Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

Redress said:

In fact, the only one that remotely comes close to your claim is 4, and that form is not used as you used the word.

Click to expand...

four could never work because of the portion that states "to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc". Quality, amount, acceptability, and characteristics are not things that can be determined about evolution.

Definition 4 is absolutely impossible to use in the context of evolution being proven. The example given, "to prove ore", shows that. "Proving ore" would be trying to determine what kind of ore it is, specifically, as in "The ore was proven and it turns out to be iron." It is a totally different meaning than what was used with regard to evolution.

Dittohead not! said:

The difference is that the Piltdown Man idea was tested and found to be false, and the same for spontaneous generation.

Evolution was tested and found to be solid.

Click to expand...

so far..... which was my point

sangha said:

BTW, if you want to be so pedantic, the word evolution refers to the scientific study of the distribution of genes within a population of a species, how that distribution changes over time and how those changes affect the species (and sometimes leads to the development of new species). Since scientists do study this, my statement that evolution is scientifically proven is true in the pedantic sense. Genes are distributed within a population of a species (science has proven this), this distribution does change (science has proven this too) and these changes do affect the species (again, science has proven this)

Click to expand...

Technically, the basic form of evolution is the study of the change of allele frequency over time. Of course, that is not what we are talking about. Within the context of the thread, we are talking the full monte evolution since that is what creationism supposedly offers an alternative to. Context is important.

Redress said:

Technically, the basic form of evolution is the study of the change of allele frequency over time. Of course, that is not what we are talking about. Within the context of the thread, we are talking the full monte evolution since that is what creationism supposedly offers an alternative to. Context is important.

Click to expand...

Suddenly, you're not being so pedantic!! Suddenly, words don't have just one meaning and just as suddenly, context is important!! :roll:

sangha said:

Suddenly, you're not being so pedantic!! Suddenly, words don't have just one meaning and just as suddenly, context is important!! :roll:

Click to expand...

and suddenly you still can't admit you were wrong, even though a dozen people have told you so.

OscarB63 said:

and suddenly you still can't admit you were wrong, even though a dozen people have told you so.

Click to expand...

You still havent shown that I'm wrong. Sure, you complained about how I wasn't posting definitions for every phrase that I used, but then when I did post the definitions, you STFU because you couldn't refute what I said.

I said that "evolution has been scientifically proven" and I posted definitions for "evolution" and "scientifically proven". If you have any argument to make about that, then make the argument. Your "blah, blah, blah" quote was not an argument; it was a surrender

sangha said:

You still havent shown that I'm wrong. Sure, you complained about how I wasn't posting definitions for every phrase that I used, but then when I did post the definitions, you STFU because you couldn't refute what I said.

I said that "evolution has been scientifically proven" and I posted definitions for "evolution" and "scientifically proven". If you have any argument to make about that, then make the argument. Your "blah, blah, blah" quote was not an argument; it was a surrender

Click to expand...

and at least a dozen people here have shown you what you are bleating to be "scientifically proven" is actually scientific consensus. not our fault you lack the wit to know the difference.

OscarB63 said:

and at least a dozen people here have shown you what you are bleating to be "scientifically proven" is actually scientific consensus. not our fault you lack the wit to know the difference.

Click to expand...

Umm, I'm the one who said that I was referring to "scientific consensus" which is why you don't have any argument to make. You agree with me, but you're too dishonest to admit it. Instead, you're trying to dishonestly argue that the truth is subject to a majority vote on an internet board, a claim that you know is not true.

sangha said:

You still havent shown that I'm wrong. Sure, you complained about how I wasn't posting definitions for every phrase that I used, but then when I did post the definitions, you STFU because you couldn't refute what I said.

I said that "evolution has been scientifically proven" and I posted definitions for "evolution" and "scientifically proven". If you have any argument to make about that, then make the argument. Your "blah, blah, blah" quote was not an argument; it was a surrender

Click to expand...

The theory of evolution has survived peer review, replicability and scientific scrutiny.

Creationism has not, even within linguistic literary circles.

