• 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"?


  • Total voters
    50
Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.

In this case, actually it is. You made a claim that is dependent on a definition.
 
If teachers cannot call creationism "superstituous nonsense" then they cannot be allowed to call natural phenomena we understand "superstituous nonsense" which includes explaining how lighting is not caused by Zeus.
 
\

Ok, so lets say if a park ranger makes a controversial statement. Should the courts get involved, or should his superiors fire him for it if they see fit to do so? Freedom of speech means you are free to express yourself how you want to (other than something like yelling fire in theater) without fear of reprisal by the government. It does not mean that your employer, public or private, cannot fire you for it.

Park Rangers are not in the same position as school teachers. Government funded schools have a captive audience and are under a different set of limitations than other government employees. This is the reason why school officials leading school prayers was ruled unconstitutional:

Lee v. Weisman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.

But I fully agree with your final points. An employee is constitutionally allowed to say just about whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it won't get their ass fired.

Personally i think this guy had the right idea but went about it the wrong way. Navigating religion in a public classroom has long been treacherous for teachers, no matter their religion or lack thereof.

I agree with what another commentator has said on the matter:

First of all, he told the truth: creationism is religious, it is a product of superstition, and it is nonsense — it doesn't fit any of the evidence we have about the history of the world or life on it. We have to have the right to tell students not only that something is wrong, but that it is stupidly wrong.

Secondly, we are being told over and over again that Christianity is not equivalent to creationism. This teacher has specifically said that creationism is nonsense, and this judge has equated a dismissal of a weird anti-scientific belief with making a rude remark about Christianity. So…where are all the Christians rising in outrage at the slander of their faith?
High school teacher guilty of telling the truth…oh, and Chad Farnan is an idiot : Pharyngula
 
Last edited:
I thought this was an interesting ruling because it isn't specifically about evolution versus creationism. (On that issue, schools should obviously teach evolution and not creationism, because one is a matter of scientific fact and the other is a matter of religion.) But in this case, you have a teacher who specifically called creationism "superstitious nonsense." Some people had a problem with this and sued the school, on the grounds that the state should not establish a religion. The judge ruled that the teacher should be able to voice that opinion in the classroom if he wanted to.

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?

I'm with the teacher on this one. Expressing your opinion on a specific religious belief does not establish a religion nor persecute it.

Giving the church profound municipal authority and appointing the national leader as it's head establishes a national religion, not a teacher stating their opinion.

Putting millions of people in ovens persecutes a religion, a teacher stating their opinion does not.
 
If teachers cannot call creationism "superstituous nonsense" then they cannot be allowed to call natural phenomena we understand "superstituous nonsense" which includes explaining how lighting is not caused by Zeus.

Are we to tell teachers that they can't talk down to tossing salt over a shoulder?
 
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.

That might work until you realize Creationism is not a religion.

I'm Christian and I say Creationism is superstitious rubbish.

It would be helpful to know the context the statement was made in, given this was an advanced placement history class.
 
Last edited:
wrong, as usual. you are confusing "scientifically accepted" with "scientifically proven". they are not the same.

Theories are tested, but are not necessarily or wrong.
 
Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.

it is when your entire arguement hinges on the definition of the term.

It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof. asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
 
If teachers cannot call creationism "superstituous nonsense" then they cannot be allowed to call natural phenomena we understand "superstituous nonsense" which includes explaining how lighting is not caused by Zeus.

Because calling it "superstitious nonsense" is the only way to explain what causes lightning :roll:
 
It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof.
I might like his definition. Who knows?
asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
It prob'ly would have taken less effort than than the run around that has taken it's place.
but w/e
 
it is when your entire arguement hinges on the definition of the term.

It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof. asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.

*yawn*

OK Oscar, let's review. theplaydrive, you and I were discussing evolution and whether it was "proven". tpd was saying that evolution had not been "proven" while I was saying that it was. As a result of that discussion, it became apparent that theplaydrive was using the term "proven" to mean "absolutely proven" while I was not. When the playdrive stated this, I agreed that when using proven to mean "absolutely proven" that he was right and to show that I then understood that our disagreement was the result of our using different definitions of the same term and I even "liked" his post to acknowledge that.

Since science does not absolutely prove anything, I began using the phrase "scientifically proven" to distinguish what I was saying from the "absolutely proven" that tpd was referring to. "Scientifically proven" is a commonly used figure of speech used by laypeople to describe concepts that have been tested using the scientific method, found to be useful to accurately make predictions, and reviewed by other scientists with similar results and so have become generally accepted by scientists to be true. In other words, "scientifically proven" is a phrase used to describe the result of a process by which hypotheses become theories and when I said that "evolution has been scientifically proven" I was merely stating a truism.

