JEFFERSONVILLE — Some of our state legislators think creationism should be taught in science classes at our public schools. The predictable response from newspapers across the state would be editorials and columns speaking out against this, so I decided to argue this from the other side.

To argue for teaching creationism in public schools I would have to ignore many of the reasons why I am against it. I would have to ignore that Senate Bill 89, authored by state Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, goes against the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I would also have to ignore that similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.

Louisiana passed a law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution. The 1987 case, Edwards V. Aguillard, went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled it unconstitutional.

I would of course then have to ignore the cost to the state of Indiana if this bill was passed and then ultimately ruled unconstitutional. In 2005, there was the federal court case of Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District, which also revolved around teaching creationism in public schools. In 2006, the school board paid more than $1 million in legal fees, according to an article from the National Center for Science Education’s website.

Speaking of money, I would also have to ignore the impact this law would have on those considering a move to this state. In Gov. Mitch Daniels’ 2012 State of the State speech, he touted the thousands of college graduates moving into our state and how there is no better indicator of economic promise in today’s world than success at attracting top talent. Well, let’s see how many college graduates decide to move to Indiana when they find out their kids are going to learn about creationism in their science classes.

And while we’re talking about how outsiders perceive our state, this bill has already afforded Indiana some recognition on the Weekend Update segment of a recent episode of Saturday Night Live. Needless to say, the recognition was less than complimentary.

So, ignoring all those reasons why this legislation should not be passed, I can now look at the issue from the opposite perspective.

Why should this legislation be passed?

Well, for one, we don’t really know how the universe came to be. The most widely accepted theory right now is that of the Big Bang. The theory arose when scientists discovered the universe is expanding. So if it’s expanding with time, if we go back in time, it’s contracting, and if you go back far enough it contracts into ... well, this is where it starts to get hazy.

The idea is that at the beginning of time, whatever that means, the universe was an infinitesimal small point, from which came a Big Bang that started the expansion of the universe and eventually, us. So then the logical question is what caused that bang?

Different people have different theories, so isn’t the idea that it was the work of an almighty creator essentially just another theory?

If you look at it that way, then the change to the legislation introduced by state Sen. Vi Simpson, D-Bloomington — which would require any course in a public school that chooses to teach creationism to include origin theories from multiple religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology — starts to seem a little more reasonable.

Teaching many theories could prove to be beneficial in multiple ways. Learning about several theories could encourage understanding and acceptance of people from different backgrounds. Students would likely become more aware of the similarities between different religions helping them realize that people of different backgrounds have more in common than they may have originally thought. A law that results in more acceptance, understanding and tolerance of our differences could attract some of that highly educated top talent Daniels was talking about.

And, in the Edwards V. Aguillard case, the court ruled the teaching of creationism unconstitutional because it was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. Simpson’s change seems to resolve that issue.

So even though I’ve come up with some reasons to support this bill, I — like most of you, I imagine — haven’t changed my opinion. Even though Indiana’s bill, with Simpson’s changes, has the potential to create more acceptance by educating students about things they may never have learned without it, I still can’t support it because of the precedent it sets.

A Jan. 30 article from The Associated Press headlined, “Senate broadens teaching creationism proposal,” reported that Kruse, “said he reluctantly supported the change because it made the proposal acceptable to more senators.”

If I am wrong, Kruse, please correct me, but I’m going to guess when this bill was originally drafted it was not drafted with the intent to broaden perspectives and educate public school students about different theories of how we came to be. I believe the bill’s original intent was to teach the creation story of one specific religion in our public, taxpayer funded schools.

One of the things that makes this country so great is religious freedom. One of the reasons people have been immigrating to this country for hundreds of years is because they know the government won’t use its power to further the interests of one particular religion — which is exactly what this bill was originally drafted to do.

I’ve tried to look at this from the opposite perspective, but this is what I keep coming back to. I can’t bring myself to support this bill and I hope there are enough representatives in the Statehouse who feel the same way to defeat it.

— Michael Reschke is copy editor at the News and Tribune. Reach him via email at michael.reschke@newsandtribune.com.