Therefore Evolution has been proven, and Creationism has not been proven.

May we please abandon this hijacking and get back to the thread topic now?

Redress said:

Technically, the basic form of evolution is the study of the change of allele frequency over time. Of course, that is not what we are talking about. Within the context of the thread, we are talking the full monte evolution since that is what creationism supposedly offers an alternative to. Context is important.

Click to expand...

It would be more satisfying if the teacher could specifically address the exact and detailed lineage found in Genesis which Creationism is based on, rather than merely dismiss it as superstitious. In that way the teacher is arrogantly basking in ignorance, and I find that offensive even if legal.

sangha said:

Suddenly, you're not being so pedantic!! Suddenly, words don't have just one meaning and just as suddenly, context is important!! :roll:

Click to expand...

You still fail to understand the concept of context, which has been your continued problem this thread.

Redress said:

You still fail to understand the concept of context, which has been your continued problem this thread.

Click to expand...

That was ironic, but I do appreciate that you've dropped the "words have one meaning" rant

Now, instead of criticizing me, do you think you could address what I said? Or maybe address what scourge said? Or what TuckerCase said? Or what Jerry said? Or what Kandahar said?

Redress said:

For me to know whether the ruling is the right one, I need to understand what "qualified immunity" means, since that is the basis for the ruling. I might look into that later, but right now I don't understand what is meant by that, and I bet most of the people answering don't know either, which begs the question of how did they make their determination if they don't understand the ruling.

However: I would consider it inappropriate for a teacher to say things like that and the local school board should reprimand the teacher for the comment.

Click to expand...

Qualified immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights.

~~snip~~

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] 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."

In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.

Click to expand...

Qualified immunity | LII / Legal Information Institute

Qualified Immunity Law & Legal Definition

***
Unless there is a law explicitly stating that teachers may not express an opinion on any religious view, a teach falls under qualified immunity and may express said opinion.

Even when we would have chosen a different response, "creationism is superstitious rubbish" still falls within the range of acceptability.

sangha said:

That was ironic, but I do appreciate that you've dropped the "words have one meaning" rant

Now, instead of criticizing me, do you think you could address what I said? Or maybe address what scourge said? Or what TuckerCase said? Or what Jerry said? Or what Kandahar said?

Click to expand...

I never claimed words have only one meaning. I have addressed the problem with your comment, at length. You have failed to come up with an actual rebuttal except this little lie, which did not work well.

Jerry said:

Qualified immunity | LII / Legal Information Institute

Qualified Immunity Law & Legal Definition

***
Unless there is a law explicitly stating that teachers may not express an opinion on any religious view, a teach falls under qualified immunity and may express said opinion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I looked it up later and commented. What the ruling does is leave intact that it was inappropriate for the teacher to say, but that they cannot nail him for this because he had no reason to think based on prior rulings it would be inapropriate. Since the prior court did rule that it was inappropriate, and that was not overturned, then in the future, teachers would not have such protection. Or so I gathered from my reading.

Edit to add: It's not that teachers can express that in a classroom, it is that in the absence of a ruling that they should not, they have immunity.

Redress said:

I never claimed words have only one meaning. I have addressed the problem with your comment, at length. You have failed to come up with an actual rebuttal except this little lie, which did not work well.

Click to expand...

I weill repeat: instead of criticizing me, do you think you could address what I said? Or maybe address what scourge said? Or what TuckerCase said? Or what Jerry said? Or what Kandahar said?

Redress said:

Yeah, I looked it up later and commented. What the ruling does is leave intact that it was inappropriate for the teacher to say, but that they cannot nail him for this because he had no reason to think based on prior rulings it would be inapropriate. Since the prior court did rule that it was inappropriate, and that was not overturned, then in the future, teachers would not have such protection. Or so I gathered from my reading.

Edit to add: It's not that teachers can express that in a classroom, it is that in the absence of a ruling that they should not, they have immunity.

Click to expand...

What was the question the student asked and how would you have answered it?

Jerry said:

What was the question the student asked and how would you have answered it?

Click to expand...

