Indiana Senator: US Supreme Court will overturn evolution ruling ^next time^ page 1
oblivion
31st January 2012, 11:35 PM
And "next time" is soon, according to this article.
http://blogs.indystar.com/education/2012/01/31/sen-kruse-u-s-supreme-court-could-overturn-evolution-ruling-next-time/
Later today the Indiana Senate is expected to vote on a Senate Bill 89, which would allow schools to permit the teaching of “creation science” — religious-based stories for the origin of life — alongside the scientific theory of evolution. It would be a school’s choice whether or not to include religious creation discussions in science class.
Even the use of the term “creation science” is provocative, as the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed it in the 1987 court decision Edwards vs. Aguillard. Since then, advocates for creation science generally have been careful not to use that term, instead pushing for schools to teach “weaknesses” in evolutionary theory and present “alternative” ideas about the origins of life.
Indiana State Sen. Dennis Kruse, the bill’s author, knows a creation science bill violates the principles of the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision. He knows it could bring a court challenge.
“This is a different Supreme Court,” he told me this afternoon. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”
Kruse is not shying away from the potential impact of the law — that religious beliefs could become the subject of discussion in science class. In fact, he touted an amendment to his bill that specifically allows the creation beliefs of many religions — among them traditional major religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well as newer religions like Scientology — to be part of the discussion.
He called evolution a “Johnny come lately” theory that only became popular over the last century in the wake of Charles Darwin’s research while religious ideas about the origins of life have been around for eons.
“I believe in creation and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools,” Kruse said.
I wonder which previous Supreme Court decision he means. There was a case (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education) that was turned down by the SC in 2000. I can't think of a later case that was both major and involved SCOTUS.
http://blogs.indystar.com/education/2012/01/31/sen-kruse-u-s-supreme-court-could-overturn-evolution-ruling-next-time/
Later today the Indiana Senate is expected to vote on a Senate Bill 89, which would allow schools to permit the teaching of “creation science” — religious-based stories for the origin of life — alongside the scientific theory of evolution. It would be a school’s choice whether or not to include religious creation discussions in science class.
Even the use of the term “creation science” is provocative, as the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed it in the 1987 court decision Edwards vs. Aguillard. Since then, advocates for creation science generally have been careful not to use that term, instead pushing for schools to teach “weaknesses” in evolutionary theory and present “alternative” ideas about the origins of life.
Indiana State Sen. Dennis Kruse, the bill’s author, knows a creation science bill violates the principles of the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision. He knows it could bring a court challenge.
“This is a different Supreme Court,” he told me this afternoon. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”
Kruse is not shying away from the potential impact of the law — that religious beliefs could become the subject of discussion in science class. In fact, he touted an amendment to his bill that specifically allows the creation beliefs of many religions — among them traditional major religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well as newer religions like Scientology — to be part of the discussion.
He called evolution a “Johnny come lately” theory that only became popular over the last century in the wake of Charles Darwin’s research while religious ideas about the origins of life have been around for eons.
“I believe in creation and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools,” Kruse said.
I wonder which previous Supreme Court decision he means. There was a case (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education) that was turned down by the SC in 2000. I can't think of a later case that was both major and involved SCOTUS.
Adenosine
31st January 2012, 11:40 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnwltqhA7R1qzj7lm.png
No, seriously;
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnwltqhA7R1qzj7lm.png
Evolution = Johnny come lately
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnwltqhA7R1qzj7lm.png
But we should do what the good Senator says because:
http://ipo.totfarm.com/pics/pic_12236985650464.jpg
No, seriously;
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnwltqhA7R1qzj7lm.png
Evolution = Johnny come lately
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnwltqhA7R1qzj7lm.png
But we should do what the good Senator says because:
http://ipo.totfarm.com/pics/pic_12236985650464.jpg
Grumps
1st February 2012, 11:06 AM
And "next time" is soon, according to this article.
http://blogs.indystar.com/education/2012/01/31/sen-kruse-u-s-supreme-court-could-overturn-evolution-ruling-next-time/
Later today the Indiana Senate is expected to vote on a Senate Bill 89, which would allow schools to permit the teaching of “creation science” — religious-based stories for the origin of life — alongside the scientific theory of evolution. It would be a school’s choice whether or not to include religious creation discussions in science class.
Even the use of the term “creation science” is provocative, as the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed it in the 1987 court decision Edwards vs. Aguillard. Since then, advocates for creation science generally have been careful not to use that term, instead pushing for schools to teach “weaknesses” in evolutionary theory and present “alternative” ideas about the origins of life.
Indiana State Sen. Dennis Kruse, the bill’s author, knows a creation science bill violates the principles of the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision. He knows it could bring a court challenge.
“This is a different Supreme Court,” he told me this afternoon. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”
Kruse is not shying away from the potential impact of the law — that religious beliefs could become the subject of discussion in science class. In fact, he touted an amendment to his bill that specifically allows the creation beliefs of many religions — among them traditional major religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well as newer religions like Scientology — to be part of the discussion.
He called evolution a “Johnny come lately” theory that only became popular over the last century in the wake of Charles Darwin’s research while religious ideas about the origins of life have been around for eons.
“I believe in creation and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools,” Kruse said.
I wonder which previous Supreme Court decision he means. There was a case (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education) that was turned down by the SC in 2000. I can't think of a later case that was both major and involved SCOTUS.
Except that he can't expect it to 'rule differently', because he's specifically advocating religious instruction in state-run schools.
http://blogs.indystar.com/education/2012/01/31/sen-kruse-u-s-supreme-court-could-overturn-evolution-ruling-next-time/
Later today the Indiana Senate is expected to vote on a Senate Bill 89, which would allow schools to permit the teaching of “creation science” — religious-based stories for the origin of life — alongside the scientific theory of evolution. It would be a school’s choice whether or not to include religious creation discussions in science class.
Even the use of the term “creation science” is provocative, as the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed it in the 1987 court decision Edwards vs. Aguillard. Since then, advocates for creation science generally have been careful not to use that term, instead pushing for schools to teach “weaknesses” in evolutionary theory and present “alternative” ideas about the origins of life.
Indiana State Sen. Dennis Kruse, the bill’s author, knows a creation science bill violates the principles of the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision. He knows it could bring a court challenge.
“This is a different Supreme Court,” he told me this afternoon. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”
Kruse is not shying away from the potential impact of the law — that religious beliefs could become the subject of discussion in science class. In fact, he touted an amendment to his bill that specifically allows the creation beliefs of many religions — among them traditional major religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well as newer religions like Scientology — to be part of the discussion.
He called evolution a “Johnny come lately” theory that only became popular over the last century in the wake of Charles Darwin’s research while religious ideas about the origins of life have been around for eons.
“I believe in creation and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools,” Kruse said.
I wonder which previous Supreme Court decision he means. There was a case (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education) that was turned down by the SC in 2000. I can't think of a later case that was both major and involved SCOTUS.
Except that he can't expect it to 'rule differently', because he's specifically advocating religious instruction in state-run schools.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét