• 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:
Which isn't what this guy said.
Click to expand...
Not literally but it is in effect the goal of science

The ability to prove or disprove a theory is one of the strongest part of scientific theory. To prove a theory correct you should be testing it to try to make it fail.

The theory of gravity would be tested to try to make it fail, under a wide variety of conditions. Because if you dont try to disprove it, someone else will. And if it is false, then you would be made a fool


Creationism or ID can not be proven positive or false. Evolution can be proven on a small scale, and through observation a large scale.
 
digsbe said:
I think she should not be allowed to say this. It endorses religious ideals that creationism is utterly false. It's an arrogant and moronic statement to make as well. I think it amounts to the state endorsing a side on a religious/scientific issue.
Click to expand...

How is calling a religious notion nonsense endorsing a religious ideal? Moronic how? How is creationism not nonsense?

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...

What evidence is that?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
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.
Click to expand...

It depends. The argument that was presented against the logic of creationism would have been a very good one, that wasn't based on opinion, if it was being used as a way to talk about deductive logic in a logic class. Saying that the conclusion is nonsense is going too far (although the way it was said wasn't necessarily an opinion statement so much as it was just rude), but the actual commentary pointing out the flawed logic was spot on (he should have noted the specific fallacies involved, though if it was a logic class).
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not literally but it is in effect the goal of science
Click to expand...

Once again, no, the goal of science is not to disprove something. It's to come to scientific facts whatever they may be. Science that sets out to disprove something is bound to be flawed.

The ability to prove or disprove a theory is one of the strongest part of scientific theory. To prove a theory correct you should be testing it to try to make it fail.
Click to expand...

Not to prove it wrong but to see if it will fail.

The theory of gravity would be tested to try to make it fail, under a wide variety of conditions. Because if you dont try to disprove it, someone else will. And if it is false, then you would be made a fool


Creationism or ID can not be proven positive or false. Evolution can be proven on a small scale, and through observation a large scale.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to discuss the merits of either one.
 
Goshin said:
I prefer the way it was handled when I was in school.

In Freshman Biology in HS, my biology teacher said, "There are two main ideas about the origin of life; Creationism and Evolution. I am going to teach you the theory of evolution. It is a required part of biology, since it is the current working theory in science on the development of life. You don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it because it is part of this course. Don't ask me which one I believe in, because I am not allowed to say: as an authority figure my opinion might have undue influence on you." When a couple of students pressed him to reveal his own belief, he flatly refused and proceeded to teach evolution without any expressions of bias.

That sounds about right to me.

This was a bad ruling; it will likely be overturned. Teachers should stick to teaching the curriculum and not comment on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

As an authority figure (science teacher) he might have undue influence on you should he state his position (accepting or rejecting science)?:roll:

Did he take the same approach when teaching you about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun? "You don't have to believe it" Really? Did he give you such freedom regarding accepting gravity? Who wasn't "allowing him to say"? The school district? He was compelled to not say that evolution occurred?
 
1Perry said:
Once again, no, the goal of science is not to disprove something. It's to come to scientific facts whatever they may be. Science that sets out to disprove something is bound to be flawed.



Not to prove it wrong but to see if it will fail.



I have no desire to discuss the merits of either one.
Click to expand...

And to come to the facts, one has to observe and if possible test the theory. Proving a theory involves testing it to see if it does fail. Testing a theory only underconditions which would succeed is flawed, testing it to see when it would fail is not
 
It's just stupid. I think part of it is his belief. If this was the private sector I'd say he could say whatever the hell he wants. The fact that it's a public school opens up some argument.

I'd side with him, I suppose. People seem to forget one major rule - you do not have the right to not be offended. Just another break-off from the entitlement crowd.
 
digsbe said:
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...

Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism is not. That's one of the major differences. Imho. ymmv.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
What is not scientific about saying some all powerfull being or beings created the universe, life on earth
Click to expand...

Because there's no way to actually find out if that's true. It's not a testable hypothesis. It is, therefore, not in line with the scientific method.

Seriously, what evidence do you, or anyone else, offer to back up that claim? All I keep hearing that "it's based on faith, and so doesn't need evidence". But then we're back at creationism being religion, and not science. You can't have it both ways. Pony up some real evidence, or get out of the scientific discussion.
 
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...

There is no establishment of religion in this case, it is a scientific fact that creationism is a load of horsecrap, period.
 
digsbe said:
I think she should not be allowed to say this. It endorses religious ideals that creationism is utterly false. It's an arrogant and moronic statement to make as well. I think it amounts to the state endorsing a side on a religious/scientific issue.
Click to expand...

It's not a religious ideal, it's a fact. Creationism is laughable bunk. It has no credibility whatsoever. It's neither arrogant, nor moronic, it's factually true. The only thing that's moronic is that anyone in the 21st century would still believe such utterly absurd things as creationism. Those people ought to be embarrassed.
 
1Perry said:
Teaching that creationism is bunk is also teaching religion.
Click to expand...

No, it's teaching reality, which is exactly what teachers are supposed to be doing.
 
What if...? said:
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.
Click to expand...

Respect is earned. If you don't want to be ridiculed for your beliefs, stop believing ridiculous things.
 
A Judge is in no position to make such a statement and he is overstepping his bounds. This is an individual choice to be made by each individual based on what they believe and understand.
I repeat a post I made on Evolution: People need to understand that creationism does not mean evolution can't also be happening. The Lord God set things in motion and gave us free will to make our own minds up about things. He doesn't demand that we believe in Jesus he just presents us the opportunity to believe and I believe that the same is true of this issue. The Lord God gives us information and the ability to decide for ourselves, and I have done that and I believe the Lord God set evolution in motion when he created the heavens ans the earth and even any E.T.s there might be.

The Bible does not tell us there are no others out there.

Remember the Bible is the word of God as seen by men who are relating what they believe many years after the events depicted took place and we all know things can be misinterpreted by man.

Gog bless you all even the dumn-ass judge.
 
Kandahar said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...

What if a history teacher fired for saying the holocaust did not happen or what if a science was fired for saying evolution is a load of crap would you say that his first amendment rights were violated? I think a lot of people agree with their firing. Its not a first amendment issue its about a teacher being fired for stepping outside their bounds or what ever it is you want to call it.
 
Last edited:
Proud South Korean said:
Obviously, the US Constitution allows for free speech, so the argument was just, as the statement was protected by the teacher's freedom of speech.
Of course, a student could speak out against that or the media could, it's all the matter of free speech
Click to expand...
We cannot be a nation with unbridled, unrestricted "free speech".
There are other considerations - such as respect...
That this had to come down to a ruling from the courts......speaks volumes for our troubles and ills...
So, now we need better teachers, those who can think before inserting both their feet into both their mouths...
The same applies to the students...
 
Lachean said:
Calling it nonsense is an estimation in poor taste IMO in the company of other people's children, calling it superstition is accurate.
Click to expand...

But should the state really be in the habit of telling people whether their religious beliefs are superstitious?

What does this have to do with "establishing a religion" Kandahar?
Click to expand...

Substitute some other slightly less absurd religious doctrine, and see if you have a problem with the statement being made by a government official then.

Was the state "picking sides on a religious matter" in "Kitzmiller v. Dover School District"? Nope, just calling bull**** what it is.
Click to expand...

No that was a separate issue. They were trying to teach intelligent design in a biology class, which obviously doesn't fly because A) it's not biology, and B) it's a religious doctrine. In this case, no one is suggesting that creationism should be taught in schools. (We can pretend the evolution/creation debate doesn't exist at all if you like, as it isn't really relevant to this case.) The question is whether a public school teacher has the right to disparage someone's religion like that.
 
Cephus said:
There is no establishment of religion in this case, it is a scientific fact that creationism is a load of horsecrap, period.
Click to expand...

It's a scientific fact that evolution occurs. Schools can teach the science, and allow students to draw their own conclusions about whether their religious beliefs are a load of horsecrap. Public school teachers should not be disparaging anyone's religion.


Also, would it change anyone's opinion to know that this guy was an AP History teacher, and not a biology teacher? I'm aware that there may be valid reasons to talk about the issue in a history class, but again, can't that discussion be done without attacking someone's religious beliefs? It's one thing to teach students what the scientific view of the world is, and it's quite another to tell them that their religion is wrong.
 
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goshin said:
I prefer the way it was handled when I was in school.

In Freshman Biology in HS, my biology teacher said, "There are two main ideas about the origin of life; Creationism and Evolution. I am going to teach you the theory of evolution. It is a required part of biology, since it is the current working theory in science on the development of life. You don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it because it is part of this course. Don't ask me which one I believe in, because I am not allowed to say: as an authority figure my opinion might have undue influence on you." When a couple of students pressed him to reveal his own belief, he flatly refused and proceeded to teach evolution without any expressions of bias.

That sounds about right to me.



This was a bad ruling; it will likely be overturned. Teachers should stick to teaching the curriculum and not comment on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Your HS teacher was incorrect. Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, but evolution is the only "main idea" about how life got to it's current form. Creationism is a religion, not a science.
 
1Perry said:
I'm just going to note something about the lecture.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

So science is trying to disprove something as opposed to trying to determine scientific facts? Science is not the idea of trying to "disprove" something. IMO the guy has no business not only in not teaching religion, but also science.
Click to expand...

The teacher is actually correct. The process of science is to develop hypothesis based on observation, and then create experiments to disprove that hypothesis.
 
Redress said:
The teacher is actually correct. The process of science is to develop hypothesis based on observation, and then create experiments to disprove that hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Or prove...
 
RiverDad said:
1.) This ruling came from the 9th Circuit. Enough said.
2.) Try substituting Muslim references for religious creationist references and I can't see the court issuing the ruling.
3.) Try substituting liberal creationist for religious creationist and again, I can't see the same ruling.
4.) When you're an employee your freedom of speech is curtailed.
Click to expand...

My attitude is that likewise, the students should be allowed to drop the teacher's class. I came close to walking out on two classes with atheistic teachers myself. One of them referred to the Bible as a "book of fairy tales" and the other taught that "evolution shows that everything occured naturally and wasn't created by a bunch of hocus-pocus". Unfortunately the classes were required for me to graduate. I had one teacher that I really liked, though. He required that we bring the text book and a copy of the Bible to class. He taught both sides and we were allowed to decide what we wanted to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom