Anti-Science bill in Indiana.....

maybe so, but I have never once said anything about the literal interpretation of the bible, other than beware of sola scriptura. you can take that straw man elsewhere.I just stated that since the origin of life is unknown, that no one hypothesis is any better than the other.I know you really want to put words into my mouth so you can argue your side, but this aint my 1st rodeo.

That is false. A hypothesis that includes data gleaned from the real world actually has weight whereas one that has ideas gleaned from superstition and fairy tale has none. Superstitious beliefs are not valid as a hypothesis worthy of a science classroom discussion so it is not possible for them to be on equal ground as actual scientific studies using actual empirical data.

Bullshit. There is evidence that supports certain models and no evidence that supports other models.
Not all Some hypotheses are equal; some are better than others.Edited by jar, : fix syntax and wording

quote:

---

I just stated that since the origin of life is unknown, that no one hypothesis is any better than the other.

---

Fair enough but the recent conversation is about evidence disputing creation myths. Nobody is arguing that likely hypotheses backed up by evidence shouldn't be taught as alternative viewpoints.

quote:

---

but I have never once said anything about the literal interpretation of the bible, other than beware of sola scriptura. you can take that straw man elsewhere.

---

In what other context could we be talking about evidence for or against religious creation accounts if not literally? Please don't dismiss this with a throwaway line and bypass it - I really want to know. There is no intentional attempt at a straw man here.

quote:

---

I know you really want to put words into my mouth so you can argue your side, but this aint my 1st rodeo

---

I'm only reading and responding to the words you've written, cowboy.

Real world, like say from text in a book written by people thousands of years ago? And if the bible is not legitimate for study, then what can be said of hieroglyphics, cuneiform, any ancient language that we still (luckily) have today? Ok, but this bill is concerning the origin of life, and various religious ideas about it. The bill states nothing about Science class. I realize that science class is your huge hang up here, even though it is not mentioned.It’s usually very difficult to get off topic in your own thread but I think I just witnessed it. You got mad skillz hooah! you are more cryptic than I am, I know better than to ask you for evidence (cause you aint got none).

Yet I already gave you examples. There is evidence of natural causes and so far no one has ever presented any evidence of either unnatural or supernatural causes.

Why not mention the modern books that prove that wizards and dragons exist...jeez.
Are you really that stupid? And why would we compare the bible to old languages?
The bible is not a language!
What the hell is wrong with you?!

double postEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

The problem is that we do know a few things. First off, we know that life started out with very simply. Therefore, we can throw out hypotheses that propose complex multicellular life spontaneously forming through abiotic means. Given DNA's lack of any enzymatic properties we can throw more weight onto RNA and protein based hypotheses. This also seems to be backed by comparisons of existing life where DNA appears to be a product of evolution and not abiogenesis.Even though the field of abiogenesis is not well developed there is still enough evidence to allow us to throw out many hypotheses and lean towards others. The problem for you is that you want to conflate scientific hypotheses with religious beliefs. They are not the same thing. Just because we may not have a solid scientific theory on the origin of life it does not open the door to religious beliefs in the science classroom. If your only hope of an argument is to play semantic games with scientific terms then you have lost before you even started.

Here is the wording from the bill:"The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."When it says "theories of the origin of life" what do you think it is referring to? It is all too obvious that it is referring to SCIENCE. The bill orders that if scientific theories of the origin of life that the teacher must also teach religious beliefs about the origin of life. Now which class do you think teachers mention the scientific theories regarding the origin of life? Could it be science class?

Actually, it isn't, because Jar had to correct your obvious misinterpretations, so obviously my interpretation of your post as an obvious misinterpretation was correct. If you'd like to be part of the solution, then post a response to Jar that reflects an understanding of his rather clearly stated meaning--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

What has any of that to do with any of my post? Do try to keep up. So then, this bill is implementing a religious studies course? The text of the bill does not seem to indicate that. This bill is mandating religious ideas be taught along evidence based scientific theories/hypotheses. Religion has no place in public school except for a potential religious studies course. When teaching about the actual origins of life, we can learn nothing from religious dogma, fairy tales or superstitions other than the fact that, yes, at one time people believed some weird shit.....some still do. If we are going to teach children where we came from, it is best to stick to testable, empirical evidence and leave religious woo to the church.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Creationism in Indiana schools? Not this sessionFile not found

INDIANAPOLIS — The leader of the Indiana House is shelving a bill that would have specifically allowed public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes.

​

Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma is using a procedural move to kill the proposal for this legislative session. ...

​

[snip]

I particularly enjoyed the following I suppose that's the nub of the question I asked in the thread about the Missouri Bill. Why do people keep bringing forward bills like this when they know what they're trying to do is unconstitutional?

Shhhh......else they will try changing the constitution instead.