NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-teaching-creationism,1,4564990.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

My question is: Since he presented the book as a voluntary project, was the school right in stopping him from handing the book out?

Meh, if it was strictly voluntary, I don't see the harm. However, I suppose that they may be trying to enforce the seperation of religion from school, though while I'm all for that, I find it would be a bit ridiculous in this case. It would be fine if it was simply being shown in a context that taught the students that evolution is still somewhat flawed, and show the other side of the arguement.

However, it would've been best had he gone through the school administrators and said, "This is what I plan on doing in the classroom, and need to know if you object".

Yes the school was in the right, for two basic reasons. Firstly, Any work, voluntary or not, extra credit or not, performed in conjunction with a school class must be approved by the school and the materials associated with the work or to be read in conjunction with it must also have been looked over and approved. As an example, would it be appropriate for a creative writing or english teacher to hold, voluntarily and for extra credit a class wherein the students read the communist mannefesto or Mein Kampf and was geared to show why those beliefs were better than those established today? Or perhaps for a chemistry teacher to show students how to make poisons, drugs, and bombs...voluntarily mind you, none of the students would have to read the material or participate. As a second reason, it is plainly illegal for creationism to be taught in conjunction with a science class in public school. If he wishes to teach such, he needs to do it at a private school, a church, or on his own time not associated with or promoted at the public school where he teaches. It is the law, and as a voluntary class or not he was teaching that course in conjunction with his biology class and that is illegal.

Personally, I see no harm in it. Since the book was handed out and not realy taught, and was voluntary, it's not like a chemistry teacher teaching kids how to make drugs or bombs. Second, the teacher was using his own resources, not the schools, to produce these books, so the school can't really tel him to stop making them, just not to pass them out. Third, the article states that the book only contained a few references to creationism (it doesn't even really say what religion), and does not exactly say "Creationism is righ and evolution is wrong". Even with the separation of church and state in mind, I don't think it was right to stop him from handing out these books.

But with that said, he still should have gone through the administation first.

My problem is that his materials were not in any way accredited. He could have put anything, fact or fiction, into them.

pwnage! Finally a teacher decided to be PRO religion. And it wasn't mandatory.

The school stopping him from handing it out was a violation of his freedom of Speech and Religion.

It doesn't matter if it was voluntary, creationism isn't science, it should not be coming from a science teacher, whom impressionable youth view as an authority on the subject. It should certainly not be extra credit or voluntary reading, and as another poster pointed out, it might not even be close to factual as it isn't accredited.

Not science because it can't be prooved?

Then how can Evolution be science?
It cannot be proved, only theorized- like creatism.

So therefor Evolution shouldn't be tought, extra credict or reading.

The school stopping him from handing it out was a violation of his freedom of Speech and Religion.
No, no it wasn't. The laws are VERY clear on this. A teacher is considered an agent of the goverment and therefore when conducting a class cannot be shown to promote a religion. This is why teachers cannot join student prayer groups beyond an adminstrative level, no matter what their personal feelings might be. During school hours or school functions we are representatives of the goverment. After school hours and on our own time, we can do whatever we want.

The problem with this case being, while he stated that it was not manditory, the students could have gathered that his viewpoint is what would make or break the grade and have responded in that manner. It was wrong for him to bypass the school administration and wrong for him to teach creationism in class while on 'duty'.

Not science because it can't be prooved?

Then how can Evolution be science?
It cannot be proved, only theorized- like creatism.

So therefor Evolution shouldn't be tought, extra credict or reading.
No, it's not science because it can't be disproven.

Evolution can be disproven, thus is a scientific theory. The existance of a deity can neither be proven nor disproven, so no theories can be built upon that premise.

Those rules don't make sense.
Evolution is often Anti-Religion. Therefor, by teaching unproven theories that contradict a religion, that is religion. Only government approved religion.

I'm all for taking religion out of schools. But atheism has to be pulled too.

Let's all let them brainwash little children into Christian haters.

The problem that I see with this is that as an employee of the school he needs to follow the rules, by not he is telling the studants, look if you disagree with something on a personal level just disobey it, and that can lead to more trouble down the line like, "I don't think its wrong to do drugs, its my belief after all."

If he wanted to share that viewpoint he should have done so by having it on hand. Many teachers I have seen have had personal items at their desk and on display in a limited way. He could tell them that he personally feels that creatianism is what he holds to, and say that interested parties could obtain a copy of the collected works, much like teachers do when the talk about hobbies of theres and such. That way people that don't agree with it don't lose out on extra credit for not following something that they don't agree with.

Those rules don't make sense.
Evolution is often Anti-Religion. Therefor, by teaching unproven theories that contradict a religion, that is religion. Only government approved religion.

I'm all for taking religion out of schools. But atheism has to be pulled too.

Let's all let them brainwash little children into Christian haters.
Evolution is not anti-religion. Evolution is not in any way, shape or form related to religion. People make it into an issue for religion, often because their faith is so weak that anything that doesn't agree with it 100% must be a threat. Evolution offers no stance on the existance or non-existance of a higher power. If you want to believe that a higher power was behind the whole process, then go right ahead and consider evolution the observable effects of the works of said higher power, I don't care, neither do evolutionary scientists.

And what doesn't make sense, the fact that by definition, for something to be a scientific theory it must be possible to disprove it? Well, those are the breaks, that's science.

Those rules don't make sense.
Evolution is often Anti-Religion. Therefor, by teaching unproven theories that contradict a religion, that is religion. Only government approved religion.

I'm all for taking religion out of schools. But atheism has to be pulled too.

Let's all let them brainwash little children into Christian haters.
Oy vey! Ok, let's try to explain this one. Evolution is not anti-religion. It is a theory, like any other scientific theory you live your life by. It does not disprove your religion unless you want it to. There are many religious people on the board who state that they get along just fine with Evolution and maintain their faith.

Evolution is not proven because in science, nothing ever is. However, the idea behind the word theory is that it has a large amount of evidence that backs it up and had been reviewed numorus times. Science is always trying to disprove itself, that's how you test and so far no one has been able to shake evolution.

Creationism however cannot be tested that way, which is why it is not a vaild theory.

Finally, the rules for the behavor of teachers do not promote ahteism either. I would be as wrong to walk into my classroom stating there is no God and that all Christians are stuid heads as I would if I walked into my classroom proclaiming there is a God and that you must believe in Him. The schools are not anti-religion, they are religion neutral is anything (or striving for that). But unless it is pro-Christianity it seems that there will be some who assume that we teachers are brainwashing kids.

Those rules don't make sense.
Evolution is often Anti-Religion. Therefor, by teaching unproven theories that contradict a religion, that is religion. Only government approved religion.

I'm all for taking religion out of schools. But atheism has to be pulled too.

Let's all let them brainwash little children into Christian haters.

I missed the part in the bible that said things couldn't change over time. Who are we to say that G-d didn't choose his creatures to learn and adapt as we humans keep screwing things up?

I don't personally believe in evolution when it comes to humans, and I believe that it may not have happened with creatures, but as I am not G-d, I can't say that he didn't set it into motion, as he set the stars into motion or set every other cylce this world has.

Everything in nature follows patterns, and thus why can't evolution be used? Humans tend to be the ones that don't follow set patterns, and tend to change the outter to their specs, so I don't see it fitting.

Again, just my personal understanding of things.

Back on topic, the school board was in the right on the basis that the work was not approved by them for educational use in science class. To draw a logical extreme of approving of what the teacher did, it would be akin to bringing in a Christian pastor with a bible to teach the children there rather than actual science.

As a government agent, educational materials used as a base for teaching should be approved by a certified board first. By bypassing these channels, the teacher has effectively stepped beyond the bounds of his duty and responsibility.