• 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
sangha said:
No, words can have different meanings in different contexts.

And theories can be scientifically proven.
Click to expand...

wrong, as usual. you are confusing "scientifically accepted" with "scientifically proven". they are not the same.
 
sangha said:
Sure I have. I even posted links as you requested
Click to expand...

and yet nothing you linked had a definition for "scientifcally proven". lots of talk about supported by evidence though.

Science may strongly support something, suggest relationships or causality, and even be 'convincing', but it can't prove it. I've never heard a scientist say something has been proved by science. Unfortunate undergrads who write that word in a lab report get stiffly rebuked by their professor.
Click to expand...

you are confusing "scientifically proven" with "scientific consensus".

consensus =/= proof
supported by evidence =/= proof
 
Simon W. Moon said:
In a sociology class of some sort?
Click to expand...

No in a science class. There is a disclaimer in all the books saying something like "this book teaches the theory of evolution" and the teacher can't comment on one without commenting on the other.
 
Just1Voice said:
Why do people keep trying to make this claim? You must realize that limiting teachers this way lowers their credibility and it makes them more vulnerable to accusations of teaching propaganda. Teachers should be encouraged to speak truth.
Click to expand...

It is actually opinion since it is neither provable nor disprovable.
 
sangha said:
In science, something does not become a "theory" until it has been scientifically proven.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Not even remotely.
 
DashingAmerican said:
No in a science class. There is a disclaimer in all the books saying something like "this book teaches the theory of evolution" and the teacher can't comment on one without commenting on the other.
Click to expand...


when did this happen? I taught in the huntsville city system from 95-04 and I never saw that. In fact, Darwin's "origin of the species" was required reading. had to read it and sign a statement verifying that we had read it.
 
DashingAmerican said:
No in a science class. There is a disclaimer in all the books saying something like "this book teaches the theory of evolution" and the teacher can't comment on one without commenting on the other.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely inappropriate since in the setting of a science class, there is no competing theory, no other side to the coin. There is evolution, period. Religion does not belong in a science class.
 
OscarB63 said:
when did this happen? I taught in the huntsville city system from 95-04 and I never saw that. In fact, Darwin's "origin of the species" was required reading. had to read it and sign a statement verifying that we had read it.
Click to expand...

It may have just been my school system. I went to West Point in Cullman.
 
Redress said:
That is absolutely inappropriate since in the setting of a science class, there is no competing theory, no other side to the coin. There is evolution, period. Religion does not belong in a science class.
Click to expand...

So is stating that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The best way to avoid this is to just avoid it all in general.
 
Redress said:
That is absolutely inappropriate since in the setting of a science class, there is no competing theory, no other side to the coin. There is evolution, period. Religion does not belong in a science class.
Click to expand...

DashingAmerican said:
So is stating that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The best way to avoid this is to just avoid it all in general.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
Yes, I agree with this.
Click to expand...

How do you propose to do that? Kids are going to be curious. They are going to ask questions about it. If you ignore the questions or refer them to their own religious leaders, then you are discouraging your students from asking relevant questions for themselves. That runs counter to a teachers mission as an educator. We should be teaching students to think critically and avoiding this topic will be discouraging in that regard.

What we need is a way to address this topic without passing judgement on the overall belief system. We can easily show historical instances where parts of the church's worldview has been proven wrong and also instances where scientific theory has had to be modified in response to new data. I would think that an educator would want to engage this discussion and use it as a platform for teaching critical thinking skills.
 
DashingAmerican said:
No in a science class. There is a disclaimer in all the books saying something like "this book teaches the theory of evolution" and the teacher can't comment on one without commenting on the other.
Click to expand...
Do you get to choose which creation story you get to teach?
 
Just1Voice said:
How do you propose to do that? Kids are going to be curious. They are going to ask questions about it. If you ignore the questions or refer them to their own religious leaders, then you are discouraging your students from asking relevant questions for themselves. That runs counter to a teachers mission as an educator. We should be teaching students to think critically and avoiding this topic will be discouraging in that regard.

What we need is a way to address this topic without passing judgement on the overall belief system. We can easily show historical instances where parts of the church's worldview has been proven wrong and also instances where scientific theory has had to be modified in response to new data. I would think that an educator would want to engage this discussion and use it as a platform for teaching critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

teaching kids that there is a time and a place for everything is also part of the teacher's mission :shrug:
 
Just1Voice said:
How do you propose to do that? Kids are going to be curious. They are going to ask questions about it. If you ignore the questions or refer them to their own religious leaders, then you are discouraging your students from asking relevant questions for themselves. That runs counter to a teachers mission as an educator. We should be teaching students to think critically and avoiding this topic will be discouraging in that regard.

What we need is a way to address this topic without passing judgement on the overall belief system. We can easily show historical instances where parts of the church's worldview has been proven wrong and also instances where scientific theory has had to be modified in response to new data. I would think that an educator would want to engage this discussion and use it as a platform for teaching critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

When asked, a science teacher should reply with something along the lines of "Creationism is not part of science and as such outside the scope of this class". What a teacher should not do is either endorse or ridicule creationism, since it is a religious belief.
 
OscarB63 said:
teaching kids that there is a time and a place for everything is also part of the teacher's mission :shrug:
Click to expand...

And just what is the "time and place" for this discussion? That will be the next question the students ask. If you expect students to shut off their brains whenever the topic of religion comes up, you will be very disappointed.
 
Just1Voice said:
And just what is the "time and place" for this discussion?
Click to expand...

definitely NOT in a science class. anymore that math class is a place to discuss politics.

That will be the next question the students ask. If you expect students to shut off their brains whenever the topic of religion comes up, you will be very disappointed.
Click to expand...

If you expect most of them to ever shut on their brains, you will be very disappointed.
 
Redress said:
When asked, a science teacher should reply with something along the lines of "Creationism is not part of science and as such outside the scope of this class". What a teacher should not do is either endorse or ridicule creationism, since it is a religious belief.
Click to expand...

As a student, even in elementary school, I could easily see that the teachings of creationism are at odds with science. I was not alone, and I think it is likely that there will be kids who are not remotely satisfied with this answer. If no authority figure steps in to lend some guidance, the students are very likely to try to tackle it on their own, which is likely to lead to conflict, and possibly violence.
 
Just1Voice said:
As a student, even in elementary school, I could easily see that the teachings of creationism are at odds with science. I was not alone, and I think it is likely that there will be kids who are not remotely satisfied with this answer. If no authority figure steps in to lend some guidance, the students are very likely to try to tackle it on their own, which is likely to lead to conflict, and possibly violence.
Click to expand...

Would love to see how researching something is going to lead to violence.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Would love to see how researching something is going to lead to violence.
Click to expand...

Methods of research have to be taught. That would require someone to teach them.. If religion remains sacrosanct as a topic of discussion in relationship to science, who will teach them how to approach it? Lacking that knowledge, the discussion will degenerate to shouting and eventually, the possibility of fights.
 
Just1Voice said:
Methods of research have to be taught. That would require someone to teach them.. If religion remains sacrosanct as a topic of discussion in relationship to science, who will teach them how to approach it? Lacking that knowledge, the discussion will degenerate to shouting and eventually, the possibility of fights.
Click to expand...

There is this website called google kids. Ask it a question and it will give you an answer.
 
I think the suit was poorly phrased if the argument was literally that the state should not establish a religion. Discounting one religious theory does not establish or disregard any religion in it's entirety.
 
tessaesque said:
I think the suit was poorly phrased if the argument was literally that the state should not establish a religion. Discounting one religious theory does not establish or disregard any religion in it's entirety.
Click to expand...

since nearly every christian religion in america believes in some version of creation, calling it "nonsense" is in effect calling every christian in america nonsensical. :shrug:
 
Cephus said:
Very, very few are, among scientists, religiosity is extremely low, but the simple fact is, scientific expertise does not necessarily inoculate you against irrationality.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define "very, very few."

Pew Research survey on scientists:

religionscientists1.jpgreligionscientists2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom