Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

quote:

---

Amen. (Accepting that this is a state/church issue for arguments sake) the state can ADVANCE religion for a secular reason.
the reason it can advance creationism is to discover and teach the TRUTH on origins.

---

If creationism really were scientific then it could be taught in science lessons. But it isn't. And since creationism is a purely religious view where could it go that it could be taught as true without violating the First Amendment ?

quote:

---

if creationism is a religious position and its banned then the state is saying its not true.
A state opinion on religion.
Another break in the wall .
it doesn't matter if creationism advances religion.
The truth is the goal of education.
you made my case here.

---

If you restrict "your case" to the narrow point that the state is admitting that creationism is not science. Thus YOU have conceded my point that refusing to teach creationism is NOT against the First Amendment.And of course the state has many more opinions on religious matters, as I pointed out. Polygamy was not made legal when it was a religiously important to the Mormons (the mainstream abandoned it long ago but there are breakaway sects that cling to that belief). Marijuana was not made legal because of it's religious use by the Rastafarians. These seem to be far more severe hinderances to those religions than merely having science contrary to their beliefs taught in schools.

That's just not what people mean when they talk of the Founders. They mean a small group of men. When Madison (who wrote the First Amendment) wrote of the separation of church and state, he did not find it necessary to enumerate every religious doctrine and every aspect of the state.Here's a quote from his "Memorial and Remonstrance": Now if you use taxpayer's money to teach creationism, a religious doctrine of certain religious sects, then that's Madison's three pence right there. Again, they had no intention to limit the states at all, and education was then and is principally now a state matter.This is why I keep referring you to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. "Legitimate secular purpose", remember?In the same way, we can teach the facts of geology even though the Bible says that the Earth is supported by "pillars"; we can teach that thunder is caused by lightning even though the Bible says that it's God shouting; and we can teach that we think with our brains even though the Bible repeatedly and exclusively says that we think with our hearts. Well, no it isn't. The law does (according to judges) allow us to teach things contrary to the dogma of a religion or sect so long as there's a good reason to do so, such as it being true.

Yes, but it should be admitted that both of these decisions were wrong; unlike the Lemon Test, which seems to be bang on the mark.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The state doesn't care if it is true or false. It cares that it is religion. That is why it is not allowed to be taught.But if it was "true" there would be scientific evidence supporting it, and then it would not be solely religion. In that case (as in the example of the Big Bang given above) it would be a legitimate subject and could be taught.So where is the empirical scientific evidence for creationism?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Of course your posts are idiotic.Creationism cannot be taught in science classes because it is not science. It fails even the most basic tests of science.The state does not say that your beliefs are false; reality and the Universe that God created shout out that Creationism is a lie and teaching Creationism blasphemes the Holy Spirit and condemns all those who hold such beliefs to an eternity in Hell.Sorry Charlie.Them's the facts.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

To be as generous as I can, this should start with the scientific community, not ninth graders. You need to get the science right before it is appropriate for high school science classes. As of right now, the science is not there. False. The state is saying that it is religious and therefore not appropriate for science class in a public school funded by public tax dollars. It is the creationists who are saying that accepting evolution disproves the Bible. Then do the science and show that creationism is accurate. Whinge all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there is no scientific basis for creationism.

The rights and wrongs of those particular decisions aren't a simple issue and it would be getting off topic to deal with those details. Suffice to say that making special exemptions to otherwise valid laws for religion is generally AGAINST the First Amendment and in THAT respect the decisions were correct.

Still so incredibly wrong after so many attempts on our part to enlighten you. All pearls before swine, since you are "wearing your 'Jesus Glasses' and cannot see the truth." (more on that below).In Message 323 I told you: Which you have not done, choosing instead to wallow in your own ignorance. Here is the Anti-Dogmatism Policy, since you refuse to click on that link to read it yourself:

quote:

---

California State Board of Education

​

The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools observable facts and testable hypotheses.

​

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history-social science and English-language arts curricula.

​

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

​

To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

​

A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

​

From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

​

Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board's position has been stated in the History-Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board).1 If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

​

Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.

​

Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.

​

Notes
1 History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools (Updated edition with content standards). Sacramento: California Department of Education, 2001.

​

Note: This policy statement on the teaching of natural sciences, which was adopted by the State Board of Education in 1989, supersedes the State Board's 1972 Antidogmatism Policy.

---

Now you know what the state's official position is and it is completely contrary to what you insist that it is. You are wrong, dead wrong.As you are dead wrong about what science education teaches, as you would discover for yourself if you were to take off those "Jesus glasses" and read the 1990 California Science Framework (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf) as I had told you to. Of course, you will never do that, because you prefer the cold darkness of ignorance over the light of knowledge.Now you will learn where that reference to "Jesus glasses" came from. What happens when an agent of the state actually does say that creationism is wrong? It has happened, so we know how the state (in this case, the court system) handles such a case.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capistrano_Valley_High_School:

quote:

---

Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District

​

In another case that has drawn national media coverage, on December 12, 2007 Chad Farnan, a student, represented by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, filed suit against 19-year AP European History teacher Dr. James Corbett. The suit alleges that Corbett had violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause that prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion.

​

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, alleges that Corbett typically spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience," including criticism of Christianity and traditional Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction.[29] In response to the lawsuit, numerous former students of Corbett defended him, holding a protest at the school and forming support groups.

---

From a newspaper article on that incident (http://www.ocregister.com/...rbett-190338-students-high.html -- my emphasis added at the end):

quote:

---

Published: Dec. 14, 2007 3:00 a.m.
Student's suit over teacher's Christianity remarks ignites passion
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register

​

History teacher James Corbett is a lightning rod in his high school classroom, questioning the merits of religion on a regular basis and forcing students to think long and hard about their convictions and faith.

​

Now a lawsuit filed by one of Corbett's Capistrano Valley High School students alleging a classroom anti-religion bias has ignited a flurry of debate about the role a teacher's convictions and faith should play in the classroom.

​

Mission Viejo sophomore Chad Farnan and his parents filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Corbett alleging the Advanced Placement European history teacher made anti-Christian remarks during class in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from promoting religious intolerance.

​

...

​

At issue in the lawsuit is whether Corbett violated the separation of church and state as outlined in the First Amendment's establishment clause. Court papers cite statements tape-recorded by Farnan such as "From conservative Christians in this country to Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan ? it's stunning how vitally interested they are in controlling women" and "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

​

...

​

But American Civil Liberties Union attorney Peter Eliasberg pointed out that statements such as the one about the "Jesus glasses" could bolster the case.

​

"I think the lawsuit does have a chance," Eliasberg said. "It is not the job of a public school teacher either to be promoting religion or disparaging religion."

​

However, Eliasberg said, comments about issues such as sexual abstinence would not be a violation of a student's constitutional religious rights, even if they were offended by them. The appropriateness of such comments would be an issue to be taken up by the local school board, rather than the courts, Eliasberg said.

​

"There have been quite a few cases saying that you can teach a subject even if it's inconsistent with people's religious beliefs," Eliasberg said. "Teaching evolution, for example, does not violate the rights of evangelical Christians. But saying that Christians are stupid because they don't believe in evolution might."

---

Even the ACLU knows far better than you do, that a teacher can't tell a student that their religion is wrong. Just as the Anti-Dogmatism Policy says. Amazing how everybody else agree with each other on these points, while you disagree with everybody. Starting to see an pattern here?From the Associated Press report of the court's decision (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21548):

quote:

---

Calif. teacher's creationism comment violated First Amendment

​

By The Associated Press
05.04.09
Editor’s note: U.S. District Judge James ruled on Sept. 15 that although James Corbett violated Chad Farnan’s First Amendment rights, the teacher had qualified immunity and therefore didn’t owe any monetary damages or attorneys fees in the case.

​

SANTA ANA, Calif. A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism superstitious nonsense during a classroom lecture.

​

On May 1, U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled in a lawsuit filed by student Chad Farnan in 2007. The lawsuit claimed that teacher James Corbett violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.
. . .

​

But Selna ruled May 1 in C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as religious, superstitious nonsense, did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

​

Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is ‘superstitious nonsense.’ Selna wrote. The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
. . .

​

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

---

What happened when the state called creationism false? It was found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause and was not allowed to continue that conduct. The state put a stop to calling creationism false. Yet again, this is completely contrary to your ignorant assertions. Yet again, the truth reveals that you are dead wrong.Now, from the decision of the court in that case (http://images.ocregister.com/...uit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf), we have the court's remarks about key comments that Corbett was being taken to task for, the "Peloza Comment", for which he got nailed, and the "Jesus Glasses Comment", for which he didn't:

quote:

---

The Peloza Comment

​

The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza (Peloza). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution. (Id.) Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense. (Id.) One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

---

Corbett's statements about creationism were completely true, it is "superstitious nonsense", Peloza was not telling the truth about evolution, and leaving Peloza alone to propagandize the students would definitely have been the wrong thing to do -- I know that to be true because I saw him speak and everything he "knew" about science and biology came straight from the ICR. But, you see and this demonstrates, Establishment Clause questions are not based on what's true. Rather they're based on whether something either promotes or hinders religion. Religious promotion is prohibitted without regard for whether it is true or not, just as religious hindrance is prohibitted whether the reasons for that hindrance are true or not.Yet again, the truth is completely contrary to your ignorant assertions. Yet again, the truth shows that you are dead wrong.Now just for completeness, so that you may know how that "Jesus Glasses" comment ended up playing out:

quote:

---

Jesus Glasses.

​

For example, in one of Corbett’s lectures he stated, when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth. (Farnan’s Ex. A, p. 25.) However, this statement was made in the context of a discussion about how certain peasants didnot support Joseph II’s reforms for religious reasons, even though the reforms were in the peasants’ best political and economic interests. (Id. at 24-25.) Corbett also seemed to be making a general point that people sometimes make choices that are against their best interests for religious reasons and that religion has and can be used as a manipulative tool. (Id.) He further suggested that in order to create social change and overturn long-held traditions overnight without causing chaos you need to first work to gather support for your position. (Id. at 25.)

​

The Jesus glasses phrase, standing alone, could be read as a general assertion that all people who believe in Jesus cannot see the truth. However, given the context of the discussion and given that [w]e must be cautious about attributing unconstitutional motives to state officials, the Court declines to attribute such an overly-broad and improper purpose to the phrase for purposes of this motion. See Chaudhuri, 130 F.3d at 236. One cannot say that Corbett’s primary purpose here was to criticize Christianity or religion. The Court finds that, given the context, Corbett’s primary purpose was to illustrate the specific historical point regarding the peasants in the discussion and to make the general point that religion can cause people to make political choices which are not in their best interest. Although the Court offers no opinion on the validity of these concepts, the Court notes that these views are not necessarily hostile to religion and are relevant concepts for discussion in an AP European history course.⁹

---

⁹ Farnan concedes that the recommended topics set forth by the College Board include the development of changes in religious thought and institutions and changes in elite and popular culture, such as the development of new attitudes toward religion, the family, work, and ritual. (Farnan’s Reply p. 7.) This presumably includes the effect that religion has had over social and political choices

---

Robert, when we look at the facts, we can find the truth. When you wallow in ignorance, you divorce yourself from the truth. We can see the facts and we can see the truth. And you are dead wrong.

False! You are making that false assertion from a position of abject ignorance. Ignorance can be cured. For starters, read the California Science Framework that I pointed you to. But it is idiotic. In part because it is so ridiculously false. And in part because that false assertion doesn't even make any sense. What conclusions? On what do you base your assertion that that's what's being taught? How are you determining that they are illegal? What the hell are you talking about?Instead of posting jumbled and disjointed inarticulate blatherings, explain your position and the support for it in a clear organized manner. In plain English! Using paragraphs. Articulately! What's the matter? Don't you want us to understand what you're trying to say? Oh the irony! We have been responding to your posts, articulately. And we have shown what blithering nonsense your false assertions are, articulately.Rather, you are the one who is severely inarticulate. And you almost never respond to us, but rather just continue to blather the same false nonsense over and over again.You are the one who keeps coming up short. Please correct that deficiency.

The law is the law.
If teaching the earth is round is against some religion then it must banned.
If teaching the earth is round but the state teaches its flat then likewise it must banned.
The law is now invoked to censor God/Genesis on origin issues.
Your the ones advocating censorship. Not us.In fact my big point here is that its illogical, impossible, to say one must censor Genesis because otherwise its an opinion of the state on religion and then discuss the origins issues from a position of truth discovery and it not be likewise a state opinion on religion in banning Genesis and teaching ideas against it.
The whole "law" is a sham invented in the 1900's to get rid of Christian teachings in origins on legal points that no one was actually paying attention to.

Nothing to do with ideas about science. Creationism is banned as the truth or a option for truth because of a law against the state supporting a religion.
My point is that in the censorship, logically, the state is supporting a opinion on religion. its saying its false. This because its saying its teaching the truth on origin subjects.

James Madison himself strongly said the people through their delegates were the only authority on meaning behind the constitution. not a few men.
The constitution was accepted by the people after their understanding of it and consent.
Its impossible the very Puritan and Protestant Yankees and sotherners in any way intended anything in their constitution, much less regular law, to ban the bible in subjects dealing with origins.
Your side has got to prove this.

No. Your quite wrong. Its illegal to teach God/Genesis as options for origins in subjects seriously dealing with origins.
The law here and nothing to do with ideas of science or anything else.
This is about the constitution from the 1700's.
Your side uses it to justify the present censorship.

Nothing here new or useful.
In fact the idea of it being unconstitutional , as invoked law, to teach creationism was never mentioned.
nothing to do with ideas of science.
One does not need wordyness here.
Its simple math.
If the evolution thumpers here conclude one can be neutral on conclusions about origins relative to God/Genesis while banning same as options for these conclusions then raise your hand.

But that is not what the law is.It is, bizarrely, what you would like the law to be. But it isn't what it actually is. I think you just called for the banning from classrooms of the teaching that the Earth is round.