• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    Votes: 27 54.0%

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

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Total voters
    50
1Perry said:
Or prove...
Click to expand...

Not how it works. You test it, that is attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If it passes the test, it does not make it proven, and more tests are designed to test it in other ways.
 
Redress said:
Not how it works. You test it, that is attempt to disprove the hypothesis. If it passes the test, it does not make it proven, and more tests are designed to test it in other ways.
Click to expand...

Which is designed to either prove or disprove the theory.
 
1Perry said:
Which is designed to either prove or disprove the theory.
Click to expand...

No. You really don't prove theories. You check and ensure that they correctly predict experimental results.
 
1Perry said:
Which is designed to either prove or disprove the theory.
Click to expand...

No, "proving" a theory to be 100% true is impossible. What these experiments do is create the basis for a strong induction about the validity of the theory. i.e. if it has not been disproven after x number of attempts, one can reasonably accept the hypothesis as being correct. The higher x is, the more reasonable the acceptance becomes.

I think that the reason why so many people are confused about the provability of a theory is because the difference between theory and Law is often portrayed inaccurately in school. Many people are under the flawed assumption that a law is what a "proven" theory becomes, but that is false. Laws describe the phenomena that occur, theories explain how and why the phenomena occur.

Theories don't become laws, but it is possible that laws can be derived from theories when the theories are tested.
 
1Perry said:
I'm just going to note something about the lecture.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

So science is trying to disprove something as opposed to trying to determine scientific facts? Science is not the idea of trying to "disprove" something. IMO the guy has no business not only in not teaching religion, but also science.
Click to expand...

This teacher is making an accurate but subtle point. He is exactly right. What he is doing is introducing his students to the concept of falsification. The way you test theories is to find circumstances in which they fail. Every time an experiment fails to bring down a theory the theory is strengthened.

1Perry, you're wrong in reaching the conclusion that you did. This teacher's understanding of science is excellent, it's his judgement which is suspect.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm actually on the plaintiff's side on this. While I think there is plenty of good reason to be hostile toward creationism, that's no reason for the teacher to make a statement like this. For those who disagree, ask yourself if you would be OK with a teacher saying the same thing about some other doctrine of religious faith: "Judaism is superstitious nonsense," or "the virgin birth is superstitious nonsense," or "not believing in God is superstitious nonsense." I think that whether one agrees with those statements or not, it's a bad precedent to allow government employees to express their personal religious views to a captive audience.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Redress said:
No. You really don't prove theories. You check and ensure that they correctly predict experimental results.
Click to expand...

Until they are no longer a theory.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Obviously, the US Constitution allows for free speech, so the argument was just, as the statement was protected by the teacher's freedom of speech.
Of course, a student could speak out against that or the media could, it's all the matter of free speech
Click to expand...

Actually, no. The lower court ruled that the teachers comments violated the establishment clause of the first amendment, but the higher court overturned that ruling on the much narrower reasoning that since there has never been a ruling on this particular issue, the teacher could not have been sufficiently on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional, and consequently he could not be penalized for that conduct. This is one type of qualified immunity.
 
Aderleth said:
Actually, no. The lower court ruled that the teachers comments violated the establishment clause of the first amendment, but the higher court overturned that ruling on the much narrower reasoning that since there has never been a ruling on this particular issue, the teacher could not have been sufficiently on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional, and consequently he could not be penalized for that conduct. This is one type of qualified immunity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just looking that up. Here is wiki on qualified immunity: Qualified immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[SUP][1][/SUP] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Click to expand...

So as I read it, the teacher was ruled to have been in the wrong, but he gets a pass since it had not been ruled on previously and he had therefore no clear way to know he was in the wrong.

Edit for accuracy: The court did not actually rule on whether he was in the wrong, but that since he was entitled to qualified immunity, there was no reason for the court to actually make a determination on the legality of his comments.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So as I read it, the teacher was ruled to have been in the wrong, but he gets a pass since it had not been ruled on previously and he had therefore no clear way to know he was in the wrong.

Edit for accuracy: The court did not actually rule on whether he was in the wrong, but that since he was entitled to qualified immunity, there was no reason for the court to actually make a determination on the legality of his comments.
Click to expand...

Correct on both counts. To be clear, the lower court did rule substantively on the establishment clause issue (against the teacher). So future teachers are now on notice regarding this issue, and probably would be granted qualified immunity.
 
