Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

The evolution of a misguided 'choice'
(Dave Bangert, Lafayette Journal and Courier, January 29, 2012)

In the beginning -- of this year, anyway -- Hoosiers seemed bent on improving their image to the rest of the world, what with the world descending on Indianapolis for the Super Bowl next Sunday.

A few weeks later, we're explaining why Indiana isn't Kansas -- which is pretty hard to do when your state legislature goes Old Testament, trying to sell creation science as a viable option for our public schools.

Last week, the Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 for a bill that says a school board "may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science." The bill's sponsor, Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, says this is all about choice -- the choice of a school board and the choice of a child to believe or not believe conclusions found in the scientific method.

He's right. This is about choice. Want to make sure the world knows Indiana is choosing to not be ready for a 21st century economy? Pass this bill.

*****************************************************************

"We're not going to just get past this," said John Staver, a Purdue University professor of science education and chemistry. He testified before the Indiana Senate committee last week, arguing against the bill.

He also -- as a Kansas State University professor and member of the writing committee for the Kansas Science Education Standards -- was in the middle of a debate that made Kansas the leading edge of the creation science movement in the past decade.

"This isn't going away," Staver said. "The people behind this are very educated, they're committed, they believe they're right, and they aren't going to compromise.

*******************************************************************

"One senator who voted for the bill in the Indiana Senate committee last week, Luke Kenley of Noblesville, said the move could be a "lawyer's dream," according to an Associated Press account.

"Giving the school board the 'option' may clear a hurdle," said William McLauchlan, a political science professor who specializes in constitutional law at Purdue University. "I suspect those folks ... have tried to cleverly devise a curriculum that looks to be nonreligious. Thus, they hope it will pass any constitutional challenges. But I suspect it will still be challenged."

That $320 million the state discovered hiding in unaudited accounts late last year? It's roughly enough to cover Dover-size lawsuits for each of Indiana's 292 public school districts, if Kruse's bill goes through the full Senate and then the House before the end of the General Assembly session.

Beyond the potential cost, beyond our lawmakers' uncertain grasp of the Constitution and beyond the questionable science, here's my question: If the state is already willing to pay parents to send their kids to church-run schools, where religious tenets can filter through science lessons, why this public school broadside?

"This isn't going away," Staver said. "The people behind this are very educated, they're committed, they believe they're right, and they aren't going to compromise.

Want to make sure the world knows Indiana is choosing to not be ready for a 21st century economy?

How on earth can Indiana choose to "not be ready for a 21st century economy"? What does "being ready" mean? What does "not being ready" mean? How does Indiana avoid being ready for the 21st century economy?

The Lafayette Journal and Courier is owned by the Gannett Company, Inc. the biggest selling newspaper monster in the USA and which is fully appraised of the benefits of evolutionism to companies such as itself

It will go away when the court decision is in.

I suspect that its more the way to get a governor unelected by some grass roots plot to cast suspicion on his religious commitment. STUPID PLOT REALLY.

fm skitters off into the night with a brilliantly original conspiracy theory

Gannettspeak that disagrees with fm's analysis. "This isn't going away," Staver said. "The people behind this are very educated, they're committed, they believe they're right, and they aren't going to compromise."

IT IS A MEANINGLESS MELANGE OF IRRELEVANCY.

I am quite convinced that if Gannett thought creationism would increase profits it would be into bat for it faster than a rabbit bolts into its burrow on seeing a greyhound

You do understand literary license?

You do understand literary license?

Of course I do. I take advantage of it often enough.

I just don't expect to see it employed in rigorous scientific discourse. It opens the door to literary licence applied to the Bible.

The anti Creationists are all laughing in their beers as to how stupid the world really is.

You therefore, believe that you should be the only one who employs literary license herein?