Indiana: more nonsensical gymnastics

If you thought that Indiana state Senator Dennis Kruse's previous effort at shoehorning creation "science" into the state's scientific curriculum was ridiculous, his current effort is even sillier:
 
The expected antievolution bill in Indiana appears to have mutated. As NCSE previously reported, state senator Dennis Kruse (R-District 14) told the Lafayette Journal and Courier (November 10, 2012) that he planned to introduce a bill drafted by the Discovery Institute, presumably along the lines of the bills enacted in Tennessee in 2012 and Louisiana in 2008, encouraging teachers to misrepresent evolution as controversial. But now the Indianapolis Star (December 4, 2012) reports that Kruse plans "to pursue legislation that allows students to challenge teachers on issues, forcing them to provide evidence to back up their lessons."

In 2011, Kruse's Senate Bill 89 would have allowed local school districts to require the teaching of creation science — despite the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creation science in public schools is unconstitutional. SB 89 passed the Senate but was amended there to delete the reference to creation science and to require reference to "Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology"; the speaker of the House of Representatives declined to let it come to a vote there, citing concerns about a potential lawsuit, and the bill died when the legislature adjourned.

It's a pity the bad idea that inspired it it didn't die as well:

Describing his new idea as "a different approach," Kruse explained to the Star,  "I would call it 'truth in education' to make sure that what is being taught is true ... And if a student thinks something isn't true, then they can question the teacher and the teacher would have to come up with some kind of research to support that what they are teaching is true or not true."

Now, does anybody want to try to point out to Kruse what the problem is, here? Namely, that what a science teacher is supposed to be providing in a lesson plan is already supposed to be based on an understanding of what current scientific research has already discovered?

Likewise, if a student were to attack what the teacher knows on a basis that has nothing to do with science or the scientific method (read: on religious grounds alone, which seems likely), is that acceptable? I suspect that Kruse would say yes. He'll apparently say "yes" to any number of silly things (as state newspapers have also pointed out), so why not that as well?

(Also at WTTFTG)