• 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
1Perry said:
So if a teacher was teaching that creationism is how we were created, you would think it was wrong to sue to stop him if the school did nothing?
Click to expand...
No, because teaching creationism is teaching religion and that should not happen in a public school. Now that I've read the full quote I don't see anything wrong with what the teacher said. It was risky to use the word nonsense, but a good teacher challenges his/her students.
 
Layla_Z said:
No, because teaching creationism is teaching religion and that should not happen in a public school. Now that I've read the full quote I don't see anything wrong with what the teacher said. It was risky to use the word nonsense, but a good teacher challenges his/her students.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to introduce the concept of creationism without going into theological details/religious ideas from many faiths regarding creationism. I think it would be good for the teacher to lecture on genetics and the improbability of mutations/evolutionary theory. One problem with todays schools is we lecture kids on "fact" without teaching them how things work and to think for themselves and evaluate theories. If a good teacher challenges his/her students then why not break from the norm and discuss scientific principals not in line with evolutionary thinking and have students either believe or disbelieve in evolution based on the scientific reasoning they have been taught?
 
Tucker Case said:
That approach is completely inappropriate for a science class room.

Regardless of what a person wishes to believe, Creationism has no place in a science classroom. None. Not even honorable mention. It has nothing at all to do with science. Mentioning it the way that your teacher did actually comes across as an attempt to elevate creationism into the realm of science and protest the fact that evolution is a required part if science.

The correct approach, IMO, is top say "Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory, therefore it is taught in science classes. If you wish to discuss creationism, then please feel free to do so in a more appropriate setting such as a philosophy or theology class. This course covers scientific information."

And with regard to the court case, I believe it was the wrong ruling and it should be overturned.

Not simply because the teacher shared his opinion on creationism, though. It is actually due mostly to his comments complete irrelevance to the subject of history (which is what he was supposed to be teaching).

Had the same comment come in a logic, philosophy or theology class, though, it wouldn't have been the wrong ruling. In those classes I would also support a teacher saying the reverse (that creationism was logi8cal and evolution was superstitious nonsense) because in those courses such opinions can be relevant to the subject matter at hand.
Click to expand...

In a nation that professes to be something like 70-80% Christian, I think his preface was reasonable and appropriate. If he hadn't brought it up, I guarantee a student would have.
 
Layla_Z said:
No, because teaching creationism is teaching religion and that should not happen in a public school. Now that I've read the full quote I don't see anything wrong with what the teacher said. It was risky to use the word nonsense, but a good teacher challenges his/her students.
Click to expand...

Teaching that creationism is bunk is also teaching religion.
 
Layla_Z said:
No, because teaching creationism is teaching religion and that should not happen in a public school.
Click to expand...

It is easy to teach creationism concepts without teaching religion, it just needs to be done in the correct class in the right context (not a science or history class, but OK in a philosophy or theology class)
 
digsbe said:
I also think it's interesting that many support banning anything remotely religious or faith based (teachers praying, Bibles, crosses, etc) from classrooms and from clothing for reasons of "protecting religious freedom and not respecting/supporting a religion." Why should the reverse also be allowed? If a teacher can't support religion or even wear something remotely faith based without causing an issue then why should they be allowed to attack someone's religious/scientific beliefs with rudeness and arrogance? If the argument is that this speech is protected under the first amendment, then why isn't speech supporting religion/faith also protected?
Click to expand...
The problems with teachers praying, etc. is that they are the leaders in their classroom and they represent the school. Should a teacher insult religion? No, I don't think they should. The teacher in this case wasn't insulting anyone. He was pointing out the foolishness of trying to use science to "prove" a religious idea.
 
1Perry said:
So science is trying to disprove something as opposed to trying to determine scientific facts?
Click to expand...
If it's dis-proven that makes a statement about whether or not it's a fact. Imho. Ymmv.
1Perry said:
Science is not the idea of trying to "disprove" something.
Click to expand...
This is actually quite a bit of what science is about.
 
Goshin said:
In a nation that professes to be something like 70-80% Christian, I think his preface was reasonable and appropriate.
Click to expand...

The demographics of the nation have no bearing on the fact that creationism is not a scientific subject.

If he hadn't brought it up, I guarantee a student would have.
Click to expand...

And he should respond to that with "Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory, therefore it is taught in science classes. If you wish to discuss creationism, then please feel free to do so in a more appropriate setting such as a philosophy or theology class. This course covers scientific information."
 
Layla_Z said:
The problems with teachers praying, etc. is that they are the leaders in their classroom and they represent the school. Should a teacher insult religion? No, I don't think they should. The teacher in this case wasn't insulting anyone. He was pointing out the foolishness of trying to use science to "prove" a religious idea.
Click to expand...

The teacher in this case was insulting people who believe in creationism and abused their authority by stating (as fact) that creationism is false in a very rude and arrogant way. This teacher was directly teaching about religion by attacking a religious belief.If they can't support religion, neither should they be allowed to attack it.
 
Tucker Case said:
It is easy to teach creationism concepts without teaching religion, it just needs to be done in the correct class in the right context (not a science or history class, but OK in a philosophy or theology class)
Click to expand...

One of the most interesting units I remember from school was a world religion unit in Geography. I talk about different religions in my music appreciation class while talking about the music of other cultures. As long as the religions are being discussed objectively there is no problem. In band and choir, kids perform many Christian songs and songs of other religions. A big majority of early music is Christian. That is not teaching religion either.
 
digsbe said:
The teacher in this case was insulting people who believe in creationism and abused their authority by stating (as fact) that creationism is false in a very rude and arrogant way. This teacher was directly teaching about religion by attacking a religious belief.If they can't support religion, neither should they be allowed to attack it.
Click to expand...
Scientifically, creationism is false. It is a matter of faith, not science. He could have chosen a better way to say it, but he doesn't deserve to be sued.
 
Tucker Case said:
The demographics of the nation have no bearing on the fact that creationism is not a scientific subject.



And he should respond to that with "Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory, therefore it is taught in science classes. If you wish to discuss creationism, then please feel free to do so in a more appropriate setting such as a philosophy or theology class. This course covers scientific information."
Click to expand...


Be that way then. See if I invite you for barbecue next weekend, ya heathen. So there. :lol:


Seriously though, your way is perhaps the more technically correct, in a pedantic sense... but I think what my biology teacher said was a more practical approach given the culture (not to mention this was 1979-80, when the controvery over evolution was still very heated, and this was in South Carolina, the buckle on the Bible Belt). He knew he would face questions about creationism vs evolution if he didn't begin by saying something about why he wasn't going to discuss the matter, so he went ahead an did so right at the beginning.
 
digsbe said:
The teacher in this case was insulting people who believe in creationism and abused their authority by stating (as fact) that creationism is false in a very rude and arrogant way. This teacher was directly teaching about religion by attacking a religious belief.If they can't support religion, neither should they be allowed to attack it.
Click to expand...

Just a point of contention: Attacking the logic behind creationism is not attacking religion. In a philosophy setting where logic was being discussed, his comments would have been totally appropriate. My issue is that he used a valid criticism in an invalid setting, thus turning it into an attack on religion. Both content and context must be viewed, IMO.
 
digsbe said:
Not necessarily, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to introduce the concept of creationism without going into theological details/religious ideas from many faiths regarding creationism. I think it would be good for the teacher to lecture on genetics and the improbability of mutations/evolutionary theory. One problem with todays schools is we lecture kids on "fact" without teaching them how things work and to think for themselves and evaluate theories. If a good teacher challenges his/her students then why not break from the norm and discuss scientific principals not in line with evolutionary thinking and have students either believe or disbelieve in evolution based on the scientific reasoning they have been taught?
Click to expand...

If it is discussed in an appropriate manner - not as fact - and in the appropriate class, then I'm fine with that.
 
Last edited:
Isn't one of the main arguments of creationism that it is a scientific theory and not a religious argument? If that's so, then it must be addressed in a scientific context. To dismiss creationism as nonsense, from a scientific perspective, is spot on. It IS nonsense scientifically.

Or are creationism and ID not the same thing anymore? I can never keep track of what's being called what anymore... However, both of them are attempting to answer questions in a scientific context, and both fail abysmally to do so. If this teacher was needessly cruel in his comments, then perhaps he should learn to be a little more polite. But his message was spot on. Creationism is just plain not science.
 
Layla_Z said:
Scientifically, creationism is false. It is a matter of faith, not science. He could have chosen a better way to say it, but he doesn't deserve to be sued.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goshin said:
Be that way then. See if I invite you for barbecue next weekend, ya heathen. So there. :lol:
Click to expand...

:( What if I bring 4-alarm chili?


Seriously though, your way is perhaps the more technically correct, in a pedantic sense... but I think what my biology teacher said was a more practical approach given the culture (not to mention this was 1979-80, when the controvery over evolution was still very heated, and this was in South Carolina, the buckle on the Bible Belt). He knew he would face questions about creationism vs evolution if he didn't begin by saying something about why he wasn't going to discuss the matter, so he went ahead an did so right at the beginning.
Click to expand...

In that setting, I would say his response was appropriate, but in today's setting I think it isn't. I should have clarified that a bit. I support creationist ideas being taught in comparative religions classes and philosophy classes, though. Of course, in those settings I would say the teacher should be free to offer their opinions on it fully and completely, regardless of whether the support or oppose the concepts.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If it's dis-proven that makes a statement about whether or not it's a fact. Imho. Ymmv.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if it's disproven. Science does not set out in a pursuit to disprove something.

This is actually quite a bit of what science is about.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Science may disprove or prove something but neither is the goal set forth in science.
 
Paschendale said:
Isn't one of the main arguments of creationism that it is a scientific theory and not a religious argument? If that's so, then it must be addressed in a scientific context. To dismiss creationism as nonsense, from a scientific perspective, is spot on. It IS nonsense scientifically.

Or are creationism and ID not the same thing anymore? I can never keep track of what's being called what anymore... However, both of them are attempting to answer questions in a scientific context, and both fail abysmally to do so. If this teacher was needessly cruel in his comments, then perhaps he should learn to be a little more polite. But his message was spot on. Creationism is just plain not science.
Click to expand...


What is not scientific about saying some all powerfull being or beings created the universe, life on earth
 
1Perry said:
Indeed, if it's disproven. Science does not set out in a pursuit to disprove something.



No it isn't. Science may disprove or prove something but neither is the goal set forth in science.
Click to expand...

It is not the goal but part of the process.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...
See, you've made this a religious discussion. Religion is based on faith so therefore needs no proof. If you know of proof of creationism from a non-biased source, I would love to see it. Evolution is a scientific theory. While not proved beyond all doubt, it is based on evidence and fact.
 
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 is inappropriate to mock anothers faith at any time, imho. Because nobody knows for sure, and its disrespectful.

What he said may have been appropriate to the discussion at hand. How he said it was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom