Indiana creationism teaching bill clears Senate committee

Share with your friends


Indiana Sen. Dennis Kruse wants creationism taught in school

Indiana’s Senate Education Committee has given the OK to a bill that would allow creationism to be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public school science classes.

Despite Purdue University professor of chemistry John Staver’s testimony in front of the panel, saying that creationism is “unquestionably a statement of a specific religion,” the bill was approved by a vote of 8-2, reports the Times of Munster.

The bill allows for the teaching of “creation science” and that the “origin of life” originating via a deity is an acceptable theory.

Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a news release that the bill goes against U.S. Supreme Court precedents that state that the teaching of creationism in public schools is unconstitutional, and that the bill “wastes time and resources” because the legislators voting for it know it will face legal challenges.


“[It] confuses an already complicated issue,” Falk added.

Committee Chairman Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn) said that the bill will not mandate the teaching of creationism, and that it will be up to individual schools on whether or not to add the theory to its curriculum.

“I believe in creationism and it’s worthy of being taught equally with evolution theory,” Kruse told the Indianapolis Star. “Just because there are constitutional concerns doesn’t mean you don’t try to get something done you believe in.”

As the bill was debated, the Associated Press reports Sen. Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis) said, “What are we afraid of? Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?”

Schneider also said that there are “legitimate questions about the theory of evolution” and that “many scientists agree with the concept of ‘intelligent design.'”

Share with your friends

  • David Orr

    No, Schneider. No scientists with relevant expertise think that creationism is a scientific notion.

    Anyone who wants to help kill this bill can get some free posters I designed. Details here. 

  • Andrew W

    Indiana: land of corn and morons. 

  • Joe Wallen

    If these people believe that creationism is science, then I weep for Indiana. We are in the hands of idiots.

    Perhaps they are just stirring up the conservatives for the next election.

    Either way, it is disgusting.

    Creation is not science. It is not a theory. It is a wild guess based on feelings and emotion. Teaching it as science is immoral.

  • Geologyjim13

    As creationism is not a science, it shouldn’t be taught as such.  Kids can be exposed to their faith in Sunday school or in a religious studies class if the Parents wants to ensure indoctrination into their specific religion.  All this legislation will do is make our jobs more difficult as scientists and educators of future scientists.  This legislation promotes bad Science AND bad Religion, specifically a poor understanding of both.  Our kids deserve better than having mediocrity pushed on them by politicians who bow to the whims of the people who either won’t understand what science and religion are or can’t understand the differences between them. I want to know who the politicians were that let that get out of committee. 

  • Anonymous

    I fully support this bill. It give school freedom and flexibility to teach an alterante theory.
    In the science classroom the scientific method should prevail; but the observable evidence can be interpreted equally indeed better using the intelligent design model.

    Evolution has been taught as a dogma long evough. “Evolution” is a vague word.

     Micro evolution is minor changes within a
    species, this is real and observable and uncontested. The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro
    evolution which asserts that:
     1)  All living things had a common ancestor. This
    implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
    2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided
    processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of  an intelligent designer.

    The scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woefull. Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution
    hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which
    debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticists
    and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
     “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of
    Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information
    with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

    Challenging Darwinian/Macro evolution can only lead to improvement – this is how science progresses.

    Challenging Darwinian/Macro evolution can only lead to improvement – this is how science progresses.

    • The micro vs macro argument has been debunked.  If you wanna go the ID route, perhaps you should review Dover V. Kitzmiller, which ultimately cost that school district millions of dollars.

      However, if you are seeking to bankrupt public education, that would be the route to go.

      Also, if you want to teach alternative theories, perhaps it is time for you to get to know his Noodly glory, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      • Anonymous

        What exactly was “debunked” in regards to micro and macro evolution?
        It was evolutionists who coined those terms.

