The Shotgun Blog
« Economic policy for the Audacity of Hype - nothing is as important as punishing rich people | Main | Hugo Chavez stealing all the sugar »
Friday, April 18, 2008
Ohio teacher in trouble for keeping Bible on desk
I don't know if this case has been covered yet on the Shotgun. John Freshwater, a science teacher at a public school in Ohio, is in trouble with his school district for keeping a Bible on top of his desk in the classroom.
Link here. There's a little more to the story. Up until recently, Freshwater had posters with Bible verses and a whole stack of Bibles on a shelf in his classroom. After parents complained, he agreed to take down the posters and remove all other items except for the Bible on his desk. But Freshwater is willing to go to court to keep that one in the classroom.
Freshwater has said, "The removal of it from my desk would be nothing short of an infringement on my own deeply held personal religious beliefs granted by God and guaranteed under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."
I've read nothing that indicates Freshwater has proselytized to his students in any way. According to one area newspaper, the teacher has criticized evolution and taught students about intelligent design. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), an activist group, has seized on that fact (if it is a fact) as an indictment of Freshwater as some kind of religious fanatic.
AU, which really should know better, is using Freshwater's alleged criticism of evolution to imply that having a Bible on his desk must be an illegal endorsement of Christianity. Think about it: if Freshwater were an atheist who chose to keep a Bible on his desk for some reason, would AU and other liberal organizations be so quick to claim that the act was illegitimately bringing religion into the classroom?
Aside from discussing intelligent design with his students, there's no evidence Freshwater ever pushed his religion on to other students (and even here, the evidence is ambiguous: I've discussed intelligent design before; does that mean I was proselytizing for Christianity?)
According to some, just keeping the Bible on the desk is itself enough to violate the Establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The argument goes something like this:
- If someone has a Bible on his desk, then he is endorsing Christianity.
- In his capacity as a teacher, Freshwater is a representative of the state.
- Therefore, if Freshwater has a Bible on his desk, that is the same as the state endorsing Christianity.
- The Constitution makes it illegal for the state to endorse Christianity.
- Therefore, what Freshwater is doing is illegal.
Premise 1 is obviously faulty. Even Freshwater's old students admit he never preached to them in the classroom, not even 15 years ago when it might have been (a little) easier for the teacher to get away with doing so. The sole reason to think that Freshwater, in particular, is endorsing Christianity by having a Bible on his desk is that he himself is a Christian. But that's an absurd, bigoted reason.
Having a Bible on one's desk is no more an endorsement of Christianity than wearing a crucifix: less, actually, and I doubt even organizations like AU are going to start attacking teachers who wear crosses in the classroom.
At least not yet. Give it a few more years, perhaps.
Posted by Terrence Watson on April 18, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551e8459b8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ohio teacher in trouble for keeping Bible on desk:
Comments
Just hope he does not expect the ACLU to come to his aid, for they are too busy defending the rights of witches and also Muslims to be granted prayer time.
Although I am not Christian nor anti-witch or Muslim, this case like all the other similar ones stinks to high heaven. Perhaps they took a page from B.C. where tobacco products in stores must not be visible to the public.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-04-18 4:45:11 PM
"I've read nothing that indicates Freshwater has proselytized to his students in any way."
Sure, if you don't count the fact that "up until recently, Freshwater had posters with Bible verses and a whole stack of Bibles on a shelf in his classroom."
The article also tells us that the Mount Vernon City Schools Superintendent "said the district did not mind if Freshwater kept the Bible, but he said legal counsel urged some changes. 'When students come into the room, or when he is teaching, that the Bible be put into his desk and out of sight,' Stone said."
Is that really such an overbearing request? Really? I think this is a tempest in a teapot.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-18 5:05:32 PM
Fact Check,
I should have been clearer, probably, but it sounds like the school board's compromise is pretty defensible. What I was reacting to was more the arguments and claims I was reading from organizations like AU, as well as on a left-wing message board I frequent -- namely, that a Christian teacher having a Bible on his desk must necessarily be illegally endorsing Christianity.
I still don't see it. And I think, too, about the weird assortment of books I've had on my desk from time to time, and wonder what people would conclude I was endorsing if they applied the same logic to me that they seem to be applying to Freshwater. I'm objecting to that logic more than anything else.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-18 5:18:23 PM
I have to agree with FC's "tempest in a teapot" assertion. I think this is the sort of situation where both the lefties and the churchies tend to get their nickers in a twist over nothing. I consider myself a pretty hard-core atheist, but I don't think it's worth getting upset over a teacher simply having a bible on his desk, as long as he's not pushing his views on his students. But I also don't think it's worth getting upset over him having to put it in his desk drawer, where it would be easily accessible to him. People need to learn to pick their battles.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-18 5:25:15 PM
THIS IS AN OPEN AND SHUT CASE! No ambiguity here. This teacher is an employee and was told by his employer to not break the law because the employer is vicariously liable for the actions of employees. Nothing new or novel about that. If the employer, the school board, did nothing, they would be open to a multimillion dollar lawsuit because of the irresponsible actions of an insubordinate employee. He ought to have been warned and fired for insubordination.
He is not engaging in an innocent act. His preceding actions give context and meaning to his intent in having the bible on his desk as a potent symbol and endorsement that creates a classroom environment that is not conducive to learning the science he is employed to teach. He is a science teacher, not a theology teacher. Intelligent design is not science, but religious dogma and cant. If it was up to me, I would charge and convict him of child abuse and jail him for life. I am tough on crime!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-18 5:29:37 PM
On second thought, a jail sentence of life imprisonment is too lenient for his crimes of abuse. I would seek the death penalty--most Americans are eager to support capital crime convictions and would probably support conviction.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-18 5:31:50 PM
Terrence,
"What I was reacting to was more the arguments and claims I was reading from organizations like AU, as well as on a left-wing message board I frequent -- namely, that a Christian teacher having a Bible on his desk must necessarily be illegally endorsing Christianity. I still don't see it."
Of course you don't see it! That's because there is nothing to see! The AU and looney message board argument is over-the-top nonsense. But here is the grain of truth (and really, it is no more than a VERY tiny grain) in that position. You wrote: "if Freshwater were an atheist who chose to keep a Bible on his desk for some reason...." Now ask the question: What reason would an atheist teacher have for having a Bible on his desk? Well, if he were a history teacher or an English teacher it would make perfect sense to me. Understanding both might at times require not just talking about the fact that such a thing as the Bible exists, but what is in it and what people have thought about it or been inspired to write because of it. But Freshwater is a biology teacher. It is hard to think why an atheist biology teacher would be likely to have a Bible on his desk. Thus the worry is that a Christian biology teacher might be using it to teach creationism.
But, of course, if that really *IS* the worry there are ways of checking to see if he is going "off script" in teaching his classes. If not, then the Bible on his desk is not like having dangerous chemicals lying around. Merely seeing it will not blind the non-believers. So I agree the logic is a lot less than solid here, but I can at least understand how they got to that conclusion.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-18 5:34:46 PM
If your employer tells you to do something or refrain from doing something, because it opens them to liability, you better do it or the employer is entitled to fire you for insubordination, once they have used progressive discipline to get you to comply. It is that simple. This teacher is teaching his students insubordination and disrespect for employers! He is unfit to teach children.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-18 5:43:26 PM
You are whats wrong with this day and age Roger.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-18 7:10:20 PM
Fact Check,
"Now ask the question: What reason would an atheist teacher have for having a Bible on his desk?"
I'd do it just to see the lefties froth at the mouth.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-18 7:13:06 PM
Roger: oh come on! They'll learn plenty of that when they get into the real world. I learned to run like the wind from bad jobs. Respect goes both ways. I remember one boss - I'd do anything he said without question because we respected each other (only conflict point - he was a Jays fan, I'm a Yankees fan. Well, no one is perfect!)
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-04-18 7:14:13 PM
Roger, you're missing the usual LOLs otherwise your comments are hyperbole, at best.
It's obvious from the article that the only problem was the bible on the desk and not his teaching past or methods.
What if a muzzie had a quran on the desk?
Can you totally separate the publicsphere from religion? i dont think so.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2008-04-18 7:16:24 PM
As a teacher, I have quoted and read from the Bible, the Koran, Karl Marx, Darwin, You name it. The use of analogies and comparisons is a useful technique. It does not signify belief. Many different books were at hand in my classroom.
As to abrogating the Constitution, it merely provides that there should be no adoption of a national church as exists in the United Kingdom. Argument 4 holds no water.
I am reminded of the prohibition of Christmas Carols (some of the most beautiful music ever written) in public schools. Maybe its time for vouchers or private education where this small mindedness would have no effect.
If you are going to ban bibles, ban all religious symbology including the signs of sikhism. the hijab, etc.
Posted by: DML | 2008-04-18 7:21:17 PM
Fact Check,
I agree with just about everything you said. If Freshwater were using the Bible to proselytize (or simply proselytizing without the Bible) that would be a problem. Having the Bible on the desk + being a Christian doesn't equal proselytizing, though.
About an atheist biology teacher having a Bible on his desk: well, I don't know exactly why such a teacher would keep a Bible around. My point is that it shouldn't really matter what his personal reasons are for having the Bible on the desk. Unless he's actually DOING something with the Bible, there isn't any reason to object to the text being there.
And if he's doing something objectionable with the Bible, it shouldn't really matter what his personal beliefs are. His beliefs (on evolution, Christianity, etc) should be irrelevant.
That's really all I was saying. AU (and others) are trying to make his beliefs relevant to the constitutionality of the Bible's presence. They're not.
Thank you for your response :-)
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-18 8:06:37 PM
I can honestly understand the confusion and battle that is going on. Unfortunately your assumptions are merely that - assumptions. Some of your comments are very harsh for not knowing the complete story and only reading media. Mr. Freshwater is a good man and an excellent teacher. He teaches science and does it well. Though the media has mentioned that he teaches intelligent design, they are not accurate. Yes, he did fight to be able to teach intelligent design as a theory. He never asked to teach it as a fact. Science is about teaching theories. He felt it was important for the students to know all the theories of man's origin. But the school board denied his request. And, despite his desire to teach all theories, he has respected them and submitted to their authority. He does not teach it. My son is in his class and I have known him for years. Unfortunately, because he went to the school board to request permission to teach it and because of his strong faith, some people assume he teaches it anyways.
None of you know the entire story or the atmosphere that has surrounded the current situation. None know the real reason for the demand nor the real reason for Mr. Freshwater holding a press conference. All of you are just speculating.
Mr. Short (the superintendent) is a good man too. As far as the School Board, I do not know them well enough to state their character. I have dealt with them twice this year and have my own personal frustrations with them. But I do know both Mr. Freshwater and Mr. Short well.
The real issue is what the School Board/Principal/Superintendent have demanded that Mr. Freshwater do. Sure, the simple thing is to put his bible in his drawer.. . but why? Why should he have to? He does not place his bible on his desk for show or make a statement or so that he can refer to it. For 21 years, it has been placed on his desk...simply because he reads it during his breaks or at lunch. It is a part of who he is, but not something he "preaches" to his students. In fact, my son never knew it was there. I have been in his class countless times. I have a love for Jesus Christ and the bible, ... but never once did I notice one on his desk.
So I ask you this... was someone looking for a reason to "fight" with John Freshwater? Did the parents notice the posters in other classrooms or the bibles on other teachers desks? Did they notice the cross necklace around a teachers neck or the silent prayer a teacher might have said during a quiet time in class. And, has anyone wondered if other teachers were given the same demand?
Our little town is a wonderful town full of people who care about their community and their kids. This is not about Mr. Freshwater nor is it about Mr. Short. Both are good men. I believe with all my heart that Mr. SHort made the wrong decision and I stand behind Mr. Freshwaters' decision. I believe Mr. Freshwater is standing for more then just his bible on his desk. I think he is standing up for the freedom we should have as citizens of a great country. And yes, I think that he is standing up for the word of God -something far too many of us lack the courage to do.
Sure, he could put his bible in the drawer and and do nothing as God is removed even further from our schools. But he has chosen to defend his rights and... yes, consequently he is defending the rights of Christians who often seem to be the only ones who are attacked for their faith. Ultimately, though, he is defending the rights of ALL.
Ian Watson, the president of the school board admits that there is no policy stating that he can not have it on his desk. So, my question is why make him move it? If the parent had complained about a People Magazine on his desk, would the they have asked him to remove it? And the rebuttal would be - Would Mr. Freshwater have refused to? The answer to both is no. This is a bigger issue then a magazine; I think we all know that.
As for being subordinate to his authorities, if your boss requested you to remove your necklace from around your neck or your wedding ring from your finger because it offended someone, would you do it? If the Jewish teacher was asked to remove his cap because it displayed his faith, should he? If a teacher is found to be a homosexual and it offends me that he/she is teaching my child, should they be fired? If the book that you are reading is offensive to me or indicates that your belief is different from mine and I do not want your beliefs to be taught to my children, should I ask that your book be removed? If your boss gave you a direct order to not record the cash that was brought in and just give it to him directly, should you obey him?
Before you trash these men, you might want to remember that they are real people who are fighting for something they truly believe in. John Freshwater is standing in the gap for many people. He has gone where the "rubber meets the road". He has not just sat in a pew, not just read the bible, not just prayed, not just said that he is a Christian... but John Freshwater is living who he is to his very core.
Posted by: Darcy Miller | 2008-04-18 9:30:14 PM
Darcy
"Before you trash these men, you might want to remember that they are real people who are fighting for something they truly believe in. "
Before you trash these posters you may want to review just how many agree with you.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-18 9:47:34 PM
h20273kk9,
You are right. I have read so many posters on so many different sites that though I had begun to respond to these postings, I ended up responding to other sites postings - and honestly just to the posters who seem to cut down the men.
I know there are so many who agree. And using the words "before you trash" was inappropriate on my part.
This is a heated debate and there are people who have very strong opinions and should be allowed to express them. Thank you for opening my eyes to how harsh I ended up being to all the posters.
I am sorry for that.
Darcy
Posted by: Darcy | 2008-04-19 3:58:53 AM
Darcy,
It is rare to find someone who will admit their mistake. My hats off to you. I hope you stick around for more debates.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-19 5:39:15 AM
...what some seem to miss is that Christianity does NOT have any symbols or dress to indicate they are Christians.
Wearing a cross, carrying a Bible does not qualify someone as a Christian, nor is it required to display a Bible in public to satisfy Christian beliefs.
As Apostle Paul said, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith."
Works in this case, does not mean displaying a Bible.
While I admire the man's zeal, there has to be a balance.
I'd be the first to carry a Bible in public if I knew it would convict someone of their sins and lead them to repentance and forgiveness.
Or even if that helps atheists see life in a different light.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-04-19 6:10:16 AM
...now before some of the religious folk in here go off on a tangent, read my opening statement again.
"Christianity does NOT have any symbols or dress to indicate they are Christians"
Christianity is one thing, religious orders are another.
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-04-19 6:14:43 AM
If the teacher was Muslim and was asked not to display the Koran on his desk, the school board would find themselves inundated with protests and lawsuits by the aclu and other assorted "activists" of that ilk demanding that the man be allowed to exercise his right to freedom of religion. They would also be demonized as racists and Islamophobes.
The blatent hypocracy of these people is astounding. Nauseating.
Posted by: robert | 2008-04-19 10:55:31 AM
That's really all I was saying. AU (and others) are trying to make his beliefs relevant to the constitutionality of the Bible's presence. They're not.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 18-Apr-08 8:06:37 PM
Those are interest groups, much like there are groups on the other side who go up against text books in schools.
To raise awareness to either sides "struggle" is really counter productie as it gives either side a platform they probably shouldn't get as it tends to polarize the discussion.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-19 2:47:47 PM
I dunno, Snowrunner. I didn't just read AU's piece. I also poked around on a left-wing message board (Democratic Underground, if anyone is interested) for various opinions. Again and again, people raised Freshwater's beliefs as if they were relevant to the issue.
Frankly, it was kind of disgusting, and I'm pretty much an atheist. It doesn't seem wrong to use the Shotgun blog to show libertarians and conservatives what the left really seems to believe. If anything, it serves the mission of the WS, which I take to include finding common ground between libertarians, conservatives, and others on the right.
Next time I come across a conservative trying to ban from the classroom texts that teach evolution as a fact, I'll probably write a post on that, too.
I do take your point, though: really, what's a group like AU going to say about this case, except what they said? Dogs bark and cats meow, right?
Regards,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-19 3:25:01 PM
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 19-Apr-08 3:25:01 PM
Sure they do. That's like expecting the Western Standard to come out in favour of Government regulation for the Oil Industry. Won't happen, doesn't fit in the ideological mindest of the crowd here. That doesn't make it mainstream though. Same goes for the message board you frequent.
As far as "conservatism" and the shotgun goes, I haven't really SEEN anything conservative on here. Most of it is cheap diatribe from the "me me me" generation or blunt opportunism trying to construct an enemy out of islam.
It's an odd mix on here where even some sane points are buried under a pile of hyperbole.
Thanks for the feedback though :)
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-19 3:28:57 PM
Snowy
"As far as "conservatism" and the shotgun goes, I haven't really SEEN anything conservative on here. Most of it is cheap diatribe from the "me me me" generation or blunt opportunism trying to construct an enemy out of islam. "
Of course, that happens when one expects that their opponents are focused on a particular issue. Try looking beyond your own narrow partisan interests and you'll realize that there are more opinions on more subjects than you previously imagined.
Don't let your myopic, partisan, mindset limit your ability to interface with the rest of the world.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-19 4:29:53 PM
"Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU)"
I would join the "Canadians United for the Sepration of School & State." Then we wouldn't need to argue about thi at all.
The state control of the public brain washing system is the real problem.
Posted by: TD | 2008-04-19 5:18:27 PM
TD,
Agreed! The separation of church and state was devised to prevent the state from imposing a religion on its subjects. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out very well. The state seems quite content to impose the religion of political correctness and environmental nonsense on its subjects without regret or remorse.
As an atheist, I oppose the state's imposition of a religion on my person.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-19 5:46:36 PM
h2,
The beauty of freedom is that people like you (an athiest) and I (a Christian) can agree not to impose our beliefs on each other.
Posted by: TD | 2008-04-19 7:57:25 PM
Of course, that happens when one expects that their opponents are focused on a particular issue. Try looking beyond your own narrow partisan interests and you'll realize that there are more opinions on more subjects than you previously imagined.
Don't let your myopic, partisan, mindset limit your ability to interface with the rest of the world.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 19-Apr-08 4:29:53 PM
oh oh oh. Please categorize me. What are my "narrow partisan interests"? Please. Tell me!!!!!!!! I want to know!!!!!!!!! Don't hold back now.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-19 8:02:23 PM
Snowy,
If I, an atheist, and TD, a
Christian can get along and see eye to eye, I fail to understand why you feel left outside the discussion.
Are you just being contrarian?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-04-19 8:30:23 PM
I always though science was unbiased, although according to many of you, I was wrong.
If a scientist is supposed to look at all possibilities and from there seek out an answer which best fits, then every biologist must have both a book on natural selection and the Bible. The best teachers do not tell you 1+1=2, but help you through it and explain it clearly. In science, if you place do not teach both the scientific theory of evolution, AND the Christian/Jew/Muslim view of intelligent design, and perhaps then explain why YOU (or 'most') believe one theory over the other, then you are a bad teacher. Perhaps you recall learning about the structure of a molecule, and the many different ideas people have had? I'll always think of a molecule in relation to pudding, yet envision it as orbiting electrons. We learned about them all, but most of our evidence points to using the Bohr model (yet again, not all scientific testing supports this)
So, you say, use an atheistic book on ID? I suppose you could, but most ID explanations come from the Bible, which states exactly how the species came to be. A non-religious one would be all theory and guesses, similar to Darwin. And seeing as that the US was literally founded on the Bible and its values, there should be no reason to remove it.
Finally, if Mr Freshwater is not teaching Jesus as the only way to Heaven, salvation, sin, et al, then he is not proselytizing Christianity. I doubt his posters mentioned Jesus either. If he used biblical references for his basis for the intelligent design theory, that should not be found unconstitutional in keeping the state out of the church (which is what the Amendment was written for)
Posted by: Eldon Murray | 2008-04-20 7:55:17 AM
Eldon Murray, the bible is a fairytale and religion is to comfort weak people.
Science is not a body of knowledge, but a method of inquiry.
There is absolutely no valid reason to include "intelligent design" and other bible thumping or other religious fairytales in classroom teaching of science, any science, be it physics, biology or chemistry or molecular biology. The Bohr model of the atom has been out of date for over half a century--actually, more like over a century! No scientific tests prove the fairytales of the bible. So take your theocratic nonsense and keep it out of the science classrooms. If you want to discuss it in ethics or religious instruction or philosophy, fine, but never in the science classroom or lab!
"Intelligent design" is a dishonest scumbag attempt to sneak in creationism through the backdoor. Lying and cheating in this way is unethical and immoral. If there was a satan, he would whole heartedly approve your tactics!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-20 10:53:20 PM
ROGER:
Given that the theory of evolution was formed in the mid-19th century and led to many utopian political adaptations of its theories (master race, eugenics, etc.) , how has the theory held up under the scientific scrutiny of DNA behaviour?
And, since our understanding of DNA function tells us it is totally impossible for one species to evolve into another, does that mean those political systems which adapted the premise that human beings could be ‘evolved' into perfection are incorrect?
Religion is not the enemy of evolutionary theory. Science itself has proven its fundamental assumption totally incorrect.
In much the way science is humanity's way of making sense of the physical world, religion is humanity's way of explaining unmeasurable concepts.
If I do not study biology, for example, then I would be ignorant of the marvels science has discovered in that specific field.
In much the same way, if I am closed-minded to the result of thousands of years of curiosity about such unmeasurable concepts such as grief, mortality, purpose ... I would be wilfully ignorant of that field of study, which we know as religion.
Your ideas of weak and strong give a clue that you frame your life in terms of earthy power.
Since Christianity articulated right from its start the concept of two realms (Ceasar and God) and you reject God as a fairy tale, you seem to define yourself in terms of power on earth.
Certainly, that is the way you have presented yourself here.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. You have no power over me and I seek no power over you.
Have a good night.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-20 11:19:24 PM
Social Darwinism is Darwin's fault? Nope. Eugenics is the fault of evolution theory? Nope.
Canards. Red herrings. Wild goose chase.
Long before Christianity was invented by Middle Easterners, the ancients existed with their own explanations of the universe. For examplem, the ancient Greeks were pagans. The Persians, Indians, Egyptians, and numerous other ancients all had their deities and philosophers. The realm of philosophy and ethics spans the ritual sacrifice of virgins to the religious brothels and gods of war and destruction and death.
The Augustinian claim for a City of God and a City of Man or the biblical quote of Jesus saying to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's, is not universally accepted in any society, let alone over the various epochal periods that span millenia!
As for power on earth, I live on earth, not in some fairytale idea of "end times"!
As for your "understanding" of biology or science, sure, live in your delusion! Evolution is a cornerstone theory of science, until proven otherwise withing the terms of reference of science. Because it occupies the lofty plane of being a theory, overturning it completely is highly improbable. All scientific knowledge is fine tuned over time, but few theories are ever overturned. The Bohr model was not overturned, but shown to be limited in its power to explain. Quantum theory was a more powerful theory than the Newtonian mechanics which underpinned the Bohr model.