Aderleth said:
Correct on both counts. To be clear, the lower court did rule substantively on the establishment clause issue (against the teacher). So future teachers are now on notice regarding this issue, and probably would be granted qualified immunity.
Click to expand...

At the end, did you mean would not be granted qualified immunity? Since there is a ruling now, they could no longer claim qualified immunity?
 
1Perry said:
Until they are no longer a theory.
Click to expand...

Theories remain theories forever. A scientific theory is a set of statements that attempt to explain an objective fact. There is no question whatsoever that evolution occurs, only an idiot would think otherwise, the theory of evolution attempts to detail how it occurs.
 
Redress said:
At the end, did you mean would not be granted qualified immunity? Since there is a ruling now, they could no longer claim qualified immunity?
Click to expand...

Oops. Yes. That's what I meant. :)
 
We executed that blasphemous Heretic Galileo for conflicting against scripture by claiming that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved around the Sun.

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

See, The scientist was wrong.

Let's not start that again. What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying creationism is nonsense? I know my faith can withstand much more than that. This is a case of religious people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of the hypocritical christian.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Let's not start that again. What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying creationism is nonsense? I know my faith can withstand much more than that. This is a case of religious people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of the hypocritical christian.
Click to expand...

What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying that racial differences in intelligence are pervasive and a normal, and expected, consequence of evolution. . . . .This is a case of liberal people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of hypocritical liberals.

You might be on to something.
 
RiverDad said:
What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying that racial differences in intelligence are pervasive and a normal, and expected, consequence of evolution. . .
Click to expand...

You'll do anything to crowbar that **** into a discussion won't you? I'd call that one rabidly pursued agenda. What do you seek to gain with this agenda?
 
I voted Other, because I believe that Yes, teachers have a right to express their opinions about religious matters in the classroom... But just because someone has the right to do something does not mean that he should do it.

Context is everything, and I don't know if he was replying to a student's specific question or just decided to vent in front of the class. If he answered a question truthfully, then okay. I don't believe he should have to lie about his thoughts. However, I wouldn't want to see a precedent where teachers can denigrate religion just because it's allowed. Religious discussions, with rare exceptions, should not take place in the classroom. They should take place in the home and at church. When teachers contradict what they are being taught at home, it's confusing to children and a little frightening. Teachers should be more concerned with the well-being of their students than venting their own religious spleens, imo.

That said, I have not read the thread itself. Perhaps someone else will offer a view that will change my mind!
 
RiverDad said:
What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying that racial differences in intelligence are pervasive and a normal, and expected, consequence of evolution. . . . .This is a case of liberal people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of hypocritical liberals.

You might be on to something.
Click to expand...

What is your deal with trying to turn every single ****ing topic into a discussion of your crackpot race ****?
 
jamesrage said:
What if a history teacher fired for saying the holocaust did not happen or what if a science was fired for saying evolution is a load of crap would you say that his first amendment rights were violated? I think a lot of people agree with their firing. Its not a first amendment issue its about a teacher being fired for stepping outside their bounds or what ever it is you want to call it.
Click to expand...

Being fired is not the same as being sued. The teacher may indeed be fired if what he said went against internal policies of the school. This ruling merely states that he cannot be sued for expressing his opinion. The school district can still fire him if he violated its policies.
 
Tempest in a teapot. Its silly that there is a lawsuit over this.

For a teacher to make such a statement demonstrates IMO that said 'teacher' is a bad teacher. If you are in a classroom environment where this comes up, how does such a judgemental position by an 'educator' encourage critical thinking? And as much as people here want to pretend it isnt the case, there are a whole lot of people that discount religious dogma that havent the first clue on evolution, the origins of mankind and the development of the cosmos. Sorry folks...but there are just as many people rooted in their own superstitious 'beliefs' regarding the big bang theory as there are religious creation.
 
Redress said:
What is your deal with trying to turn every single ****ing topic into a discussion of your crackpot race ****?
Click to expand...

He obviously has an agenda of some sort. The question is what does he imagine he can gain from pursuing this agenda.
 
Well... regardless if the teacher was right or wrong, public schools should be as neutral as possible when it comes to teacher opinions on these kinds of things, unless we are specifically in a religion or philosophy class that addresses such issues. There is no need to go on a political tangent in class the way this teacher did. It alienates the students who are otherwise there to learn specific subject matter.

At the same time, teachers are not robots and we can't expect them to live like they are. I've had teachers say some pretty outrageous things in my day. It becomes a matter of gossip and then it's forgotten. I think suing the school was an overreaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom