly mentioned creation science; it has since been modified to mention a variety of religions, including Scientology. In a brief interview, Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/indiana-senate-passes-bill-putting-religion-in-science-****ars

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html

tenaka2

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Although the bill as written could be used to create a comparative religion class (actually, based on the revised text, the comparisons between different religions is arequirement),its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science ****s. (Does he sit on/havepower over school boards where curriculum is chosen? If not, it really doesn't matter what he "hopes for.")The original text of the bill explicitly mentioned creation science; it has since been modified to mention a variety of religions, including Scientology. In a brief interview, Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/indiana-senate-passes-bill-putting-religion-in-science-****ars

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html

Planet_Pluto

This is an article from arstechnica, I am not writing it up as I go. Your guesses and questions in blue don't detract anything from it.

The only relevant piece is this really 'its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science c la s s.'

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.tenaka2

Your just being facetious right.... please say you are.

It's ZumaJones. Over the past few months he changed from someone who was a normal sane poster into one of those "lol i troll u xD" people.

.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Although the bill as written could be used to create a comparative religion class (actually, based on the revised text, the comparisons between different religions is arequirement),its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science ****s. (Does he sit on/havepower over school boards where curriculum is chosen? If not, it really doesn't matter what he "hopes for.")The original text of the bill explicitly mentioned creation science; it has since been modified to mention a variety of religions, including Scientology. In a brief interview, Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/indiana-senate-passes-bill-putting-religion-in-science-****ars

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SB/SB0089.2.html

tenaka2

This is an article from arstechnica, I am not writing it up as I go. Your guesses and questions in blue don't detract anything from it.

The only relevant piece is this really 'its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science c la s s.'

Regarding the giant-text portion, so what? So, this one dudehopingfor something that is beyond his control is no different than, say, Obama speaking before the group La Raza on the topic of immigration, lamented having to work with congress and stated that he wishes that he could act unilaterally. At the end of the day, just because Kruse and/or Obama would like to see something happen, does not make it so.

The actual bill is not what you seem to be selling it as.

Creation 'Science' -.-, why is America so unwilling to accept real proper science?

it's not called the Fact of Evolution so the theory can't be all trueZumaJones07

I know(I really... really hope) this is trolling... Nothing is called Scientific 'Fact', even the most widely known 'facts' are referred to as theories. I suspect that it has to do with scientists, and the whole idea of scientific method, being extremely pedantic, even when 99.99999...% sure they're still .000...1% unsure, so reluctant to call it, or anything a 'fact'.

Theory -
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a ****of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

it's not called the Fact of Evolution so the theory can't be all trueZumaJones07

wtf is wrong with you?

I want my country back :(-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I want my country back :(Planet_Pluto

evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.ZumaJones07

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.BossPerson

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.BossPerson

OMG, don't even...

I think we're a the point where if someone calls a theory "just" a theory or tries to equivocate theories with speculation we should just call them an idiot and be done with it. Don't even try to engage them in logical conversation, they obviously can't handle it.

it's not called the Fact of Evolution so the theory can't be all trueZumaJones07

Speculation is speculation (whether mine or yours). I'll restate that based on the revised text, any cl@ss would be required to cover/contrast various religions.

Regarding the giant-text portion, so what? So, this one dudehopingfor something that is beyond his control is no different than, say, Obama speaking before the group La Raza on the topic of immigration, lamented having to work with congress and stated that he wishes that he could act unilaterally. At the end of the day, just because Kruse and/or Obama would like to see something happen, does not make it so.

The actual bill is not what you seem to be selling it as.

Planet_Pluto

The actual bill allows teachers to put science along side magic and tell students that both have the same validity. If you cannot see how this is very wrongs, its a worry.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Speculation is speculation (whether mine or yours). I'll restate that based on the revised text, any cl@ss would be required to cover/contrast various religions.

Regarding the giant-text portion, so what? So, this one dudehopingfor something that is beyond his control is no different than, say, Obama speaking before the group La Raza on the topic of immigration, lamented having to work with congress and stated that he wishes that he could act unilaterally. At the end of the day, just because Kruse and/or Obama would like to see something happen, does not make it so.

The actual bill is not what you seem to be selling it as.

tenaka2

The actual bill allows teachers to put science along side magic and tell students that both have the same validity. If you cannot see how this is very wrongs, its a worry.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Speculation is speculation (whether mine or yours). I'll restate that based on the revised text, any cl@ss would be required to cover/contrast various religions.

Regarding the giant-text portion, so what? So, this one dudehopingfor something that is beyond his control is no different than, say, Obama speaking before the group La Raza on the topic of immigration, lamented having to work with congress and stated that he wishes that he could act unilaterally. At the end of the day, just because Kruse and/or Obama would like to see something happen, does not make it so.

