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.
We get it, stop looking for strokes.
Just for the record, I did not disparage anyone. My comment (superstitious religious nonsense) referred to the teaching of a biology teacher at my school who was teaching “young earth creationism.” He sued the District, Dept. Chair, Principal, administrators and student newspaper (I was the adviser), asserting his right “as a qualified biology teacher,” under the principles of academic freedom, to teach that nonsense at a public high school while ignoring the state curriculum, directives by his superiors, and in spite of many complaints from parents. He lost the suit which the judge tossed out noting that it was a “frivolous lawsuit filed in bad faith.” What I said in class was that John Peloza (the teacher)was teaching “superstitious religious nonsense,” not science. I await an apology from all those who didn’t bother to find out the facts before they condemned me for using that phrase. I’ll bet I’ve got a long wait.
BIL From my post: ‘(I’m you know)’ should have been ‘(I’m SURE you know)’
I know you know. From your postings on the thread regarding the intruder fended off with a sword I did get the impression you liked a good blade 🙂
I once saw a documentary on swords that stated that a good Japanese blade properly sharpened had a cutting edge a few molecules beyond the visible edge. It occurred to me that any good blade should be similarly endowed- it’s the nature of molecular things to be ‘fuzzy’ at the visible edges.
I don’t have a sword but the better half and I did accumulate a nearly full set of righteous Henckles knives about 25 years ago. I was always happy that our taste in blades was given props by Michael Myers, who used a 10inch Henckles Chefs knife in the first movie. I use mine daily 🙂
Education is spent on POG initiatives. No real reason to educate in your going to extinguish them any way.
GOP
Mr. Spindell,
Ketiva ve-chatima tovah.
Truly.
P.S. I believe in creation because it comforts me. I believe in science because it makes my life easier.
“where are you”
typing and eating pizza not mutually conducive.
lottakatz,
I like a double-edge. What can I say. 😀
Chris,
The boy has the right to call the teacher a Godless heathen. If that’s not enough equity for you, that’s too bad. Free speech includes the right to disagree.
You can’t slander a “belief”. A person, yes, a concept? Good luck with that. It’s like slandering an abstractions. “I think hope sucks” or “Sigma is the root of all evil”. Now your bias is showing. Religion is not subject to ridicule? Then I suppose it’s not open to questioning either. You apparently think a religious belief is some kind of protected class of what exactly? Person? Thought? Just exactly where you you going with this desire to stifle free speech?
BIL: “…To me, what one can demonstrate and repeat trumps any leap of faith simply because if you can make something happen time and again then that is the nature of reality no matter what you “believe”.”
========
Or, as importantly (I’m you know) one can NOT replicate the result; the fallacy of ones conclusions is obvious also, no matter what one may believe. It is a blade that cuts both ways much to its credit and integrity.
Buddah,
I don’t really care which is correct, religion or science, one day we will all find out (or not find out) I just don’t like a teacher saying that what someone believes is superstitious non-sense. He does have his right to his opinion, and when I was in school I like to debate quite a bit. But slandering what someone believes isn’t sparking debate. There is a constructive way to question the creationism belief system and debate what each person believes is fact. Would you have a problem if his opinion was the opposite and and that was what he was teaching?
In case you missed this on another thread:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E1SLJgATvM&hl=en&fs=1&]
Chris,
Perhaps the writing was unclear. I meant “you” in the generic sense. I didn’t perceive you as showing a bias either way. You come off more as a Devil’s Advocate type.
And for the record, I’m a big fan of the imperfectibility of knowledge. I’ve gone on about Kurt Gödel and his incompleteness theorems so much I’m sure some of the regulars think I’m secretly a German scientist. That being said, I’m going to give science the edge because of Scientific Method. Empiricism and logic with their interrelation to our communication skills are the true fire Prometheus stole from the Gods. More dangerous than fire, but also more useful when properly harnessed. It’s a precision tool with built-in veracity proofing. No faith required. To me, what one can demonstrate and repeat trumps any leap of faith simply because if you can make something happen time and again then that is the nature of reality no matter what you “believe”.
Chris
1, September 17, 2009 at 7:24 pm
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”.”
Buddah,
“… The problem here is that it is not the teachers job to give his opinion about which religions are and are not superstitious nonsense.”
——later post:
” … Science is relative to what we know right now. Its not perfect, its a work in progress and we continue to learn new things about our planet all the time.”
======
One thing we do know is that the Earth is more than 7000 years old, people did not hunt off the backs of dinosaurs and the complexity of the eye in humans is entirely appropriate for a large omnivore that is also a prey animal for other large predators.
We also know that all religions rely on a creation myth that is not subject to the scientific method- a method to determine the likely-hood of of its truth or fallacy. That and its half-baked spawn such as creationism has no business being taught as fact or respected in a teaching environment.
If people want to teach it to their kids, fine- do it after school or in Sunday school. Do not degrade the overall quality of a state sponsored and secular education by supplanting science with belief. My tax dollars should not be appropriated to impose religious belief on my kids: religious belief will not get my kids in a good university, get them well paying jobs in any applied scientific field or improve the lot of medicine and the populous at large that relies on medicine or applied science.
From first post above: “The problem here is that it is not the teachers job to give his opinion about which religions are and are not superstitious nonsense”
It is his job to call nonsense on any theory that is nonsense REGARDLESS of which religion is pushing it IMO.
In case you missed it on Constitution day thread.
Criminal Contempt Case Over a Meal Prayer Goes to Trial on National Constitution Day.
http://lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1035
Free speech is a good thing. There are ramifications to “free speech” though..
Buddah,
Im not religious at all, I don’t believe in any of them. I would have just as much of a problem if his opinion was that creationism was perfect.
James Corbett
1, September 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I’m Dr. Corbett. Here’s my statement:
“… I am unhappy that his opinion damages my reputation in the minds of those who do not know the truth.”
———
I can not imagine the horror and burden this foolish young man and his ‘advocates’ have imposed on you and I have no idea what remedy you have available to you. It is though my opinion that you have behaved in a manner appropriate to your profession both as a teacher and man of integrity. Your opposers are no different that the religious/political elites that, for their own self-aggrandizing purpose, imposed the Dark Ages on Europe. You are a candle in the darkness and I wish you every legal success.
Also keep in mind the the people that don’t know the truth- about your role as a teacher, creationism and/or the relationship between church and state would not ‘vote’ for you anyway. Pleas do not lose any more sleep over them.
Lottakatz,
I am not a religious person at all. I have a problem with people who think they have all the answers, whether they are religious or not. Science is relative to what we know right now. Its not perfect, its a work in progress and we continue to learn new things about our planet all the time. There are tons of things in science that are unexplainable, just like religion.
Professors and teachers in general do themselves a disservice when they attempt to impose there own personal value system on there pupils. Religion is a very personal and touchy subject, always obey the conscience. Trouble ensues when we don’t…