• 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
Dittohead not! said:
Kids have too much to learn to waste time with creationism.
Click to expand...
Then tell them it's unsupported by science. Teachers have no place telling people that what they believe is "nonsense".
 
theplaydrive said:
Calling creationism "superstitious nonsense" is an opinion. Calling creationism "unsupported by science" is a fact. Opinions and facts are different. Get it?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's much better, thanks. I will agree with this. The teacher could have been much more diplomatic, and should have taken more care to do so. It's usually a mistake to attack someone's world view so blatantly. Even when said attacker is correct, it generally has negative consequences.
 
Kandahar said:
The First Amendment also states that the government shall establish no religion, so it isn't quite that simple. Government employees are entitled to freedom of speech like everyone else, but they aren't necessarily entitled to it when they're acting in an official capacity. It's why a teacher can't lead his class in prayer, for example. Or why a federal judge can't have a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. They have freedom of speech on their own time, but they cannot act in a way that suggests that the state favors one religion over another. Which is why I'm siding with the plaintiffs on this case.
Click to expand...

i think this is a tough one. i do think the teacher showed poor judgement with that statement. better to say that creationism has no basis in science.
 
sangha said:
In science, something does not become a "theory" until it has been scientifically proven.
Click to expand...

Every discussion of evolution or of global warming should start with that statement. It pretty much negates all of the arguments against modern science with no further explanation necessary.
 
sangha said:
In science, something does not become a "theory" until it has been scientifically proven.
Click to expand...
Eh, that's true to a certain extent. Evolutionary processes have been observed, but no one was present for the entire evolutionary process so until someone can travel back in time and get a time lapsed video of evolution, it hasn't been "proven" in the way people usually mean the word and so objections to it as a theory still remain possible. That's not to say evolution is just a theory. Technically, my assumption that other people have emotions like me is a theory since I can't "prove" it, but I don't doubt that they do.
 
theplaydrive said:
Then tell them it's unsupported by science. Teachers have no place telling people that what they believe is "nonsense".
Click to expand...
Should we also take the time to delve into alien invasion, witchcraft, animal sacrifice, enhancing luck with horse shoes and four leaf clovers, the existence of leprauchans, ghosts, goblins, thunderbolts coming from Thor's hammer, where do we draw the line?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Should we also take the time to delve into alien invasion, witchcraft, animal sacrifice, enhancing luck with horse shoes and four leaf clovers, the existence of leprauchans, ghosts, goblins, thunderbolts coming from Thor's hammer, where do we draw the line?
Click to expand...
I don't remember suggesting we should "delve" into anything. I believe I said that one should say "creationism is unsupported by science" rather than "what you believe is nonsense" IF they say anything at all (when they should really just keep their mouths shut).
 
theplaydrive said:
Eh, that's true to a certain extent. Evolutionary processes have been observed, but no one was present for the entire evolutionary process so until someone can travel back in time and get a time lapsed video of evolution, it hasn't been "proven" in the way people usually mean the word and so objections to it as a theory still remain possible. That's not to say evolution is just a theory. Technically, my assumption that other people have emotions like me is a theory since I can't "prove" it, but I don't doubt that they do.
Click to expand...

Actually, theories have been proven, and so has evolution, but these are common misconceptions. Proof does not require video
 
sangha said:
In science, something does not become a "theory" until it has been scientifically proven.
Click to expand...

look it up. it's called the scientific method. :shrug:
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't remember suggesting we should "delve" into anything. I believe I said that one should say "creationism is unsupported by science" rather than "what you believe is nonsense" IF they say anything at all (when they should really just keep their mouths shut).
Click to expand...

OK, I can go along with simply ignoring creationism, along with the other nonsense I've mentioned. Let's just not spend time on nonsense. Teach evolution, this is how life on earth came about, period. Science is silent on the issue of a creator.

How do you keep students who have been indoctrinated into the young earth nonsense from bringing the issue up, however?
 
sangha said:
Actually, theories have been proven, and so has evolution, but these are common misconceptions. Proof does not require video
Click to expand...
Actually...no. It has been proven to a certain extent (enough to make it accepted as truth), but like I said, unless you can show it, it hasn't been proven absolutely.
 
theplaydrive said:
Eh, that's true to a certain extent. Evolutionary processes have been observed, but no one was present for the entire evolutionary process so until someone can travel back in time and get a time lapsed video of evolution, it hasn't been "proven" in the way people usually mean the word and so objections to it as a theory still remain possible. That's not to say evolution is just a theory. Technically, my assumption that other people have emotions like me is a theory since I can't "prove" it, but I don't doubt that they do.
Click to expand...

eh, what sangha said is not true at all. theories are attempts to explain facts, not facts in and of themselves. throughout the course of history, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific theories that were later proven wrong.

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net

I believe the theory of evolution is currently the most accurate attempt to describe how life came to be and adapted, but it has not, and unless someone invents a time machine or window to the past, can never be scientifically proven.

sangha obviously has no idea how science really works.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, I can go along with simply ignoring creationism, along with the other nonsense I've mentioned. Let's just not spend time on nonsense. Teach evolution, this is how life on earth came about, period. Science is silent on the issue of a creator.

How do you keep students who have been indoctrinated into the young earth nonsense from bringing the issue up, however?
Click to expand...
Why would you keep them from bringing it up? If they have something to say, let them say it and just tell them that it's a religious belief unsupported by scientific evidence. As much as I make fun of creationists, I don't really have a problem with students bringing it up or having teachers address it as I outlined above briefly.
 
Dittohead not! said:
How do you keep students who have been indoctrinated into the young earth nonsense from bringing the issue up, however?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you can't. They are going to ask about it, and probably argue about it as well. I think the best you can do is encourage them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
 
sangha said:
I have, but you obviously haven't or more likely, you've forgotten or misunderstood what you read.
Click to expand...

prove it. link some definitions or examples.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to those who corrected me on Galileo's death. I do still believe that his house arrest imprisonment probably contributed to his failing health. However, he was not executed for being a Heretic, he was just called one.

What if God created the universe 14 billion years ago? Suppose that creationists merely have the date wrong.
 
sangha said:
Science has shown it, and science doesn't require absolute proof; just scientific proof

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
Click to expand...
Yeah, that link does nothing for me as I've said that evolution has been observed.

As far as "absolute proof" vs "scientific proof", the original point made was the evolution hasn't been "proven" and the fact is, it hasn't been proven in a common sense of the word, so your distinction doesn't affect the argument I've been making.
 
Dittohead not! said:
How do you keep students who have been indoctrinated into the young earth nonsense from bringing the issue up, however?
Click to expand...

you don't, you just tell them that "creationism" is not within the scope of the course and you will not discuss it during class time.
 
OscarB63 said:
eh, what sangha said is not true at all. theories are attempts to explain facts, not facts in and of themselves. throughout the course of history, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific theories that were later proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Straw man. No one has claimed that theories are facts in and of themselves. And I haven't claimed that scientific proof is the same as absolute truth.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20] (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)
Click to expand...

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[10]

According to this definition, a theory must be well supported by evidence. Furthermore, the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models. Consumers of science may find the above definition useful when evaluating the validity and/or efficacy of a theory.
Click to expand...
 
Proud South Korean said:
Ever heard of the First Amendment?
Click to expand...
Sure have, and it allows for the free practice of religion. So if we can't have a prayer at a school event, then the teacher needs to STFU.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, that link does nothing for me as I've said that evolution has been observed.

As far as "absolute proof" vs "scientific proof", the original point made was the evolution hasn't been "proven" and the fact is, it hasn't been proven in a common sense of the word, so your distinction doesn't affect the argument I've been making.
Click to expand...

If you meant "proven" as the word is commonly used, then yes, you are correct. I assumed you were referring to scientific proof. My bad
 
OscarB63 said:
eh, what sangha said is not true at all. theories are attempts to explain facts, not facts in and of themselves. throughout the course of history, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific theories that were later proven wrong.

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) | Top 10 Lists | TopTenz.net

I believe the theory of evolution is currently the most accurate attempt to describe how life came to be and adapted, but it has not, and unless someone invents a time machine or window to the past, can never be scientifically proven.

sangha obviously has no idea how science really works.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with you that evolution is the most accurate explanation for how life adapted and I agree that it clearly hasn't been proven until someone can time travel and bring back some evidence. And that list among other things is why I don't worship at the holy grail of scientific theory. I trust scientific theories to a certain extent, but I refuse to treat them as if they are absolutely set in stone and unworthy of ever being questioned.

However, my point about sangha being partially correct was a reference to recent observations of "microevolution". In other words, evolution has been observed on a certain scale, but not on the scale that sangha's talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom