There are a couple of interesting stories on the continued struggle over teaching evolution in public schools. In Louisiana, the state has approved special rules allowing teachers to challenge the basis of the theory of evolution. In California, a court ruled that a history teacher’s criticism of creationism violated the Constitution.
Louisiana, which has long had some of the lowest achievement levels in public education, will now have teachers challenging the basis of evolution. The alternative is obviously a belief in creationism. This will allow the use of supplemental materials, presumably including “intelligent design” material.
For the full story, click here.
While you can criticize evolution in Louisiana, you cannot criticize creationism in California. A court found that European history teacher, James Corbett, 62, violated by Constitution by referring to creationism as “superstitious nonsense”.
Chad Farnan, a devout Christian studying at California’s Capistrano Valley high school, had originally sued over a series of comments made by his teacher. It appears that Farnan spent many months collecting a dossier of material against Corbett before bringing the action.
The court threw out all but the last comment.
He is represented by Jennifer Monk, who works for a not-for-profit Christian law firm, Advocates for Faith and Freedom. She still claimed victory in establishing that the comment was actionable. I think she is right that it was a considerable victory. While the Court recently ruled that her client could not recover damages from the teacher, it still established the principle that a teacher cannot criticize creationism. It just shows that, if you want to argue for creationism, find a Monk.
What is interesting is that the basis for the ruling is that creationism is a religious belief. However, creationists have been advancing the same views under the label “intelligent design” and insist that this is not teaching religion. Thus, in places like Louisiana, they are likely to be calling for intelligent design material to be used in class. Does that mean if Corbett said “intelligent design is “superstitious nonsense”, it would not violate the Constitution?
Judge James Selna’s decision draws a curious line. He found that it does not violate the establishment clause for Corbett to say such things as “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth” because this statement was made in a historical context. He also ruled that it was not a violation to say “conservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies — that’s interfering with God’s work” and that there was as much evidence that God created the world “as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it”.
Ok, I am now confused. Selna insists that “there was no legitimate secular purpose to the statement and it constituted ‘improper disapproval of religion in violation of the establishment clause.'” The big spaghetti monster didn’t raise the same issue?
It sounds to me that Corbett went a bit far and should be a bit more circumspect. However, teaching evolution necessarily rejects the concept that a divine being simply created all of nature in a few days — just a few thousand years ago. While politicians still insist that carbon dating is a myth and the Earth was relatively recently created, teachers teach facts not faith. Evolution is a fact.
The other issue is the fact that this is a high school class. I would be very concerned about such comments in an elementary or middle school. However, in high school, teachers will often try to challenge their students and engage them in spirited debate. That is usually a matter for internal review at the school as opposed to fully fledge litigation.
Selna did rule in favor of Corbett on the issue of “qualified immunity,” holding “Corbett is shielded from liability – not because he did not violate the Constitution, but because of the balance which must be struck to allow public officials to perform their duties.”
For the earlier story, click here
For the latest story, click here.
Chris,
It is the teacher’s right to have an express an opinion just as it’s your right to disagree with it, but curtailing his free speech just to keep you happy over a “belief” is just theocratic fascism. If you or your child don’t like the teacher’s opinion, then don’t adopt it for yourself. I once assisted teaching a science class where one guy just flat refused to believe in surface tension. That didn’t stop him from breaking both his legs when he jumped into a quarry from too high a spot. A belief is just that, a belief. It doesn’t make the holder special. And once again, if your faith can’t withstand the light of reason as well as a differing opinion, then it’s not much of a faith now is it?
Dr. Corbett,
When the times seem dark in your fighting the good fight, recall that people of reason and champions of the scientific truths our species has sacrificed so much in learning are behind men like you and would never consider speaking truth to make you a “bad guy”. Anyone who does has some confusion on the whole “good/bad” dichotomy.
To thinking people, you’re a hero.
Byron,
The problem I have with religion is that every religion thinks they are one hundred percent correct. That is the same problem with people who think that religion is “superstitious non sense”. Nobody has all the answers and science is relative what we think we know right now.
Buddah,
I think that you are right on about being objective and teaching your children to have an open mind. The problem here is that it is not the teachers job to give his opinion about which religions are and are not superstitious nonsense.
Chris
1, September 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Its not the teachers job to interject his opinion. Its one thing to spark debate between students, its another to degrade ones beliefs.
—
To say that Creationism is wrong is not opinion- it is scientific fact. A belief passed off as fact has no place in a system of learning and certainly no secular education system. People that have a world view based on demonstrably false premise need to have that belief disabused to the point that the state is satisfied that that the state has done it’s job of education well enough that the student can pass a standardized test on the subject. The flip side of your statement is “it’s another to degrade ones facts with your (irrational) belief.”
Until the ‘superstitious nonsense’ that passes for Creationism can pass the rigorous and long standing application of the scientific method California is wrong in condemning James Corbett.
I’m Dr. Corbett. Here’s my statement:
Yesterday Judge Selna ruled in my favor on the last of the 22 “counts” against me. He has found that neither I, nor the CUSD are liable for any damages. At the same time, he left standing his opinion that my characterization of John Peloza’s teaching of creation science as “superstitious religious nonsense” violated Chad’s rights. Even though the judge found no liability, I am unhappy that his opinion damages my reputation in the minds of those who do not know the truth. The “Advocates for Faith and Freedom” have made it clear that they plan to appeal. That appeal should give me the opportunity to reverse the decision on the Peloza statement, so I welcome the “Advocates” efforts.
The biggest question yet to be decided is whether the “Advocates” will be required to pay all the expenses associated with my defense. The decision to go after that money is one that the school board must approve. I hope they do so, it would be a shame for the CUSD to pay anything for this travesty.
The following is a statement I released to the press after the decision:
After twenty years of teaching at the university level including stints at Stephens College (a women’s college) in Missouri, Lincoln University which is a black land grant school, and Beirut University College in Lebanon, among others, I realized that my joy came from teaching, not from doing research. With a Ph.D. from The Ohio State University, I could have stayed at the collegiate level, but without research credits, my initial options would have been limited to a junior college or some other not-so-selective institution. Once I met the research requirements there, I could have pursued a tenured position anywhere.
Chad Farnan’s complaint is centered on the way I meet the CUSD Board Policy that relates to Challenging Instructional Topics and Practices. Specifically, that policy states, “…students shall have the opportunities to discuss issues which have political, social, or economic significance and which the students are mature enough to investigate.” My class is a college-level class, and as such, I believe they should be mature enough to discuss virtually anything that appears in a major newspaper. I teach AP European History, but make no mistake – the crucial curriculum of the class is independent, critical thought offered through the extremely well-suited platform of European History. The class is often the first opportunity my students have to experience and develop their own independent thoughts and goals and question the political, economic, educational, societal and, yes, religious, conventions imposed from their childhood. I actively seek to nudge this process along, making the students think about, defend, and even reconsider the conventions they had taken for granted. I believe these brilliant and fascinating youth – our leaders of tomorrow – become better and more productive students, citizens, spouses and partners, leaders and parents when they think for themselves and develop – and achieve – their own goals based on their own core beliefs and ethics. Critical and independent thought is the springboard to that success.
I make my classroom safe for any opinion, and I exercise discretion when deciding if a particular issue is suitable for a particular class. I understand that some parents may disagree with my methods, so for many years now, in June or July before students enter the class, I send a note home to every parent and student, including the Farnans. That note reads, in part:
Current Events
“Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.”-Kalil Gibran [also attributed to George Santayana]
Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either the Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news websites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the “lessons” of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views.
I include my home phone number and e-mail address in the letter and encourage parents to contact me if they have any concerns. I have never revealed my own political or religious views, nor have I promoted a partisan point-of-view.
The Farnans have brought me to judgment for doing my best to be a servant to their son. They have sewn discord in my life and divisiveness in our community. The suit has troubled our school district and the public servants entrusted with its care. The lawsuit was needless and pointless. It cost a significant sum of money that should have been spent on the education of children. It served no purpose, beyond ruining my reputation and putting fear in the heart of every teacher who makes the effort to get his students to think on their own. I don’t know for sure why the Farnans’ lawyers, the so-called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” filed the suit without contacting me or trying to establish a dialogue with anyone from the school district. But I believe the publicity they’ve gained has likely helped them reap a steady influx of donations to their “legal ministry.”
In my opinion, Chad Farnan has been ill-served in this case. He may find admission to a quality non-Christian school challenging, because such institutions may try to avoid a student who has sued his teacher and his school without making any pre-lawsuit effort to discuss, much less resolve, his claims outside of court. The school district has been ill-served because they have been forced to pay for a defense attorney in a case that, in my opinion, never should have been filed in the first place. I believe the children in the district have likewise been ill-served, because money that should have gone to their educational opportunities was used to defend the lawsuit. The only “winners” in the case are the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom” who constantly used this case as a platform to solicit donations. Very few law firms, it would seem, can make money by losing cases, but the “Advocates” have managed to flourish under that model, and in the name of God. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who is the “bad guy” in this tragedy.
Jim
Cogently presented buddha..
Mike:
there were good reasons 5,000 years ago to not eat pork and shellfish.
I recently read an article in SA about a research program that is checking the mitochondrial (maternal) DNA to determine human migration and they can take it back [so far] to one woman in Africa. There are probably others but this woman is the matriarch of a good portion of the human family.
There is much information yet to discover and while we have discovered a great deal through rational scientific process there is still an entire universe of knowledge yet to be discovered.
Is evolution as understood 100% correct? Probably not and in 50 years people will look back and say wow those people were foolish to believe in natural selection.
How do you know that “creation” of species isn’t actually closer to how species of animals were created rather than evolution? I am not talking God creation here.
