Stating that creationism is nonsense is not an opinion. It is a scientific conclusion.

[Smith_3]

There is no debate whatsoever in the scientific community of whether creationism is true, because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no possibility for creationism to be true in a physical reality. If we have to respect people's opinions on things that are as conclusive as the evolution of species, then we might as well not have any schools at all, because why learn when every point of view is as valid as any other. The teacher might have been very blunt about this, because this may be something he feels strongly about, but he was doing his job and doing it well.

[lazer47]

1. Link??

[HereSince1628]

2. This I think...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

[dorkulon]

52. Wow, that's really sad.

A miscarriage of justice IMHO.

[MrModerate]

3. You and I agree that it's nonsense. However . . .

If I was in front of a class, I would have said something like "the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no possibility for creationism to be true in a physical reality."

And I would have stayed out of court. The teacher wasn't just blunt, he was imprecise and abusive, and that's why he lost.

Again, I happen to believe that religion (all religion) is piffle of the highest order and that believers are slaves to nasty fairy tales imposed on them by their deluded elders. But if I was a teacher, I'd say "Posited: the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no possibility for religion to be true in a physical sense. Please discuss." And I'd still stay out of court.

Just good sense should tell you that if you're in a position of trust over other people's children, respect for their beliefs -- no matter how preposterous -- is something you have to acknowledge (and handle with some grace), even while you're trying to teach the scientific method.

[The_Commonist]

4. Bingo!

The teacher was abusive.

[Stellabella]

63. The word 'nonsense' is abusive???

That's a new one.

[Richard Steele]

104. "Nonsense" is a real word, and the teacher used it correctly.

You FAIL.

[lazer47]

5. That attitude is what prompted the Scopes Trial,,

Both concepts have to be taught with equal fervor..

[trotsky]

7. Turtles.

Turtles all the way down.

I demand my view of the universe be taught with equal fervor. So does every other religious zealot. You gonna accommodate all of us?

[Raineyb]

55. Ridiculous!

You do not teach fairy tales with the same fervor as you do science. To make the two seem equivalent is a travesty of education.

[lazer47]

59. Ridiculous!??,, I didn't make the scopes trial,,

you can rant at me all you want, I wasn't there, they are not equivalent, they aren't even in the same category,,Both are a theory,,and neither is fact. Why do you think it is called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION,,BTW I am an agnostic.

[Stellabella]

62. Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

It's not conjecture or a guess about what happens.

A scientific theory is a statement about distinct physical evidence that lets scientists draw a conclusion. It is supported by millions of facts, experiments, prediction, replication, and strong evidence. So far, not one new discovery in the sciences of biology, chemistry, physics, anthropology, or geology has undermined the 'theory' of evolution. Every discovery has strengthened it.

And that 'theory' has stood up for many years. It's not going to go away.

[Lyric]

77. Oh god, not this shit again.

Ever heard of "Cell Theory?" It's the biological science THEORY that all living things are made of cells. We have never seen a single living thing that WASN'T of a cellular structure. Not a single one, ever. But because we cannot travel the universe and examine EVERY single individual living that that exists, or has EVER existed, we cannot say that it's "proven." It remains a theory.

Likewise with Evolutionary Theory. We can see it in action. We can see it in the fossil record, and in our DNA, and in the 20 amino acids that are the basis for life for EVERY living thing, including bacteria and human beings. We can see it in nature's variation. We have never, ever, EVER found a single living thing that isn't a product of evolution. Not once, not ever. However, because we cannot travel the entire universe and examine EVERY living thing that exists, or has EVER existed, we cannot say that it is "proven." It remains a theory.

Scientists, unlike theists, are not arrogant enough to claim ultimate, absolute Truth without the ability to Prove with finality. We will never have that ability. We are not Gods. For the rest of humanity, Evolution (like Cell Theory) will REMAIN a theory. Asking for proof of evolution is ludicrous, because no human being is CAPABLE of proving it--not because the evidence isn't overwhelming, not because we think there's any real chance that it's wrong, but ONLY because it is impossible for us to examine every living thing that has ever existed in the universe.

