In the state next door to me...

In addition to learning the scientific origins of life, Hoosier public school students soon may be taught life was created by God, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, the human mind and/or Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.

The Republican-controlled Indiana Senate on Tuesday voted 28-22 to allow school corporations to teach "various theories of the origin of life."

Read more: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... z1l5cKkNq9
Continued...

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 98c89.html

I really doubt they will teach Brahman created the universe in that class.

Great news. Really great news. Brings tears to one's eyes.

Agreed. Sad to see that so much money is going to be wasted on futile court challenges by these idiots that think teaching their Iron Age myths should be part and parcel of teaching children about the real world.

Welcome to the XXI Century

Beatrice wrote:Welcome to the XXI Century

Via the XVI'th.

I really hope it get national publicity so everyone can watch as it's eviscerated in court and understand why.

Atheistoclast wrote:Great news. Really great news. Brings tears to one's eyes.

Yeah, like a kick in the bollocks of rationality. FFS.

The Republican-controlled Indiana Senate on Tuesday voted 28-22 to allow school corporations to teach "various theories of the origin of life."

Except none of them are theories. They're fanciful notions, explanations derived from the scientifically ignorant of times past, to be visited on young, impressionable minds by the scientifically ignorant of today. It's fucking shameful if this happens in any forum but one of study of comparative religion & mythology. If it is proffered as an alternative to science, then Indiana is heading towards becoming a shithole like Saudi Arabia.

Atheistoclast wrote:Great news. Really great news. Brings tears to one's eyes.

It's a bit ironic that in order to claim that Theistic Creation, Intelligent Design, Guided Evolution, etc. ought not be studied in schools, scientistic naturalists, atheist academics, turf-war pedagogues, counter apologists, etc actually have to STUDY what those hypotheses entail.

How can we possibly have atheists in here, who are so well-read in theistic, guided Creation versus Evolution, attacking the Jehovahs Witness Origins of Life literature if they have never...you know... studied it?

Where was Big Brother when PZ Myers was sitting in bed under the sheets secretly studying what the Intelligent Design folk say? Shouldnt someone have prevented him from studying what he claims ought never be seen in a biology class?

Lion IRC wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Great news. Really great news. Brings tears to one's eyes.

It's a bit ironic that in order to claim that Theistic Creation, Intelligent Design, Guided Evolution, etc. ought not be studied in schools, scientistic naturalists, atheist academics, turf-war pedagogues, counter apologists, etc actually have to STUDY what those hypotheses entail.

How can we possibly have atheists in here, who are so well-read in theistic, guided Creation versus Evolution, attacking the Jehovahs Witness Origins of Life literature if they have never...you know... studied it?

Where was Big Brother when PZ Myers was sitting in bed under the sheets secretly studying what the Intelligent Design folk say? Shouldnt someone have prevented him from studying what he claims ought never be seen in a biology class?

Really Lion? You know that this bill has nothing to do with what you say. It's an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging of people under 30 from leaving the church. Those ideologies are not science and if they are to be brought up in science class, they should be shown as to why they aren't science and therefore not taught as science. That's not what this bill is about.

Atheistoclast wrote:Great news. Really great news. Brings tears to one's eyes.

Very illuminating, Clastie. It's an emotional battle for you, not an endeavour for the benefit of academic excellence.

Lion IRC wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Great news. Really great news. Brings tears to one's eyes.

It's a bit ironic that in order to claim that Theistic Creation, Intelligent Design, Guided Evolution, etc. ought not be studied in schools, scientistic naturalists, atheist academics, turf-war pedagogues, counter apologists, etc actually have to STUDY what those hypotheses entail.

How can we possibly have atheists in here, who are so well-read in theistic, guided Creation versus Evolution, attacking the Jehovahs Witness Origins of Life literature if they have never...you know... studied it?

How about the fact that I... you know... did Bible classes with Jehovah's witnesses? I predict I know a damn sight more than you do about their literature.

Lion IRC wrote:Where was Big Brother when PZ Myers was sitting in bed under the sheets secretly studying what the Intelligent Design folk say? Shouldnt someone have prevented him from studying what he claims ought never be seen in a biology class?

It's not about 'not being seen', it's about falsely conflating Creationism with science. It's not. If you wish to challenge that, the first thing you're going to need to do is finally address your ignorance of what the scientific method entails - or to put it in term you might understand, how can you possibly have the faintest idea what you're arguing for when you have never.... you know.... studied what the scientific method entails?

It doesn't actually say they plan to teach it as part of the science curriculum (unless I missed it) so what's the problem with turtles all the way down?

Don't we all agree that comparative religion should be taught in schools?

John

Lion IRC wrote:It's a bit ironic that in order to claim that Theistic Creation, Intelligent Design, Guided Evolution, etc. ought not be studied in schools, scientistic naturalists, atheist academics, turf-war pedagogues, counter apologists, etc actually have to STUDY what those hypotheses entail.

How can we possibly have atheists in here, who are so well-read in theistic, guided Creation versus Evolution, attacking the Jehovahs Witness Origins of Life literature if they have never...you know... studied it?

Where was Big Brother when PZ Myers was sitting in bed under the sheets secretly studying what the Intelligent Design folk say? Shouldnt someone have prevented him from studying what he claims ought never be seen in a biology class?

Cute, Lion, but wrong again.

It is not necessary to study individual concoctions of fallacies to refute them as they arise.

For education, we need to study what we know and how we know it, to assess the concocted don't-knows which you favour. Study of fantasy during school is undertaken in literature classes.

z8000783 wrote:It doesn't actually say they plan to teach it as part of the science curriculum (unless I missed it) so what's the problem with turtles all the way down?

Don't we all agree that comparative religion should be taught in schools?

John

It's certainly not a problem for me to teach comparative religion, but it is a problem in the US with respect to the separation of Church and State.

If they want to teach this Abrahamic version of Creationism, then they should be obliged to teach the Hindu creation narrative, for example. But you know very well that's not what they want to happen, they just want the Judaeo-Christian narrative.

Spearthrower wrote:If they want to teach this Abrahamic version of Creationism, then they should be obliged to teach the Hindu creation narrative, for example.

I thought that's what the article said they were going to do.

John

Hoosier public school students soon may be taught life was created by God, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, the human mind and/or Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.

If that quote is entirely true then I think it's a great idea. As part of social studies I think. When young minds realize that God, Allah, etc. has absolutely no more validity than Xenu, Zeus, Odin they will get a glimpse behind the curtain.

Grimstad wrote:

Hoosier public school students soon may be taught life was created by God, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, the human mind and/or Xenu, dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.

If that quote is entirely true then I think it's a great idea. As part of social studies I think. When young minds realize that God, Allah, etc. has absolutely no more validity than Xenu, Zeus, Odin they will get a glimpse behind the curtain.

The legislation merely says alternative "theories", indicating their ignorance of the meaning. Who has the resources and interest to present materials on alternative creation myths? The Hindus? Three of their gods are named, two Abrahamic and one still more froot loop. Of the two Abrahamic, which do you think would be approved in Indiana schools?

Does the legislation restrict such teaching to history, literature or mythologies?

Lion IRC wrote:How can we possibly have atheists in here, who are so well-read in theistic, guided Creation versus Evolution, attacking the Jehovahs Witness Origins of Life literature if they have never...you know... studied it?

No Lion. It has been given thorough study, and has been shown to be a wholly inaccurate representation of the physical universe, therefore it doesn't belong in a science class.

Lion IRC wrote:
It's a bit ironic that in order to claim that Theistic Creation, Intelligent Design, Guided Evolution, etc. ought not be studied in schools, scientistic naturalists, atheist academics, turf-war pedagogues, counter apologists, etc actually have to STUDY what those hypotheses entail.

Do you even know what "ironic" means Lion IRC?!
And they aren't theories (as the proponents claimed) or hypotheses either. They are belief systems.

Lion IRC wrote:
How can we possibly have atheists in here, who are so well-read in theistic, guided Creation versus Evolution, attacking the Jehovahs Witness Origins of Life literature if they have never...you know... studied it?

Your silly little attempt at a straw man argument is pathetic.
The problem, as you bloody well know, is NOT that people learn about those subjects (learn about anything and everything you can folks - just don't take anyone's word for it without good reason!) but how these non-scientific notions are being pushed as if they were not only scientific theories, but ones sufficiently established to be taught to high school students etc. Such attempts to overrule science with legislation are really nothing but the attempt to let their religious doctrines have a free-ride, ignoring the methods of scientific scrutiny, and dumped directly into high school textbooks as established fact and theory. When they are nothing of the sort!

Lion IRC wrote:
Where was Big Brother when PZ Myers was sitting in bed under the sheets secretly studying what the Intelligent Design folk say? Shouldnt someone have prevented him from studying what he claims ought never be seen in a biology class?

Are you acting deliberately stupid? Do you think this would impress anyone?!

z8000783 wrote:It doesn't actually say they plan to teach it as part of the science curriculum (unless I missed it) so what's the problem with turtles all the way down?

Don't we all agree that comparative religion should be taught in schools?

It rather strongly implies it though. As a part of the science curriculum, or at least as if they were equally viable alternatives to the science.

"In addition to learning the scientific origins of life"
If this was intended as a "comparative religion" course, do you think that the scientific origins of life belong there? Not unless the intent is to imply that those religious notions are on an equal footing with scientific theories!

"The sponsor, state Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, said not everyone believes in evolution, so students should be exposed to as many competing ideas as possible."
Evolution (note that the sponsor has already demonstrated that he doesn't even understand what the "scientific origins of life" means ) is not a matter of comparative religion either. No; this is clearly yet another attempt to imply by inclusion that the stuff of science and religion are on an equal footing or rational validity.

So the aim is either that they wish to have religious doctrine taught as if of equal merit:
1. In the science classroom; inflating the status of religious doctrine beyond what it deserves, or
2. In a comparative religion course; denigrating (if only by implication due to its inclusion) scientific theories as just another religious doctrine.


By all means teach actual comparative religion. Done right that can be a valuable thing to learn about. But that is rather obviously not the aim here.