        Your arguements are complete distractions to avoid scutiny of Darwinian/Macro evolution. If the evidence was as strong as you are implying that it is; then why are there 20 pages of scientists who are publicly expressing dissent from Darwinism on

        Check out some debates where evolution is challenged and see it cruble.
        See for debates or just google them

        • A list of people including computer scientists and different types of engineers. I’m not sure what qualifications they have on this matter. Similar to your earlier post(that has been called into question mind you) that listed someone from the Atomic Energy Agency. I see we are desperately grasping onto anyone who fits the broad definition of scientist that will speak out against evolution.

          Mind you that Project Steve gathered more biologists with the name Steve that supported evolution than any creationist list had biologist supporting some variation of cretinism.

    • RickK

      John Sanford is a nutjob who thinks the Earth is less than 100,000 years old.  He’s lying to himself and to others, and promoting nonsense because he is too shallow and dogmatic to realize the Bible is poetry, not journalism.  Only deluded, deeply ignorant people will give more weight to the words of a crackpot like Sanford while ignoring the billions of points of evidence presented and accepted by 99.99% of natural scientists.

      It is very simple.  If you reject biological evolution, if you think the Earth is a few thousand years old, or if you think magical beings regularly intervene in the natural order, then you are either a liar or too ignorant to recognize truth.

      • Anonymous

        How do yo KNOW that the earth is not less than 100,000 years old.

        If you think John Sanford is “nutjob” what does that make you?

        You speak very dogmantically but what evidence do you forward to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Darwinian/Macro evolution is a “fact”

        The scientifice method demands evidence, scrutiny, observation, repeatablity -what can you offer?

        • Anonymous

          Do you reckon the Earth is more than 100 years old? How do you KNOW? You don’t. You have some indirect evidence (unless you’re impressively old.)

          We have lots and lot and lots and lots and lots of similarly indirect evidence that the Earth is a few billion years old.

          • Anonymous

            I have not explored the evidence supporting the assertion that the earth is “billions” of years old so I will refrain from making dogmatic statements. But I do find your dogmatic statement about “lots and lots…” to be quite silly.

            What evidence are you referring to? What evidence do you have that the earth is “billions” of years old?
            There are some indicators (eg increasing distance beween the moon and eath) which indicate a young earth.

            Could it be that the observable evidence is being tortured to confess to the  billions of years NEEDED by Darwinian/Macro evolution?  I think this is possible if not probable.

          • Anonymous

            For someone who freely admits to not having considered the evidence you sure have a lot to say on the subject! On what basis do you suspect a conspiracy if you don’t want to know what the conspirators are actually saying?!?

            Have a look at a decent geology textbook. It’s an interesting subject. You might enjoy it! Even if it is written by agents of the devil sent to deceive you!

            But, yes, there could indeed be a global conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth was created last Tuesday. But it’s much more likely that there’s a global consipiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat. Only a few dozen astronauts have seen the conclusive contrary evidence first hand, whereas the evidence for the antiquity of the Earth is available for anyone to examine. Much harder to hide. There’s a whole pile of it in the chalk cliffs a short walk from my house.

            If you want to increase your probability of being right I’d go with the flat earthers.

            Or alternatively, open your eyes and enjoy the world for what it actually is. It’s much more strange and interesting than any creation myths, beautiful and poetic as those myths might be.

          • Anonymous

            Saracasm is used when evidence is lacking. 
            You have loads of sarcasm but precious little evidence and substance.

          • Anonymous

            Where’s the sarcasm? You stated clearly and explicitly that you hadn’t looked at any of the evidence that you are denying. I simply pointed out this obvious inconsistency.

            And I am absolutely serious that you’re more likely to be right that the Earth is flat than that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. On geological timescales this is, to a very high degree of accuracy, identical to claiming that it was created last Tuesday.

            So no sarcasm at all.

            For evidence, I’ll tell you again: read a geology textbook!

            I even threw in a compliment to your creation myths at the end.

            Some people are never satisfied…

          • No, it isn’t because the age of the earth, universe, and can be determined multiple ways. All of which give similar estimates of the earth’s age and none of which come anywhere close a few thousand. Creationism is not a scientific theory and has no grounding whatsoever in science.

    • Tom Townsend

      Evolution has been proven again and again. The question of whether an intelligent designer may have imposed some influence on it is really beside the point. You could just as easily apply the same idea to any science, and in all cases that question is outside the zone of scientific study. Therefore it does not belong in science – it is a philosophic or religious question. I honestly feel that to suggest this concept to kids and have them think about it is not a terrible idea, but it should be presented in a philosophy course. It’s not that the question is irrelevant, it is just not part of science.

      • Anonymous

        Can you please advise how Darwinian/macro evolution has been “proven again and again”?

        I have been searching for over 5 years for this proof and I have been unable to find it. It must be well hidden.

    • Mitchell Isaac

      creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore it cannot “challenge” scientific theories.

  • Neil Winebrenner

    Everyone should be truly embarassed if they live in Indiana. 
       Teaching creationism  is not prohibited in public schools, you may teach it in any comparative religion class you want. 
       What is this so called theory of creationisn? Creationists have one fact for their theory,  God did it, and that fact cannot be replicated or tested.  On the other hand, evolution has millions of facts that not only are biological but include other sciences such as geology, climatology, and plate tectonics.  A belief is not a scientific theory.
       Thank you Dennis Kruse for trying to force your religious beliefs on my children and wasting my tax dollars to fight this in probably a number of courts.  I don’t know if you call yourself a conservative, but one thing is for sure, you aren’t conserving Indiana tax dollars.
       I also have a theory I would like taught in our schools.  My theory is senatorialism.  I only have one fact and that fact is that senators were all brain damaged at birth. To the superintendent we shall march to have this theory introduced into the curreculum.
       Can’t we come to an agreement?  You don’t try to teach religion in our science classes and we won’t try to teach science in your church. fair enough?

    • Anonymous

      The problem is that religion is being taught in our science classes. The religion of evolution, or more precisely Darwinian/macro evolution.

      “Evolution” is a vague word.

       Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested. The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro
      evolution which asserts that:
       1)  All living things had a common ancestor. This
      implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
      2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided
      processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of  an intelligent designer.

      The vague and changing definition is poor science and  a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.

      Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution
      hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which
      debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.

      Dr John Sanford (Geneticists
      and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
       “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of
      Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

  • Zaphed

    How unfortunate and embarrassing for Indiana.

    I hope that others across the country know this kind
    of nonsense does not speak for all of us. 
    I’m truly ashamed.

  • michael johnson

    What is wrong with idiots like this guy. In the first place, there is nothing about mainstream scientific thought about dreation not jibing with the religious idea of a creator.  Teilhard de Chardin is the greatest theologian of the 20th Century and also one of the most accomplished biologists.  When fundagelicals deny the vaility of evolution theory, are they really saying God wasn’t smart enough to bring about Creation that way? Do the biblical literalists deny the proven science of carbon dating. This is bizarre, and certainly nothing to be teaching HS kids.

    • Anonymous

      Carbon dating is highly unreliable.  To call it “proven science” is totally incorrect.

      Rock collected from Mt St Helens were dated at many thousands of years old even though they were under 15 years old.  The error factor was huge.

      Darwinian/Macro evolution is very poorly supported by the scientific evidence; that is why evolutionist resort to exagerations and out right frauds to prop up a weak and dying theory. (Look up Erst Haeckel for example).

      See also ….Op COGEvolution DocsSCIENTISTS SKEPTICAL OF DARWINISM.pdf for the names of scientists who publicly dissent from Darwinism. The document is 20 pages long and growing.

      Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution
      hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which
      debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.

