Skip to comments.Is this legal?
Posted on 09/28/2009 3:00:59 PM PDT by MNDude
My teenage nephew just got back to school this month with science teacher who is nicknamed "Mr. Evolution" because of his zeal for his beliefs.
Mr. E started class saying by saying "In this class, I intend to completely dismiss and disprove many religious myths".
I think this is going a little too far. Your opinions?
I’d like to add that I think it is important for your son to see you stand up about this and not just go with the flow. It may be one of the most important things you ever teach him.
Excuse me, I mean your nephew, and while it would be a good example for you to fight it, it won’t have the impact it would have were you his dad.
Actually, a couple of years back, researchers from one of the big physics universities (CalTech or somewhere like that) published a paper describing "what banged". It was an object the size of a marble, and it exploded in something like three trillion-trillionths of a second (they were very precise, and they were perfectly serious) into all the matter and energy in the known universe. Translation: The Goddess laid an egg.
I don't buy the Genesis story either, but until serious researchers can come up with something that at least sounds more plausible on its face, I can't take them seriously when it comes to pondering the origins of the universe.
It is probably unwise for a student (or anyone else) to bring up entropy unless he really understands entropy.
Those who cite entropy as an argument against evolution are misusing thermodynamics. (I say that as someone who teaches engineering thermodynamics.)
The man is a propagandist clearly. There is no reason in a class where reason is not allowed.
I’d like to see meaningful discussion of the possibility of intelligent design included in science teaching. I’m taking college biology courses (in my 40s, after an unrelated career), and the constant drumbeat of “it’s all from evolution” claims, with no real attempt to present back-up for this and, other than snide asides, no mention of intelligent design as a possible factor at any stage, is about as intellectually honest as a fundamentalist Sunday School teacher constantly harping about the KJV Bible being the absolute literal word of God which is not to be questioned.
I’m not the only student who’s finding the approach intellectually dishonest and insulting to our intelligence. The “evidence” presented to back the nothing-but-evolution claims consists of “trust me” statements about things which haven’t been covered in the course in anywhere near enough detail for students to be in a position to challenge the claims. We’re expected to swallow it whole, just like students in a fundamentalist Sunday School class are supposed to swallow “evidence” consisting of “because it says so right here in the KJV Bible”.
No. I agree that Genesis has too many holes. I could never figure out how Cain and Able found women to marry when there shouldn’t have been any. I think maybe that Adam and Eve were thought to be the first of their group in the area and outsiders were somehow ignored. But, I do believe in intelligent design. I really don’t think we are alone.
You shouldn’t expect a debate on Intelligent Design in a Biology course. You might find it in another course though. Do some course shopping. Sometimes certain teachers are better at letting students learn by debate. Do some teacher shopping.
I was not stating that entropy was supportive of evolution. I stated that evolution without guidance is order out of chaos which is usually not the case and gave an example of entropy.
Also when I say order out of chaos, I understand natural selection is a deciding factor on which random events to choose. But the random mutations happening at the same time period to give us the convergence we see today is highly unlikely and would suggest that either there is some guiding force in the mutations occurring or there is a natural order in the random events other than evenly spread.
I cited entropy and should have been specific about statistical entropy because it favors randomness rather than a pattern simply because there are more microstates within the macrostate which is “average”.
If there are 100 mutations and 5 time periods the largest macrostate would be 20-20-20-20-20. One of the smallest being 0-0-0-0-100. Yet, what we see in parallel evolution is much closer to 0-0-0-0-100.
correct me if i’m wrong please I never took thermodynamics.
There’s a fundamental assumption made by the anti-intelligent design crowd, that intelligence is inextricably tied to matter. This assumption leads to the belief that highly organized matter had to evolve first, for intelligence to become possible. Unfortunately, when pressed for evidence of where all the matter (and energy) originally came from, they fall back on wildly complex mathematical calculations that result in a conclusions like the aforementioned, that it hatched from a magic egg . . . that somehow popped in from oblivion, already endowed with this amazing capability.
I suppose he’ll need another period to disprove God.
Well, Mr. Evolution did something right. His intent is to compare ‘his religion’ with other religious myths. His is a religion class - not a science class - and he made that clear from the get go. He made a boo boo in the ‘evo’ world.
I don’t expect a debate. Frankly the topic is beyond the scope of any undergraduate level course. But the parade of lame attempts to “show” us that everything is attributable to evolution, and that any talk of “intelligent design” is just superstitious nonsense, is annoying.
The latest is an idiotic project in lab, consisting of picking a bunch of bacteria from a list and using an online service to plug in the nucleotide sequences from their 16S rRNA and have a phylogram magically pop out. Then we get to answer a series of questions designed to inevitably lead us to “realize” that our phylogram proves everything came from evolution. We’re not supposed to point out that you could play the same kind of game with operating system code from information processing devices from the late 1960s to the present and ranging from $2 handheld calculators to the most sophisticated and powerful computers, and get a “phylogram” showing how they all descended from a common ancestor.
You are not looking for opinions. You are looking for agreement.
And evolutionists wonder why the creationists are upset at public school “science teaching”.
Apparently, this teacher didn’t get the memo about how compatable God is with the religion of evolution.
The problem is that a teacher who is willing to say this openly would probably have no trouble failing a kid who gave him trouble.
I had to be very careful in my high school biology class to maintain my religious beliefs without hurting my grade.
The teacher pretty much warned me he’d be checking all my work for “religious bias”. Fortunately, I had no real problem understanding the material and answering the factual questions exactly like they were supposed to be answered.
And if I had to write a note at the bottom of my tests explaining that my answers were not what I believed, but what I was taught, it didn’t seem he had the ability to take credit off for that.
I also had an English teacher who took it upon herself to “expand our horizons” and show us that religion was just a manmade construct.
She’d have speakers from different faiths each week, including wiccans.
My year, me and a couple of my friends managed to get her to go to church with us one Sunday, so who knows — everybody is open to redemption, don’t know if she ever found the way.
Many atheists fail to understand this, thus the hypocritical double-standard they employ, thinking they can shove their belief systems (even if it be one of unbelief) down the throats of pupils attending public schools.
It could well enough be argued that case law precedent holds two edged swords, which could be used against atheistic teachers whom seek to bully & indoctrinate children into adopting their own, virulently anti-theistic beliefs.
Science, after all, is mute on the question of whether there is a supreme being, or whether there is not, regardless of how many folks attempt to use their own opinions of what the so-called scientific "evidence' means...beyond the mere repeatable and well observed "facts".
As to what various higher courts have found, investigating related matters (well enough related to help define what constitutes "religion", and other related legal considerations) a simple google search yields introductory material such as;
"...The Supreme Court reaffirmed the utility of the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), in McCreary, 125 S.Ct. at 2732-35. Compare Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2860-61 (2005) (plurality questions continuing utility of Lemon test).
Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13; Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 301 (7th Cir. 2000). The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without a legitimate secular reason. See Linnemeir v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 260 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2001); Metzl v. Leininger, 57 F.3d 618, 621 (7th Cir. 1995) ([T]he First Amendment does not allow a state to make it easier for adherents of one faith to practice their religion than for adherents of another faith to practice their religion, unless there is a secular justification for the difference in treatment.); Berger v. Rensselaer Cent. Sch. Corp., 982 F.2d 1160, 1168-69 (7th Cir. 1993) (Under the Establishment Clause, the government may not aid one religion, aid all religions or favor one religion over another.)."
And that is just for "starters"...there is more, much more along the same lines, with a great many Appellate level arrows pointing in much the same direction. The issue itself is fairly ripe for litigation. What is needed is the right circumstance, and money.
Given a detailed description of a biological, chemical, or physical process, a thermodynamic analysis can tell us whether the process violates one of the laws of thermodynamics. If it does, then the process cannot occur as described.
However, even if a process is found not to violate the laws of thermodynamics, we still cannot say for certain whether the process is feasible as described. There may be good practical reasons why the process does not occur.
In short, compatibility with the laws of thermodynamic is necessary but not sufficient for any real process to occur.
