In an update to this story about Indiana’s anti-evolution bill, good news is that one is dead and another has not surfaced as expected.
Indiana’s House Bill 1283 died on February 25, 2013.
Claiming that “some subjects, including, but not limited to, science, history, and health, have produced differing conclusions and theories on some topics,” HB 1283 would have allowed teachers “to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher” and prohibited state and local education authorities from prohibiting them from doing so.
Kruse’s promised bill (see below) has not been introduced.
Originally posted December 5, 2012
Indiana senator resorts to a different slimey way to undermine teaching of evolution.
Sen. Dennis Kruse, who tried and failed in the last legislative session to let schools teach creationism along with evolution, said Tuesday he’s trying a new approach: Requiring teachers to provide evidence if students challenge their science lessons.
Kruse, an Auburn Republican who is chairman of the Senate Education and Career Development Committee, said he will dub it “truth in education.”
“If a student thinks something isn’t true, then they can question the teacher and the teacher would have to come up with some kind of research to support that what they are teaching is true or not true.”
Kruse said he won’t try again to pass legislation that would allow schools to teach religious-based views on how life was created.
And his goal is OBVIOUSLY still the same, to attempt to undermine evolution. He is laughably transparent. This, he said, “will be a totally different approach. It won’t mention religion. It won’t mention creation. It will just basically try to establish truth in our public schools.”
Truth? Truth comes from evidence, indeed. The scientific consensus regarding evolution as a united principle for biology that explains all life on earth would fill quite a number of classrooms full of evidence. A good example of this occurred during the Kitzmiller v Dover trial when Michael Behe tried to argue his view which was at odds with the current consensus. He was given a giant stack of papers and books. And that was just a small part of the theory and a small portion of the evidence.