Free Speech: Okay to Prosletyze When Teaching Class?

[Papewaio]

A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".

I'll try to resist the dark allure of the that temptation. I will as long as you stop slinging insults about science.

B.
A GOOD part of the scientific community disagrees with evolution (and a good part of them agree with intelligent design).

Hmm, which part is that?

I never said anyone could prove intelligent design, but it IS impossible to
prove it wrong.

Because it cannot be proven wrong means it is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories have to be both testable and possible to be proven wrong. If it is an absolute it ain't a scientific theory.

It is, on the other hand, possible to prove evolution false.
Evolution just is a load of it.

That would be the insult to science. Please stop now, we have nukes and are willing to incinerate the world's atmosphere in just testing them. We also like to blow up ships that protest their use. Think of the bunny rabbits.

The media is in favor of evolution and you always here about the evolutionary discoveries going on in the field of evolution (and it's funny how they always change and contradict each other)..

I wouldn't use the media outcomes as a yardstick of intelligence, they themselves are smart but they are there to sell media and hence make snappy headlines for the masses.. Even if they are in favour of something it is like getting the last pick for a sports team, they won't decide the outcome just make up the numbers on it.

The theory of evolution is like the wind, every changing and inconstant. It is funny to go back and trace the origins of evolution and watch as it mutates and evolves. ;)

A self validating theory?

[Don Corleone]

The funny thing is, and I have to be VERY careful how I phrase this, who's to say there isn't such a thing as both? Why couldn't evolution and the Big Bang have been the methodology the almighty chose to bring His creation into existence? Wasn't it St. Paul who said that for the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years but a day?

Evolution gets into the what and the how. It never actually gets into the nuts and bolts behind the why.

For example, contrary to popular opinion... the time line in evolution is not linear. You don't see mutation and species development occur in roughly equally distributed epochs. In fact, quite the opposite is true. You see short bursts of extensive genetic activity, followed by long periods of relative stability and inactivity. Now, most external phenomenon have been ruled out: solar activity and other radioactive events weren't particularly more dramatic, there weren't necessarily major climatic changes, etcetera. Sure, sometimes these periods had an identifiable external stimulus, but even the cause of the end of the dinosuars at the conclusion of the Cretacsous period is only speculation.

So I actually believe in evolution as the method by which God has shaped life here on earth. Nothing in Darwin or any other part of Evolutionary Theory precludes the idea of God as the hidden stimulus (though there's nothing that requires it or even supports it either).

But none of that is here or there. The teacher was a HISTORY teacher. Why the Hell was he advocating ANY scientific theories? And why on Earth was he discussing the concept of salvation and the requirements for it in a public high school? Completely and utterly out of line. America's knowledge of it's own history is dreadfully inadequate, and even that shines brightly in comparison to our knowledge of history that occurred beyond our borders. How about we focus on some of the things we should know about history but don't. The list, even just thinking off the top of my head, is entirely too long to even begin...

[Kralizec]

A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".

What's wrong with fairy tales?

[Spetulhu]

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays...ntDesign.shtml
Quote:
"Intelligent Design" proponents are fond of claiming that "evolutionists" always approach the data with the wrong mindset (ie- not the "design" mindset). However, if we do approach it from an engineering mindset as they suggest, and we apply due diligence in that analysis, we will quickly find that the biological "product line" is such an egregious example of jury-rigged, half-assed design that no one in his right mind would ever attribute it to an intelligent designer, never mind one who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible.

[Pindar]

Teacher at a public school preaches to the class, describing how dinosaurs were on the ark, how evolution is wrong, and how a particular muslim girl at the school will go to hell. Student tapes the teacher, files some sort of complaint. No lawsuit, thanks goodness.

Like Xiahou, I wonder about the reporting of the story. As its portrayed, the teacher has overstepped things: evangelism is not history, the salvation of persons is not history, dinosaurs on the ark is not history. Eleventh Grade is part of compulsory education. It is therefore part of the public trust. A teacher is constrained by that trust which trumps any personal impulse/agenda. If the reporting is accurate there should be serious consequences for this kind of breech.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories
both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.

Nope. They are students of science and should be taught scientific methodology.
Science class is not about indoctrinating pupils with given results. The idea that education is a contest between different sets of dogmas is untrue. This very premise is religious in nature.
Religion teaches dogma. Science teaches pupils valuable tools to form a critical opinion. Hence there is no need to have a popularity contest about what to teach them - they should rather be given a proper science class so they can develop the tools to figure out themselves what to believe.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A good part of the global scientific community, or just the US? As far as I know the US is the only western country where you can say you believe in ID without being dismissed instantly.

Yup, it is about as common here as flat-earthers or people insisting they are Napoleon.
We don't dismiss 'm though - we offer them a cup of coffee, put a warm, friendly arm over their shoulder and ask if maybe they've got a telephone number on them, if there's somebody we can call...

Meh, if the Americans are going to waste science class by teaching their children Intelligent Design, then soon the Indians and Chinese are going to teach them the real meaning of Intelligent Design: that is, intelligently designed computers, cars, software and bio-tech.

[Marshal Murat]

Don Corleone, thank you.

[Goofball]

Is anyone willing to consider the possibility that the NYT doesnt have/isnt telling the whole story?

You've got the school students and residents lining up behind the teacher, making statements like the above- yet we're willing to swallow the 1 student's version hook, line, and sinker. I wonder if the locals might have a better idea of what's really at play here.

I'm willing to accept the possiblilty that the NYT isn't telling the whole story, but reading between the lines that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Just from looking at the pictures of the complainant (a kind of skinny, nerdy looking kid) and the teacher, and from reading the comments some have made about the teacher (big love fest, he's the best, a prince among men, etc...), it appears we have a student that wasn't popular to start with attacking a popular, hip teacher.

In other words, a popularity contest.

And I'm sure we all remember from our highschool days, "popular" beats "right" every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Also, none of the teacher's supporters are saying he didn't say the things that he is alleged to have said. They are all basically just saying they are on his side because they like him.

Add that to the fact that there are tape recordings of this teacher preaching his crap in class, and it makes it hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Reenk Roink]

These kind of people need to get more creative when trying to "combat" evolutionary theory.

I never hear about a bible belt teacher throwing a skeptical argument to show evolution isn't justified. Just point out the fact that there is no good inference from sensory experiences to beliefs about material objects and boom...scientific theories which are based on beliefs about material objects collapse.

[Tribesman]

Suspend the teacher , then fire the stupid git .
If he wants to preach then stick to the pulpit or ranting on streetcorners .

Contrary to "popular belief", it's a teacher's job to teach the truth, not propagate the kids' minds with total horse manure which "evolution" and "the big bang" are.

Contrary to that pile of horse manure , it is a teachers job to teach what he is being paid to teach , in a manner and with content that is approved by the education authorities and the school board .
If he doesn't like it then he can bugger off and get a job that he can do .

[AntiochusIII]

Why the hell does this thread turn into that unIntelligible Design crap again?

This is about a teacher breaching some very clear lines between teaching and preaching, lying, even; or perhaps distortion of news, if Xiahou's and Pindar's suspicions are correct.

Should their suspicions be unfounded, however, just fire the fool. How many times have I heard those complaints about "liberal [teachers/professors] indoctrinating my kids"? It's time for those who complain to prove they're not hypocrites.

Navaros is right in one regard - it is the teacher's job to indoctrinate the kids. The only real difference here is that he's introducing ideas that aren't part of the designated group of notions which every good and honest citizen "should" accept as truth. I don't care if he was talking about Yeshua or time travel through autoerotic nipple-twisting; the man wasn't doing his job (read: sticking to official curriculum) and that's the only standard to which his behaviour can truly be measured. He's being paid to do it, after all.

Not true. A properly run science class demands that the teacher takes initiative in openly exposing the students to the sources and ways that those knowledges are achieved as much as teaching the students the knowledges themselves; in fact, in my opinion, one of the ways to truly engage someone in the scientific world is by exposing on how it actually works and how all those data come from. The student can then make judgment on his/her own about it all.

If anything, the history of science is one of the most interesting topics around. You finally know how those criminally boring calculus formulas get their lives, for example.

Of course, lazy teaching would lead to the kind of indoctrination you claim happens.

Guess what a properly run "Intelligent Design" class would do?

[Soulforged]

As for your post about evolution, I happen to disagree. They are many respected scientists that say the THEORY of evolution is bull. There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories (Intelligent Design and evolution) and let them make their own desicions. It all comes down to a matter of faith wether you believe in religion of Christianity or the religion of Atheism.
There is in fact more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. As I said though, both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.

Sorry Vuk, but even if you disagree, and correct me if I'm wrong, the teacher has to respect a program wich is provided by the school, is not a purely discretional thing. What he did was wrong on so many levels that it speeks for itself?

What should be done is another thing. However you're incorrect there too. There's no way to prove Intelligent Design because it parts from supraempirical preconceptions, but evolution is a scientific theory, as such it can be proved, not yet fully proved, but it's susceptible of such thing. And even if both were probable, kids cannot learn every theory on every field, the program has to be reduced to accepted realities to not confuse their minds with unnecessary information.

[Scurvy]

Sorry Vuk,And even if both were probable, kids cannot learn every theory on every field, the program has to be reduced to accepted realities to not confuse their minds with unnecessary information.

surely the kids have to learn as muich of the spectrum as possible in terms of theory, especially if neither have been entirely proven - its hardly unneccessary, i'm fairly neutral on the whole creation thing, i exist, so why i exist doesnt really matter - although i did think the person who first called religion a "fairy tale" was being a bit mean

all of this digresses from the topic, the teacher (apparently) went of of his way to try to teach something to the pupils which was not on the syllabus, and effectively tried to preach to them his own viewpoint, i actually think that teachers should reveal their own views more oppenly when teaching, because it allows pupils to creatively think about a topic in a way that is agaisnt the teachers, ie active learning, however if the teacher only showed his own view then it is wrong... anyway, what's a history teacher doing teaching science, (although you could argue that creation is history)

[Redleg]

When I read the article my first conclusion was that this History Teacher has clearly reached beyond what his subject was suppose to be about. When looking at it in that matter the teacher is clearly wrong from going into science and religion in a history class. From the article. The leading paragraph.

Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.

Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz

But I begin to wonder why a history teacher would approach that subject matter in a history class. If I remember my standard history classes for HighSchool they normally follow the lines of the state history to United States History. The historical effects of religion on American history could be studied in that regrads - especially when one studies several landmark legal cases from the turn of the century to mid 1950. However if the teacher actually broached the material presented in the article - he definitily went down the wrong branch of his stated material for his subject. However a portion of the article that leads me to conclude that there is definitely more to the story is this little bit from the article.

The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. “The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view,” Matthew, a thin, articulate 16-year-old with braces and a passion for politics and the theater, recalled in an interview. “It wasn’t even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn’t sure how far he was going to go.”

On the second day of taping, after the discussion veered from Moses’s education to free will, Matthew asked why a loving God would consign humans to hell, according to the recording.

Some of Matthew’s detractors say he set up his teacher by baiting him with religious questions. But Matthew, who was raised in the Ethical Culture Society, a humanist religious and educational group, said all of his comments were in response to something the teacher said.

“I didn’t start any of the topics that were discussed,” he said.

Just leaves me wonder a tid bit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The thing I love about the anti-big abng brigade is that they always tout it as an axample of anti-theism. Big Bang, a theory which states the universe began in a moment for unkown reasons replaced a theory so pervasive that Einstien fudged his calculations to support it, steady state. Steady State says the universe has always been, unchanging and eternal. Big Bang says someone flipped the switch.

I fail to see how it contradicts God, if anything it was his biggest PR coup of the last century.

Evolution:

Consider this, God seeds the garden, being omnipotent he knows what will grow. He goes on holiday, he comes back, kills the dinosaus with a meteorite because Jesus accidentilly dropped some weeds in with the plants while helping dad. He has breakfast, because Mrs God makes a mean fry-up, he comes back and hummanity has evolved.

Wayhay, things are getting interesting. So God has a bit of a chat with Adam and decides he can take him out of the Green House, hence man's fall.

Currently God is having lunch, when he gets back I expect he'll find a way to get rid of all the nasty powerplants that have sprouted in his lovelly garden.

The Bible is manifestly wrong about dates. Man has history which stretches beyonf the Bible's reckoning, never mind pre-history.

[ajaxfetish]

The very statement that it is impossible to disprove intelligent design places it outside the realm of science immediately. As to my personal beliefs on the matter, they fall much in line with Don Corleone's. I don't consider a creative God and the discoveries of science to be mutually exclusive.

However, that whole debate has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. Because of free speech, it is perfectly ok to proselyte as a private individual. The problem is the teacher is not acting in the capacity of a private individual, but as a representative of the school system, and in a larger sense the American government. When he has his 'teacher badge' on, he needs to represent the views of the organizations he represents, even if they contradict his own. If he cannot do so in good conscience, he is in the wrong job, and should either find employment where he represents only himself, or where he represents someone who shares his views. What he does outside of his capacity as a teacher is his own business.

Ajax

[Xiahou]

I'm willing to accept the possiblilty that the NYT isn't telling the whole story, but reading between the lines that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Just from looking at the pictures of the complainant (a kind of skinny, nerdy looking kid) and the teacher, and from reading the comments some have made about the teacher (big love fest, he's the best, a prince among men, etc...), it appears we have a student that wasn't popular to start with attacking a popular, hip teacher.

In other words, a popularity contest.

And I'm sure we all remember from our highschool days, "popular" beats "right" every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Also, none of the teacher's supporters are saying he didn't say the things that he is alleged to have said. They are all basically just saying they are on his side because they like him.

Add that to the fact that there are tape recordings of this teacher preaching his crap in class, and it makes it hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Or maybe the kid was a well-known, snotty pain in the ass (with a rich lawyer daddy) who's always trying to stir up trouble- as suggested by the comments in the article. Who knows?

Dont mind me though- I don't want to get in the way of the witch-hunt...

[GoreBag]

Not true. A properly run science class demands that the teacher takes initiative in openly exposing the students to the sources and ways that those knowledges are achieved as much as teaching the students the knowledges themselves; in fact, in my opinion, one of the ways to truly engage someone in the scientific world is by exposing on how it actually works and how all those data come from. The student can then make judgment on his/her own about it all.

What part of what I said isn't true?

[Lemur]

So I actually believe in evolution as the method by which God has shaped life here on earth. Nothing in Darwin or any other part of Evolutionary Theory precludes the idea of God as the hidden stimulus.

This is a very sensible opinion. I've never understood why some people on both sides of this issue believe that one position must exclude the other.

Both Xiahou and Pindar are correct, there does seem to be more to this story. We'll just have to see what other coverage it gets ...

[edit]

Once again, it seems that South Park had this topic nailed some months ago.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The problem was he was proselytizing Christianity. If he was a Marxist and told some bourgeois kid he was going to hell, he might get away with it.

My thoughts lie near Lemur's, and DC is chipping away at my admittedly-parental-inspired hostility to evolution.

[doc_bean]

The funny thing is, and I have to be VERY careful how I phrase this, who's to say there isn't such a thing as both? Why couldn't evolution and the Big Bang have been the methodology the almighty chose to bring His creation into existence? Wasn't it St. Paul who said that for the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years but a day?

Well, it's perfectly normal for a European believer to accept the theory of evolution, the vatican accepts evolution (maybe not as openly today, but they did in the past anyway), heck, there was a whole period in time when no one saw a problem, until some zealots (in the US) started preaching against it, and the meme spread. Why ? I don't know.

Now the problem is that the people are told they can't believe in God AND evolution it seems

Intelligent design is a bit of a cop out, if they just said, yeah evolution is true, God has created the principle because he knew Man would result etc., etc. there wouldn't be much of a problem. The problem is that ID (often) preaches 'guided' evolution, the idea that evolution as a 'force of nature' does not exist, that it would all be random if it were not for an interventionalist God.

Now this is where it gets problematic. You see, evolution is everywhere, Vuk said it was ironic how the theory of evolution has 'mutated' so much, but that's just the thing, every theory does this. Every time you tell someone a theory, an idea, you'll get a small mutation. Every time someone puts two theories together (or views a theory in light of a different paradigm), you have cross-over.
Genetic programs start with a bunch of random solutions to a problem, the best get selected and they get combined to form even better solutions. The principle of evolution works, independent of an outside force. It is a quality inherent in information transfer (that description of biological evolution probably makes some neo-darwinist orgasm).

Now does this mean there is no room for a God ? No. Like all things sience discovers, it can say WHAT exists, but not WHY. Evolution appears to be some sort of emergent behaviour, but then, could not a God have designed it to be this way ?
As to how non-guided evolution can still result in Man: it's primarily a statistical proces and therefor the outcome is not completely random, God could have simply kicked things off. There's also the possibility of a deterministic universe (Einstein would have loved that one), although where that leaves free will, i don't know.

The point is, evolution does not rule out God, it might rule out certain passages in the Bible (Genesis, primarily), but only a few zealots belief the Bible to be the absolute truth. Most people (even religious people) see it as a book 'about God' written by man.

Evolution gets into the what and the how. It never actually gets into the nuts and bolts behind the why.

Then it wouldn't be science.

[Tribesman]

The point is, evolution does not rule out God, it might rule out certain passages in the Bible (Genesis, primarily), but only a few zealots belief the Bible to be the absolute truth. Most people (even religious people) see it as a book 'about God' written by man.

True , and the irony is that many of those who are really zealous and vocal about it don't even know the book very well that they claim is the basis of their position .
There was apparently this bloke a long time ago who gave out on this sort of subject , something about people not knowing scripture and applying it where it doesn't apply .
It was something along the lines of people of weak faith and little knowledge holding themselves and their "proclaimed" faith up to ridicule .
I think his name was something like St.Augustine , well not his real name that his parents gave him of course , but that's what he became known as

Now for some light entertainment .
If this was a Islamic teacher telling kids that they must follow his vesion of the truth of Islam , and anyone that isn't Muslim is going to be condemned would they still be speaking in his defense ?
Now Navros probably would since he supports fundamentalism for all the peoples of the books , but how about any of the others ?

If not then it is quite simple to sum up ....damn hypocracy .

[macsen rufus]

Teacher was way out of line -- he should do his preaching on Sundays, teaching on workdays. We'd get well p'ed off if he was say, a sheriff, and used his work time to collar a few people just because he didn't like them.

and for Alexander - Marxists don't tell people they're going to hell, they say "Come the glorious revolution, comrade, you'll be first up against the wall..."

[Mooks]

I wouldnt like it if a teacher started preaching islam in one of my classes. Preachers should preach in church, not in school. He could though tell what christrians beleive, nothing wrong with that.

[Fragony]

If teachers aren't allowed to indoctrinate children then somebody call the police. You wouldn't believe how much extreme leftist propaganda one can find in dutch schoolbooks, it would be sad if it wasn't so disastrous.

oh yeah link for dutchies

http://www.mijneigenweblog.nl/weblog...ant&e_id=26376

[doc_bean]

http://www.mijneigenweblog.nl/weblog...ant&e_id=26376

Those things seem all to familiar. Schoolsbooks are full of 'truth' where there should be theory, but then that would require the students to think, and we don't want that do we ?

Funniest example evar (imho): on a test for 'Bible studies' one of the questions was : Did Jesus ever get mad. And the answer was 'no'. Way to mix up the message with the truth folks ...

[Fragony]

You can laugh at the more silly stuff but look at this

"Taarten in het gezicht van politici, ketchup over driedelig grijs, kogelbrieven bij het ontbijt: burgers zijn niet alleen actief in het stemhokje." (Impuls, maatschappijleer)

We both know what they mean here,

from



to



is political activism. They should be arrested for calling for violence.

"Door zijn scherpe opvattingen maakte Fortuyn veel tegenstanders. Dat werd hem uiteindelijk noodlottig." (Indigo, geschiedenis).

uh-huh, yeah that was it, walk the line

[caravel]

The evidence for evolution is all around us. It's now got to the stage that it's indisputable, despite it being a theory and not a law. Some people simply close their minds to it.

[doc_bean]

Honestly, those quotes are indeed retarded, but they probably don't appear in the majority of the books used, and are probably taken out of context. Classes like 'social studies' which I imagine is a lot like our 'Religion' classes are filled with this 'feel good, wouldn't the world be better if we were all nice to eachother BS'. Probably because only frustrated idealist have the patience and time to write something that can be used in classes like that.

We had idealisitic teachers and retarded books, most of us still gr'ew up rather normal (and middle-right, according to Belgian standards)