• 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
definitely NOT in a science class. anymore that math class is a place to discuss politics.

Seems like the simplest approach to me. Science topics get discussed in science class, philosophical discussions get discussed in philosophy classes, math gets discussed in math class, etc. etc.

There will be crossover between some courses (math will be a part of physics, everything gets touched on a bit in history, etc), but that doesn't mean that a debate about the logical validity of a philosophical idea is appropriate in a science class any more than a discussion about what happened to Galileo belongs in a science class. One can teach about the things that Galileo discovered (phases of venus, rates of falling objects) without discussing the catholic church in any way. conversely, one can discuss the trial of Galileo in a history class without having any need to mention the phases of Venus. Granted, one will have to discuss heliocentrism and geocentrism briefly to talk about that trial, but that can be a simple description of the theories.
 
since nearly every christian religion in america believes in some version of creation, calling it "nonsense" is in effect calling every christian in america nonsensical. :shrug:

Every religion has a creation story of some kind. Calling creationism nonsensical does not promote one religion over another or discount an entire religion. One can believe in some aspect of Christianity (or Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) without believing in every aspect of it. That is why there are hundreds of different sects within Christianity.

If the teacher had said, "Christianity is nonsense" or "The bible is nonsense" then I'd see the argument. As it stands this was just religious folk getting hyper sensitive over a non-issue.
 
There is this website called google kids. Ask it a question and it will give you an answer.

Sure it will. In fact it will give you several answers, but it will not provide you with the critical thinking skills to sort through those answers and have a peaceful discussion about them.

If schools insist on avoiding this topic, I predict that there will be negative consequences. Perhaps not fights, but for instance, let's say a child does their own research and comes to a conclusion that their parents or religious communities disapprove of. Now the child has two choices... stop asking questions, or be ostracized (this one has happened to people I know personally, and has led to a number of kids growing up to hate the their religious communities and become estranged from their families).
 
Last edited:
since nearly every christian religion in america believes in some version of creation, calling it "nonsense" is in effect calling every christian in america nonsensical. :shrug:

Only if you insist that people must accept every precept of their religion or else reject it whole-cloth, which in this modern era, would be a very unwise thing for any religious community to do.
 
Only if you insist that people must accept every precept of their religion or else reject it whole-cloth, which in this modern era, would be a very unwise thing for any religious community to do.

splain to me how you can be a christian and not believe the bible then... :shrug:
 
since nearly every christian religion in america believes in some version of creation, calling it "nonsense" is in effect calling every christian in america nonsensical. :shrug:

Irrational, and that happens to be a strong point.

I don't see what the controversy is, seeing as the school curriculum probably already includes the big bang, and evolution. (As it should.)
 
If schools insist on avoiding this topic, I predict that there will be negative consequences.

There'll be no negative consequences at all. Understanding evolution in all its glory only matters to those who use that knowledge. It's not useful knowledge to the public nor to politicians. Amongst the public there are no instances in daily life that I can think of where choices are dependent on a.) one believing in evolution and b.) one understanding evolution in some detail. The same with public policy - no politician is required to understand evolution in order to craft public policy that is useful to the nation.

When students arrive at university and wish to study biology, then they have a need to understand what's going on. If some student wishes to cling to religious creationism then they're not going to get very far in their biology career because their brains will explode from the cognitive dissonance they must confront.
 
If you want to learn about creationism....go to church
If you want to learn about evolution...go to science class

sometimes it really is that simple
 
As a student, even in elementary school, I could easily see that the teachings of creationism are at odds with science. I was not alone, and I think it is likely that there will be kids who are not remotely satisfied with this answer. If no authority figure steps in to lend some guidance, the students are very likely to try to tackle it on their own, which is likely to lead to conflict, and possibly violence.

Wow! So if a teacher does not offer an opinion on creationism, it will lead to violence? Do you have any clue how stupid that claim is?
 
Methods of research have to be taught. That would require someone to teach them.. If religion remains sacrosanct as a topic of discussion in relationship to science, who will teach them how to approach it? Lacking that knowledge, the discussion will degenerate to shouting and eventually, the possibility of fights.

Religion and science are two entirely different fields and the approach for each is entirely different, and using the methods of one to look at another is stupid. Religion does not belong in a science class for that reason.
 
Every religion has a creation story of some kind. Calling creationism nonsensical does not promote one religion over another or discount an entire religion. One can believe in some aspect of Christianity (or Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) without believing in every aspect of it. That is why there are hundreds of different sects within Christianity.

If the teacher had said, "Christianity is nonsense" or "The bible is nonsense" then I'd see the argument. As it stands this was just religious folk getting hyper sensitive over a non-issue.

The idea is that it is not the place of government to support or deny any religion. Not even a little bit. While I think the lawsuit was overkill and falls outside the realm of what I consider "common sense"(like military chaplains and "in god we trust", which I think are technically in the wrong but not worth making a fuss over), technically, on it's merits, it does have a legitimate point.
 
If you want to learn about creationism....go to church
If you want to learn about evolution...go to science class

sometimes it really is that simple

And let us not forget parents.
 
However prayer at a high school event, should go all the way to the supreme court. :roll:

Mcdonalds serves fish sandwiches, therefore, salmon swim upstream to spawn.

Is there a connection there somewhere?

Prayer in pubic school is not illegal. Evolution is a proven theory. Evolution does not prove/disprove the power of prayer nor the existence of god. there is no connection.
 
And let us not forget parents.

WHAT??????? you mean parents should actually spend time with their kids and teach them things? say it isn't so. ;)
 
Mcdonalds serves fish sandwiches, therefore, salmon swim upstream to spawn.

Is there a connection there somewhere?

Prayer in pubic school is not illegal. Evolution is a proven theory. Evolution does not prove/disprove the power of prayer nor the existence of god. there is no connection.

evolution is an accepted theory. not proven. there is a difference. let's not go through this again ;)
 
evolution is an accepted theory. not proven. there is a difference. let's not go through this again ;)

I'm sure it will be brought up every time evolution comes up, in the form of "it's just a theory, after all."
 
evolution is an accepted theory. not proven. there is a difference. let's not go through this again ;)

While you are technically correct, it is worth noting that the difference is pretty trivial. For all intent, evolution is fact, it just is not provable. The fact that after all the effort put into testing evolution and all the observations made, and not one piece of evidence disproves evolution is pretty conclusive.
 
Wow! So if a teacher does not offer an opinion on creationism, it will lead to violence? Do you have any clue how stupid that claim is?

You need to read more carefully. You have pushed the parameters of what I said in order to make it appear ridiculous. Is this really the kind of tactic a moderator should be using?
 
While you are technically correct, it is worth noting that the difference is pretty trivial. For all intent, evolution is fact, it just is not provable. The fact that after all the effort put into testing evolution and all the observations made, and not one piece of evidence disproves evolution is pretty conclusive.

the same could've been said about the theory of spontaneous generation a couple hundred years ago. ;)

but I agree, evolution is all but a done deal. just saying, you can never really "prove" anything in science. our understanding is always improving as our technology allows us to see deeper, farther and better. the changes to accepted theories may be small and or inconsequential, but they do occur.
 
Last edited:
You need to read more carefully. You have pushed the parameters of what I said in order to make it appear ridiculous. Is this really the kind of tactic a moderator should be using?

You were the one that invoked the scenario of violence erupting as a possible outcome. If you think that she pushed your position to an extreme point then why don't you correct the matter by more fully explaining to us how a student who isn't the beneficiary of a teacher's pronouncement on religious creationism will become mired in schoolyard violence.
 
the same could've been said about the theory of spontaneous generation a couple hundred years ago. ;)

Actually no, it could not be said. It had not been rigorously tested.
 
You need to read more carefully. You have pushed the parameters of what I said in order to make it appear ridiculous. Is this really the kind of tactic a moderator should be using?

You brought up violence, not me.
 
Actually no, it could not be said. It had not been rigorously tested.

It had been as rigorously tested as technology and method of the day allowed. :shrug: hindsight is 20/20. just ask the guys who fell for "piltdown man"
 
I don't see how creationism still passes in ANY school as science. The teacher should be rewarded for actually trying to teach children.
 
Technically, its not an issue for the government to involve itself in. The teacher has a right to freedom of expression. However, while that right of freedom of expression means that this is not an issue for the courts, that constitutional right does not mean that the school distinct could not fire the teacher because of his or her statements.

Similarly, if a news anchor makes an overtly racist statement in a broadcast, the courts would have no business getting involved as the news anchor has freedom of expression. However, his or her employer could fire them for making such a statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom