Oregon Biology Teacher Fired Over Bible References

Fox News ^ | Tuesday, March 20, 2007

[Diago]

During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution.

[onedoug]

If he would have used the quran he'd still be there.

[Jo Nuvark]

Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with
The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included
the supplemental material to teach students about
bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach
critical thinking.

No sarcasm. He's an individual. I wish him well
in life and kudos for giving this a good try.

[Knock3Times]

And liberals don't inject political science into every subject? PLEASE!!!!

______________________________________________________

If they fired every liberal teacher who injected politics into every subject, they would have to close all the government schools...hey, not a bad idea!

[RobbyS]

Biology is supposed to be "objective," and limited to a range of observed events. The scientist is supposed to be a disinterested observer, but what is obsaerved requires explanation to be meaningful and every scientist necessarily "adds to" his observation as he observes. Part and parcel of Darwinism is the culture in which Darwin was nurtured. It is this which prevents his science from being objective. So far as science alone is concern, he was most concerned to reject catastropism, the geological equivalent of revolution , in favor of gradualism-- a idea most congenial to Victorian Englishmen.

[RobbyS]

Creationism is a theological concept. That does not mean that nature is not owing to a creator who can communicate with mankind.

[tacticalogic]

Part and parcel of Darwinism is the culture in which Darwin was nurtured. It is this which prevents his science from being objective. So far as science alone is concern, he was most concerned to reject catastropism, the geological equivalent of revolution , in favor of gradualism-- a idea most congenial to Victorian Englishmen.

I take it you're going to disavow any responsibility for your own comments and observations having made any contributions to the absence of objectivity in that parcel.

[trumandogz]

Looks like Mr. Helphinstine will have plenty of time on his hands for "critical thinking."

[RobbyS]

I think this is called opinion. Why should I claim responsility? It is mine own.

[Prince Caspian]

Modern atheists like those of the classical world are also pious. But the worship they offer is not to the gods of Rome but to the gods of the modern state. Political correctness is nothing more than the piety of the infidel.

Nice quote. Is that original?

[tacticalogic]

Creationism is a theological concept. That does not mean that nature is not owing to a creator who can communicate with mankind.

Can I refer those who say that creationists are not anti-science to you for clarification about the theory of evolution and the general subject of science:

"Only it posulates that above man is this god-like being called The scientist. He serves as a kinbd of oracle of this supposed body of knowledge known as SCIENCE."

[voltaires_zit]

"Only it posulates that above man is this god-like being called The scientist. He serves as a kinbd of oracle of this supposed body of knowledge known as SCIENCE." Luddism is never pretty.

[tacticalogic]

"I think this is called opinion. Why should I claim responsility? It is mine own."

You don't claim responsibility for your own opinion?

[RobbyS]

Why should I NOT claim responsibility?

[Wormwood]

LOL! Kook. No business teaching school.

Exactly.

I wonder what his Freeper name is.

[tacticalogic]

Why should I NOT claim responsibility?

No reason not to. And no basis for complaining about anyone else's lack of objectivity on the subject.

[RobbyS]

There is a difference between a science and SCIENCE. Is it Luddism is say that Darwin's theories were shaped by the prevalent opinions of his class and age?

[tacticalogic]

There is a difference between a science and SCIENCE. Is it Luddism is say that Darwin's theories were shaped by the prevalent opinions of his class and age?

I'm not sure what you'd call it to try to define science in terms of the abuses of TOE, but you don't call it rational.

[Gumlegs]

There is a difference between a science and SCIENCE.

No doubt. The difference is whichever one makes room for your theology isn't science.

Is it Luddism is say that Darwin's theories were shaped by the prevalent opinions of his class and age?

No. It's ad hominem.

[muir_redwoods]

"It may be just a bit over your head."

Or beneath contempt

[RobbyS]

Scientists are as likely to abuse their positions as anyone else. They are just as greedy for fame and fortune as the average rock star. More to the point, they are sometime guilty of priestcraft, which is to claim magical powers.