Ohio's Supreme Court backs the firing of a creationist science teacher

[Joshua_B]

I think people being malicious toward Christians in situations like this comes from a good number of Christians living the "it's us versus them" mentality... and this is coming from me, who has been a Christian for 17 years. I know i used to have that, where I felt I had to constantly show and defend my faith, and the more people protested, the harder I shouted. If I would have worked in that school in my younger years, and I was told to remove my Bible, I'd keep it there and the posters and declare that it was my right and consider it a war against those who would war against God.

I'm not like that anymore, but looking back, I can see why so many people can not only be atheistic, but against Christians in general. Who knows what this teacher has done in the past to rile his bosses, but he obviously wasn't listening to their rules.

There's a difference between righteousness through Christ, and "self-righteousness", which is just another term for arrogance. Jesus did say that God wants us to love Him with our minds as well as our hearts, and we can't do that without knowing why we believe and trust in Him. We're commanded to have an answer ready whenever anyone asks us to explain our faith in Christ. The term used for "answer" in this context is the word "apologia", which is where we get the name of "apologetics". Its the equivalent of a courtroom defense, and Christians don't get points for being stupid. Here's a clip from one of my favorite apologists, where he explains why "faith is not enough"...

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

He should've definitely been fired for branding that kid, and jailed to boot.

On the matter of his cirriculum, I'm not aware of any existing U.S. law banning the teaching of Creation in public schools. Some states say it can only be offered as an elective, but I think all fifty still allow it generally. The problem is that so many in the educational system aren't just atheistic, but malicious toward Christians as people, not just their ideals. I'm reminded of a phrase which, sadly, is all too accurate nowadays...

"We're living in a society where the only thing not tolerated is intolerance".

Creationism should not be allowed in a science classroom, because creationism is not backed by facts. It should no more be taught in science classrooms than 1337-speak should be taught in English. Science isn't a religion backed by emotion, but thoroughly researched theories and facts. The great thing about evolution is it's true, whether you believe it or not. If people want to teach creationism in a philosophy class or a religious study class, I have no problem with that.

And no one is repressing Christians. I'm so tired of hearing about the poor, oppressed Christian majority. Christians are the most privileged religious class in America by far. Every American President has had to prove their belief in Christ in order to get elected. Despite a separation of Church and State, Christianity makes its way into almost every facet of American politics, power and culture. I'm Jewish and there's no public holidays for Hanukkah or Passover or any other holidays, but you don't see me complaining about that. Get back to us when there's a Jewish or atheist President.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Teaching creationism violates the First Amendment. See Kitzmiller v. Dover, or Edwards v. Aguillard.

More importantly, they should teach science in the science classes, not religion. There are states that are technically theocracies where this is less of a problem....

 

[Joshua_B]

The great thing about evolution is it's true, whether you believe it or not.

Limited variation (a.k.a. "micro-evolution") has been observed, but there's no conclusive visual evidence to support the macro-evolution ("molecules to man") theory.

And no one is repressing Christians. I'm so tired of hearing about the poor, oppressed Christian majority. Christians are the most privileged religious class in America by far.

Actually, we're among the most persecuted on the ideological stage. For all their rants about "tolerance" and "diversity", the one thing most atheists and evolutionists won't tolerate is diversity in terms of a core worldview. They adhere to naturalism and uniformitarianism with everything they have, unwilling to budge in the slightest because Creation's the only alternative.

Despite a separation of Church and State

Not supported by either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Christianity makes its way into almost every facet of American politics, power and culture.

There's no law against any belief system having influence in American life, so long as its observance isn't made legally mandatory.

 

[Joshua_B]

Teaching creationism violates the First Amendment. See Kitzmiller v. Dover, or Edwards v. Aguillard.

Not true, because the Establishment Clause was specifically written to keep Congress from making any religion mandatory in law. The Free Exercise clause allows for public and private religious expression, without fear of governmental oppression.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Macro-evolution... here we go again.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment would make any argument for the teaching of creationism moot. There's a reason courts keep finding the teaching of creationism unconstitutional. You can not teach religion in public schools (that would make your religion mandatory, by the way).

 

[DarkSentinel]

Ok, dude BRANDED A CHILD with a freaking cross and that wasn't enough for a termination. Seriously wtf? Glad this idiot and his special brand of moron aren't going to be influencing anymore impressionable minds

Yeah, I have no problem with a teacher's given views on particular things, but when you start branding, that's where I take a Sharpie and draw the line.

I'm creationist (sue me, I am ) but there's no need to take things to that kind of extreme.

 

[Quasimod0]

Why not teach both and let the students make their own decision instead of force feeding them one theory?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Why not teach both and let the students make their own decision instead of force feeding them one theory?

Well, there's a few reasons. One, there are laws against teaching religion in schools. Two, evolution is a scientific theory, while creationism is not. Three, we don't let sixth graders decide what's science.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Limited variation (a.k.a. "micro-evolution") has been observed, but there's no conclusive visual evidence to support the macro-evolution ("molecules to man") theory.

There's no conclusive visual evidence for a lot of things that are accepted by the mainstream scientific community, such as the "God particle" or the Big Bang. Do you think these scientists came up with these theories, backed and supported each other's research and are unable to disprove theories such as "evolution" because they're all in on it and they just want to mess with Christians? And I think deviations in species that were separated by land and evolved differently, and fossilized remains of animals that look similar to today's species, but different in particular ways could all be visual indicators of evolution. But no, of course we can't literally witness an animal evolving. But micro-evolution is a pretty solid indicator that evolution indeed occurs, and micro-evolution wasn't discovered until long after Darwin's initial theories about the Galapagos.

Actually, we're among the most persecuted on the ideological stage.

Really? Can you prove that? Because my grandfather was barred from every country-club in New York back in the 60's just for his religion. This was twenty years after most of his extended family were wiped out in concentration camps. And today in our post-9/11 environment, Muslims are synonymous with "monsters" in many circles. So I don't buy your claim at all.

For all their rants about "tolerance" and "diversity", the one thing most atheists and evolutionists won't tolerate is diversity in terms of a core worldview. They adhere to naturalism and uniformitarianism with everything they have, unwilling to budge in the slightest because Creation's the only alternative.

Too often when I hear Christians complain about other minorities not accepting their world-view it's code for "converting to our world-view" or at least "adhering to our world-view."

I accept your world-view. I have no problem in you believing what you want to believe. But I don't want your views influencing how classrooms are taught.

Creationism isn't an alternative to evolution anymore than a priest is an alternative to a scientist.

There's no law against any belief system having influence in American life, so long as its observance isn't made legally mandatory.

Creationism in a public school science class.... or God inserted in the pledge of allegiance... isn't a mandatory observance?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Eighth graders, excuse me.

 

[Marvolo]

Teaching creationism violates the First Amendment. See Kitzmiller v. Dover, or Edwards v. Aguillard.

More importantly, they should teach science in the science classes, not religion. There are states that are technically theocracies where this is less of a problem....

Not sure if you are resoonding to my last post but just to be clear I'm not saying you can teach whatever in science class. I'm saying that a person can believe what they want as long as they don't bring it into the curriculum in the class. Science and only science belongs in science class. However, that teacher need not believe in evolution to teach it...as long as they aren't purposefully shortchanging the lessons and showing bias towards their own personal beliefs that is.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not aure if you are resoonding to my last post but just to be clear I'm not saying you can teach whatever in science class. I'm saying that a person can believe what they want as long as they don't bring it into the curriculum in the class. Science belongs in science class. However, that teacher need not believe in evolution to teach it...as long as they aren't purposefully shortchanging the lessons and showing nias towards their own personal beliefs that is.

Maybe if he was a music teacher. But if you fundamentally reject science (and presumably don't understand it, since you are rejecting it), you should not be teaching the subject.

I'm not sure why someone would be anyway...

We don't need this in our schools.

 

[Marvolo]

Maybe if he was a music teacher. But if you fundamentally reject science (and presumably don't understand it, since you are rejecting it), you should not be teaching the subject.

I'm not sure why someone would be anyway...

We don't need this in our schools.

I don't need to believe something to get it and relay the concept to other people. Teaching doesn't require belief. Belief certainly adds passion which can aid in a persons ability to relay information and aid in teaching, but it isn't required to teach someone.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I don't need to believe something to get it and relay the concept to other people. Teaching doesn't require belief. Belief certainly adds passion which can aid in a persons ability to relay information and aid in teaching, but it isn't required to teach someone.

I think you guys are talking about slightly different things. Yes, you can teach something you disagree with (although with such a lack of passion and enthusiasm, you won't be a very good teacher). But you can't teach something you have no knowledge of, or something you're openly hostile towards.

 

[The Question]

The main difference between the two is that unlike Creation or the Bible, teaching macro-evolution is tax-supported. It all started back in the 1950s, when textbooks were rewritten because the Russians beat us into space with the Sputnik satellite. What macro-evolution has to do with space travel, I still don't know...

Well, they're both based on proven and verifiable scientific principals. So they should both be taught in, you know, a science class.

 

[Joshua_B]

Why not teach both and let the students make their own decision instead of force feeding them one theory?

Because many of those who control the schools are diehard atheists with axes to grind. They're constantly trying to force anything to do with God out of public education, and they'll use any means they can to discredit Christianity. Here's a few names to ponder from history...

James Hutton - Scottish geologist and atheist, quoted as wanting to "free science from Moses". Main proponent of uniformitarianism ("the world operates the same way now, as it always has").

Charles Lyell - Scottish lawyer and atheist, who deliberately fudged his research on erosion by water to reflect an older Earth. His book "Principles of Geology" led Charles Darwin away from Christianity.

David Hume - Scottish skeptic (pattern much?), and strong advocate for naturalism ("nature's all there is, or has ever been").

 

[Thundercrack85]

While I am definitely a die hard atheist, this really just boils down to what is objectively science and what is not.

I also doubt you would be this tolerant, if they were teaching another religion's creation myth as science, and making you pay for it.

 

[The Question]

Why not teach both and let the students make their own decision instead of force feeding them one theory?

Because it's a science class, and only one of them is science. Creationism should be discussed along with every other religious perspective of the origins of life if it's happening in a theology class. But a science class should stick to science.

 

[Joshua_B]

There's no conclusive visual evidence for a lot of things that are accepted by the mainstream scientific community, such as the "God particle" or the Big Bang. Do you think these scientists came up with these theories, backed and supported each other's research and are unable to disprove theories such as "evolution" because they're all in on it and they just want to mess with Christians?

I don;t know anything about the "God particle", but the so-called "Big Bang" has some very good evidence, in that it points to the universe having a static beginning. That doesn't automatically prove it happened billions of years ago, though.

And I think deviations in species that were separated by land and evolved differently, and fossilized remains of animals that look similar to today's species, but different in particular ways could all be visual indicators of evolution.

The only thing conclusively proven by a fossil is that its dead; everything else is conjecture. Many animals have similar features, but that could just as well point to a common Designer, not ancestor.

But no, of course we can't literally witness an animal evolving. But micro-evolution is a pretty solid indicator that evolution indeed occurs, and micro-evolution wasn't discovered until long after Darwin's initial theories about the Galapagos.

If you don't observe it happening, its not science...period.

Creationism in a public school science class.... or God inserted in the pledge of allegiance... isn't a mandatory observance?

No, because there's no law saying anyone has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or remain in a class teaching Creation if they don't want to.

 

[The Question]

If you don't observe it happening, its not science...period.

Nope. That's not even slightly how science works. So much of science involves inferring the existence of something by studying it's effects, which is how we proved macro-evolution is a thing. You can also prove things you've never seen exist through math. Einstein did it once or twice.

No, because there's no law saying anyone has to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or remain in a class teaching Creation if they don't want to.

Actually there is. They're called truancy laws. A kid under the age of 16 can't just walk out of class.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Because many of those who control the schools are diehard atheists with axes to grind. They're constantly trying to force anything to do with God out of public education, and they'll use any means they can to discredit Christianity.

Or perhaps they're just trying to respect people of ALL religious backgrounds who attend their school. Should a Muslim, Jewish or Hindu kid have to sit through a class about how Jesus rose from his grave? How is that educational?

But to be honest, I don't even have that big of a problem with Christianity as a philosophy being taught in a NON-science environment. As long as it's an objective class that doesn't endorse the Bible as fact, but looks at it in analytical way.

James Hutton - Scottish geologist and atheist, quoted as wanting to "free science from Moses". Main proponent of uniformitarianism ("the world operates the same way now, as it always has").

Charles Lyell - Scottish lawyer and atheist, who deliberately fudged his research on erosion by water to reflect an older Earth. His book "Principles of Geology" led Charles Darwin away from Christianity.

David Hume - Scottish skeptic (pattern much?), and strong advocate for naturalism ("nature's all there is, or has ever been").

Sorry, but were you discussing American public schools or Scottish ones?

 

[Joshua_B]

I also doubt you would be this tolerant, if they were teaching another religion's creation myth as science, and making you pay for it.

Tolerance does not equal embracing contradictory ideas as equally true.

 

[The Question]

Tolerance does not equal embracing contradictory ideas as equally true.

No, but it does mean not forcing your ideas on other people who might not accept them when those ideas can't be proven.

 

[Joshua_B]

Or perhaps they're just trying to respect people of ALL religious backgrounds who attend their school. Should a Muslim, Jewish or Hindu kid have to sit through a class about how Jesus rose from his grave? How is that educational?

You could easily point out that from a historical standpoint, no one in the first century denied Jesus' tomb was empty; they just fought over how it got that way. Describing the impossibility of twelve men even budging that stone would be a good start, plus the guards being incapable of sleeping and knowing what happened at the same time. Then of course, there's the question of whether anyone in their right mind would allow themselves to be murdered, over something they know is a lie.

But to be honest, I don't even have that big of a problem with Christianity as a philosophy being taught in a NON-science environment. As long as it's an objective class that doesn't endorse the Bible as fact, but looks at it in analytical way.

Just one problem: the Bible claims to be historical fact, unlike Greek, Norse, or Roman mythology.

Sorry, but were you discussing American public schools or Scottish ones?

Don't shoot the messenger; I didn't decide where all those guys were born.