The actual bill is not what you seem to be selling it as.

-Sun_Tzu-

The actual bill allows teachers to put science along side magic and tell students that both have the same validity. If you cannot see how this is very wrongs, its a worry.

Nothing, I'm a big fan. But teaching young kids that magic is real is a terrible thing to do to a young mind.

This bill is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, a lot of Science is speculative.

But Science has a legitimate basis for the inner-workings of our society.

Creationism doesn't help our society progress, and in some cases (like radical Islam), creationism is the basis for conflict, bloodshed, and strife across the world.

Why should we teach impressionable children fairytales in Science class?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.sonicare

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]

Speculation is speculation (whether mine or yours). I'll restate that based on the revised text, any cl@ss would be required to cover/contrast various religions.

Regarding the giant-text portion, so what? So, this one dudehopingfor something that is beyond his control is no different than, say, Obama speaking before the group La Raza on the topic of immigration, lamented having to work with congress and stated that he wishes that he could act unilaterally. At the end of the day, just because Kruse and/or Obama would like to see something happen, does not make it so.

The actual bill is not what you seem to be selling it as.

-Sun_Tzu-

The actual bill allows teachers to put science along side magic and tell students that both have the same validity. If you cannot see how this is very wrongs, its a worry.

It exists to serve mankind and never to rule over him.

Religion in classrooms? I thought that schools were forced to keep religion separate. Such as no prayer during football and such. Just wait until the first lawsuit comes up, it will be gone in no time.Demonfail

The religious nut jobs are always looking for ways to sneak creationism back in.

Because f**k science, apparently.

i really don't see how someone can believe that creationism is real, and evolution is just a myth. i guess religion has some people so brainwashed :/ it's sad, really

evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.ZumaJones07

Evolution is a fact, but there are many theories within evolution (e.g. survival of the fittest)

evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.ZumaJones07

in any case, it seems people don't understand what something being a theory truly means. it's not a fact or a law, but it is still considered the "norm", maybe even a temporary law, until it can be proven otherwise.

evolution is a theory, religious creation stories are fairy tales. looks like evolution is winning right now.

it's not called the Fact of Evolution so the theory can't be all trueZumaJones07

i really don't see how someone can believe that creationism is real, and evolution is just a myth. i guess religion has some people so brainwashed :/ it's sad, really

needled24-7

Here's my biggest hangup with that, even if we give in to this ridiculously stupid "just a theory" line of reasoning, then fine, both explanations are equally valid BEFORE you examine the evidence. When you examine the evidence, though, not only does evolution have more and better quality evidence than creationism, but creationism has none at all. They have a 2,000 year old book, other than that there's nothing but speculation and conjecture. There is no objective way to posit creationism as more likely than evolution based on evidence. Of course maybe we could teach THAT to kids, but then these creationists would be complaining that the cirriculum is anti-religion.

Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.

That may well be the single most idiotic thing I've ever read.

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.Novotine

in any case, it seems people don't understand what something being a theory truly means. it's not a fact or a law, but it is still considered the "norm", maybe even a temporary law, until it can be proven otherwise.

evolution is a theory, religious creation stories are fairy tales. looks like evolution is winning right now.

What people need to understand is that the colloquial term theory=the scientific term hypothesis. The scientific theory is more comprable to the colloquial definition of proof.

Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.

That may well be the single most idiotic thing I've ever read.

Slow_Show

That caught my eye too, it's a really bizarre thing to say.

Are we supposed to ignore any new evidence in any situation because it might challenge the traditional way of thinking? :?

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

i really don't see how someone can believe that creationism is real, and evolution is just a myth. i guess religion has some people so brainwashed :/ it's sad, really

theone86

Here's my biggest hangup with that, even if we give in to this ridiculously stupid "just a theory" line of reasoning, then fine, both explanations are equally valid BEFORE you examine the evidence. When you examine the evidence, though, not only does evolution have more and better quality evidence than creationism, but creationism has none at all. They have a 2,000 year old book, other than that there's nothing but speculation and conjecture. There is no objective way to posit creationism as more likely than evolution based on evidence. Of course maybe we could teach THAT to kids, but then these creationists would be complaining that the cirriculum is anti-religion.

[QUOTE="Novotine"]

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]evolution is only a theory and hasn't been proven whatsoever so it makes sense to include religious teachings in schools, it's only fair.theone86

in any case, it seems people don't understand what something being a theory truly means. it's not a fact or a law, but it is still considered the "norm", maybe even a temporary law, until it can be proven otherwise.

evolution is a theory, religious creation stories are fairy tales. looks like evolution is winning right now.

What people need to understand is that the colloquial term theory=the scientific term hypothesis. The scientific theory is more comprable to the colloquial definition of proof.