Biblethumpers are too involved in politics. While they talk of separating church and state, they immersed themselves in the affairs of state and wish to live in theocracies instead of secular democracies. Christian fundamentalism is a threat to world peace. Heck, they have already started wars!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-20 11:42:52 PM
DARCY MILLER, it is a sin to tell lies! Can you at least try to be honest?
You claim this insubordinate teacher is just trying to present "all theories" and is not trying to brainwash children with his fairytale religious beliefs, then next you claim this teacher is fighting for Christianity! Creationism is not a scientific theory and therefore does not belong in a biology classroom. Creationism is a theological belief, a dogma, that belongs in the religious studies classroom or in a psychology classroom where delusions are under discussion.
So, try honesty. The truth is already clear for all to see. You are a zealot, along with this obsessive compulsive bible thumping teacher. No religion in science classes. Period. Not any religion.
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-20 11:56:51 PM
(ROGER)"Because it occupies the lofty plane of being a theory, overturning it completely is highly improbable." This is sarcasm, right? Because a theory, by definition, is not proven true.
As far as religion being a fairytale, that is for you to decide and God to reveal to you. But what you seem to think is Christianity is only 2000 years old, when it is not. It is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith, the promises God gave to His people the Israelites. Just some information, seeing as you do not appear to know what Christianity is.
But the issue at hand is "Theory", and if you reject a theory because you do not believe it, that does not make the theory invalid. You believe you are an accident, I believe I was created by a designer with a purpose. You may see my belief that God created the world and everything in it in 6 literal days as hogwash, but then I see evolution as a ridiculous belief that the human race is a fluke accident over billions of years. Neither can be absolutely proven until death removes us from this world, but that is what we have faith for, isn't it?
Posted by: Eldon Murray | 2008-04-21 5:40:13 AM
if god created everything in 6 literal days, how come there are supernova remnants?
Posted by: x2para | 2008-04-21 8:51:27 AM
LOL! Eldon Murray, the technical term "theory" is not your vernacular usage in everyday language. Where did you get your education? In scientific terminology, the term theory is reserved for hyptheses that have been subjected to rigorous empirical testing by skeptical researches trying to disprove the hypothesis and using statistical tests of significance and error analysis. Once a hypothesis has been shown to have an explanatory value of the various observable phenomena, it is elevated to a theory, as in the theory of relativity. Were Newton to have lived in a later time period, his "laws of motion" would have been "theories of motion" and would subsequently have been modified with further research and theory development to be a special case of mechanics based on an idealized model of reality, such as Euclidean geometry, based on a Platonic concept of ideal forms! LOL! If you don't understand, don't worry, just pray! LOL! Pastor Ted Haggard will comfort you!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 11:32:22 AM
A talking snake seduced Eve by chatting her up and buying her with an apple then jumping her and giving her an orgasm, where upon Adam showed up and said he wanted what Eve had so the snake jumped on Adam too! LOL! Fairytales from the far dark side of the flock of sheep!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 11:34:07 AM
x2para:
Genesis 1:3 Let there be light.
Genesis 1:5 ...called the light Day and the darkness he called light. And the evening and the morning were the first day
Genesis 1:9: the dry land appeared on ... Gen 1:13 ... the third day
To review:
Light appeared on the first day
The Earth appeared on the third day
Logically, then, the first day was ... how long?
Gen 2:2 and he rested on the seventh day
The seventh day, therefore, is the ‘day' we and all our ancestors lived and are living in.
During the seventh day, supernovas have come and gone.
Science is a wonderful method by which we can discover and measure the measurable.
And, even though I do not believe creation was accomplished literally in six 24-hour periods because it does not logically fit into the Genesis account, Eldon is absolutely correct about one thing.
Christianity did not appear out of a vaccum. It was the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament.
Hope, love, dignity, mortality, grief, wisdom, compassion, free will, apprehension.
These are some of the many things found in human nature which cannot be measured by scientific formulas or calculated with a slide rule.
The curiosity to seek answers to those questions are imprinted into our psyches and it is only through conscious effort that humans can kill that search for eternal truths and beauties.
And, ROGER, many of the ways lessons from the Holy Bible are presented are in an allegorical style. That does not make them fairy tales.
You can believe that life came from the Big Bang, which is a destructive force, or like Dawkins from seeds planted by aliens, but neither one of those theories make any sense.
How can the beauty and order that we see around us possibly come from a destructive force? As far as Dawkins goes, how were the aliens created?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-21 12:05:40 PM
Ya know...
I never intended this thread to erupt into a debate about evolution and intelligent design :-).
Cheers,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-21 12:15:03 PM
LOL! What an embarrassment it is to have adults who claim to be of normal intelligence defending creationism as a viable scientific theory to be taught to school children and to offer doctoral degrees in biology in creationism! LOL!
Terrence, if you did not expect it to end up this way, it does not say much for your powers of anticipation and thinking through issues! It calls into question your judgment! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 12:19:31 PM
ROGER:
LOL LOL LOL
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-21 12:22:11 PM
Excellent! Set you free is now laughing at the silliness of Terrence for not having judgment! LOL!
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 12:23:33 PM
LOL (Lesbian On Line)
Intelligent design is responsible for KD Lang. Roger knows this.
What is immediately obvious when you see a well dressed butch? She has a girlfriend with good taste. LOL LOL LOL LOL
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-21 12:24:15 PM
ROGER:
We're not laughing with you, we're laughing AT you.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-21 12:26:24 PM
"You can believe that life came from the Big Bang, which is a destructive force, or like Dawkins from seeds planted by aliens, but neither one of those theories make any sense.
How can the beauty and order that we see around us possibly come from a destructive force? As far as Dawkins goes, how were the aliens created?"
SYF,
Richard Dawkins absolutely does not believe that life arose from seeds planted by aliens. If you understood anything about his views on evolution you would never make such a claim. The idea that he believed in seeding theory was a deliberate misquotation by creationists. See:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&p=831725
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins
Your question about where the "aliens" came from could also apply to god. If god created us, who created god? Evolution by natural selection is the only theory that explains how complexity can arise from simplicity. Creationists always seem to use the argument that they can't understand how the amazing, beautiful and complex life that we see around us arose from nothing. Quite frankly, considering how little thought they seem to put into it, I don't find this failure to understand all that surprising.
Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-21 1:09:13 PM
"During the seventh day, supernovas have come and gone"
actually I said supernova remnants which take at least a million years to create. So we know the dogma that earth is 6000 or so years as alleged by creationists is wrong.
"You can believe that life came from the Big Bang, which is a destructive force"
actually the big bang (which was not big and had no bang) is not destructive but more correctly an expansion of creation, what happened before this we don't know; maybee the big bang was the first day, who knows.
Posted by: x2para | 2008-04-21 1:25:14 PM
>>Quite frankly, considering how little thought they seem to put into it, I don't find this failure to understand all that surprising.
Posted by: Angela | 21-Apr-08 1:09:13 PM<<
LOL!!!! I once saw a documentary made by creationists where a preacher showed an animation of a cow walking into a pond and the preacher said evolutionary theory claims that this same cow would turn into a whale and how ridiculous it all was!!! LOL! Strange that in America, there are people whose beliefs are similar to the least educated people on earth!
How can one compete with China or India, when there are people in power who believe such nonsense as peddled by the creationists?
Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-21 1:31:22 PM
"LOL!!!! I once saw a documentary made by creationists where a preacher showed an animation of a cow walking into a pond and the preacher said evolutionary theory claims that this same cow would turn into a whale and how ridiculous it all was!!! LOL!"
Cows turning into whales. What a fantasy. LOL.
Why would a cow want to be a whale?
Answer: They have very long tongues and breath through the top of their heads.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Posted by: dp | 2008-04-21 1:39:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.