So is Evolutionary Theory true? Of course it is. We've seen it happen. There's no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. There is mutation (what happens with individual organisms) and evolution (what happens over a broader population of organisms.) The two are related in the same way that a single family is related to an entire country. For example--let's say that a single American family has a child born with green hair due to a genetic mutation. It's just a mutation--the vast majority of other American families have kids with hair color that's "normal." However, if green hair somehow makes that child more likely to survive long enough to have offspring, the mutated gene could be passed on, and eventually, over a LONG stretch of time, green hair could become a "normal" color. It would be the same for a child born with six fingers--that's a mutation that DOES exist in the human gene pool. If that six-finger mutation gives the child a survival advantage, then the gene will be passed on, and six fingers would eventually become more and more "normal." Then another mutation occurs, and the sixth finger grows a claw. If that claw provides a genetic advantage, it will be passed on, and so on, and so forth, until millions of years down the road, you have children being born with talons instead of fingers.

On a small scale, it's just mutation. But on a large, complex scale, it becomes evolution. Somewhere millions of years ago, our single-celled prokaryotic ancestor had increasing levels of slight mutations, and over the years, those mutations added up to the evolution of all kinds of life. Every generation's differences were too small to matter much in and of themselves, but added up over the millions of years, those differences from the original have become ENORMOUS. It's like the biggest game of "Telephone" that you've ever seen.

[jdp349]

93. Thanks for typing this out

I was afraid I was going to have to!

[Terry in Austin]

94. It's called a "theory" because it means the same thing as "law"

For instance, "The Law of Gravity" is the same thing as "The Theory of Gravity."

Scientists are just a little more modest these days, perhaps.

You could also argue that Jesus of Nazareth rather enjoyed Roman-style capital punishment by asking "why do you think it's called THE PASSION?"

[Rebubula]

107. I agree...

...why not start teaching that the Holocaust did not occur? How about that the Moon Landing was faked?

Just because some moron believes something (something based on an 1800 year old novel that was cobbled together from hundreds of texts to create the greatest marketing scam the world has ever seen) does not mean that we need to teach children about it.

I do understand (sort of) where you are coming from, but to teach something with ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC FACT as equal to a theory that has MOUNTAINS OF SCIENTIFIC FACT is simply stupid.

[BlooInBloo]

6. "respect for their beliefs -- no matter how preposterous" - The funamental problem with Americans.

[MrModerate]

8. Errm . . . understanding of human nature and deftness with social interactions . . .

Are indicators of success in the educational field?

[alarimer]

86. I agree.

This phony need for "balance" is apparent even in the media.

There is no equivalency between evolution and creationism. And no one should get sued because someone's feelings are hurt or their religious views are "disrespected".

Religious people must not be very secure in their beliefs because they sure are sensitive to every little perceived slight. It makes me thing they are not as secure as they claim to be.

[HereSince1628]

9. The guy was a History teacher who disparaged religion, this isn't really about evolution

Destroying students beliefs in their religious affiliations is not a teaching objective for any science lesson I've seen in 30 years of teaching biology.

If students understand what biologists mean by evolution and if students can describe the lines of evidence supporting evolution, they've acquired what biology lessons hope to accomplish.

The process of comparing the evidence to the biblical creation story and exposing it as a myth is something they can do on their own. Most biologists I know simply accept evolution and go about their biology, which places evolutionary explanations as the major organizing principle of their science.

[Soylent Brice]

24. he didn't disparage a religion, he disparaged a lie perpetrated by

the rightwing fundies to counteract the growing numbers of people in this country who are waking up. creationism is like the counterculture of fundies. he disparaged a propaganda campaign that is aimed at driving people away from common sense (evolution).

i don't agree with his abrasiveness, and there was clearly a better way to handle the situation, but damn was he spot on.

[spoony]

78. Have you read what else he said?

As I said in another thread, it's unfortunate this has become a(nother) referendum on creationism, because the suit originally had other examples of the guy just being a prick.

[Soylent Brice]

108. i haven't, but being a prick is a personality flaw. if you're right, you're right.

example: fundies think KO is a prick.

if the guy has made comments worse than this it clearly establishes that he may have a pattern of crossing the line, which may say a lot about the faculty he works with, and admins, who might be pushing ignorant shit like creationism. maybe he's the lone ranger there. people get pissy when they're cornered or feel they're fighting a losing battle. not making excuses for him, but there's clearly a lot here we don't know, about the school, staff, etc.

[Goblinmonger]

29. He was talking about a 1993 court case

in which a teacher from the same high school sued because they were forcing him to teach evolution in science class. The history teacher was making a point that the science teacher in 1993 should not have brought his religious beliefs into the classroom.

But don't let facts get in the way.

[HereSince1628]

39. Fine, the article I read said nothing about that...

so, you are free to go full circle on this and take me to court.

[mitchum]

65. But who is better qualified to disparage religion than a history teacher?

[T Wolf]

13. He wound up in court because the reich-wing little snot wanted to spew his mythology in

a history classroom. The student and his family are the ones that pushed this into court - for their own agenda.

Glad the teacher shut him up.

[saltpoint]

32. Now THAT is a muscular and effective assessment of this conflict.

And FWIW, I endorse what you've said.

Corbett was doing his job. This kid's parents should be ashamed of themselves.

[MrModerate]

69. And how did that work out for him? Or for us, for that matter . . .

Since the wingnuts have nailed another scalp to the door and no doubt intimidated legions of teachers countrywide? When it didn't need to be that way if the teacher had behaved in a more professional manner?

[BurtWorm]

34. What about racist beliefs? Should those be respected as well?

Should teachers tread lightly around those beliefs?

[MrModerate]

70. Teachers should "tread lightly" around beliefs in general . . .

Because their job is to bring students to knowledge, not to lob hand grenades at parents.

What *won't* work (regardless of how satisfying it might feel) is something along the lines of "Johnny, your parents are racists and you shouldn't listen to them." Instead teaching about the evils of racism in a pedagogical presentation -- so that Johnny come to recognize racism in his own life -- is likely to be much more effective, with long-lasting positive effects.

[Lerkfish]

51. Has the scientific method disproven religion?

do you have a link to that data?

[MrModerate]

71. Well, let's see . . .

1) I don't believe I said that (personally I don't think the scientific method is the right tool to evaluate questions of faith, although it can generate secondary evidence that statements in various holy scriptures are not supported by empirical observation).

2) I was quoting the OP as a rhetorical device. See response 1.

[mitchum]

73. "Where is your god now?" would seem to be a nice example of the scientific...

method disproving religion.
Unless, of course, the magical skygod did appear. Please let me know when that happens.

[Occam Bandage]

57. "evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no possibility for religion to be true "

I do not believe this is true. There is no evidence that religion is true despite much searching, which would imply that it is unlikely that religion is true. That isn't the same as there existing evidence demonstrating that religion is untrue.

[MrModerate]

72. One of the reasons a teacher might use such a discussion topic . . .

Is for students to exercise their minds working through such issues.

[BoneDaddy]

95. I agree

it isn't about the content or message it is how he demonstrated totally unprofessional behavior as a teacher. There is a way to say it and a way not to. Whether or not you think someone believes in an inrrational system of thinking does not mean that you need to humiliate it. In fact, his behavior strengthens the opposition. This will become their clarion call.

So instead of diffusing the situation, he became the right's symbol of ire.

[northernlights]

105. Exactly right

The correct scientific opinion is not that it is "nonsense." It is more along the lines of "there is no scientific evidence that supports creationism. There is much scientific evidence that demonstrates that creationism is not possible." And then cite some of the evidence, and explain what makes it science.

[zeemike]

10. When science starts determining what is and what is not

Nonsense is where you loose me.
Confident people just present their facts and ideas and let the audience decide what is and what is not nonsense.

[endarkenment]

16. Um err, no.

myths, fairy tales, etc. have no place in science education. Confusing children by presenting nonscience alongside science and thinking that children should then draw the appropriate conclusions as to which of these are valid scientific theories and which aren't is inappropriate. The classroom audience is not, until they have reached a sufficient level of education, equipped to make this determination, that is why they are on the learning side and not the teaching side of the classroom.

[Deep13]

20. That's why they call it science.

It is an abosulte fact that the Earth revoles around the sun. Insisting that the Biblical geocentric model has any validity is superstitious nonsense.

[smirkymonkey]

68. It's funny how often that idea flies right over people's heads.

In a SCIENCE class you would naturally teach, what??

SCIENCE, of course. Creationism is not science, so why would anyone even consider teaching it in a science class.

That would be like teaching literature in a math class. Some people just need to inject thier religious prejudices into everything.

[Lex]

30. Nope. That's one thing science is for--to disprove nonsense.

Sorry it "looses" you.

[Smith_3]

33. In a broad philosophical "theory of science" kind of way, you are right of course.

Of course you can always argue that the existence of gravity cannot be established for certain with a finite number of observations and so on. But on a practical level, especially when confronted with people who want to take advantage of the scientists natural tendency to "never say never" to promote their bullshit ideas, I think it is quite helpful to take a firm and blunt stand on issues that have been established science for hundreds of years..

[Postman]

11. It wasn't the rot in someone's mouth that made them loose their teeth, it was the Tooth Fairy...

Same argument

[sampsonblk]

12. When you grow up...

you'll probably be a preacher. Happens all the time.

[Smith_3]

14. lol, no I don't think so. That's why I post on DU.

To get it all out of my system ;)

[sampsonblk]

36. LOL Hey, you never know what might happen though - nt

[Deep13]

21. I'm always surprised by the intolerance of those who insist on tolerance of bad ideas. nt

[sampsonblk]

40. It was just a joke

A little early morning humor.

[Deep13]

54. sorry.

a little early morning drowsiness.

[endarkenment]

15. I prefer the term nonscience.

There is no good reason to insult people for their fairy tail believing behavior. However, creationism, ID, etc. are nonscience and have no place in science education.

[cpompilo]

17. I can,t wait for the Age of Superstition to be over.

Let's hear it for Science!

[Tim01]

18. The teacher tried to humiliate the student. Is that a method of teaching?

The teacher acted like a child bully. All he had to say is that creation is not supported by scientific evidence, so it isn't taught.
I'm sure the other students had a lot of fun bullying the student since it was started/encouraged by the teacher.

And then everybody would be all surprised when he shoots up the school.

[Smith_3]

19. I have a feeling that this was not about bullying.

I don't think the trial would turned out in such a way if the subject had been something other than creationism.

[Tim01]

23. If the teacher had acted like an adult it never would have gone to court.

It was his mean, condescending, abusive attitude that got him in trouble.

I would hope that any teacher who treated a student like this would find himself in trouble.

"We don't teach creationism in this school. If you refuse to let it go I'll send you down to the principal and you and he, and your parents can chat about it. Otherwise sit down and open your book to the chapter on evolution."

[Smith_3]

27. Geez, if I had to count the times a teacher was "rather rude" to me about expressing how I was wrong

... I think I could have constructed at least one hundered court cases. It is just very typical that it is the creationism thing actually makes it to court.

[Tim01]

37. 20 recorded comments in one day. One day. That is way past rude.

The student felt it would be worth while to bring a recording device to the class. That had to be based on past experience with that teacher. And the teacher came through with 20 comments in one day.
The teacher isn't only hostile as proved by his offensive comments. He is also too stupid to watch what he says around a bunch of children. As proved by his offensive comments.

It isn't enough for he teacher to disagree with the student. The teacher chose to also publicly ridicule the student.

This teacher went way way over the line of being a teacher. And over stupid stuff. This was an easy fix. He just felt like christian-bashing in front of the class.

[saltpoint]

31. Part of learning -- a pretty big part, actually -- is having one's basic

assumptions challenged.

I believe there was quite a bit less "bullying" and instead just some hard-nosed perception-challenging by a veteran teacher. My guess also is that Chad Farnan and not Jim Corbett picked this fight.

There should be an expectation of learning in an environment given over TO learning. I say Mr. Corbett was doing his job.

[nichomachus]

38. It was kind of par for the course when I was in school

And, guess what, we learned . . . Kids today get coddled and consequently learn nothing.

I recently took a course at a community college -- just for the hell of it. The teacher spent about 20 percent of her time walking on eggshells to avoid saying something with would set off the Fundie moles in the class.

She gave one assignmdnt that involved Halloween costumes. Every time she talked about it, she had to give a 10-minute disclaimer about how she wasn't telling people they had to celebrate Halloween nor was she endorsing the celebration of Halloween, etc. She gave one reading assignment -- a history book -- that talked about how churches had handled a certain situation, which was historically accurate. Again, the constant disclaimers to head off the Fundie moles. It was very depressing. I had considered applying for a teaching job at the college. I decided not to.

[Pacifist Patriot]

48. There does exist a healthy balance.

It is possible to challenge children in their learning without mocking them. Sadly, it is often the parents who were not coddled as children who are causing the problems for teachers such as you describe.

[napoleon_in_rags]

90. Its weird he got in trouble for the creationism comment, rather than this one:

"When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

In that comment, he sounds like he's being a prick. But I'd have to know the context.

[Deep13]

22. Creationism IS IN FACT superstitious nonsense.

Was he supposed to lie to his students?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. No, but there are better ways of saying it.

And certainly more legal ways of saying it if you are a public school teacher.

[Deep13]

35. I don't see how this is a free exercise problem.

Creationism has no basis in reality. Why should a public school teacher whose job is to educate have to soft-pedal an objectively undeniable fact? No one is preventing these parents from indoctrinating their students (despite the fact that the students are not old enough to make up their own minds.) Nevertheless, religious people do not have a right to be free from contradiction. Part of being a free and open society is having ones assumptions challenged. What this is really about is parents not liking the fact that a teacher is exposing them as liars.

[BoneDaddy]

97. I don't think anyone is saying that

What most people are saying is that the response is innappropriate for the setting. Teachers have a responsibility to their students. In fact, I guarantee that his response only solidified the student and his families' beliefs and gave the right wing an opportunity to point out, ad naseum, about how their beliefs are being denigraded by the secular liberals.

on a daily basis I work with people who have irrational beliefs. I don't think anyone is saying that people have a right to be free from contradiction but there is a way to do it that works. Minds are very rarely changed through humiliation or direct confrontation.

That said, the teacher should keep his job and have a slap on the wrist. The response is way over the top because it has become a political football.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. That family ought to live by the faith they proclaim

but that is asking far too much of the religionists. There are verses that begin 'if your brother offends thee...' which do not end with 'litigate like mad' but rather with stuff like 'turn the other cheek' and 'be quick to forgive all'.


I tell you this, it is stories like this one that keep many people from even considering teaching as a career.

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. I'm a little surprised to find myself defending Christians in this regard, but...

based on the reports it actually sounds like they have been living by the faith they proclaim. From what I gather, litigation was a last resort.

Why are Christians who are abused by teaching staff supposed to turn the other cheek while atheists can sue? (And we have!)

Quite frankly, I think all students/families are responsible for addressing these issues with

the teacher
school administration
school board
court system

in that order regardless of their personal beliefs. Why should Christians and atheists be held to diferent standards of escalation?

You do realize the plaintiffs have said they do not want money? The teacher is not even being removed, just monitored to ensure the behavior changes so other students won't be humiliated in a hostile classroom environment.

[Enthusiast]

66. Teachers humiliate students every day

It just doesn't happen to be over Creationism.

[Caliman73]

100. Just because it happens everyday doesn't make it correct....

and this is not merely about humiliation. It is about creating a hostile environment for the student based on an expressed religious belief. He could have stopped the student from injecting his beliefs into the discussion by staying with the curriculum and offering a different forum in which he could have questioned the boy's ideas privately. Instead he chose to riddicule the idea publicly and create said hostile environment.

[mitchum]

67. Since christians make such a sacrament of martyrdom, they should be willing to endure...

a little discomfort.
"Suffering: It's Not Just For Schizophrenic Carpenters"

[spoony]

80. What a hateful being you are.

You prove it time and time again.

[mitchum]

82. What did your dead carpenter allegedly say about...judging people?

It appears that one of us has forgotten.
Onward, Christian Whiners...and Hypocrites

[spoony]

101. I'm observing you're a hateful person

I'm not saying you're going to hell, I'm saying the things you say make it clear you have an extraordinarily unhealthy amount of vitriol in you. Just like the teacher in question. And of course I'm a hypocrite, anyone who says they aren't is either a liar or has such low standards for themselves and others that they're always able to meet them. I'm just not a hypocrite in saying you're obviously a hateful person.

[GoneOffShore]

98. And I'm probably worse

[saltpoint]

28. I agree. I trust the scientists and not the fundamentalist nutbags

on scientific inquiry, research, and principle.

Ignorance should not be encouraged in a school setting. There should be an expectation that baseless perceptions would be challenged in a setting dedicated to enlightenment.

For some time in human society many people thought that tomatoes were neurotoxic.

Turns out they aren't.

[Quantess]

41. I wonder....

why religious people can't just accept the idea that God is behind evolution.
I mean, if they really truly believe in god, the a silly tidbit like Darwin's theory shouldn't be enough to shake their faith. Why is it so strange to imagine that god is in the process of creating?

[Dorian Gray]

61. Most do.

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. As shocking as some folks may find this, I'm going to side with the student on this one.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't want teachers telling my children that their (the teachers') religion is the only path to truth and righteousness anymore than other parents want teachers telling their children that their family's religion is bullshit.

I think the only credible theory for life on this planet is evolution through natural selection. And I will support any teacher's right to say that the scientific evidence upholds this assertion.

That is not what this history teacher did. Given the examples in the article I can see how he was creating a hostile environment for any devout students in his class. This isn't a creationism v. evolution debate. This is about a teacher taking advantage of his authoritative position in the classroom to espouse his own beliefs.

I also give credit to the plaintiffs for saying they are not seeking financial compensation, they simply want the behavior curtailed.

All in all, it actually sounds like a reasonable case that has been decided rather fairly. That may stick in the craw of other non-theists, but this one can live with it.

[Tim01]

43. "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

If you all want to think it is ok for a teacher to humiliate a student by publicly mocking his beliefs in front of the class, you go ahead. Not me, and not the court.

I'm done with this thread.

The school called me this morning to come it to substitute for agricultural science. I had other things to do.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. I'm actually encouraged to see the number of people on this thread...

who agree that humiliating a student by publicly mocking his beliefs in class constitutes bullying and abuse and is most definitely not okay. Don't let the people who disagree with you skew your view of the entire thread.

[spoony]

79. Agreed.

And congrats on Aston Villa getting a Europa berth for next season!

[Bill McBlueState]

46. Sure, the teacher may have been rude

Lots of teachers are rude. It should be up to the union and management to discourage this sort of behavior. Maybe in an extreme case, a lawsuit is justified.

But being rude is not the same as violating the free exercise clause of the first amendment. This is why the court's ruling is wrong.

[Pacifist Patriot]

49. I'd like to know more about the run up to the case.

I'm having a hard time imagining the court's involvement without prior attempts at resolution at other levels.

[JackDragna]

47. No, he was doing his job poorly.

It is not in the purview of any teacher in a public school to call anything tied to a religion "superstitious nonsense." As someone upthread stated, the teacher is more than free to suggest that evidence doesn't support creationism. If the student doesn't like it, it's their problem. The problem lies when the teacher makes value judgements about a religious belief (like creationism) that go beyond their value in describing the natural world.

[Lerkfish]

50. Evolution and the existence of God are not two ends of the same spectrum

Many people mistakenly believe that evolution is the litmus test for whether there is a God. However, the existence of God and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive.

as I've pointed out in the past, here is why:

Each of the following could be TRUE:

God exists, and Evolution occurred
God does not exist, and Evolution occurred
God exists, and Evolution did not occur in the way we think it did
God does not exist, and Evolution did not occur in the way we think it did

therefore, evolution does not disprove the existence of a supreme being, anymore than merely believing in a supreme being can disprove evolution.

