AUBURN — A bill to teach religious origin-of-life theories alongside evolution in public schools died Tuesday in the Indiana Statehouse Tuesday.
Republican speaker Brian Bosma said the so-called creationism bill was a lawsuit waiting to happen and used a procedural move to kill the bill for this legislative session.
Senate Bill 89 would have allowed the governing body of a school corporation the option to require the teaching of origin-of-life theories in science classes.
State Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, wrote and introduced the bill in January. His position as chairman of the Senate Education and Career Development Committee helped get the bill to the Senate floor, where it passed 28-22.
Kruse could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.
Educators were cautious about the bill and how it would have been implemented in classrooms.
Chris Daughtry, superintendent of Central Noble schools, said he thinks the debate should be left to the Indiana Department of Education, adding that he doesn’t think it’s the Legislature’s role to make curriculum.
“This has always been a hot topic that is controversial in nature,” Daughtry said recently. “A lot of boards and staffs don’t want to touch the issue, but this legislation may force it on the school’s plate, and we’ll have to deal with it.”
Indiana wasn’t the first state to consider the topic. Missouri, Oklahoma and New Hampshire also have legislation that encourages a comparison of evolutionary theory with creationism. Parents sued a Pennsylvania school after it added creationism to its biology curriculum in 2004. The corporation had to pay about $1 million in damages and legal fees.
Kruse said the science supporting creationism is growing, while the science behind evolution is constantly changing.
“(Evolution) is by no means an exact science,” Kruse said. “It’s appropriate for students to hear creation theory alongside evolution theory and think about the two different views.”
At first, Kruse’s bill gave schools only the option of teaching creationism. An amendment was added to require teaching several other religions’ origin-of-life theories — from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology — alongside the Christian theory.
The amendment was first intended as a way to discourage schools from adopting the change. But, John Milliken, a constitutional law professor at Trine University, said the amendment might have helped the bill be more constitutional.
Bosma said he thinks the bill is a distraction because of its possible legal issues, and he doesn’t think the General Assembly should be legislating curriculum.
The Indiana Department of Education said its role is to set standards for instruction and not to decide specific curriculum.
Teachers would not have been able to teach everything, said Jeff Stephens, superintendent of the DeKalb Eastern school district.
“There isn’t enough time,” Stephens said. “There are dozens of religions. If you leave out one, then someone gets offended.”
Milliken said the last Supreme Court decision to address creationism in public schools came in the 1987 case of Edwards vs. Aguillard. A Louisiana law required public schools to teach creationism, but the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional because it required the teaching of a specific religion.
“The (Supreme Court) case suggested teaching a variety of theories might be good,” Milliken said. “The court has allowed religious displays at Christmas time in public places as long as it spans different religions, and this creationism debate may fall under a similar idea.”
Daughtry said the law would leave any school that adopts the curriculum open to a lawsuit.
“I’m certain it could lead to a lawsuit,” he said. “Anytime something like this comes through that is this controversial, there’s that problem.”
The bill was walking schools into troubled waters, Milliken said.
“It’s like (Kruse) anticipates issues with it and wants to see someone challenge (Edwards vs. Aguillard),” the law professor said.
But Jon Willman, superintendent of Hamilton Community Schools, said it would have depended on how the subject is taught.
“I don’t think it’s inappropriate to provide more opportunities for discussion and different viewpoints in science classrooms,” Willman said. “This would be throwing it out there for discussion and not talking about that one religion is correct.”
© Copyright 2024 KPC Media Group, Inc.