Talk:Indiana Senate Bill 89
...the amendment shows that the authors misunderstand both evolution - which is not the same thing as the 'origin of life' ...
But they are the same for a creationist. God created bisons, poodles, corgis and Velociraptor one day. End of origin of life story. It's the evolutionists with harebrained stories of evolution and an old Earth that have a bogus origin of life story.
The big disaster of creationism is that it's anti-rational and anti-science. "Evolutionist" means any scientist who doesn't think the universe is 6,000 years old or any layman who agrees. The few damned souls who actually study the descent of species are a tiny fraction of the "evolutionists" to creationists. Bills like this could require physics classes to teach that there are multiple "theories" of the constancy of the speed of light and radioactive decay. They could force earth science classes to teach that tectonic shift is one theory; undersea springs opening up and drowning the mountains is another. --Whoover (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Taking a look at the background of the Senator that proposed that amendment, it seems to be a case of the opponents adding the language, and the proponents not even realising the problem. I hope, anyway - it would be a terrible bill if it actually passed. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 01:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And now I am glad that here in Spain there is not even a peep about teaching pseudoscience in schools... RationalSpanish Sí, soy español, ¿y qué? 1040, 1 February 2012 (GMT+1)
The curious thing[edit]
Is that if the bill had been implemented "correctly" it would have been A Good Thing - the students would have learnt much about various cultures and belief systems etc. That this would have been the exact opposite of what the legislation intended is also A Good Thing. Anna Livia (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)