Should a teacher be sued for describing creationism as "superstitious nonsense"?
This question involves a lawsuit against California history teacher James Corbett. In 2007, a former student sued Corbett for a pattern of hostility "toward religion and favoring irreligion over religion." The student produced secret recordings of Corbett as evidence.
In 2009, a judge considered Corbett's statements and found only one -- that creationism is "superstitious nonsense" -- to be an "improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause," and therefore an infringement of the student's rights. To the amazement of educators and scientists across the country, the court ruled against Corbett and found this one statement in class to have been unconstitutional.
One issue raised by this case is how far educators should modify class content to anticipate potential offense to the faith of their students. In a public school classroom filled with students from a variety of religions and backgrounds, there is a good chance of offending someone in some way. If teachers are at risk of being sued every time they make a factual statement, it may have a chilling effect: "Teachers can avoid [risk] by not talking about these issues at all," according to UC Irvine law professor Rachel Moran.
Is this the kind of education we want? Let's explore the implications of this with some hypotheticals:
There are many such examples of how some religious views might clash with normal classroom content. Supporters of the Nation of Islam hold that white people were invented 6,000 years ago by an evil scientist named Yakub. Adherents to New Age religions think crystals have magical power to heal. Should teachers refrain from presenting any information that contradicts these beliefs? Should teachers not correct such misconceptions, for fear of being sued by indignant students?
If teachers avoid addressing misconceptions, or omit important topics in the classroom out of fear of giving offense, this becomes education to the lowest common denominator, putting lawsuit anxiety -- rather than education quality -- in control of classroom content.
The classroom should be a place to challenge students with new ideas and new viewpoints. The experience of education should cause one to re-examine one's assumptions -- especially the most important ones. When I think of my education, I remember shuffling from one to class to the next to learn from professors who held contradictory, mutually-exclusive viewpoints; a morning seminar with an avowed Marxist might be followed by a lecture from an avowed libertarian. My teachers never agreed with each other, and that was a good thing. One has to figure the world out for oneself, without authorities and with little guidance. Challenging students should be regarded as beneficial to the mind -- not cause for legal action.
Such legal action operates under the assumption that science is just another viewpoint, another form of religion, and therefore favoring one faith over another in public schools constitutes discrimination. Creationist Nancy Pearcey illuminated this reasoning in her book Total Truth:
Religion is already in the classroom -- because naturalistic evolution is itself a religion or worldview ... To promote one faith in the public school system at public expense, while banning the other, is an example of viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional.
But science is not a "viewpoint." The powerful thing about science is that it operates independent of the observer; force equals mass times acceleration whether one is Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist. Moreover, to claim that evolution is a religion reveals deep ignorance both of science and theology -- exactly the kind of ignorance fixable by good teachers who help their students recognize nonsense.
While schools must respect the religious rights of all students, teachers such as James Corbett should not be penalized for presenting relevant classroom information, even if the way that information is conveyed might hurt some feelings. Suing in such a case is grossly out of proportion to the alleged offense.
Indeed, on August 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision against Corbett. One can only hope that in the future teachers will be feel free to focus on the difficult and important task of teaching, rather than worrying that their students are going to sue them.
Duane Elgin: Why We Need to Believe in a Living Universe
California Science Center Has To Pay Fee To Not Show Intelligent Design Film
Creationism Hits the Campaign Trail and Exposes Differences in the Field
Teacher Ducks Suit for Skewering Creationists
Commentary on the Endless Dispute Between Evolution and Creationism
Rick Perry's true ID: creationism in the classroom
Perhaps I understand the intended Steve3007 assertion regarding electrons. The HuffPostThinker point appears to refer to a different aspect of the same context to show that the subject of the test - the electron – apparently are not observed, but the effects of the subject of the test apparently are. In the same way, the God/creation theory appears not testable but the existence and persistence of other phenomena mentioned appear to suggest the existence of God. Electrons and God might be considered to share direct “untestability” in common but their nature and roles are such that God is not as predictable and manipulatable as an electron.
Consequently, although God/creation theory cannot be directly tested for using physical-plane tests in the same way that more physically-planed phenomena are tested for (perhaps, because God’s and electrons’ existence extend beyond the physical plane), physical and logical evidence appears to logically, reasonably and rationally suggest both their existences.
Steve3007 09/07/2011 8:57am appears to suggest a Steve3007 example of how evolution could be tested and refuted. The sole instance that seems to come to mind appears in Steve3007 09/05/2011 8:52am: [“no large complex fossils will be found in pre-cambrian sediments" can be falsified by finding such a fossil in such a rock.] Per my understanding, this example appears to demonstrate how a premise can be tested and refuted, but not how evolution, per se, can be tested and refuted. I would be grateful for clarification, where appropriate.
I am unaware of how to test for and dispute the existence of God. That inability appears to be based upon the understandings shared heretofore.
A teachers job is to teach, to look at history and other subject from all sides. For instance, the Revolutionary War from the British side is far different from ours. Native Americans view of the coming of the colonists and spreading west is different from others.....
When studying the sciences, evrything is taught that has an evidentiary base: math theories, scientific theories, etc. Spirited discussion can come from this...doing your own experiments, making your own bio-sphere or studying the stars with a telescope....all are learning..
However, there is not ONE iota of evidence to support creationism...not one in all centuries of study. It is NOT a science, it is NOT a valid philosophy. It is in direct opposition to provable sciences. There isn't even a "theory" about creationism.....there is no evidence supporting even that.
If parents want their children to study creationism and religion, send them to religious schools. But keep your dogma out of my childs classroom. He is there to learn.....
- creationism is a purely christian point of view which not all Christians share.
- the state - and therefore public schools - by law has to be separated from church
- a teacher can share any view in any way he likes as long as he respects the law
- schools should educate as open minded as possible
taking these facts into consideration it is clear that creationism can not be taught as scientific classes at public schools. creationism is not science it is religion. However, a school should explain what creationism is. The government should educate young people on religion. But clearly inform them what is religion and what it science. Schools have no mission to bring students closer to religion. So if they inform student on religion, students should be informed about Christianity and that includes creationism. And now, important: Students should also be educated am Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and old natural religions. Students who want to learn about religion should get a wide education.
One of the reasons the world is where it is today, is clearly because of the misunderstanding of each others religions. Maybe America too should learn from the past. Educating people about other religions does not hurt anyone, actually everyone can learn a lot.
While it's certainly true that not all Christians are creationist, there are other faiths that promote creationist ideas. In particular, some followers of Islam promote creationism in ways that are nearly identical to what we think of as Christian creationism. Google "Harun Yahya," which is a the pseudonym of a Turkish anti-evolution organization/person.
And as I mentioned in my post: not all Christians are creationists. Actually only a minority is.
Schools should be able to educate students ABOUT different religions, ideas or views. I don't believe they should PRACTICE religion. And I think the same not only about America but about any democracy that commits to separate state and church.
I don't want those taught to my child either.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/20/opinion/sunday/20110827_McFadden_Cartoon.html?emc=eta1
but if you're talking about evolution, then it most certainly does belong in textbooks and classroom, because evolution is one of the best-supported, most widely accepted theories around. there is virtually unanimous agreement among scientists (a very rare occurrence) that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. if there are ever to be genuine scientific criticisms of evolution--the kind that would merit publication in a mainstream scientific journal--then such criticisms have yet to emerge.
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."
what is amazing is how they keep coming. is there a factory somewhere that keeps producing these uninformed drones, or is it just one guy who keeps changing his login names?
well, at least we know it's not David Mabus, the infamous troll who kept changing his login names, b/c he's currently in lockup for death threats: http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/case-study-notorious-spammer-brought-down-twitter-tumblr-social-media-mabus/