Posted on 03/20/2007 2:02:43 PM PDT by Diago
It depends on how strong a link the teacher made and what evidence he had to support it. Given media bias, I'm assuming it wasn't that wild. Had it been, the story probably would have spelled it out. Instead, we get generalities.
Additional Info:
OK, sounds like the guy was not only somewhat imprudent, but way over the line. Still, a person violating the curriculum in a left-wing or atheistic direction would not have been punished this severely.
I am going to bed now but I will address your rant tomorrow or when I have the time. There are so many strawmen and overstatements to wade through.
For now, in brief, you kept bringing up public schools as if I am for the big government public school monopoly, though I have made it abundantly clear that I am completely against the big government public school monopoly. I am for privatization which removes the choice and coercion from big centralized government control and allows parents to choose instead.
You knew this, so the only reason you kept referring to public school, public school, public school was so that you would have a strawman platform from which to launch your tirade based upon a Big Centralized Government public school environment whose existance I am not for in the first place.
This thread is about a public school teacher. You may have missed that.
I don't know why I should be expected to know what your particular hobby horse is. If it's THE EVIL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, fine. But be prepared to defend equally evil private schools. There may be a group of people out there who might want to teach things of which you could not possibly approve.
Since you seem to be bent out of shape that someone would oppose the big centralized government public schools, you must want to control those who would be adamantly against your precious big government public school monopoly. You even gave an emotional all caps evil public schools highlight. I think you do favor public schools due to the presence your immense overreaction.
By all means?
You do wear it on your sleeve and you are trying to get cute, so take a hike sonny, until you grow up.
As I said before, go to bed.
And as I said before, grow up.
Been out of the school yard long?
As you are talking about cosmology. creationism is the belief in a creator of all things and the creation of the universe out of nothing. Atheists don't believe in a creator; traditionally, they believed that the universe has always existed. Theology, at least Catholic theology, regards creationism as a theological doctrine concerning the origin of the human soul. For instance. Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote this in 1952. repprting the opinion of the Bible Commission (1909) As the sacred writer had no intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of works of creation but only of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and the -prescientific development of his day, the account is not to be regardede as if it were.....
Here's the post with the alleged strawmen you're referring to. Tomorrow morning (or when you've sobered up), point them out.
To: Old Landmarks; tacticalogicOkay. I read your post. It's most unimpressive.If you are going to teach in a government school, you have to stick to godlessness. You cannot mention God or anything from the traditional biblical perspective that has served as the underpinning of American civilization for four hundred years.
And in a government school, whose version of which religion should govern the science classes? Or how about Math class? You know, don't you, that the zero is a Muslim invention? It might be interesting if Muslim teachers decided to teach the Koranic version of science, or if Hindu teachers decided to make sure the curriculum didn't contradict the Vedas.
For the entire history of the country until quite recently you could mention God and refer directly to biblical principles concerning the origins of man because that was the kind of schools that communities "freely" chose to create since the beginning of this country.
And if communities "freely" choose to teach that down is up, you're okay with that, right?
This is no longer the case, for you must now lead children to believe that science has proven that the only reasonable explanation for their existence must be given by naturalistic science, for they are the ultimate holders of all truth about past events that they did not observe or test and the Bible is merely a book of nonsense.
I don't know whether this is ignorance or lies. Either way, it's wrong. Science is about naturalistic explanations, but as yet there is not scientifically accepted theory of origins.
Do you really want the Bible in science class? Then you'd better be ready to have scientists subject the Bible to scientific scrutiny. Be careful what you wish for. Should we teach that roses are red because God wanted to remind us of the blood of Jesus? What color were roses before 33AD?
Why is the level of scientific knowledge in the Bible indistinguishable from the average man's knowledge of science when the Bible was written? Why didn't God drop a hint, say, about penicillin?
Kids need to learn science. If you want to live in the tenth century, fine. Enjoy life with the Islamists -- they're your allies in this.
It was only recently that liberals have used the supreme court to overcome the will of most parents in the name of their own secular progressive revisionism.
The only solution is to phase out and discontinue the godless government school monopoly and let the parents choose a private godless school if that is their choice. At the same time the large majority of parents will get to choose a school that they favor as well. Goodbye to the forced godless indoctrination.
Whose version of which God should be in the public schools?
Universal private schooling is a different issue entirely. But it should be noted that those who support schools that willfully distort science end up penalizing primarily their children.
It is the only just solution, because the government schools are a political monopoly as dictated by the NEA and the ACLU playbook.
I'm not here to defend public schools, but I do object to attempts to inject anyone's peculiar reading of the Bible into science.
You post has been addressed. Happy now?
"Is that why so many scientists have their own television shows on which they appear immaculately coiffed, sometimes with their wives interjecting, "Oh! Praise Pasteur!" every few moments while the scientist tearfully warns his viewers that unless the viewers send money, that science won't like them any more?"
ROFLMAO!
I will have to save and reuse that quote, if you don't mind.
I consider your "roflmao" payment in full for any and all use and reuse of said item.
There is a simple grandeur in the view of life with its powers of growth, assimilation and reproduction, being originally breathed into matter under one or few forms, and that whilst this our planet has gone circling according to fixed laws, and land and water, in a cycle of change, have gone on replacing each other, that from so simple an origin, through the power of gradual selection of influential changes, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been evolved."
-Darwin
Furthermore, Darwin himself, later in life, stated basically that ‘beauty’ does not actually exist - and current science states that we all must keep in mind that ‘design’ is also non-existent --- nature merely displays the appearance of ‘design’.
I am not a creationist nor do I think ‘id’ should currently be taught in high school, but I see no reason why students should not be allowed to explore the questions (or simular questions) above in class. I would think this is especially true considering what they will be exposed to in college biology.
As posted previously:
Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism…
---Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), p. 5
Consider consciousness… Is it merely an "emergent property" of natural selection? If so, where does the material complexity of human thought and the qualitative pieces for ‘beauty and grandeur‘ exist? Is human thought nothing more than the liver producing bile (see Huxley/Cabanis)? Until naturalism can reduce the qualitative properties of human consciousness into material things, the arguments based on naturalism are as immaterial as any other argument.
Oddly, after World War II, the Nazi in charge of the SUPER RACE program in Nazi Germany (the Eugenics program) became head of the International branch of Planned Parenthood (as I said, this happened after the end of World War II).
This would make a great 60 Minutes program except it would villanize Hillary Clinton's hero Margaret Sanger and is not attack on conservatives but on liberalism...
"What the Fuhrer has given me is not only a political ideology, but also a religion."
Eerily similar to the mindset of the MoveOn fanatics...
If the teacher used his remarks as a stimulus to discussion and viewpoints, rather than indoctrination, it would not seem unusual or improper.
But Darwin, like Newton and Descarte didn't explain everything.
So now we have amorphous/probability physics and fuzzy math.
I don't think Darwin ever envisioned the complexity of the
simple "bags of protoplasm" that we now know are highly
coordinated, organized cells.
I agree that these things should be discussed. I have no patience with people who would censor this. But I still think the teacher seems to have gone overboard.
Yeah, who needs freedom, when you can have Orwell.
Might I suggest you answer the first question before you pass judgement. That would be scientific. To pass judgement without information is faith. Science makes a real bad religion.
However if you read the rather lengthy post in the body, you will see that it was not contrary to science. People who make science into a religion really ruin science, but that has been common in history.
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.