Indiana’s “Teach Creationism” Bill Amended to Eliminate Part About Creationism February 23, 2019

Indiana’s “Teach Creationism” Bill Amended to Eliminate Part About Creationism

Last month, we posted about how Indiana State Sen. Dennis Kruse had put forth a bill that would have allowed Creationism in public school science classrooms.

Senate Bill 373 actually had three separate parts.

The first told schools to put up a “durable poster or framed picture” that said “In God We Trust.” That picture had to be “at least four inches in height by fifteen inches in width and include print large enough to fill the dimensions established by this subdivision.”

The second said that any district that offered elective classes that surveyed the world’s religions needed to include “the study of the Bible.”

The final part promoted the Christian Creation myth.

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.

It was so blatantly illegal, other Christians at least use coded language like “Intelligent Design” when they do the same thing. Kruse figured he could just be blunt about it.

Thankfully, it didn’t work.

Before the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development voted on the bill, it was amended to remove all three of those issues. The only thing the bill does now is allow public schools to give students academic credit for religious instruction if it meets certain criteria. That’s a separate (albeit disturbing) issue that deserves its own debate, but it’s not the kind of dramatic shift in science courses that Kruse wanted.

As the National Center for Science Education put it, his bill was “defanged.” And when the committee finally voted on the revised bill, it was an 8-2 vote in favor of it… with Kruse voting to support the new version. That’s hardly surprising. He’ll still get to tell Christian donors and audiences that he tried.

(Screenshot via YouTube)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!