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 6 of 42 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 412

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

  1. #51
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Which isn't what this guy said.
    Not literally but it is in effect the goal of science

    The ability to prove or disprove a theory is one of the strongest part of scientific theory. To prove a theory correct you should be testing it to try to make it fail.

    The theory of gravity would be tested to try to make it fail, under a wide variety of conditions. Because if you dont try to disprove it, someone else will. And if it is false, then you would be made a fool


    Creationism or ID can not be proven positive or false. Evolution can be proven on a small scale, and through observation a large scale.
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  2. #52
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,895

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I think she should not be allowed to say this. It endorses religious ideals that creationism is utterly false. It's an arrogant and moronic statement to make as well. I think it amounts to the state endorsing a side on a religious/scientific issue.
    How is calling a religious notion nonsense endorsing a religious ideal? Moronic how? How is creationism not nonsense?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    How has science disproven creationism? It's not scientifically false, many look at scientific evidence that supports the idea that a creator designed life. Science cannot touch on the supernatural or on the concept of God, science can't definitely prove or disprove creationism. However, we can look at scientific evidence that supports the idea of a creator. Evolution is much the same way. Evolution looks at evidence to speculate a conclusion, it cannot be proven through experimental evidence but is merely a model based on evidence of how life diversified. We cannot prove that Fossil A evolved into Fossil B which is now species C. Scientists can only speculate based on evidence.
    What evidence is that?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  3. #53
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Being a consistent "other" sort of guy, I have to say "no" with a qualifier.

    I don't think the classroom is the appropriate place for a teacher to put any of their opinions on parade unless they clearly mark them as opinion and credibly present an opposing viewpoint for students to consider.
    It depends. The argument that was presented against the logic of creationism would have been a very good one, that wasn't based on opinion, if it was being used as a way to talk about deductive logic in a logic class. Saying that the conclusion is nonsense is going too far (although the way it was said wasn't necessarily an opinion statement so much as it was just rude), but the actual commentary pointing out the flawed logic was spot on (he should have noted the specific fallacies involved, though if it was a logic class).

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Not literally but it is in effect the goal of science
    Once again, no, the goal of science is not to disprove something. It's to come to scientific facts whatever they may be. Science that sets out to disprove something is bound to be flawed.

    The ability to prove or disprove a theory is one of the strongest part of scientific theory. To prove a theory correct you should be testing it to try to make it fail.
    Not to prove it wrong but to see if it will fail.

    The theory of gravity would be tested to try to make it fail, under a wide variety of conditions. Because if you dont try to disprove it, someone else will. And if it is false, then you would be made a fool


    Creationism or ID can not be proven positive or false. Evolution can be proven on a small scale, and through observation a large scale.
    I have no desire to discuss the merits of either one.

  5. #55
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,895

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I prefer the way it was handled when I was in school.

    In Freshman Biology in HS, my biology teacher said, "There are two main ideas about the origin of life; Creationism and Evolution. I am going to teach you the theory of evolution. It is a required part of biology, since it is the current working theory in science on the development of life. You don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it because it is part of this course. Don't ask me which one I believe in, because I am not allowed to say: as an authority figure my opinion might have undue influence on you." When a couple of students pressed him to reveal his own belief, he flatly refused and proceeded to teach evolution without any expressions of bias.

    That sounds about right to me.

    This was a bad ruling; it will likely be overturned. Teachers should stick to teaching the curriculum and not comment on religious beliefs.
    As an authority figure (science teacher) he might have undue influence on you should he state his position (accepting or rejecting science)?

    Did he take the same approach when teaching you about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun? "You don't have to believe it" Really? Did he give you such freedom regarding accepting gravity? Who wasn't "allowing him to say"? The school district? He was compelled to not say that evolution occurred?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Once again, no, the goal of science is not to disprove something. It's to come to scientific facts whatever they may be. Science that sets out to disprove something is bound to be flawed.



    Not to prove it wrong but to see if it will fail.



    I have no desire to discuss the merits of either one.
    And to come to the facts, one has to observe and if possible test the theory. Proving a theory involves testing it to see if it does fail. Testing a theory only underconditions which would succeed is flawed, testing it to see when it would fail is not
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    It's just stupid. I think part of it is his belief. If this was the private sector I'd say he could say whatever the hell he wants. The fact that it's a public school opens up some argument.

    I'd side with him, I suppose. People seem to forget one major rule - you do not have the right to not be offended. Just another break-off from the entitlement crowd.

  8. #58
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Science cannot touch on the supernatural or on the concept of God, science can't definitely prove or disprove creationism. However, we can look at scientific evidence that supports the idea of a creator. Evolution is much the same way. Evolution looks at evidence to speculate a conclusion, it cannot be proven through experimental evidence but is merely a model based on evidence of how life diversified. We cannot prove that Fossil A evolved into Fossil B which is now species C. Scientists can only speculate based on evidence.
    Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism is not. That's one of the major differences. Imho. ymmv.
    I may be wrong.

  9. #59
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    What is not scientific about saying some all powerfull being or beings created the universe, life on earth
    Because there's no way to actually find out if that's true. It's not a testable hypothesis. It is, therefore, not in line with the scientific method.

    Seriously, what evidence do you, or anyone else, offer to back up that claim? All I keep hearing that "it's based on faith, and so doesn't need evidence". But then we're back at creationism being religion, and not science. You can't have it both ways. Pony up some real evidence, or get out of the scientific discussion.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  10. #60
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    What is not scientific about saying some all powerfull being or beings created the universe, life on earth
    What experiment could prove that this assertion was false?
    I may be wrong.

Page 6 of 42 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •