Indiana Senate passes bill placing creationism in science classrooms

February 1st, 2012

Yesterday, the Indiana State Senate passed a bill that allows the teaching of various religions’ origin stories in public school science classes, alongside the scientific theory of evolution.

Senator Dennis Kruse, the bill’s sponsor, has made it clear that his goal with the bill is to encourage the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. Kruse has expressed contempt for evolution, calling it a “Johnny-come-lately” theory.

While the original text of Kruse’s bill specifically mentioned “creation science” (a term banned by the Supreme Court in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard case), the bill was later re-written to encompass a variety of religions—including Scientology. Kruse has stated that he is aware that his bill violates the precedent set in the Edwards case and will likely be challenged if it becomes a law. He pointed out that “this is a different Supreme Court” than the one we had in 1987, and he believes that they “could rule differently.”

This guy is a moron on a few levels:

First, it’s important to point out that like so many evolution-bashers, Kruse seems to be completely unaware of what evolution actually describes. Presumably, Kruse believes that evolution is about the origin of life, since he repeatedly brings it up in the context of his bill (which is about teaching the origin of life). Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Kruse should be talking about abiogenesis—not evolution—if he wants to compare apples to apples and not sound like an uninformed clown.

Kruse also makes the classic pro-creationist mistake of claiming that evolution and creationism are both “theories”, and thus deserve to be presented as valid alternatives to each other. Creationism is a religious theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. There is a world of difference between the two. Know what else falls into the category of scientific “theory”? Gravity.

But willfully pushing his own personal religious agenda at the expense of taxpayers—when his viewpoint has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court—really takes the cake.

Comments are closed.