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.
That is deep Mike…. I read it yet again.
Well said Mike, cogently presented. I feel ya!
“Reality may appear “malleable” in this state but it clearly is not as many young people found out after jumping off a building thinking they could fly”
Byron & Billy,
The instance of people jumping off buildings were minuscule and fostered by a society afraid of the effects of mind altering drugs. However, my point wasn’t to defend these drugs, but to comment on the nature of reality. Modern physics for instance theorizes 11 dimensions and innumerable universes separated by only the thinnest of membranes. Your perception of a given reality that we both observe may differ significantly from mine and yet we are both sane. To me this indicates that there are a great many possibilities and explanations for things that can’t be currently scientifically explained. If that is true, I personally believe it is, then there could possibly be a creative force that is behind everything.
As far as dismissing hallucinations, you miss the point that it is not the hallucination per se that causes any insight, but the fact that they look, sound and taste real. If it is possible for that to be, then to me one must question whether ones senses fully perceive and/or fully appreciate that around us which we call “reality.” This is not an idea original to me but has been explored by philosophers and religious seers for thousands of years.
True, Byron. I would hate to think that our society is going through “formation” based upon someones use/abuse of a hallucinogenic drug, such as Lysergic acid diethylamide.
mIKE:
“If one looks at modern Physics Theory, or has taken LSD, peyote and/or mescaline, they learn that “reality” is a malleable entity”
strictly speaking about LSD and other mind altering drugs don’t they just cause hallucinations? Your brain is not perceiving reality but the hallucinogenic effect of the drug.
For example you see spiders on a wall that are not there, your brain is distorting reality because it is being set off by the drug, some area of the brain is being artificially stimulated and so what you are perceiving is not reality at all but a drug induced hallucination.
Reality may appear “malleable” in this state but it clearly is not as many young people found out after jumping off a building thinking they could fly (think Art Linkletter’s daughter). While LSD and peyote may give you some insights because of stimulating a certain area of the brain and release some long stored data, it cannot mold reality to your wishes, needs and desires.
I value all Sacred Scripture, from Genesis through the Apocalypse.
Mike, that line you used was from a song by Triumph, Right On! I also believe in the creation story of Genesis. I believe it is a story that explains the creation of “civilized man”, and his ability to dialogue with his Creator..
This being one of the most thoughtful and decorous threads we’ve had in a while encourages me as I begin the Rosh Hashanah holiday at sundown to again express where I’m coming from religiously. Although I am a practicing Jew (so sue me I like it)in reality I’m a Deist. This to me means that I have a tendency to believe there is a purpose to the Universe, but that humankind could not possibly grasp the motivations of the creative force that runs it. All religions are attempts at understanding this force, but none rise up to the task.
In that sense the best that religions do is formulate an ethical context for humans, in Judaism best expressed by Rabbi Hillel:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”
This has also been expressed similarly in other religions and philosophies and for me it represents the essence of what humanity needs to learn.
If one looks at modern Physics Theory, or has taken LSD, peyote and/or mescaline, they learn that “reality” is a malleable entity. If that is so, then to my way of thinking we humans are still in the stages of early infancy in understanding the Universe around us. Many things are possible, but no one has the truth and the pretensions of the Fundamentalists to absolutely know the purposes of the creative force (if it indeed exists) makes them dangerous and in the end intolerant.
My kudos to Mr. Corbett for his courage and to all from my own meager perspective I wish you a good year.
CCD:
thanks, I hope you are doing well and keeping the boys in the Chicago political machine in line and marching to the drum beat of we the people.
mepso:
“Forcing a child into a life of utter delusion and muddle-headed thinking under the guise of religious liberty is child abuse of the worst kind. You can recover from blows to the body, but handicapping the child’s ability to think rationally makes him worse than an automaton-it makes him Glenn Beck”
What about Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham and other religious intellectuals? They don’t seem like they were handicapped, although they did use Aristotle to develop their arguments for faith.
You must have experience with a particulary nasty group of christians.
“Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay”
Especially against those “Christ Killers.”
Mike:
I would certainly not be in favor of that type of thing. That is just wrong on so many different levels.
And I am heartily opposed to christian fundamentalism, I read a portion of Bob McDonnells thesis and was appalled. I probably am not going to vote for him because of it’s content. It was pretty bad, although I did not disagree with his opinion that an intact family is the optimal way to raise a child.
“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.”
Billy,
Thank you for not only expressing your own view, but for raising the larger more important issue. The RCC has for a while accepted evolution as not being antithetical to God creating the Universe. Genesis itself can be interpreted easily to allow for evolution. Originally, it was viewed as a metaphor by those in BCE times and afterwords, not as literal truth.
Fundamentalist belief, of any religious stripe, usually loses sight of the real message of a given religious teacher and condenses it into a bunch of “Thou Shalts.” This is because the tendency of power hungry sociopaths to become religious leaders is a strong one. By reducing religion to its simplest components it gives them more control over their “sheep” for shearing. We see this today in the Fundamentalist Christian Movement, which emphasizes Revelations, over the Gospels. The
Book of Revelations is the most dubious of inclusions into the Christian Canon, but it is excellent fodder for those who want to use it to justify just about any thing.
Those who hijacked Jesus teachings by making belief the only
gateway to heaven, rather than “good works,” in reality made Jesus teachings irrelevant and turned him into a mere figurehead. I say this of course as a Jew, but one quite familiar with the Gospels and Christian history. The “Golden Rule” as Jesus put it, actually was first formulated by Confucius circa 550 BCE, then Buddha around 500 BCE and later by the Jews and by the Hellenist philosophers too. It is really the basis of all ethical religion and within it contains the foundations of uplifting humankind. The religious grifters don’t like it because it can’t be used to honestly justify hatred and greed.
I acknowledge that Evolutionary Theory is but a work in progress, however, to equate it in importance with Genesis, in education is absurd and cannot be tolerated.
“And so why cant a manger scene be acceptable at Christmas on public property or at Ramadan a scene relevant to Islam or on a Hindu holy day something that has meaning for them? But all religion is banned from the public square and that seems to me to be an establishment of atheism as the national religion which is exactly what Mr. Jefferson did not want.”
Byron,
What you advocate is reasonable, but I think untenable, which is why religion is banned from the public square. If all religious believers in our society were tolerant of others beliefs than we could have a pluralistic society reveling in our differences as well as our similarities. This, however, has never been the case. What you get is the religious majority in various communities pushing their beliefs to the exclusion of others.
In my own case, being Jewish and attending Elementary School in the 50’s prior to various court rulings, I was subjected to religious rituals which I wanted no part of and yet was forced into by the nature of being so young. As a Jew my family didn’t celebrate, or believe in Christmas. Yet in school each class had its own Christmas Tree trimming, “Secret Santa” drawings, Christmas art projects and a school assembly where we all had to sing Christmas Carols and watch a nativity play.
In my way I protested and was viewed with suspicion, anger and amazement by my teacher’s and school administration. I was marked as a “troublemaker” and possibly disturbed child.
The amazement came from an attitude held by the predominantly Christian school staff that not being in the Christmas Spirit was almost un-American.
The real irony was that perhaps 50% of my fellow students were Jewish. However, in the 50’s Jews were generally afraid to question the status quo. American anti-Jewishness was just beginning to dissipate (although many fine Hotels for instance had a “no Jew” policy)and many Jews were afraid to rock the boat lest the anti-Jewishness became virulent once again.
This is the situation faced by all of us once again in this era. This is not the US vs. Christianity per se, but an encroachment upon religious freedom by a group of Christian Fundamentalists, whose definition of religious freedom really means that they can impose their beliefs and their values on the rest of us.
Forcing a child into a life of utter delusion and muddle-headed thinking under the guise of religious liberty is child abuse of the worst kind. You can recover from blows to the body, but handicapping the child’s ability to think rationally makes him worse than an automaton-it makes him Glenn Beck.
Byron welcome back from vacation:
“If the children are not being harmed and are getting proper care then it is not the states business,” Byron.
Yes I agree, but their father objected to the home schooling,
via the Sound Doctrine Church.
Judge Mangum ruled against the mother because some former members of Sound Doctrine allege the church was abusive, practiced brainwashing and was run by fear and manipulation.
(What’s in a name??)
Thomas Goldsmith writing for News and Observer, here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1447447.html
Bdaman cuts and pastes directly from the Ben Graham article from the “Right on Right” website, without acknowledging Mr. Graham. http://www.rightontheright.com/node/3785
I don’t know how to get Wake District Court Judge Ned Mangum ruling from March 6, 2009. Could one of the seasoned veterans point me in the direction. From Goldsmith’s article the ruling does not appear to be against parents home schooling.
bdaman:
thanks, but I actually don’t believe in creation, I just think that people should have the right to personal points of view without derision especially from a person with power over them. My son has been on the end of this type of behaviour and it is Bravo Sierra for a teacher to mock and/or make fun of a student.
I don’t think the teacher should be sued and the student should just drop the class and tell the prof that he is, with all due respect, an a.. wipe. Everyone holds beliefs that are simple or down right stupid (Except Prof. Turley!), the quest for knowledge is never ending.
Nate,
Leshanah tovah tikateiv veteichateim.
Mike
“I believe in creation because it comforts me. I believe in science because it makes my life easier.”
We all have beliefs, many with no factual basis and yet our “guts” tell us they’re true. This is as it should be because our “guts” often
express truths our brains can’t fathom. May you and yours have a good year and an easy fast. May you also be inscribed in the Book of Life for another go round.
Byron my dedication to you sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QI_lQjf1eo&feature=related
Days grow shorter and the night are getting long
Feels like we’re running out of time
Everyday seems much harder telling right from wrong
You’ve got to read between the lines
Don’t get discouraged
Don’t be afraid
You can make it through another day
Make it worth the price we pay
The good book says it’s better to give than to recieve
I do my best to do my part
Nothing in my pockets I got nothing up my sleeve
I keep my magic in my heart
Keep up your spirit
Keep up your faith baby
I am counting on you
You know what you’ve got to do
Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
It’s your only way
All your life you’ve been waiting for your chance
where you’ll fit into the plan
You’re the master of your own destiny
So hive and take the best that you can
You think a little more money will buy your soul some rest
You’d better think something else instead
You’re so afraid of being honest with yourself
You’d better take a look inside your head
Nothing is easy, Nothing good is free
But I can help you where to start
Take a look inside your heart
There’s an aswere in your heart
Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay
Every moment of your lifetime
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay
Mike Appleton:
why are people so gutless when it comes to derision of held beliefs? All it makes me do is work a little harder to try and prove the other guy wrong. And if I find he is actually right then I change my belief to be in line with the reality. If there is evidence of either being correct, based on the extent of knowledge at that point, then I retain mine until proven wrong.