Media Bias and Discrimination Against Christian Teacher
By blueray Posted in Culture — Comments (211) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Many of you may be familiar with the recent story about a teacher who was fired for burning a cross on the arm of one of his students.
I found it a little hard to believe and suspected the reporters were not reporting the whole truth. To my great surprise, I discovered I was correct.
The independent investigation into the matter (15 pages) is Here
Several students described him as a “great guy” and their “favorite teacher.” Fellow teachers and administrators also spoke positively regarding Mr. Freshwater as a person.
Mr. Freshwater said that he uses a telsa coil as part of a lab experiment where he charges gasses. He puts the elements in test tubes in a row, and then charges them with the device, and the students identify the elements by the color of the gasses. He said that the device is high voltage, but low current.
He said that he uses the device about twice a year and has done so for 21 years. At the end of the experiment the kids are excited and ask if they can touch it. He said that he demonstrates it on his own arm by making an “X” and then lets them touch it voluntarily. He said that the incident in question occurred in December 2007. He remembers getting from 3 to 8 volunteers, but couldn’t remember the order or all of the names.
He said that the device is owned by the school, he received verbal instructions on using it 21 years ago, and has never seen any written instructions. He said that he has not had a complaint in 21 years regarding his use of the device. The device leaves a red mark after one or two seconds of touching, but no blisters. He denied any religious discussions during this or any previous occurrences. He said that he would never hurt a student.
One investigator tried out the device on his arm, with the result that “the device left a slight redness with no burns and the redness disappeared overnight”.
The real reason he was attacked and fired was not this minor incident, but rather he religious beliefs as revealed Here
Freshwater denied any wrong doing, saying he was simply demonstrating the device. He said he drew an "X" and not a cross.
Still, the science teacher's preference for the theory of creationism - a literal reading of the Bible holding that God created the world, and did it perhaps just a few thousand years ago - added to the evidence against him.
What the investigations said regarding this charge:
Another teacher whose duties included being in Mr. Freshwaters’ classroom during the 2006 – 2007 school year for several days found him to be a dynamic teacher who engaged the students, but said that some information that he presented created doubt regarding Darwin’s findings rather than supporting them. He challenged kids to question Darwin.
A current student said that Mr. Freshwater would throw out both sides of issues, such as the big bang theory, intelligent design, carbon dating and evolution.
This is a clear example of media bias attempting to make Christians, especially the more conservative kind, to appear as crazy nuts by selective reporting. That is not debatable.
This also touches the issue of what we teach in our schools and the rights of religious people; but the points I would like to make are:
1. There are MANY liberal professors who do at least as much as this teacher to advocate their views to their students and it never causes a media outrage.
2. Despite platitudes about 'separation of church and state', schools CANNOT be value-free and worldview-free zones. It is not logically possible in most subjects, and professors cannot be completely unbiased no matter how hard they try (although bias in the classroom is a sliding scale). That is why public schools will be a constant source of controversy in a multicultural (or multi-valued) society. As it stands now, public schools teach a secular/progressive/liberal value system that is supposedly neutral. As long as we allow this to persist, we should not be surprised to see the country constantly drifting left, despite the fact that conservatives are outpopulating the liberals.
years old should not be allowed to teach science to children. Why don't we have folks who believe the moon is made of green cheese teach astrophysics at MIT?
Anyone who believes that THEY KNOW how and at what time our universe, none the less the planet, was created should not be teaching science. All that we have are theories. Now granted some require more faith than others but either way you slice it they are only theories. And for the teacher to tell his students to question Darwin is completely fine. He is teaching them critical thinking skills as applied to scientific theory...for him to do otherwise would be him teaching them what to think instead of how to think about the different theories and the gaps/flaws within those theories. I mean if it is ok to question God shouldn't it be ok to question Darwin?
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
Usually the Right criticizes the Left for the idea that all ideas, no matter how discredited, deserve a hearing.
Charlie Hall
A nice fur hat even. :-)
You know, even most young earth creationists don't put the earth at 6000 years old. The 4000 B.C. creation date which is so widely assigned to Christians everywhere was a date posited by Bishop James Ussher in the 17th Century.
But evolution faithful just love to claim that this is "what creationists believe" like it's some sort of club membership mandate, because it allows just that much more sarcasm for their ridicule. "Why they think creation happened 8,000 years after the sphinx was constructed."
Who cares about facts, though, when you can smear someone's faith to so much more effect?
You are free to believe what you wish. I also don't argue that we know exactly how and when life began. What we do know is that it did not happen as it is literally described in the Bible. I cannot prove that God created life, but I believe it because it is my faith. However, I believe that God wants us to use the brain He gave us and to use logic and reason when contemplating anything. So, while I continue to believe in God and in His creation, I cannot believe in a young earth because the facts do not support it.
No we don't KNOW that. Nobody was there and history is a non-reproducible event.
The facts do not support a 'millions of year' meme as much as there is a framework of interpreting data that assumes that from the beginning.
I'll give you two facts that fly in the face of those assumptions:
1. Dinosaur blood and soft-tissue that can't have survived more than several thousand years: Here
When this discovery was made every article mentioned how shocked the scientists were because it shouldn't be possible.
2. detectable c-14 in coal, diamonds, and other material that is 'millions of years old' that is not from contamination. The half-life of c-14 isn't long enough to allow any to remain if it's that old. Here
There is mounting evidence that rates of radioactive decay have been higher in the past. If true, that destroys the fundamental assumption underlying radiometric dating. And there are at least a hundred other measurable geologic processes that indicate a young earth.
absentee
You are welcome, encouraged, applauded, I will fight to the death to allow you to, to have and practice your faith.
But the point many of us make is that your faith is your faith, not mine, not my children and not something that I want you to use my tax dollars to proselytize in the schools.
I would like science taught in school, not faith based theories.
______________________________________
NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !
I would like science taught in school, not faith based theories.
Funny, those of us who don't buy into Evolution want the same thing.....
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
So, I assume you are floating above your keyboard about now in protest.
evolution is your theological stance as to the origin of life and man.
Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean that I don't recognize gravity.
However, as with most who are of your mind, you do not discuss, you just hurl insults.
That's ok. We're used to it. I'm not going to get into the old "Evolution vs. Creation" debate with you. Mostly because you do not wish to debate, just browbeat and then claim that Christianity is trying to force itself onto you.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Evolution, at least the Darwinian model as I understand it, does not explain the origin of life. It describes the development of life and how it changes and adapts.
Evolution itself does not deny a divine cause to life. It is merely the mechanism by which life changes.
It does give the origin of man, and the origins of life are drawn from its theories.
I just finished a science class in which Evolution was THE concept taught as though it were recorded history.
They are even restructuring the orginizational charts for biology (rather than Kingdom down to Species) to include a method of organization that tracks 'likely' evolutionary development.
DARWIN did not suggest that evolution was an answer to avoid a divine cause, but that is not where it has been taken.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
And it is recorded though not by man. Instead, it is recorded in the fossil record and more importantly in the genes of every living thing.
Ahh, "Interpretation"
The refusal to admit to your faith is very amusing, Or, at least, it would be if it was limited to just you.
It is amazing to have so many people so rabidly evangelistic when it comes to evolution, yet at the same time crying 'foul' when they hear a vaguely christian message.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Used to be called spontaneous generation.
Anyway you need to break apart evolution from the evolutionary model.
You get two separate issues Does life change and adapt is this how the diversity of life comes about.
Just how did life get here.
Its always fun to accuse people that don't properly understand their position of promoting spontaneous generation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm not endorsing the theory of abiogenesis here.
But you are correct that the issue is really two issues.
It gets observed regularly. It can be created in artificial systems. Mathematically the statement is tautological. The response to it should be something like DUH.
Origin of life is an entirely different matter. Take it up with your pastor. If he wears a white lab coat fine, just don't proselytize on the public dime.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm completely in agreement with you. I'm an agnostic Jew who can't stand to see science sullied with ID and so forth.
It can be created in artificial systems.
Not without guidance or a framework. Are you talking about genetic algorithms?
Genetic Algorithms are more like selective breeding.
BTW there is an example of Lamarckian evolution currently. (Nobody ever gets this)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I could look it up to be sure, but I think I know what Lamarckian evolution is. What is the example of which you speak?
Otherwise, I'm with nobody.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
As a species we have advanced leaps and bounds all because our forebears exerted the effort. We do the same for our descendants.
While Lamarck's giraffe struggled to reach the top branches, we struggled to take down entire forests.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Cultural and societal "evolution" is a far different thing from biological evolution. Darwin and his successors studied and wrote/write about the latter, not the former.
Some of the former may result from the latter, however. Neanderthals were not successful in the ways that early man was, perhaps because of biological/neurological differences that had evolved in man's brain that didn't happen for the Neanderthals.
"So easy Warren Buffett could do it."
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
And In a lamarckian way that too may soon change
We are very near to making germ line alterations in ourselves we already do with other species.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Lamarck didn't deal with "germ line alterations." He dealt with passing on physical changes acquired by living plants and animals that are already developed, such as having one's little toes cut off and then producing 8-toed offspring.
If "germ line alterations" are modifications to the genetic makeup of mature animals which can then be passed on, it still isn't Lamarckianism.
Sentence structure bad, hopefully understandable.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Cultural evolution though achieves exactly the same effects of passing on physical characteristics.
DNA is primarily encoded information. Cultural abilities are just information encoded external to our bodies.
If we alter our own genome using that external information we effectively close the loop.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Happy 4th of July. Peace!
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Hoist a cold one for me.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Evolution is based on science and reason. Evolution does not pretend to explain the origin of life, only the mechanism by which current life on earth evolved from previous, sometimes simpler forms.
Also, Evolution does not in any way conflict with the notion that God is the Creator. What it does conflict with is the literal Biblical interpretation of Creation. The earth and life were not created in six days. Animals did not all appear in their present forms on the same day. It has taken billions of years for life to evolve from simple single cell organisms to the complex forms you see today. Those facts don't preclude the possibility that God set it all in motion. I'm a Christian myself, and like most Christians, we can accept the facts of Evolution while maintaining our faith in God.
I am happy to debate you on this issue, if you like.
As to the insults, coming from someone who hurls insults the way you do on this board, I'll take your comment with a huge grain of salt.
See? really upsets them when you refer to their faith as faith.
Like Obama and race, they are 'beyond faith' yet are sunk deep in it.
I am happy to debate you on this issue, if you like.
I'm sure you would, but believe me. I have heard EVERYTHING you would bring to the table and you have no interest in actual debate.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
So, what you are actually saying is that you get to frame the debate by equating your falsible belief with reams of peer reviewed scientific data? Of course, if you get to say that your beliefs are equal to my facts no matter how I respond, I guess I lose.
Let's do this instead. Since you seem to believe that we should teach kids all "legitimate" theories of creation, including Biblical literal Creationism, I think you would agree that we should also make sure that we teach kids that these theories are equally viable.
So, what you are actually saying is that you get to frame the debate by equating your falsible belief with reams of peer reviewed scientific data? Of course, if you get to say that your beliefs are equal to my facts no matter how I respond, I guess I lose.
Given the success of the "Peer Review" process in all the propaganda scientists and their 'man made global warming' crap, you'll forgive me for not viewing Peer Review as monolithic and unfailing as you do.
Let's do this instead. Since you seem to believe that we should teach kids all "legitimate" theories of creation, including Biblical literal Creationism, I think you would agree that we should also make sure that we teach kids that these theories are equally viable.
I have no problem with evolution being taught in terms of intraspecies adaptation to environments.
Teaching that a horse used to be fish, on the other hand... no.
Such supposition and interpretation of data ought not be shoveled into the minds of teenagers as the sole answer.
The reason why people such as yourself really cry "That's not science!" is because you currently have a stranglehold on what is taught in science class and you will flail towards any argument to keep it that way.
If it really WAS about wanting to be open and the scientific method of analyzing information, multiple forms of origin of life and man would be taught and the students would be able to practice their critical thinking skills to find which they find most agreeable.
However, just as you don't like those pesky creationists being allowed near a classroom, I also wouldn't necessarily trust an evolutionist to fairly speak on creation.
Perhaps, as with some other topics, the origin of life and man ought not be taught in school.
Of course, I also think the mockery of education when it comes to sex really shows that schools ought to get back to Reading Writing and mathematics.
Once they can do those three well, we can see what we can add to it.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Evolution and a creator are not mutually exclusive. But evolution and Christianity are theologically incompatible. You can't have suffering and death before man. Death as a result of sin is the foundational truth of the whole religion.
Lance
When I bump into one of you fine foks that want to teach ID, or Creation Theory or any of the other non scientific theories of creation and origin of species, I start with a simple question to see if it's worth discussing the question.
Are you a believer in biblical literalism?
If someone believes in bible literalism, then it's pretty much a waste of time on ether side of the argument to continue. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
______________________________________
NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !
I don't give you that option.
This isn't done on your terms.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Lance
Your frame of reference for this discussion appears to be based in biblical literalism, therefore what you are arguing is really a discussion of faith.
Science is not faith, it's based on observation, measurement, postulating a theory and verification of theory based on data and observation.
You're welcome to have your faith, the rest of us will stumble on with science on this matter.
______________________________________
NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !
You're right, science is not faith.
But you demand that your faith be taught as science.... all the while decrying faith being taught as science.
You have NO idea as to my idea on biblical literalism, nor do I let you frame this discussion.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Lance
Demand, hardly, the theory of evolution is now taught in public schools, no demand necessary.
Seems like the ones demanding something are the biblical literalism folks like you who are wrapping their faith into pseudo science under various names that are making demands.
What's the next demand, go back Pre Isac Newton and demand that children be taught that the sun revolves around the Earth because faith says so?
______________________________________
NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !
As an opposing theory actually enhances the education process.
Science is not about absolutes or answers for that matter. It is about the process of finding them. Teaching anything as a monolithic absolute revealed from authority is harmful.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I have no problem with kids learning creation myths from several cultures. I remember learning about the Titans and the Gods of Olympous in school. However, my teachers never made any claims that those stories were anything more than myths.
What we refer to as science used to be called natural philosophy. It is about process it is about theories arising achieving dominance and in turn being superseded.
Catastrophism and Plate Tectonics great examples of of the rise of laughable theories (That was in the modern period by the way).
The I.D. people have theories, evidence and framework to fit them together. Let them fight. The kids will actually learn science not somebody's pet theory.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Science is about truth, about the facts, about observation and measurement.
To suggest teaching creationism as having any basis in truth as a peer in science and scientific method of the theory of evolution is the same sort of mental mush that is decried on this site all the time.
There is no pass or fail, there is only participation....YIKES.
I have not problem teaching creationism or ID or anything else based on a literal interpretation of the bible in philosophy, or comparative religion or basket weaving, but it's not even good pseudo science.
______________________________________
NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !
billions of years ago, shall we?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Heh.
No comment necessary.
I'd like to, but no. That's ok.
There's a biblical teaching here. Involves pearls.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I think you just disqualified yourself on any scientific or educational discussion.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger
If shoofly is so supremely safe from creation in his evolutionary science, it only further illuminates the absurd and vicious intent in exaggerating for the sake of smearing. I address his six-thousand years talking point, which I'm sick of seeing. If his science is so above reproach, then why be sneeringly smug hmm?
You'll note, as well, shoofly didn't make the distinction about what should be taught, but rather who should teach. A bit different from your reply.
is a first class load of unsupportable, untenable bullcrap. I have the credentials and the background to know what is being taught and what is scientifically supportable.
It takes a great deal of faith (I would term it gullibility) to buy what they are selling.
Impeach the 5 usurpers
inhibited this professor for imparting essential science to his students for years.
Your attitude is like those that burned witches in Salem. See Ben Stein's "Expelled..." and get your mind right. Many science teachers believe that man evolved from a single cell billions of years ago, on faith. Should they be fired?
Shoo fly
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Did they come to that conclusion based on the scientific method? If so, then they're fine. They're just wrong, but the peer review of the scientific method means it gets corrected.
Did they come to this conclusion based on something other than science? Are they misrepresenting what science is? If yes, then fire 'em.
requires more faith than ID. Can't be disproved either.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Believers in ID or Biblical Creationism are like the ones who burned the young women (not witches - there's no such thing) in Salem. You see, GC, they acted on belief and more accurately on superstition. That is exactly what Biblical Creationists do on the matter of evolution.
By the way, Ben Steins movie was a joke. I put it up there with one of Michael Moore's fine documentaries.
Believers in ID or Biblical Creationism are like the ones who burned the young women (not witches - there's no such thing) in Salem. You see, GC, they acted on belief and more accurately on superstition. That is exactly what Biblical Creationists do on the matter of evolution.
No, GC is dead on right. You just refuse to accept it as it would mean having to admit to your faith.
By the way, Ben Steins movie was a joke. I put it up there with one of Michael Moore's fine documentaries.
I'm sure you do. I can think of a blog where you'd be right at home. I was banned from there for this VERY topic.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I'm a Christian, a Roman Catholic. I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit anything.
not that faith.
your faith in evolution.
Nice try though, almost worked.
Well, no it didn't, but I'm being nice.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
It is an observable science. Perhaps you don't know the difference between faith and fact.
Interesting thing about observations.
They require perspectives and worldviews.
Faith is what drives both worldviews and observations.
We look at a human hand. one sees billions of years of evolution, another sees the great work of an Grand Architect.
Both observe the same thing but draw different conclusions.
Why? Faith.
I would suggest that you do not realize how many of what you call facts are just your deeply ground matters of faith regarding the orgin of man that has determined your perspective of what you observe.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Bias is always present in experimentation but it can be minimized. There is a massive array of tools to do this.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Oh yes, I quite agree.
However, when your tools are devised based on the same biased nature as the observer. . . well, you can see where it might cause problems.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Erastothene's proof the world was round and his measurement of its size.
Pasteur's proof of the germ theory
Rutherford's determination of structure of the atom
Are all good examples.
Simple and elegant. They posit a circumstance and look for the logical outcomes.
By themselves they are still subject to experimental error and selection biases. But when other experiments looking for other things confirm them and when the results start popping up in unexpected places then you can consider bias minimized.
Both of these
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yup.
Though I also believe that if a scientist, today, sets out to prove that a horse used to be a fish, they can find a way to make it so.
And, once you throw in the bias created by the agenda of those FUNDING research, you have a good way of ignoring certain experiments to focus on others that are more fitting to the money.
A great example is the 'vast amounts of scientific evidence' of man made global warming. Why are there so many experiments and research papers that are peer-reviewed and point to something as silly as "Global Warming Exists and it is Man's Fault!"?
Because that is where the money is.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Yet your rigid view allows you to ignore facts in order for the world to make sense. That's the problem with Biblical literalism. It requires very little logic or reason to debunk the scientific(like) claims within. But because literalist can't believe anything but what is on the page, they go through painful contortions of logic and reason to try to explain what is self evident.
*yawn*
comments designed to try and upset me or just plain ol' insult me really don't work.
All they do is show how unreasonable you are.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
going through life never being wrong about anything. One day you'll have to tell me all about it.
Your condescending remarks aside, I am wrong about many things.
Life is a daily struggle to evaluate what I believe and 'know' and comapare it to what I see around me to test it for Truth.
Once again you hurl an insult at me that is more properly directed towards yourself.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Trying to square everything to your (or anyone's) personal frame of reference is a recipe for being wrong about most things. I'm sorry for seeming condecending, but this is one of those things about members of our party that really bothers me. How can we govern in a modern world if we are wedded to old fashioned superstitions?
Are you going to accuse us of being bitter, too?
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
taxes, for starters, and have no 5000 yr old book of wisdom that survived a pre-chevy induced flood that seems to jibe with our "modern" experience for seconds?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Microevolution (horses,donkeys) is observable science. The rest is not.
Impeach the 5 usurpers
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
are doing the burnings these days. Its those of the faith in Darwin's single-cell God.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
to expel those of the multi-cell Creator.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
It is interesting that you defend the teaching of evolution in schools, given its faith-based nature and the lack of any opposing views being allowed.
I'd have thought that you'd be all up for freedom in schools.
And yes, opposition to evolution is crushed and never allowed to see the light of day.
I am studying to be a teacher, and I have spoken to many teachers, in and out of my family, about that very thing.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
While you teach that Intelligent Design is an opposing, valid theory to Evolution, you can teach that the earth is held up by a giant turtle (or Atlas, take your pick) and that the sun and planets revolve around it. It's certainly an alternate theory and we wouldn't want the kiddies to not see all sides of the argument.
Yes, because Intelligent Design and Evolution come up often in Math Class.
Once again, it is not the subject that you fear, it is the belief of the teacher.
You don't even know what I am studying to teach, but because I believe in creation, you sure know that you don't want me teaching YOUR child.
and you refer to me as rigid.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
that the sum of 2 and 2 was 5, I would have a problem. I wouldn't have a problem having you teach my children math otherwise.
That was a sucker-punch, Lance. If you can't teach it, your comment was a non sequitur.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Who say's I can't teach it? There have been math teachers that showed Al Gore's movie on man made global warming.
History teachers as well.
But you can bet that if a math teacher talked about Creation, his butt would be out on the curb.
Why? Because while teaching about man-made global warming or evolution are ok in any setting, teaching about creation is considered verboten.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Ah, ah, ah.
"Who say's I can't teach it?"
You implied that. Another non sequitur.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Lance, if you believe that evolution is taken on faith, you need to study it some.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
I've studied it quite a bit. Not only was half of my education in public schools, but I just finished a science class that spent alot of time on it.
Perhaps if you believe that anyone who does not agree with you needs to 'study some' you should study some.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Obviously you didn't quite understand the material or the material was very poor or the teacher was incompetent. How else can you come out of the class and claim that some scientists are claiming that horses came from fish. If you learned that modern fish and horses have an ancient common ancestor, that would have been a successful term of study.
*smirk*
Or it could just be wrong.
But that wouldn't occur to you. Your faith doesn't allow it.
Yet it requires me to assume that I am wrong.
THAT is why I do not discuss this with folks such as yourself.
What you demand of me you are not willing to take upon yourself.
And your side calls me rigid and closed-minded.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
would I be forced to agree? Getting back to politics, what if you insisted that Obama was a true Conservative? Would I have to meet you half way. The bottom line is that literal biblical creationism is false. There is no nicer way of saying it. The world is not young, it is ancient. God did not create the earth in six literal 24 hour days. Your "opinion" is just not a viable alternative to Evolution. That has nothing to do with me being rigid. Those are just the facts.
Your faith tells you that God did not create the earth in 6 days.
You were not there at the beginning of time, yet you state as fact what did and did not happen.
That is where you show your faith.
You don't want to believe in Creation, that's fine.
You care much more about what I believe than I care about what you believe.
And yet it is folks like me that you rail against.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
to know that it is full of Frenchmen. It is not faith of any kind that shows that the earth is 4-5 billion years old. My faith tells me that God is the Creator and that we are His creation. It does not pretend to tell me to ignore fact in order to conform my reality with a fable written 4,000 years ago.
4,000 years ago?
It was 6,000 years further up.
Will it be 2,000 years in a couple hours?
At what point do we reach that the earth hasn't been created yet?
*snicker*
There is quite a bit of faith involved in your view and that you STILL won't accept it is kind of amusing.
Almost as amusing as your assumptions about my faith.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
again. The 4,000 year comment was related to the origin of the Adam and Eve creation story. I may be off by a milenia or two, but that's not really relevant to the point I was making which is that human beings made it up relatively recently in our history. The 6,000 year comment was my understanding of the age of the earth as claimed by Bible literalists. Again, I may have been off by a milenia or two but once again it is not relevant to the point I was making which is that they are wrong since the earth is 4-5 billion years old. Got it?
You take the laws of physics as understood as being invariant and constant.
You take the constants that govern those laws as being constant.
You take on faith that no agency interfered with the process so that you misinterpret it.
Let me give you an example. Currently the accepted model for the birth of the universe is the big bang. We know of the big bang through the observation of cosmic background radiation. In time this will fade to undetectability. So if we were to have arisen in a later universe we would have an entirely different but still scientific idea of the nature of the universe.
We can't say that the reverse does not hold if we arose earlier.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You're taking the views of some Christians, disagreeing with them, and jumping from there to claiming that every possible interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with science.
Sorry, wrong. Your name isn't Evel Knievel, you can't make a leap that large.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Even if you think the creation story is more Kipling's Just So Stories than a real chronology, the Bible still hints at a previous Earth age.
No threadjack intended. Just saying. Come to think of it, comparative theology should be in everyone's curriculum as we also improve real science education. We're supposed to know how to "rightly divide" these things.
Anyone who believes the earth is 6-7 thousand years old should not be allowed to teach science to children.
So we're now going to require that teachers with the wrong beliefs should be fired or not allowed to teach. That is the definition of thought crime.
This is a different matter from the question of what is appropriate to teach in the classroom. Now if this teacher is actively deviating from the prescribed curriculum, that is one matter. But to simply hold variant beliefs - that is no grounds for firing.
Now presenting alternative views in the classroom is a teaching method that is well recognized, and this is where we come to the crux of the matter: was the teacher trying to undermine the curriculum or was he trying to instill critical thinking skills?
Given that the original news stories were essentially that the teacher was torturing students - branding them with Christian crosses - and these have been disproven, it would seem that now somebody's moving the targets and trying to manufacture grounds to fault the teacher.
Since this guy has been openly teaching in this fashion for 21 years, and this has well-known to other teachers and the administration, then the sudden objection looks like a pretext for embarrassed administrators to cover their posteriors.
That being so, I'd say however that there are a whole TON of teachers in elementary and secondary schools who are not qualified to teach children - since they can't keep their personal views from adversely affecting what they teach. I speak specifically of left-wing nutjobs who use their positions as an excuse to foist leftist crap on impressionable captive audiences.
So when you cast out my creationists, then you need to cast out the lefty ideologues too.
Impeach the 5 usurpers
Even though, as someone who thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, he is unqualified to teach science, it is patently unfair to assume that he intentionally or even unintentionally harmed his students with this device.