If someone proposes a process by which life may have arisen, we can perform a thermodynamic analysis to see whether it violates the laws of thermodynamics. If it does, we can safely assume that life did not originate that way. Even if the process is found to be thermodynamically feasible, however, that alone does not mean that life actually arose that way.
Suppose that someone were to work out a detailed, step-by-step procedure by which living cells could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. Further suppose that the process is found to be thermodynamically feasible. We would still be unable to say for certain that life really did originate that way.
Let's take it a step further. Suppose it could be demonstrated that the proposed process occurs at a appreciable rate in the laboratory under primordial conditions. Although that would be an impressive scientific achievement (no doubt worthy of a Nobel Prize), we still could not be certain that things happened that way.
More important, we can never say, on the basis of our analysis or experiments, whether or not God was involved in the creation of life. The tools of science are simply not adequate to answer questions regarding God and his role in creation.
Tell your nephew to let Mr. E. natter on all he wants to. Your nephew needs a good grade. Let him humor the idiot.
There is no point in being confrontational. This jerk teacher probably wants that he wants to make a name for himself while failing kids who don’t go along with him. Screw him. Your nephew should just want to get out of his class, out of that school, in one piece.
Public school is not worth the bother. Humor the bastards and laugh.
If he persecutes Christian kids, he could be in trouble. But not likely if the Left is running his college.
Genesis does not say Cain and Abel (and later Seth) were the only three children of Adam and Eve. You are assuming Adam and Eve had no other babies. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Eve surely bore more than three children in 130 years. There are no offspring of Abel. Cain killed him before the mention of any second generation. Cain married a younger sister and so did Seth, who Eve explained was appointed by God to be the replacement for Abel. Cain and Seth married their own sisters, but at that time the human body was in the original form (created to last forever, before the fall, before vast generations of degeneration) and siblings reproducing with each other was not what it would be currently.
The very best way to figure out what is in Genesis or any book of the Bible is to pray for the wisdom to discern its meaning, read it for yourself, read it all the way through, setting aside thirty minutes a day. The Living Word explains itself but you must read it all and read it for yourself and never think that a single passage can be fully appreciated strictly on its own.
That’s a great idea! And a much better use of class time, I’d think.
"at that time the human body was in the original form (created to last forever, before the fall, before vast generations of degeneration) and siblings reproducing with each other was not what it would be currently."
What empirical evidence do you have to support this assertion?
There would be little the evolutionary atheist teacher could do to counter South Park’s devastating ridicule.
It is not about empirical evidence. It is about faith. It is about spiritually discerning that which is spiritual. It is about reading the entire Bible (and not just once), not just selected passages, not just reading about the Bible, not just relying on others to tell you what is in the Bible and what it means.
My broader point was that when marstegreg said ‘I could never figure out how Cain and Able found women to marry when there shouldnt have been any’ and thought ‘Genesis had too many holes’. He assumed that according to Genesis there were no women, but he did not understand because he had not read the whole Bible enough to get it, probably had not even read Genesis itself: I mean, he even was apparently under the impression that ‘Able’ found a woman to marry when one major tenet of the Bible is that Abel’s whole line was cut off by Cain’s killing Abel out of jealousy. I just added the part about why siblings reproducing back then would not have been the big problem it would be today and to not assume that would not have happened back then just because these days it would be a problem.
Anyway, you may not really get what reading the Bible is all about if you are wanting someone to give you empirical evidence (from observation or experiment) from the Bible.
I would read the Bible for you if I could, but that is not how it works. It is the Living Word. It is on faith.
Sounds like he needs to start taping lectures.
So you agree that your assertion is based on a religious belief with absolutely no scientific evidence to support it?
No. Read what i just wrote. I was not quoting ‘scientific evidence’. There isn’t any scientific evidence about the original form of humans anyway. You may BELIEVE scientists can go back in time to conduct experiments or make observations, but I do not. I also do not believe what scientists have here and now for their experiments and obsevations is necessarily indicative of what was around centuries and centuries ago. They ASSUME too much and do not admit and may not even recognise their underlying assumptions.
