When a crackpot "science theory" can get nowhere scientifically...

[Archae]

They go the political route.


It looks like opponents of creationism are going to have their hands full in 2012. The new year is just a few days old, and already we've seen several anti-evolution bills popping up in the states.
In Indiana, state Sen. Dennis Kruse has introduced S.B. 89, a bill that would allow public schools in the state to "require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation."

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/1/4/11041/82898/Front_Page/Crazy_For_Creationism_Legislators_In_Ind_And_N_H_Seek_To_Undermine_Instruction_About_Evolution

[provis99]

1. requiring schools to teach stupidity.

how will this help us compete against countries where the students, you know, learn things?

[JoePhilly]

2. Best way to kill Creation "science" is to try and teach it in schools.

My kids would be able to destroy that non-sense in no time.

But even if my kids were not there ... it would die for 3 reasons ....

1) This right wing idiots HATE public school teachers, but they want those same teachers to teach their kids RELIGION. That has to be one of the stupidest ideas ever.

2) Most of these nuts maintain a very narrow view of Christianity, and the teachers, and many of the other kids, who will come from others faith's, or more moderate versions of Christianity do not. Which means the children of these insane creationists will be exposed to even more views that will not align with the propaganda their parents have been pushing.

3) The creationist approach to attacking evolution is to try to point at GAPS in what evolution describes, and then jam God into those. By putting this nonsense in schools, the GAPS of creation "science" will be exposed .. and they aren't gaps, they are huge canyons.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

5. You are correct,

I'm sure your kids, and many, (most) would destroy that nonsense. But it becomes problematic when their personal science grades depend upon giving the desired answers to pass tests. Unfortunately 'learning' takes back seat to being a cooperative piece of the machine.

[JoePhilly]

18. True ... but ...

If the tests asks "Creation science provides three examples of X .... describe 2 of those" ... that's fine, they should be able to describe them.

And ... if the test says .... "Evolution says X ... Creationism says Y ... defend one of these positions" ... they should be able to do that too.

The only time it will be an issue is if the teacher is an ardent creationist ... and that will become apparent very earlier on.

As an example ... the right wing has been so angry about sex education in schools, that our local schools actually hold a meeting to describe what they plan to teach on this topic. Parents came come and ask questions. I like it because it helps me make sure that my kids can come to me with their questions. Right wingers want to know how they can OPT OUT of those lessons. Let them.

In this case, there would be meeting about what elements of creation science will be taught ... I'd be thrilled if that happened too.

Real science teachers are not going to teach creationism as a fact. Never. And so, if one pops up who IS willing to do that, they won't last long.

IMHO.

[hootinholler]

3. I have to wonder if there is an ALEC template for these? n/t

[Bragi]

4. Good question!

Wherever there is right-wing driven discord, it's always useful to ask if the Koch brothers have been around lately.

[Tanelorn]

21. Sorry I tried, I really tried

I stayed there three minutes before my stomach began to turn.

[justiceischeap]

6. I'm not much of a scientist (not one at all) so I have a question

How can you teach creation "science" if you can't prove something. Isn't science all about proving things? Or having working theories that could be proven?

[justiceischeap]

9. Can creationism do the same thing? nt

[justiceischeap]

14. So, you can't call creationism "science," correct?

I'm not playing dumb here, I really am dumb when it comes to science.

[LanternWaste]

16. As I understand it, science requires its subject to be measurable and/or testable.

As I understand it, science requires its subject to be measurable and/or testable. Creationism doesn't allow for either, therefore it is not part and parcel of a science curriculum. Philosophy class, maybe? Comparative religion class, most certainly. But not a science class.

[justiceischeap]

17. Thanks!

I see people posting all the time that creationism shouldn't be taught in science class. Just wanted to understand why some Repubs actually refer to it as science, when in my mind it's a theory based on a book we can't prove was true.

[backscatter712]

10. Great - requiring the teaching of fairy tales in science class... n/t

[Norrin Radd]

12. Let them teach it if they balance it with a critical thinking philosophy course.

[raouldukelives]

13. I think they can both be taught

Creationism shouldn't take that long. Maybe five minutes?
"Some people believe we were created by an unknown omnipotent being. Some say God, some say spacemen, some say a spaghetti monster. In any case, there are many correct answers to Creationism and it will be included on the next test. Now, onto evolution."
Problem solved and everyone is happy.

[justiceischeap]

15. Not everyone would be happy with that solution.

Remember these are the same folks that were upset that Islam wasn\'t completely slammed in history books.

[ieoeja]

19. In compliance with SB 89:

"Creation science is a theory that says there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life via intelligent creation. To date, there is no such scientific explanation. There have been many religious and cultural explanations. And even a number of science fiction books have been written on the subject such as David Brin's Uplift Saga. But no scientific explanations."

[GaltFreeDiet]

20. The best way to fight stupidity? Satire!

[Tanelorn]

22. Works for me. I'm now a believer