I think anyone, from any side, that tries to use this false dichotomy cheapens the debate into babbling nonsense.

If you believe in science, then you should know better than to do this. In fact, a true scientist would have to admit that the existence of a supreme being is as yet unproven -- because the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

I edited to add: I know "creationism" is badly used term nowadays and refers to a school of thought that excludes evolution, BUT my point still stands in terms of the idea of a supreme being.

[Xithras]

53. Sorry, but you're wrong.

The position of science on religion is that it's unprovable, and therefore isn't in the realm of science. No reputable scientist would claim that religion, and by proxy creationism, is scientific "nonsense" because it's an unprovable theory. Scientifically speaking, a lack of evidence does NOT mean a theory is incorrect, merely that it's unprovable.

Scientifically, there is a world of difference between a theory that is "proven wrong" and a theory that is "unprovable". Geocentricity falls into the first group. Religion and creationism fall into the second.

But feel free to ignore me...I'm just a college professor with a science degree who teaches logic. What do I know?

Your own statement demonstrates the problem with your position: "because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no possibility for creationism to be true in a physical reality". Your position here is incorrect. Creationism states that 9000 years ago some omnipotent being came in and created the universe in a week, and tweaked the physical attributes of the universe to MAKE it look like it was 14 billion years old. Is there any evidence that this happened? No. Is there any evidence that it didn't happen? No. Is there any possibility that evidence could be presented to prove it? No. Is there any evidence that could be presented to disprove it? No. The Omnipotent Being Theory, by it's very definition, grants the power to shape space and time to an all seeing creator who can shape evidence to fit whatever ideal he/she/it/shmzbod is trying to put forth. By that yardstick, all disproving evidence is explainable. The theory simply becomes unprovable.

If a science teacher calls creationism "unscientific" or "unprovable" he is being entirely correct. If he calls it disproved, a lie, a fantasy, or any other invectives which imply that it is untrue, he's expressing an opinion, and not a scientific position.

[Ignis]

60. This is all true, but ...

Keep in mind that Creationism (and this is what the teacher ridiculed, not the new, improved "intelligent design" version) precludes and diametrically opposes evolution. As such, because we have a great body of evidence to show that evolution is working at both a macro and a micro level, Creationism cannot also be true.

I'd also suggest that dinosaur fossils, plate tectonics, and carbon dating all preclude Creationism, but I'm certain there are Creationists who would fault such evidence as a "test from God."

[The Straight Story]

75. Actually, both can be true

Imagine we are all computer generated AI beings, originally created by someone who does not even live in what see as our universe, someone who is not bound by our science.

And then, after creating people more evolved using a 'newbeing class' the programmer wrote.

Can you tell I am a programmer :)

[Ignis]

76. Sure, but then we're moving into philosophy.

There is no proof that physics works the way it does in our universe because it was intelligently designed by an outside entity.

[The Straight Story]

81. Yes indeed

But calling other ideas nonsense without being able to test them seems like nonsense.

We, as humans, are not that far off from creating life forms ourselves - at which point we will have creationism for those we create, but also evolution as they evolve.

And if someday we die off and our tech/records go with us, those new beings may someday say it is nonsense to believe that they were created.

I dunno, I just try to keep an open mind. I don't have answers, but I have ideas, theories, questions that sometimes science cannot answer yet as the tools are not there.

Evidence may point to OJ being guilty, but somehow he was found innocent... :rofl: and while evidence points us in one direction I think it close minded to only see in that direction.

[Stellabella]

64. I agree. But the problem is that creationists think they can prove their point.

With scientific 'evidence'. In other words, they distort evolutionary science to try to make their point.

For instance, 'irreducible complexity' is one of their favorites. They state that half an eye, or part of a wing is useless, so a creator must have designed the eye or wing as it is now.

Biologists have proven that part of an eye or part of a wing is, indeed, useFUL. If you can see light and distinguish between objects, however poorly, you have an evolutionary advantage over another member of your species who cannot see at all, or only detects light. There is a full spectrum of evidence about the evolution of all of the body parts they claim are 'irreducible'.

The ID people are trying to invade the world of science with superstition and a total lack of understanding of the scientific process. That's the problem.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Had he said as much, he wouldn't have ended up in court. nt

[Orsino]

58. It's editorializing.

And it's precisely because creationist thought is a religious conviction that words such as "nonsense" shouldn't be used in class discussions.

[mitchum]

74. It's no different than a Language Arts teacher saying that James Patterson writes trash...

and that's why the class will be reading Faulkner and not Patterson

[Orsino]

85. It's a lot different.

When parents raise their kids as Patterson cultists, and wars are fought over the superiority of Faulkner, that will be a close analogy.

[mitchum]

88. You're right; Patterson is a lot less harmful than superstitious nonsense

[Thothmes]

83. Since when is "nonsense" a scientific term to describe

a faulty idea.

[mitchum]

84. It's a contraction of "non science"

Actually, I just made that shit up right now. Maybe I should get into that religion racket; it appears that I have a talent for one of the necessary skills.

[alarimer]

87. Truly religious people need thicker skins.

They can't be whining to the courts every single time they feel "disrespected".

If they are so sure in their beliefs, why are they so quick to whine about it?

[mitchum]

89. Because deep down they actually doubt their fairy tales

that's why they are so defensive

[LanternWaste]

92. Without doubt there is by definition no faith

Without doubt there is by definition, no faith (classical faith being: trust in that of which I do not hold full and absolute knowledge...).

I would hope that everyone doubts in one way or another, and at one time or another, all of the social and philosophical tenets we personally subscribe to-- otherwise, it seems to me that we would all simply be dogmatic and insular, regardless of whether it was based on the religious or the secular.

ed: sp

[LanternWaste]

91. As a scientific theory, it is nonsense...

As a scientific theory, it is nonsense. Yet as a scientific theory, Stoicism, nihilism and progressivism are also nonsense.

When I was subbing, I simply would have instructed the student to bring up his or her points in the relevant class- philosophy, comparative religion, et.al.

[Waiting For Everyman]

96. Then where is your "first cause"?

It's a rhetorical question (an argument about it here would be pointless). When science can explain that one, maybe a statement such as the OP can be made then.

[ArbustoBuster]

102. Science's answer to that one is pretty clear, actually.

Time started at the same "moment" as the universe came into being. Before that, there was no time and therefore no "then" for things to happen in. Therefore the question of a first cause is moot, or else is answered with "the first event was the Big Bang." If, as some have theorized, our universe is part of a larger universe (one involving brane theory, or something similar), then whatever Big-Bang-analogue started the larger universe is the first event. Before that, there was no time.

Saying that God is the first cause just pushes the question back a step. Who or what created God? If God always existed, or if he created himself, why can't the same be said of the universe? Aristotle's unmoved mover and Aquinas's similar argument from contingency are both based on a pre-modern understanding of physical reality.

[Hekate]

99. Creationism is a religious faith doctrine, a different branch of study than science.

If the Creationists didn't try to insert their religious beliefs into Science classes, no one would have any problem with whatever they profess to believe. No one (few, anyway) would feel compelled to call their faith "nonsense" because there would be no need for conflict.

Hekate

[callous taoboy]

103. Well put. Thank you!

[harun]

106. I used to have the same opinion, then I grew up.

If you were really a scientist, and thought like one, you would know Evolution is a theory. You are entitled to your own opinions and conclusions, but so is anyone else.

If you took all the collected specimens of species similar to humans (non-ape, non-chimp) and could make them all whole and alive you wouldn't even fill a bus.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Nearly_Everything)

Now what if we get good enough at genetics to be able to say conclusively all species on Earth are descendant from other species, but we PROVE humans are not. Will you admit they were created by God? Of course you wouldn't. Although there would be as much substantiation of that as your your saying "the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that there is no possibility for creationism to be true in a physical reality.".

Science doesn't work that way. We can test and observe. Test and observe doesn't answer if God created us or not. So each group is entitled to their opinion and conclusions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. All intelligent people agree that creationism meets the definition of nonsense.

[jmg257]

110. Cool! So where & how did life begin? Always curious about that! n/t