Since you have already asked me for definitions of other terms which you could have easily looked up yourself, I got the impression that you were merely engaging in a form of rhetorical game similar to a child who asks a question and then responds to any answer you give with "why is that?" and when you answer that, the child again asks "why is that?". The point of that game is not to actually learn, but to "win" by frustrating the responder with disingenuity.

Words can have several meanings, and often the intended meaning of words spoken need to be taken in context in order to be understood. In a discussion, all parties nees to make a minimum effort to understand what is being communicated, and show a minimal ability to understand context. Your repeated demands for definitions of words and phrases that you could have looked up yourself has demonstrated to me that you are not willing to do the minimal effort needed to communicate. Instead of trying to understand, you're trying to "win" by somehow proving that a simple figure of speech (ie "scientifically proven") is "wrong"

For my next act, I will describe how "the circular file" is not really a place to file documents for later retrieval, and why no matter how much time you "save", you will not be able to withdraw it for use at some later date when you don't have enough time to complete a task. Then, you can provide me with a detailed definition for the phrase "generally accepted" means
 
Last edited:
*yawn* blah, blah, blah blah blah

bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.
 
bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.

SO you asked for a definition, and when I provided it and you can't refute it, you just repeat something I did not disagree with?

It seems that my suspicions (about your not wanting to discuss the issue) were true
 
That might work until you realize Creationism is not a religion.

It certainly is. It explicitly invokes a deity.

I'm Christian and I say Creationism is superstitious rubbish.

Good for you. So what? What does YOUR opinion have to do with someone ELSE holding that religious view?
 
bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.

as much is sangha is a dishonest debater, he is arguing on the right path. nothing can be proven absolutely. not by math, logic or anything else. math and logic rest on the assumed truth of premises that cannot be demonstrated as infallible and absolute. with this in mind its silly to define "proven" as "absolutely true" or "fact" because nothing we know of is proven and facts are an entirely different matter. So if we drop the pointless notion that "proven" is something that cannot ever be wrong and that in regards to science, "proven" is a scientific theory that explains a large body of evidence, has undergone rigerous testing without fail, and is accepted by the scientific community. in this context, the theory of gravitation, disease, and evolution are all "proven"
 
Last edited:
SO you asked for a definition, and when I provided it and you can't refute it, you just repeat something I did not disagree with?

It seems that my suspicions (about your not wanting to discuss the issue) were true

seems, you were wrong and can't bring yourself to admit it, so you deflect. color me surprised
 
as much is sangha is a dishonest debater, he is arguing on the right path. nothing can be proven absolutely. not by math, logic or anything else. math and logic rest on the assumed truth of premises that cannot be demonstrated as infallible and absolute. with this in mind its silly to define "proven" as "absolutely true" or "fact" because nothing we know of is proven and facts are an entirely different matter. So if we drop the pointless notion that "proven" is something that cannot ever be wrong and that in regards to science, "proven" is a scientific theory that explains a large body of evidence, has undergone rigerous testing without fail, and is accepted by the scientific community. in this context, the theory of gravitation, disease, and evolution are all "proven"

i guess, if you want to redefine the term "proven" :shrug:
 
i guess, if you want to redefine the term "proven" :shrug:
i have already explained that the way you define "proven" doesn't apply no matter whether the context is math, physical sciences, or philosophy. Only ignoramuses such as yourself define "proven" in such a way.
 
i have already explained that the way you define "proven" doesn't apply no matter whether the context is math, physical sciences, or philosophy. Only ignoramuses such as yourself define "proven" in such a way.

That would kinda be the point though. Since "proven" does not apply, claiming that evolution is proven is false.
 
It certainly is. It explicitly invokes a deity.

Creationism is a specific doctrine within a religion. Creationism is not a complete religion of it's own.

Good for you. So what? What does YOUR opinion have to do with someone ELSE holding that religious view?

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.
 
That would kinda be the point though. Since "proven" does not apply, claiming that evolution is proven is false.
the point is that defining "proven" as "absolutely true" is stupid in the context of math, science, and even philosophy.

when mathematicians, logicians, or scientists say something is "proven" they dont mean its absolutely true. yet we have people here who constantly think it does. apparently you are included.
 
Back
Top Bottom