I answered the latter part in thread. It depends on what class it is in. In a science class, a question about creationism should be answered something like this: "creationism is outside of the realm of science and as such not really appropriate for discussion here". In a theology or philosophy class a teacher could explain what creationism is, without expressing a for or against view. In a history class, discussing how the creationism concept came about would be appropriate, again without taking sides.

Since public schools are part of the government, under the first amendment, teachers should not, in their roll as teacher take sides on religious matters.

Redress said:

I answered the latter part in thread. It depends on what class it is in. In a science class, a question about creationism should be answered something like this: "creationism is outside of the realm of science and as such not really appropriate for discussion here". In a theology or philosophy class a teacher could explain what creationism is, without expressing a for or against view. In a history class, discussing how the creationism concept came about would be appropriate, again without taking sides.

Since public schools are part of the government, under the first amendment, teachers should not, in their roll as teacher take sides on religious matters.

Click to expand...

What if the child responded "But why isn't creationism science? I've read a lot about it and there is evidence to support the claims about Intelligent Design?"

Redress said:

I answered the latter part in thread. It depends on what class it is in. In a science class, a question about creationism should be answered something like this: "creationism is outside of the realm of science and as such not really appropriate for discussion here". In a theology or philosophy class a teacher could explain what creationism is, without expressing a for or against view. In a history class, discussing how the creationism concept came about would be appropriate, again without taking sides.

Since public schools are part of the government, under the first amendment, teachers should not, in their roll as teacher take sides on religious matters.

Click to expand...

In this case it was an honors history class. I'm disappointed the teacher couldn't address the lineage YEC is based on.

As a point of trivia: according to that lineage, Adam was alive to know Noah for a few hundred years before finally dying of age before the flood.

As a day-age creationist I enjoy having no such conflict between creation and known science.

sangha said:

What if the child responded "But why isn't creationism science? I've read a lot about it and there is evidence to support the claims about Intelligent Design?"

Click to expand...

First, remind the student of the scientific method, then "Creationism does not make predictions nor is it falsifiable, therefore it does not fall under the realm of science". Somewhat oversimplified, but gets the job done.

sangha said:

What if the child responded "But why isn't creationism science? I've read a lot about it and there is evidence to support the claims about Intelligent Design?"

Click to expand...

If you were the student, would you have a specific event of punctuated equilibrium you could point to and call the creation event?

Jerry said:

If you were the student, would you have a specific event of punctuated equilibrium you could point to and call the creation event?

Click to expand...

Could you rephrase the question please?

Jerry said:

If you were the student, would you have a specific event of punctuated equilibrium you could point to and call the creation event?

Click to expand...

I don't understand the question, and I'm not a student of creationism or intelligent design. I'm just wondering what the best way to handle the inevitable questions that will arise

sangha said:

I don't understand the question, and I'm not a student of creationism or intelligent design. I'm just wondering what the best way to handle the inevitable questions that will arise

Click to expand...

The best way to handle the situation is to recognize that it's usually only a few students who are interested in the question. Most of the class doesn't give a damn. Of those few students who are interested, some will be locked into a religious framework and won't be swayed by evidence and a few students will care to hear the arguments.

If a teacher really wants to make the effort to reach out to those few students who want to learn, then he can announce that he participates in a quarterly event where he spends one evening at a local church which hosts a debate on the issue, probably a church that is OK with evolution, like those Universalist churches. Invite all students to come on their own time to this debate and then make the case.

It's a huge time suck because it only has benefit for 1 or 2 students who actually want to learn. Mostly the entire premise of the debate is nonsense in that the kids, and most adults, don't have enough knowledge and background knowledge to make informed decisions. This is why teachers TEACH rather than hold socratic dialogues with their students. We don't ask students to independently derive the Avogadro constant, we TELL them. People with more knowledge TELL those with less knowledge what the score is. That's the most efficient way for 1 person to transfer knowledge to 30 other people. Many teachers though are passionate about teaching and so they might want to make the huge time commitment to have a full-on debate just for the benefit of the rare students that are engaged deeply in the learning process.