Does it really say they married their sisters? Or is it implied? Did I miss it somehow? (not Sacrcasm, just curiosity on my part). I think I remember there being somethink in there about the women not being part of the family. I have to go back and reread. Thanks...see you’ve got me reading the Bible now! Sometimes things happen for a reason :)
So you do agree that your assertion was not based on any empirical evidence. Happy we cleared that up.
As far as your anti-science stance perhaps a small amount of research would help. There are libraries full of information that show your statement to be incorrect. It is there if you just look.
“I think evolution is a correct theory of the development of life and I frequently take issue with posters who want to teach intelligent design in the classroom. By the same token, this teacher has no business attacking religious beliefs in his classroom. It isnt even a philosophy class. Hes off base and should be reined in.”
I agree with much of what you say however the question was “Is this legal” and yes, I believe it is. If it is not, I’d like someone to show me the law against it.
Is it wrong? Heck yes! But coming from a family of cops, you quickly learn the difference between “legal” and “right.”
Yes. Ridicule. Turn the Alinsky tables on the evolutionary atheists!
I am not anti-science. I just know the difference between religion and science.
You mistake science to be superior to religion, then expect everyone to make the same mistake.
What science knows changes over time. What was correct in libraries full of information five hundred years ago, for example, is no longer correct today.
My faith is absolute. What is within my Bible does not change. Science has never proven wrong anything in the Bible.
How dare you suggest to me that my religious belief should be backed up by empirical evidence and if it is not then it is wrong?
You insult me to tell me that just a small amount of research in libraries full of information will help me correct my incorrect beliefs.
You insult me to suggest I have not looked at information in libraries.
You have some nerve, Ira_Louvin, whoever you are and who asked you anyway? I never asked you for any iota of advice thank-you-very-much! Have you no manners?
Why does what I believe bother you so much that it drives you to attack me so snidely?
No response expected. My questions to you are purely for you own rumination.
I will pray for you.
Religion does not require empirical evidence because it is accepted on faith.
Science is based on empirical evidence and only considers natural explanations.
You made a scientific claim regarding DNA based on biblical interpretation so that would not be considered scientific evidence.
I am not stating that your belief is wrong, just that there is no scientific evidence to support your assertion.
I do not think that science is superior to religion. However many people here distort scientific evidence to support their religious beliefs.
It is too difficult for me to understand, so that proves that God did it is not and never will be scientific evidence
As long as you are praying for me please add a prayer that my custody battle prevails and my Son is not living 250 miles away from me.
“But when it happened for the very first time, there could not have been any markers. These are just questions that have plagued me, especially when I was questioning the existance of God (in my younger days).”
Scientists speculate and can speculate all they want but they won’t know the answer either until it’s their turn.
I always wonder how people like Einstein could figure out mathematical formulas and theories of physics but our modern scientists don’t come as close.
All their work follows and expands on what has been done in the past, before computers. If Einstein could figure out the Theory of relativity without a computer, how come we haven’t been able to figure out the rest
like innerspace travel, living on the moon with the help of computers.
We haven’t even mapped most the earth yet and still have a hard time figuring out even with the help of computers.
Sorry for the long response.
I liked your long response! Here’s one back at you!
I saw a story several years ago about the smartest man in America. They had him take an I.Q. test to prove it. His score turned out to be so high they couldn’t score it (It only went up to 200 I.Q.). He lived in a tiny little garage of a home with books all around him and a single bed in the center. His time is consumed by mathematically proving the existance of God. The other scientists said on the interview that his work is too complex even for them to understand, that it would be up to future generations to study because of the complexity. I can’t help wondering if he finished.
My HS biology teacher opened the year with a statement that went something like this:
“In this class I teach the theory of evolution. For the purposes of this class, all test questions should be answered in accordance with this theory, as presented in class and the textbook. Your personal beliefs outside of this class do not have any bearing on the correct test answers.”
He was a christian, and a pretty good teacher.
My students ALWAYS wanted to know what I thought about it. I told them my opinion wasn’t germane, they needed to learn what the State of TX was going to test them on, and furthermore if they disagreed with what they were being taught, they would have a lot better chance to refute it in an argument if they understood what it said. When someone says something like, “If we came from monkeys how come there are still monkeys” to someone as a refutation of Darwins theory, they immediately look stupid and uninformed.