View Poll Results: Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    33 56.90%
  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    14 24.14%
  • Other

    11 18.97%
Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 412

Thread: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

  1. #341
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    So your each trying to show that you have proven your definition of "proven"....am I the only one who sees the futility in this?

  2. #342
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Actually, in a scientific context, it is not proven. It's not being pedantic, it is being right. Sangha decided to overstate the case, and as always happens when some one does that, actually hurts his point and those who are accurate. Scientists do not consider evolution to be proven. They do consider it to be a true model however, which is a small but important distinction. When you attempt to overstate a point, either through dishonesty or ignorance, you actually make your point weaker. You will not find many people on this board either more strongly supportive of the theory of evolution, nor much more knowledgeable on the topic. I am not trying to discount the strength of the theory in any way. I am simply trying to be accurate so that those who will attempt to discount the theory have as little ammunition as possible.
    YOu claim that I overstated the case, but I never claimed that it was a statement designed to create epiphanies or that it was meant to rock your world. In fact, I described it as a truism.

    And scientists do consider it to be proven, just not "absolutely proven" beyond any reasonable doubt. In this case, I think you have repeatedly overstated your case, with your claim that the word "proven" to have only one meaning being the clearest example of this.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #343
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So your each trying to show that you have proven your definition of "proven"....am I the only one who sees the futility in this?
    Sometimes, I like you better when you make no sense.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #344
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The logic behind the concepts (in depth, such as pointing out fallacious reasoning as this teacher did). A simple description of what is believed and by whom would more than suffice for a history class.
    Then you don't teaching understanding of such concepts. Sorry, I have higher expectations of my students than that...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #345
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Creationism is a specific doctrine within a religion. Creationism is not a complete religion of it's own.



    Exactly, it's a religious view, not a religion.

    Speaking against creationism in the context of instructing an advanced placement history class is not religious persecution.
    This distinction between "religious view" and "religion" is entirely subjective. Religions are just complex religious views...how complex must a religious view be before you think it qualifies as a religion? Are you suggesting that it's wrong for the state to say that Christianity is false, but it's perfectly OK for the state to say that the virgin birth, the trinity, the divinity of Christ, Jesus' miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection are false? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    To look at it another way, suppose that someone had no complex religious views at all apart from a belief in creationism. Would it not be fair to say that that was their religion?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This distinction between "religious view" and "religion" is entirely subjective. Religions are just complex religious views...how complex must a religious view be before you think it qualifies as a religion?
    I liken it to biology. A religion is a complete organism, while any specific religious view is but a part of of the greater whole, not a complete whole in and of it's self.

    When I speak out against Creationism, I am not speaking out against Christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Are you suggesting that it's wrong for the state to say that Christianity is false, but it's perfectly OK for the state to say that the virgin birth, the trinity, the divinity of Christ, Jesus' miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection are false?
    The teacher (who is not the State and is entitled to certain immunities especially withing his honor's history class) was not speaking against Christianity. He was speaking against Creationism, which is not unique to Christianity. Had the teacher said "religion is superstitious rubbish", well that's something else entirely. But he did not. He said Creationism is superstitious rubbish, and many religious folks including myself agree with him, so his statement is not uniquely secular either.

    If, at the time, the topic in this honors history class was woman's suffrage, and the teacher said something like "burkas are oppressive", that would be an equally allowable statement. That's not anti-Muslim, that's anti-burka, and many Muslims would agree with his position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    To look at it another way, suppose that someone had no complex religious views at all apart from a belief in creationism. Would it not be fair to say that that was their religion?
    Going back to my biology analogy, if someone had only a large intestine and no other body part at all, I would not say they had a body. They have a part only.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-24-11 at 01:51 AM.

  7. #347
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,601

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarB63 View Post
    It had been as rigorously tested as technology and method of the day allowed. hindsight is 20/20. just ask the guys who fell for "piltdown man"
    The difference is that the Piltdown Man idea was tested and found to be false, and the same for spontaneous generation.

    Evolution was tested and found to be solid.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #348
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    The supreme court will always rule in favor of free speech. I don't think the teacher should have said that and should be fired for unprofessional conduct, but not sued.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    The difference is that the Piltdown Man idea was tested and found to be false, and the same for spontaneous generation.

    Evolution was tested and found to be solid.
    Quick evolution leads to quiet crickets
    Last edited by xpiher; 08-24-11 at 02:59 AM.
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  9. #349
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Actually, in a scientific context, it is not proven. It's not being pedantic, it is being right. Sangha decided to overstate the case, and as always happens when some one does that, actually hurts his point and those who are accurate. Scientists do not consider evolution to be proven. They do consider it to be a true model however, which is a small but important distinction. When you attempt to overstate a point, either through dishonesty or ignorance, you actually make your point weaker. You will not find many people on this board either more strongly supportive of the theory of evolution, nor much more knowledgeable on the topic. I am not trying to discount the strength of the theory in any way. I am simply trying to be accurate so that those who will attempt to discount the theory have as little ammunition as possible.
    BTW, if you want to be so pedantic, the word evolution refers to the scientific study of the distribution of genes within a population of a species, how that distribution changes over time and how those changes affect the species (and sometimes leads to the development of new species). Since scientists do study this, my statement that evolution is scientifically proven is true in the pedantic sense. Genes are distributed within a population of a species (science has proven this), this distribution does change (science has proven this too) and these changes do affect the species (again, science has proven this)
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #350
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Because calling it "superstitious nonsense" is the only way to explain what causes lightning
    Once again, Sangha can't actually respond to a post. In many ways, you are like Turtledude.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •