Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
AARON Mason, a teacher in a Washington State school, was suspended for two days without pay for showing a creation video and arranging a creationist guest speaker to present scientific evidence supporting creation and a young earth to his eighth-grade class.
However, the ironically named humanist thought police, the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote to the district superintendent complaining that this was not enough, since Mason had ‘shattered the foundation for the students’ further science education’. The ACLU noted that Mason had ‘crossed the line’ before — while working as a highschool wrestling coach, he had worn a shirt depicting Jesus.
‘Teacher’s creationism lesson causes stir’, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA, August 22, 1996.
Also, here's another article about a teacher being punished for admitting he believes in creationism and discussing some of the possible flaws in the theory of evolution. http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=348
The fact is that current curriculum standards almost everywhere prohibit discussion of ID or creationism, and in many cases even discussion of the weak points of the evolutionary theory. The media cases you mention are all attempts to allow other theories to also be discussed.
Fortunately, he had the good sense to abandon the blasted heath which was his ancestral portion -- where the cruel north winds were constantly ruffling his kilt and chilling his arse, not to mention his haggis -- and to marry a comely lass from the Midlands. Sensible fellow. But then, no true Scotsman would have left such a paradise.
Sorry--forgot the <}B^).
"You seem to believe that Christians are defined as Christian by not believing Evolution."
>
Now you are moving to a different subject, and I think you are intentionally doing such for the sake of jumping around and making this more confusing. Believing in Evolution, does NOT make you or unmake you a Christian -- as belief in Christ as one's Lord and Saviour DOES. However, Evolution makes no stance to protect Christians, in the sense that ID, or Creationism does. The Bible states that God created all-things. Evolution states nature did such. Common sense would assume an issue here.
>
In response to your other misguided quotes, you are taking the broad term Christianity out of the context of the situation of MY response.
> Saying you are Christian does NOT make you Christian.
> There are various TYPES of Christian denominations. Often-times you have to be specific. There are Liberal communities (as evolutionist claim, and use, to support their cause), there are Conservative communities (who are heavily anti-evolution). These communities differ in beliefs according to their interpretation of the Bible. Supposed conservative evolutionists here fail to recognize this.
>
'Evolution has not implemented a protective layer for religion.'
"Why should it?"
Because of the reasons aforementioned, and because it is easier to justify many of the Left's arguments through such means.
So you would be ok with biology teachers deciding for themselves whether to include in the curriculum criticisms of evolution or intelligent design or creation?
Things like that happen on weekends. Gotta deal with it.
Why should non-science and religion be taught in a science class? What do you mean by "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution?
In other words, you do not really wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in science class up to the individual teacher. You would put some group, or perhaps just yourself, in charge to decide what is science and what is non-science and religion.
That's a defensible position, but if it is yours please don't inaccurately portray yourself as a defender of teachers' rights to decide what to teach. You are just as determined to force teachers to say only what you agree with as are some of the Creationists and ID'ers.
You may even be right. But the issue between you and the IDers is not one of freedom for the individual teacher. You are both opposed to that. The issue is merely one of what the teacher will not be allowed to teach.
Hitler never cited evolution as a reason for the fascist state, or in reciting the flaws of liberalism and the liberal state. Never. And the fact of the matter is that Hitler seldom mentioned evolution in connection with Nazi race theory or antisemitism, nor did other important Nazi race theorists such as Alfred Rosenberg.
When Hitler and other Nazis did cite evolution it was usually (and in superficial and facile fashion) in connection with militarism, and justifying the desirability of strife and struggle. And this was not a Nazi innovation. German leaders and generals made the same connection before and during WWI.
In other words, you do not really wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in science class up to the individual teacher.
Would you wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in any class the individual teacher?
Probably much the same as what was mentioned in an earlier post as "undermining the theory of evolution."
This is all very odd. Nobody gets upset if a teacher discusses the possibility that string theory and other proposed theories may someday be shown to "disprove" our present understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Yet any discussion of the facts of life that appear to be difficult to explain using evolution get peoples panties in a serious twist.
Of course, the opponents of evolution don't generally explain the difficulties by anything but an "Intelligent Designer" having done it, which isn't really an explanation at all.
in any class the individual teacher? = in any class up to the individual teacher?
What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany ..." [snip]
Lesson to All
A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven.
This certainly appears to be an attempt to apply Darwin's theory of natural selection to Man and more precisely to human races, which Hitler appears to have viewed as more like species. (Which of course just points up his misunderstanding of biology.)
There's nothing conservative about being anti-science, and nothing liberal about being pro-science. These so-called conservatives are the grandchildren of the democrats who wildly cheered for William Jennings Bryan, who championed the income tax, creationism, and prohibition. He was also a critic of banks and railroads, and a leader of the "free silver" movement. If he were around today, he'd probably be a Dennis Kucinich democrat. And as long as he preached creationism, most of these people would support him.
Generally, no. But then I don't post statements claiming that I am defending their right to do so against those who would attack it.
The issue is one of who will decide what teachers will be allowed to teach. Few people would be in favor of complete freedom for individual teachers, yet some of them are willing to inaccurately claim they are defending such a right, when it supports a status quo of which they approve.
So you would be ok with biology teachers deciding for themselves whether to include in the curriculum criticisms of evolution or intelligent design or creation?
Criticisms of intelligent design or creation in a biology class would be a waste of time...they shouldn't even be mentioned...they're religious beliefs, not science. As for criticisms of evolution, what do you think scientists have been trying to do for 150 years? They've tried to poke holes in it and it's been spectacularly resistant.
And who sets curriculum standards for biology? Biologists and biology teachers. If some rogue teacher wants to stray from the curriculum and teach pseudosceince, whether it be Aristotelian physics or creationism, he shouldn't be allowed to.
My point is simply this: let biology teachers set the biology curriculum. You can't let each individual teacher set his own curriculum, nor should politicians meddle in the process. You have to have one standard, which should be set by the pre-eminent biologists residing in the state, not politicians
Every case I've heard of has been either politicians who no nothing about biology meddling in the curriculum, or a rogue teacher going against the overwhelming consensous of his collegues.
The media cases you mention are all attempts to allow other theories to also be discussed.
Wrong. They were attempts to force unwilling biology teachers to discuss unscientific "alternatives" to a sound science.
I asked a question. I stated no intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.