      Dr John Sanford (Geneticists
      and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
       “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of
      Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information
      with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

      • Anonymous

        If you are suggesting that a scientist used carbon dating to date rocks you should learn how carbon dating works. Then you should learn about the scientific process.  You should also learn about logical fallacies and critical thinking.  It is not your fault that you do not understand these things. We have evolved to believe what we are told by our elders without rational thinking in order to survive. These beliefs are very hard to break even when the evidence is over whelming against it. When you have spent your whole life believing one thing then you will use cognitive dissidence to find every supportive argument. This is why it is important to not teach children superstitious ideas as science. The superstition that someone can truly die and then come back to life has existed long before the Jesus one.  If this one is taught then the hundreds of other resurrections should be taught as well.

        • Anonymous

          I gave you specific examples and evidence; all you give me is vague platitudes.

          The evidence that Jesus Christ existed and that he was exactly who he claimed to be is much stronger than that for Darwinian/Macro evolution.

          What evidence can you put forward that your great ……. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule (ie Darwinian/Macro evolution)?

          Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission said:”Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
          In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”

          • Anonymous

            As Awakendragon pointed out, radio-carbon dating is only used on material that was once living (the clue is in the name). Not rocks. 

            The result you refer to on Mt St Helens are well documented as being deliberately fixed by creationist “researchers” with the agenda of debunking radio-isotope dating as a technique.

            The quotes and links you provide are all to creationist sources.

            You couldn’t stop youself from mentioning Jesus in your reply to Awakendragon. So I guess it’s time for the Bible quotes to starts now…

          • Anonymous

            1. No you did not give evidence you gave antidotes.  Those are cherry picked.  The Erst Haeckel example is like the Hitler card fallacy.  (Hitler was a Christian therefore all Christians are like Hitler.)  Erst Haeckel confessed to committing fraud. Fraudsters are found out because other SCIENTISTS cannot repeat their claim.
            2.There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Everything that we know about Jesus was written down long after he died if he did exist.  And those contradict each other. There are no records of him from the time he was believed to exist. No one who truly died ever lives again. It did not happen.  Just like all the resurrection myths before him. They did not happen. PERIOD. Zero evidence.
            3.  If any evidence falsifies the evolution theory then the theory has to be rewritten. The evidence from fossils, dna, and other sciences all come to the same basic theory and improves it over time.
            4. Genetic engineering, genetic medicines, genetic diagnosis, twin studies, dna forensics, are evidence of self-replicating molecule. 
            5. I do not believe that Theodore Newton Tahmisian ever made that statement. I believe it was a lie that Nicolas Mitchell created. If  true then Tahmisian wasted a lot of time experimenting in what he thought was a hoax.
            6. No God made the earth or man. If your God made people than he is one sick mother effer. Making co-joined twins must be his sick sense of humor. I don’t like your God.  Don’t terrorize our children with your discussing creature.
            7. No amount of evidence will  change your mind.  Just stick your fingers in your ears and go “nanananananana” and I will do the same to you.

  • Anonymous


    The following suggested Origins of Life policy is a realistic, practical
    and legal way for local and state school boards to achieve a win-win with
    regard to evolution teaching. Even the ACLU, the NCSE, and Americans
    United for the Separation of Church and State should find the policy

    “As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
    evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved
    theory of origins that can be taught in the [school district/state]
    science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and
    teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that
    supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order
    to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion
    would include only the scientific evidence/information for and against
    evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and
    the diversity of life on our planet.”

    Never discussing scientific information that questions evolution is to
    teach evolution as dogma.

    • Anonymous

      There is much merrit to what you are suggesting. I think the idea should be explored. 
      I along with many others object strongly to:
      1) The vauge and changing definition of “evolution”
      2) Teaching Evolution dogmatically and suppressing the scientific method of critical review.
      3) Exagetating the observable evidence to support the outdated and dying evolutionary theory

      • Anonymous

        Thanks, theot58.

        It’s quite common to read articles penned by evolutionists who state that
        a majority of scientists support evolution. In logic, an argumentum ad
        populum is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true
        because many or most people believe it.

        The majority of scientists used to believe the Ptolemaic model of the
        solar system was true. In 2010, Dr. Danny Faulkner, professor of
        astronomy and physics at the University of South Carolina (Lancaster)
        commented: “The Ptolemaic model stood for 15 centuries, but ultimately was
        rejected in the 17th century because of the huge complexity it had. The
        real problem with that model was you couldn’t falsify it. No matter what
        new data, new observations came along, you could always patch it up with a
        fix of new epicycles or other effects.”

        “Over the past three decades the Big Bang model has been changed
        tremendously. They changed the expansion rate, hence the age of the
        universe. They’ve thrown in dark matter, dark energy…inflation,
        …string theory… and it’s starting to look more and more like the
        Ptolemaic model…. So at what point does the Big Bang model become as
        unwieldy as the Ptolemaic model, that caused people to reject it?”

        The way evolution is typically taught in schools, colleges and
        universities assumes a progressive increase of genetic information as
        molecule becomes man. To foster critical thinking, students could list
        actual evidences reported in the scientific literature that support either
        progressive acquisition or progressive loss of genetic information.

  • Parallax

    Creationists can barely multiply much less do science.  Every claim by creationists has been completely refuted.  If you want a bunch of ignorant kids that fail at basic physics, teach creationism.  I see a lot of that stupid right here in the comments. Carbon dating ONLY works on organic material. Not rocks, not fossils. There are other dating methods for that and they ALL converge with a time scale in the billions that matches every observation that we make from the smallest grain of sand to the grandeur of distance galaxies. Macro evolution HAS been proven. We’ve witnessed speciation numerous times. We have proven common ancestry with chimps through genetics. 

    We’re half a chromosome from a chimp and it shows when the majority of us worship a mythical God that likes to throw poo around. (Malachi 2:2-3) 

    This is the book you want to teach science from?!?!? A book that says the perfect creator of the universe barters in foreskins (Genesis 17:10-11)

    Completely, 100% looney and absurd. 

    It’s not about teaching other views. It’s about teaching a science that works and a bunch of christian apologists lying and performing bad math.  

  • I am all in favor of teaching occult superstition in the public school system, that ensures another generation of uneducated, ignorant, drooling cult savages which will be utterly incapable of competing against my own sons in the global job market, sons who acquired legitimate educations. Every cult’s mythologies and occult delusions should be forced down the throats of children, that way nations that actually teach truth and science will be able to destroy the United States economically that much more faster. http://www.SkepticTank.Org approves.

    • Anonymous

      Your sarcasm is unimpressive. Darwinian/Macro evolution is a bigger “superstition” than Intelligent Desing.  We observed design hence it is totally reasonable to conclude there was a designer. I have not met the builder that built your hose but I know there was one, to assert your house built itself is totally silly and totally unscientific. Invoking the magic genie of “billions of years” does nothing to solve this problem. The scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woefull; yet you do not seem to object – why is this?

      Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of
      Waterloo said:”I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution,
      especially to the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great
      jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy
      and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it

      Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution
      hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which
      debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.

  • Another Nero fiddling while Rome burns…

  • Anonymous

    This is an unfortunate turn of events. To classify something religiously-based as science undermines the fundamental principles of both: science as a study in the observable and religion as a matter of faith. The beauty of religion (in my eyes) is that it addresses that which is felt rather than seen; it is a science of the heart. The science of the classroom ought to be limited to the empirical, to what is accepted by the scientific community, and by its inherent uncertainties– all of which should be addressed, but primarily in the interest of deepening understanding of the material. Science, whether one agrees with its precepts or not, is a useful course of study; by this I mean that the knowledge and understanding of science (evolution, for instance) is advantageous whether one supports the theory or not.

  • theot58, I have to say what a rare pleasure it has been to see a mind such as yours at work. Your perspective and arguments have been as 
    original  and refreshing as they were elucidating.

  • uk barbourjacket

  • Matthew Meadows

    “If we are going to teach “creation science” as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.” Judith Hayes. Damn straight.

    • Buddha Stalin

      Stork Theory – sounds perfectly fine to me? Teach the stork-troversy!!!