facts and truth!

[HomeyG]

I was taking the reporting at face value and I should have known better. I won't say it was deceptive reporting, maybe just a little misleading. The amendment to Senate bill 89 allows the teaching of creation science as an optional course not as a required course. So for those parents, grandparents who worry about teaching creationism should put those worries to rest since it would be up to the student and/or parent to decide if they want their child to take the course.

[blue adept]

I was taking the reporting at face value and I should have known better. I won't say it was deceptive reporting, maybe just a little misleading. The amendment to Senate bill 89 allows the teaching of creation science as an optional course not as a required course. So for those parents, grandparents who worry about teaching creationism should put those worries to rest since it would be up to the student and/or parent to decide if they want their child to take the course.

I haven't seen any amendment Homey, the bill I saw said that "a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life " As the language in most bills is legalese, if you talk to your lawyer, may require, means they have the ability to make it so.


In fact, this is the bill as was reported, if they changed it, it's because they realized their mistake.


Citations Affected: IC 20-30-6-18.

Synopsis: Teaching of creation science. Provides that the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

Effective: July 1, 2012.

[HomeyG]

I haven't seen any amendment Homey, the bill I saw said that "a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life " As the language in most bills is legalese, if you talk to your lawyer, may require, means they have the ability to make it so.


In fact, this is the bill as was reported, if they changed it, it's because they realized their mistake.



Citations Affected: IC 20-30-6-18.

Synopsis: Teaching of creation science. Provides that the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

Effective: July 1, 2012.

Sorry I didn't phrase it correctly but Senate Bill 89 is the amendment to IC 20-30-6, which covers optional curriculum, and would become IC20-30-6-18.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar30/ch6.html

[blue adept]

Sorry I didn't phrase it correctly but Senate Bill 89 is the amendment to IC 20-30-6, which covers optional curriculum, and would become IC20-30-6-18.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar30/ch6.html

I still haven't seen the "new" wording as your example only goes to 17, How in the world is that misleading? Show me where it will not be mandatory

[HomeyG]

I still haven't seen the "new" wording as your example only goes to 17, How in the world is that misleading? Show me where it will not be mandatory

These are not examples its the Indiana Code. This is how Indiana Code 20-30-6-18 is broken down.

Code 20 is titled "EDUCATION"

Article 30 is titled "CURRICULUM"

Chapter 6 is titled "OPTIONAL CURRICULUM"

Senate Bill 89 will become Subparagraph 18 when signed.

[blue adept]

These are not examples its the Indiana Code. This is how Indiana Code 20-30-6-18 is broken down.

Code 20 is titled "EDUCATION"

Article 30 is titled "CURRICULUM"

Chapter 6 is titled "OPTIONAL CURRICULUM"

Senate Bill 89 will become Subparagraph 18 when signed.

Just went to his website Homey, Bill 89 as written has not changed, and clearly states "may require" which essentially means our school board can make the teachers teach creationism. I do not understand where you are getting your misleading info from, I got this off Dennis Kruses own site.

[HomeyG]

Just went to his website Homey, Bill 89 as written has not changed, and clearly states "may require" which essentially means our school board can make the teachers teach creationism. I do not understand where you are getting your misleading info from, I got this off Dennis Kruses own site.

Whew!!!!

I did not say Bill 89 was amended, Bill 89 is the amendment to IC 20-30-6. Since Chap 6 is Optional Curriculum it stands to reason that any subparagraph refers to elective courses. If it was mandatory it would have went under Chap 5. Just for clarification I emailed the following to Dennis Kruse and will publish his response.

"If a school system decides to teach creation science will it be an elective course or will it be a mandatory course? May a student take a course about evolution and not creation science or vice-versa?"

[blue adept]

Whew!!!!

I did not say Bill 89 was amended, Bill 89 is the amendment to IC 20-30-6. Since Chap 6 is Optional Curriculum it stands to reason that any subparagraph refers to elective courses. If it was mandatory it would have went under Chap 5. Just for clarification I emailed the following to Dennis Kruse and will publish his response.

"If a school system decides to teach creation science will it be an elective course or will it be a mandatory course? May a student take a course about evolution and not creation science or vice-versa?"

If that was the case Homey, why would they put the words "May require" into it? I understand where you are going with this, I just disagree that putting this under the term optional curriculum will not make it mandatory. Also, getting your foot in the door, leads to full invasion, just as my seat belt argument. I was promised by state senator meeks that I would never be pulled over for just a seat belt violation, and then he amended it to include that particular thing.




I find it particularly interesting that you think this will be voluntary, when Mr. Kruse himself said that getting rid of evolution was his goal?






Senate Bill 89, prefiled in the Indiana Senate and referred to the Committee on Education and Career Development, would, if enacted, amend the Indiana Code to provide that “[t]he governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” The sponsor of the bill is Dennis Kruse (R-District 14), who chairs the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development. In 1999, while serving in the Indiana House of Representatives, Kruse pledged to introduce a law to remove evolution from the state’s science standards, according to the South Bend Tribune (August 27, 1999). Instead, however, he introduced bills with the same wording as Senate Bill 89, House Bill 1356 in 2000 and House Bill 1323 in 2001. Both died in committee.

[HoosierHelen]

There really is a bright side to all the heavy discussion over SB 89 on the Fence Post. This happened in Israel when their lawmakers were discussing their rules on education.

We have not experienced this one:

http://www.aol.com/video/cooling-off..._lnk1%7C126281

[Common-Tater]

I think it's important to remember, that most main stream Christian denominations have rejected Creation Science. Creation Science is actually a very left leaning idea. Most main stream denominations feel that because religion is Faith based, trying to prove something by scientific means is irrelevant.

[Graygleam]

Creation Science is actually a very left leaning idea.

What do you base that statment on?

[blue adept]

I think it's important to remember, that most main stream Christian denominations have rejected Creation Science. Creation Science is actually a very left leaning idea. Most main stream denominations feel that because religion is Faith based, trying to prove something by scientific means is irrelevant.

Left leaning???? Are you kidding me???????

[blue adept]

Whew!!!!

I did not say Bill 89 was amended, Bill 89 is the amendment to IC 20-30-6. Since Chap 6 is Optional Curriculum it stands to reason that any subparagraph refers to elective courses. If it was mandatory it would have went under Chap 5. Just for clarification I emailed the following to Dennis Kruse and will publish his response.

"If a school system decides to teach creation science will it be an elective course or will it be a mandatory course? May a student take a course about evolution and not creation science or vice-versa?"

Still waiting for that reply from Kruse homey?

[Common-Tater]

The state doesn't get the chance to teach this, just because mr. Kruse has made this his personnel agenda, doesn't make it constitutional, or right. The state should not be presenting any Christian, Muslim,Jewish, or any other doctrine, period.

Christian Science is not doctrine.

[blue adept]

Christian Science is not doctrine.

It ain't science either! But actually, it is doctrine!






Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.[1]

Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organizations, doctrine is simply defined as "that which is taught", in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel internal ways of doing business.

[LuciusBeebe]

I think it's important to remember, that most main stream Christian denominations have rejected Creation Science.

That's not true.

Creation Science is actually a very left leaning idea.

That's not true.

Where did you get such ideas, Tater?

[bigkneedgal]

I think the issue is acedemic. If Kruse's bill somehow survives and is passed, even with amendments, it will be struck down as it will be judged unconstitutional. Google "Lemon Test" and you will understand why. (Lemon vs Kurtzman)
Lemon is a 1971 SCOTUS discision and it used in part to determine if this type of legislation is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 prong test and failure of any one of the prongs means the bill is unconstitutional. This bill violates all 3 prongs. It is a no-brainer and I'm sure Kruse must be aware of that. The fact that he is on the education committee and would introduce such a bill is quite disturbing.

[LuciusBeebe]

The fact that he is on the education committee and would introduce such a bill is quite disturbing.

People introduce legislation they know will fail to score political points. Its annoying that they do it, disturbing that it works.

[HoosierHelen]

I think the issue is acedemic. If Kruse's bill somehow survives and is passed, even with amendments, it will be struck down as it will be judged unconstitutional. Google "Lemon Test" and you will understand why. (Lemon vs Kurtzman)
Lemon is a 1971 SCOTUS discision and it used in part to determine if this type of legislation is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is a 3 prong test and failure of any one of the prongs means the bill is unconstitutional. This bill violates all 3 prongs. It is a no-brainer and I'm sure Kruse must be aware of that. The fact that he is on the education committee and would introduce such a bill is quite disturbing.

Of course Kruse is aware of the violation of the SCOTUS decision.

People introduce legislation they know will fail to score political points. Its annoying that they do it, disturbing that it works.

LB, You have nailed it again...he is simply scoring political points. It is disgusting that it continues to work on his voting base.

[Common-Tater]

It ain't science either! But actually, it is doctrine!

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.[1]

Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organizations, doctrine is simply defined as "that which is taught", in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel internal ways of doing business.

Christian Science does not fit this definition. Christian Science is not taught by the Christian Church. It is an attempt to support Creationism through science. But it is not taught as Truth or scriptual by the Christian Church.