• 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
One thing is constant in this thread is the recognition that creationism is religion...not science

Yup, and religion, like all other ignorance, does not belong in schools.
 
16 pages?

clearly many people hold strong religious beliefs. And in this country that is particularily true. The question of evolution vs creationism was settled nearly a century ago during scopes. Why is this even an issue today?
Why is there such hostility towards science?
We don't indoctrinate religion in the science classroom nor the history classroom. Thus it is perfectly legit for a science/history teach to be calling superstition just that, nonsense.
Superstition is not scientific, never will be. Attributing the universe's existence to a creator is not a scientific rationale, nor is there any historical proof of such other than within mythical fables and tales.
Unfortunately and very surprisingly, more than a 3rd of Americans believe that the bible is word for word the literal truth rather than a collection of moral fables.
 
Yup, and religion, like all other ignorance, does not belong in schools.
Actually, it belongs in history classes and classes about society or religion in general. It doesn't, however, belong in science classes.
 
A government funded school has no right to comment on this one way or the other. The teacher should be removed. It's a school, not an indoctrination center.
 
A government funded school has no right to comment on this one way or the other. The teacher should be removed. It's a school, not an indoctrination center.

While teaching science, a teacher has every right to call creationism "superstitious nonsense" because that's what it is.
 
A government funded school has no right to comment on this one way or the other. The teacher should be removed. It's a school, not an indoctrination center.

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.
 
Interesting issue and thread.

I'm neutral - but it is interesting how much stir comes up over religion . . . arrested for inciting prayer in one state and sued for inciting opposition in another and in my school district the school endorses religion by selling religious items in the bookstores. In there is an actual opinion of the nation and the courts - so much for 'keeping quiet' and 'separation'
 
Teachers should be encouraged to speak truth.
"Creationism is superstitious nonsense" is not speaking truth, it's giving one's crass opinion. Saying "creationism is a religious belief unsupported by scientific evidence" is speaking truth.
 
"Creationism is superstitious nonsense" is not speaking truth, it's giving one's crass opinion. Saying "creationism is a religious belief unsupported by scientific evidence" is speaking truth.

Semantics. Two ways of saying the same thing.
 
You know, it's probably true to some degree. So what? Reality is what reality is. I'm certainly not butt-hurt by reality, why are the religious?


Why must evolution and religious belief be mutually exclusive anyway? How then to explain biologists and etc. who are also religious?

I just don't see why a history teacher would be using his classroom as a bully pulpit.
 
Read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, then get back to me on that one.
Already have, like I said, it's not the same thing at all. Try again and this time do it with your own arguments instead of those from a man whose ideas you probably worship as divine.
 
Why must evolution and religious belief be mutually exclusive anyway? How then to explain biologists and etc. who are also religious?

Very, very few are, among scientists, religiosity is extremely low, but the simple fact is, scientific expertise does not necessarily inoculate you against irrationality. Clearly, evolution and religious belief are not mutually exclusive, there are plenty of people, the majority in fact, who accept both, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no scientific validity to religion, it's a superstition, nothing more.

I just don't see why a history teacher would be using his classroom as a bully pulpit.

How is telling the truth a bully pulpit? If he said the holocaust happened, should the holocaust deniers decry his words as offensive? Reality is what reality is. Creationism *IS* superstitious nonsense. All the complaining in the world isn't going to change that.
 
Actually, it belongs in history classes and classes about society or religion in general. It doesn't, however, belong in science classes.

As a discussion of motivations, etc., sure. Religious beliefs make people do things. That doesn't make the religious beliefs valid, true or worthwhile.
 
Already have, like I said, it's not the same thing at all. Try again and this time do it with your own arguments instead of those from a man whose ideas you probably worship as divine.

Oh please. You really need to put away this silly emotional attachment to your own arguments. It's clouding your reasoning skills. If you have read it, then offer a counter argument instead of accusing me of something that you know to be untrue.
 
Oh please. You really need to put away this silly emotional attachment to your own arguments. It's clouding your reasoning skills. If you have read it, then offer a counter argument instead of accusing me of something that you know to be untrue.
Calling creationism "superstitious nonsense" is an opinion. Calling creationism "unsupported by science" is a fact. Opinions and facts are different. Get it?
 
"Creationism is superstitious nonsense" is not speaking truth, it's giving one's crass opinion. Saying "creationism is a religious belief unsupported by scientific evidence" is speaking truth.

You've actually changed my mind with that. Though I still beleive that what the teacher said is true, your formulation is much more appropriate for a public school setting. The teacher should be more mindful of the impact of such harsh language and should strive be "non-partisan" about issues which fall outside the subject matter of the class they are teaching
 
Calling creationism "superstitious nonsense" is an opinion. Calling creationism "unsupported by science" is a fact. Opinions and facts are different. Get it?
Far too many do not...The line can be blurry.
And a great, if not far too many, do consider Creationism as a fact....or a least a distinct possibility....not to be rejected out of hand.
 
Lecturing on "we should strive to find the good in diversity and try to leverage our differences into strength" would be espousing an ideal but stating "diversity is our strength" as though it is undisputed fact, as though it is knowledge that is as sound as the law of gravity is an altogether different type of animal. There is a world of social science literature, not to mention a historical accounts from all over the world, which directly contradict the myth that "diversity is our strength."

Schools have entire bureaucracies which push this myth. Imagine having an entire school bureaucracy dedicated to pushing religious creationism.



In some deep dungeon lab in the feverish leftist swamps. I'm too scared to approach their borders to find the source.
"Diversity is our strength"...NOT a myth...
But there are many people who choose to make it our weakness......intolerance comes to mind.
 
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?

just for the record.... evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact. there is lots of evidence to support it...but it has not been "proven"

my question is, how would the judge have ruled if the teacher had said "evolution is BS" ??
 
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?

What's wrong with calling a spade a spade? "Creationism", at least the so called "young Earth" creationism that holds that the creation myths described in the Bible are literal historical fact is most certainly "superstitious nonsense."

Kids have too much to learn to waste time with creationism.
 
If you are teaching science, creationism is superstitious nonsense. No scientific method has been used to come up with creationism. In this case I don’t know if the student complained in class that creationism was not being considered as a valid position in science, which it is not. If the student was challenging the teacher and would not cease when it was explained that creationism is not science then having the words superstitious nonsense used is understandable. If the teacher starts with creationism is superstitious nonsense as part of a science curriculum then there is a problem with the teacher’s methodology, and that should be addressed by the teacher’s supervisors. Creationist teaching is being done in a way now to suggest challenging science. In doing that it intends to cause this trouble and allows them to complain, and intended result.

If you are teaching science you have no business mentioning creationism, either positively or negatively. that's like talking about philosophy in math class. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
just for the record.... evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact. there is lots of evidence to support it...but it has not been "proven"

my question is, how would the judge have ruled if the teacher had said "evolution is BS" ??

In science, something does not become a "theory" until it has been scientifically proven.
 
Back
Top Bottom