Anyway it is just a thought.
Right on, John Puma!!
Without challenge and verification of facts and testing of hypothesis one cannot have science. If your faith is so weak, it cannot either coexist with science or withstand the scrutiny of science, you should keep it in your home instead of sending your children to school ill-equipped to learn what they are SUPPOSED to be teaching in schools which is critical thinking and logic.
See how far the English are willing to go in stopping your right to question facts . . . http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/12/homeowner-convicted-for-beating-armed-robber-faces-tort-liability/#comment-79351 And that’s just libel law. You’re talking about allowing children to assert their religion over learning the skills required not just for them to succeed in life, but for this country to succeed. When you raise people incapable of exercising rational thought and critical reasoning skills because it hurts their feelings about their “beliefs”, you raise a nation of dullards and barbarians.
Well whaddaya know . . .
Religion is for your home and the building you go to once a week to compare wardrobes with your neighbors. It has no place in the classroom where rational inquiry is taught. It is a “belief” and is therefore antithetical to teaching critical thinking and logic. Even the Jesuits know this. That’s why their schools offer courses in both science and comparative religion.
But you can still discuss good and evil in a scholastic and theologically neutral manner in schools. It’s called “ethics”. So instead of raising your children to be unthinking religious reactionaries, you know, like the Taliban, how about sending them to school with an open mind? Teach them to be ethical first and religious second. At home if you want to wear hair shirts, knock yourself out, but you’re not doing a favor to your children teaching them that their religion should trump any other concern on Earth. It’s stupid and it’s dangerous and it makes for bad citizens.
To Byron:
The answer is to teach evolution in science classes
and to teach creationism in comparative religion classes.
As a Catholic, I have no anxiety believing in evolution. I believe this is a system that God implemented, allowing creatures and all living organisms to form over eons of time. As a Catholic, I am not forbidden to believe this. I also don’t have problems with people believing literally in the story of creation. I personally believe that modern man has an immortal soul, once man could respond to the call of his Creator, and love Him freely, this I believe is “us” modern man, Adam and Eve, if you will. Adam in Hebrew means “man”…
mespo:
I am working on it.
the Vlasic pickle stork is my model. He brings pickles as well as babies so you kill 2 birds with one stone.
To Mike and Mespo:
While I don’t believe in biblical creation, the bible is one of the foundational books of western culture. I would think if you teach creationism and evolution the preponderance of evidence pointing to evolution would sway most any rational person to the theory of evolution.
Secondarily, if a person is against creationism and it is being taught in schools does he not have the right to fundamentally disagree with how his tax dollars are being spent? Likewise for a christian who believes in creation. As Jefferson said it is up to the conscience of the individual as to how he worships or does not worship.
Maybe the answer is to not teach either one.
Here, here, Chris…..
Its not the teachers job to interject his opinion. Its one thing to spark debate between students, its another to degrade ones beliefs.
“Teach them both and let people make up their own minds.”
Byron,
You are setting up a false equivalency. Evolution is a scientific theory that at least has some proof to back it up.
“Creationism” is a Christian belief in how the Universe came about based on a false interpretation of the Jewish Torah. It is irrelevant to me if someone chooses to believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is a true explanation of the Universe’s creation. It becomes relevant when people want to have this taught in our schools alongside evolution. There is simply no evidence of any kind, other than faith that the universe was created as stated in Genesis, therefore it has no place being taught in public schools.
My religion for instance believes that eating pork and shellfish are “abominations” in God’s eyes. Should that be taught in biology classes when discussing the food groups? A line has to be drawn between religious dogma and actual science. I admit that evolution is not a perfect theory, but there is a lot of evidence that supports it. On the other hand, just answer who were the women that Adam and Eve’s sons married and you arrive at the creationist dilemma. Genesis is internally illogical as a creation story and thus has no business being taught in any place but religious settings.
Like it or not the state is and always will be in “education”. All facets of public education from K-1, thru the public university system, are beholdin’ to the state. This is a reality, unless you plan to attend private schools, or home school your kids, then have them matriculate to only private postsecondary education. Unless you choose this path, you are in the system baby….
Byron:
“Teach them both and let people make up their own minds.
This is why the state should not be in the business of education.”
*************
Ok, Byron, I want you to teach the “Stork Theory” of human reproduction; the “Santa Claus Theory” of Christmas presents for kids; and the “I can see Russia from my window” Theory of International Relations. Get that curriculum going now!
It has become embarrassing to be be an American. Every time I think the race for our country to become more stupid (generally under color of ‘religious freedom’) has bottomed out I am presented an example of further excavation. Embarrassing.
Byron, the state plays an active role in education. Elementary school through the state colleges and public universities and communitiy colleges, they have there hand in almost all the educational pie. This is good, this works. This is how the masses get educated and wise.
and this is exactly why Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom.
The state has no business telling people what they can and cannot teach. Teach them both and let people make up their own minds.
This is why the state should not be in the business of education.