Indiana Creationism Teaching Bill Moves Forward In State Senate

Indiana legislators are moving forward on a bill that would allow creationism to be taught in the state's public school system.

The Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 Wednesday to present the bill to the full Senate, the Associated Press reports.

With origins in the Bible's Book of Genesis, creationism suggests that divine power created man, animal, and all earthly matters. The idea is an opposing view to the science-based theory of evolution.

If the bill passes, Indiana school districts will have the option to include creationism as part of science courses, Indianapolis' WXIN reports.

The bill was sponsored by Republican Sen. Dennis Kruse, head of the Indiana State Senate's Education Committee.

Kruse previously proposed similar legislation in 2000 when he served as a state representative. That bill never made it past a committee vote, according to the Journal Gazette.

Indiana isn't the only state to examine the possibility of adding creationism to school curriculum.

Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Missouri have all looked at similar bills designed to encourage a critical look at evolution theory, the Wall Street Journal observes.

About 60 percent of high school biology teachers teach evolution in the classroom without taking a direct stance on the issue LiveScience reports.

The article states:

Based on respondents' write-in answers, the researchers surmised that many of these cautious teachers toed the line, weakly teaching evolution without explicitly endorsing or denying creationism in order to avoid controversy and questions from both students and parents.

Only 13 percent of the teachers surveyed in the nationwide study published in the journal Science said they support creationism and teach it "in a positive light."

Indiana Sen. Scott Schneider said he voted in favor of SB 89 because students should be taught various theories on the origin of life, according to the Northwest Indiana and Illinois Times.

*This story has been updated for greater clarity.

Comments

[Junius Gallio]

04:57 PM on 02/04/2012

Truly _consistent_ creationism also includes the following traits:

1. The solar system is geocentic.
2. The sky is a solid dome that hold back water, and is supported by pllars.
3. The sun, moon, and stars are lamps, hung from the solid-dome sky.
4. The world floats in a primeval ocean, also supported by pillars.

Now, is this the "creationism" they want taught in schools?

Creationists love to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are not. They love to pick and choose what parts of science they accept or reject.

Creationism is not, and has never been, science. Unfortunately, it is also not honest.

[SteveM39]

11:51 AM on 02/03/2012

Random accident or intelligent purpose? Perhaps both should be banned. Perhaps both should be presented. But please don't couch your arguments around fuzzy definitions of theories that may or may not be held by some people. There is a real debate here, simply not the one most people want to discuss.

[Junius Gallio]

09:54 PM on 02/03/2012

Excuse me, but "fuzzy definitions" is one thing I am trying to avoid. I don't CARE if many people use the word "theory" to mean "conjecture" or "guess"--in the context of science, that is not what it means.

[LisaLore]

04:19 AM on 02/04/2012

First, evolution is neither intelligent purpose nor random accident. It's a natural process, an observed, well tested, factual one. Randomness is involved, in generating new variation in a population, but then that variation is filtered through the selective mechanisms of evolution, like Natural Selection (which Darwin's theory first proposed), which are very much NON random, making the overall process of evolution non-random. That's a common fallacy about evolution that creationists (especially) peddle, that science says "everything happened randomly".

It doesn't matter if you "hold theories" or not. If they are valid science, and especially important theories that are central to a whole field of science (as evolutionary theory is central to biology), it should be taught in science class. There IS no debate about that among people educated in biology. It's a simple fact. The only "debate" about evolution is among the public, with those rejecting it doing so for religious reasons or ignorance of what it is and the vast body of evidence supporting it (including observation of evolution happening). Or usually some combination of the two, since most creationists don't actually understand the theory OR the factual process they feel threatened by, believing rather a lot of misconceptions about them.

The "fuzzy definitions" are usually the ones espoused by creationists. Science is usually VERY clear. That's why it uses jargon, for that clarity.

[SteveM39]

11:48 AM on 02/03/2012

I love how the fur flies when people try to pit faith against science.

I would like to clarify 2 issues:

One side says Evolution claims to explain the ultimate origin of Life and the universe. That is not Evolution. The concept of spontaneous creation is called autogenesis or abiogenesis. Evolution is an explanation of biological diversity. Some people equate the Big Bang theory with Evolution. Again this is wrong.

The other side claims that Creationism is the false belief that a supreme being created the entire spectrum of life more or less as it exists today. This is an incredibly narrow and ignorant view of Creationism. The vast majority of people believe that life was not created by accident or the random chemical reaction of atoms in a primordial stew. They also believe that the creation of the Universe likely came about through the Big Bang but believe the Big Bang was caused by a higher power.

So what are we arguing about? The teaching of either theory in a public school system.

Do some teachers teach autogenesis with Evolution? Yes, they do. Should they without mention of the possibility of some force as yet unproven, ie: a god?

Would some people like the concept of divine creation of the world in its present form taught in a science class? Yes, they would. I think that is a small subset of Creationists. But does that mean concepts of the origin of life should not include faith?

[Junius Gallio]

09:51 PM on 02/03/2012

"Do some teachers teach autogenesi­s with Evolution? Yes, they do. Should they without mention of the possibilit­y of some force as yet unproven, ie: a god?"

In a philosophy or theology class, I see absolutely no problem. In science class--yes, if they discuss abiogenesis, they most certainly should do so without the concept of God, however defined. Science cannot comment on the issue of God: science class is not an appropriate place to discuss the issue.

How hard is that to comprehend?

[LisaLore]

04:24 AM on 02/04/2012

No.

God doesn't belong in science class.

Science is devoted to finding natural causes for natural phenomena in the natural world. And usually finds them.

That doesn't mean it's anti-God, or anti-religion. Just secular. Science is AND MUST REMAIN neutral about God and faith. Unless evidence pops up that God is real, evidence science can test, try to falsify (scientific method).

Nor am I attacking faith or religious beliefs. I believe in God myself. It just doesn't belong in science class. Even for subjects and questions science does not YET have a firm answer on (or even any answer).

[LisaLore]

04:21 AM on 02/04/2012

There is no "two sides". There's science, and there's science denial (creationism).

There are no "two theories". There's evolutionary theory, and there's ancient flat earth creationism mythology.

[ttsgw]

03:42 AM on 02/03/2012

Ignorance must be the eight of the conservative virtues, the first seven being wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony.

[LisaLore]

04:24 AM on 02/04/2012

Ouch. Even if it seems too true sometimes. :P

[ttsgw]

03:36 AM on 02/03/2012

And that the flat earth is the center of universe.

[LisaLore]

04:24 AM on 02/04/2012

According to biblical creationism, that's true.

[gerorem]

08:55 PM on 02/02/2012

As an intelligent, practicing Christian citizen:
I do not want the Government to teach faith.
I do not want a religion to govern.
The Bible's not a science text. Darwin's not a treatise on faith.

[LisaLore]

04:26 AM on 02/04/2012

Exactly the position I've taken for over a decade. And a very good way of showing why separation of church and state goes both ways.

[gerorem]

10:57 AM on 02/04/2012

Another sane person. Thank you.

It took a few centuries for the Catholic Church to admit that maybe Galileo had a point, that he wasn't a heretic. A-r-r-g-h! But the Church might not have learned. In this age, they censured Pere Chardin (1881-1955) about his studies on evolution.

Chardin: "It is our duty as men and women to proceed as though the limits of our abilities do not exist." In other words--evolve.

[JShankel]

07:36 PM on 02/02/2012

Oh to be a public school teacher when this goes in: "Okay, children, now that we've heard Darwin's theory, let me tell you about the gods Vishnu and Shiva and the eternal cycles of the wheel of creation...and be sure to tell your parents ALL about how I'm covering EVERY theory and letting you decide for yourselves."

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

04:05 AM on 02/03/2012

As a Pagan I insist that Hesiod's "Theogony" be taught in the public schools if the Christian Myth of Creation is taught.

"Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundations of all the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, and Eros, fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bare from union in love with Erebus. And Earth first bare starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods. And she brought forth long Hills, graceful haunts of the goddess-Nymphs who dwell amongst the glens of the hills. She bare also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love. But afterwards she lay with Heaven and bare deep-swirling Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis and Mnemosyne and gold-crowned Phoebe and lovely Tethys. After them was born Cronos the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire.

[Willow-the-Witch]

06:41 AM on 02/04/2012

Next year I'll be teaching that it's "turtles all the way down!"

[Kyle10]

02:52 PM on 02/02/2012

Creationism offered as topic in Political Science or Philosophy or Theology, sure.

If you're a subscriber to Creationism, I imagine your faith would be strong enough to support this.

[Dann J May]

12:04 PM on 02/02/2012

I see that Indiana is competing with Oklahoma for the new state name of DumbF*ckistan, where the Reflubs (i.e., the GOP, or Grotesquely Orwellian Partisans) what to drive away all high tech companies, thoughtful people and science. If they are this anti-science, they should give up their homes and go live in caves and use stone tools.

[gerorem]

08:56 PM on 02/02/2012

Rally. Vote. Or both.

[Happiness1999]

12:03 PM on 02/02/2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Which one(s) will they be teaching about?

[buggeroffyou666]

09:59 AM on 02/02/2012

So Indiana is pushing hard to try to win the title of LAST in education. Not only in the U.S. but in the industrialized world. And what happens to these poor kids if they want to go to a real school or university? Would one even except them knowing that their home state made sure they were totally undereducated and lacking in critical thinking skills.
Can you imagine how they would be laughed at the first time they said "god dun it" to any person with a basic grasp of logic?
All of this to push a myth. And the kids (and tax payers and constitution) will pay the price.

[CabinAgue]

10:07 AM on 02/02/2012

Maybe they have their sights set on Oral Roberts U. :)

[Katmandu01]

11:19 AM on 02/02/2012

If you listen very carefully, you can hear millions of students in India and Chinal laughing their heads off.

[92102]

08:07 AM on 02/02/2012

How are they going to explain the whole second generation incest thing? Who did Adam and Eve's children procreate with besides their own brothers/sisters?

[Katmandu01]

11:26 AM on 02/02/2012

I love this one: Genesis 4:16 and 17. Where do you suppose Cain's wife came from?

[JShankel]

07:34 PM on 02/02/2012

they were Lilith's children...but Christians don't like talking about her :)

[dtallwalk]

11:13 PM on 02/01/2012

So now are we going to give preachers a teaching degree in in I don't know what kind of degree they would need. One that proves god is real. How they going to do that with a faith-a-scope

[arovingmind]

09:55 AM on 02/02/2012

When the god hypothesis and the biblical stories pass the tests to become accepted scientific theories on a level to be published in Scientific Peer Review Journals with the stature of "The Journal of Science", then, and only then, should any consideration or discussion be entered into about having such 'stories' taught in our schools, on any level what so ever.

[FreedToChoose]

10:38 PM on 02/01/2012

As Howard Gradner reminded readers so clearly in Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed, a basic tenet of science is that a hypothesis which can be falsified must be formed. ID/creationism offers no opportunity for testing with an eye toward falsification, hence fails a basic test as to its being a science.

[FreedToChoose]

10:39 PM on 02/01/2012

Oops... Gardner... wandering fingers...

[mflorian]

10:05 PM on 02/01/2012

Do states get tired of being smacked down in the courts for overreaching? Clearly they don't.

[LisaLore]

10:27 PM on 02/01/2012

Creationists are religious zealots. Smack them down one place, they pop up another to test the waters...

[CabinAgue]

10:53 PM on 02/01/2012

I was thinking today about how they resemble whack-a-mole...

[CabinAgue]

10:54 PM on 02/01/2012

Oh, and I love the Darwin quote you posted below about ignorance and confidence.  I couldn't reply to it to say so there, but it also reminded me of The Dunning-Kruger Effect.  Fitting.