NationStates Jolt Archive

Just thought I'd share this with everyone.

Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/20/teacherfired.ap.ap/index.html)
Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible
POSTED: 9:39 a.m. EDT, March 20, 2007
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

SISTERS, Oregon (AP) -- During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution.

"I think his performance was not just a little bit over the line," board member Jeff Smith said. "It was a severe contradiction of what we trust teachers to do in our classrooms."

Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.

"Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry," said Helphinstine, who has a master's degree in science from Oregon State. "My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking."

Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world. "I never taught creationism," he said. "I know what it is, and I went out of my way not to teach it."

Parent John Rahm told the newspaper that he became concerned when his freshman daughter said she was confused by the supplemental material provided by Helphinstine.

"He took passages that had all kinds of Biblical references," Rahm said. "It prevented her from learning what she needed to learn."

Board members met with Helphinstine privately for about 90 minutes before the meeting. The teacher did not stay for the public portion.

"How many minds did he pollute?" Dan Harrison, the father of a student in Helphinstine's class, said at the meeting. "It's a thinly veiled attempt to hide his own agenda."

I'm glad this happened after only eight days. Though I'm sure there will be the inevitable legal challenge/religious outcry from the usual suspects. Maybe we'll get some more precedent (on top of Kitzmiller v Dover) to keep people from bringing this shit into our schools.

"went out of my way not to teach it."

Is he a compulsive bible-thumper or something? It seems like you would have to go out of your way to brainwas.., er, teach something like this.

"give accurate information" (his 'purpose')

Haha! He said the bible had 'accuracy'!

Who on earth would name their kid Helphinstine? What do his friends call him? Mr Help?

Haha! He said the bible had 'accuracy'!

I do take some issue with your assertion, and ask if you'd be willing to hear my perspective on the issue?

I would hear your perspective, but I must warn you that there is more chance of me growing another finger, than for you to be able to change my opinion. :D (Your thoughts are the close to the same, I would guess.)

I would hear your perspective, but I must warn you that there is more chance of me growing another finger, than for you to be able to change my opinion. :D (Your thoughts are the close to the same, I would guess.)

On the contrary. I will hear and take in any argument. Anyone that refuses to admits their fear of information, and any argument born of ignorance is no argument at all...

To that end, I have sent you a telegram. For your eyes only. There is private material in there.

But feel free to post your responses, in a general light, here :)

On the contrary. I will hear and take in any argument. Anyone that refuses to admits their fear of information, and any argument born of ignorance is no argument at all...

One could argue that a similar statement can be made about information kept behind closed doors, or restricted to telegrams ;)

I do not mean to imply I am shut to new information - I just realize that someone is not likely to change a fundamental belief, especially one based on faith.

I listen, interpret, and decide. It just happens to be that I have a very good idea about what my decision will be. ;)

*chuckle* Granted.

But you can hear/read his responses...

That's kinda close...

I do not mean to imply I am shut to new information - I just realize that someone is not likely to change a fundamental belief, especially one based on faith.

I listen, interpret, and decide. It just happens to be that I have a very good idea about what my decision will be. ;)

I was to... then I surprised myself...

I dont see any of the stuff he tryed to teach anywhere so unless you have some info that i missed i have to say dont assume everything thay say is not in someway unclouded by personal ideals, i dont support teaching any kind of religious stuff in non religious schools but from what i can tell the artical has done nothing but make/report an accusation without the relevent information to confirm or deny the facts.

You know, if it were just a few biblical references, I wouldn't have minded. After all, it's fine to talk about religious subjects, and some Biblical quotes have some meaning. But showing how evolution has ties to Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood, the latter being a good organization? Yeah, screw you thumper.

"On the eighth day...He got his ass handed to him"

Yeah, screw you thumper.
You want to screw this:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/images/bambi_story5.jpg
ummm..okayyy. Whatever floats your boat Kyr.

You want to screw this:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/images/bambi_story5.jpg
ummm..okayyy. Whatever floats your boat Kyr.

...

You knew exactly what I meant. :p

I dont see any of the stuff he tryed to teach anywhere so unless you have some info that i missed i have to say dont assume everything thay say is not in someway unclouded by personal ideals, i dont support teaching any kind of religious stuff in non religious schools but from what i can tell the artical has done nothing but make/report an accusation without the relevent information to confirm or deny the facts.

He included a bunch of religious passages in the lessons. Along with links between Nazism and evolution. I think that's grounds enough for a serious investigation and a ton of trouble.

Very interesting. I'm going to need more facts before I can truly comment on this issue.

Seems to me that he was teaching the students about biasness and that is indeed important for students to learn. Especially in the realm of science.

However, I'll reiterate I need more facts than what is in the article.

The key is the class he was teaching--biology. I talk about the Bible in my classes all the time, but I'm teaching literature. Kind of hard not to, especially if you're teaching anything more than a hundred years old. But the Bible has no relevance to a biology class--ever.

The key is the class he was teaching--biology. I talk about the Bible in my classes all the time, but I'm teaching literature. Kind of hard not to, especially if you're teaching anything more than a hundred years old. But the Bible has no relevance to a biology class--ever.

Oh I don't know Nazz. The Song of Songs could be used in Bio :D

Mmm. Monkey trial in reverse anyone?

Oh I don't know Nazz. The Song of Songs could be used in Bio :D
Far more appropriate in lit than Bio, I assure you. :p

Very interesting. I'm going to need more facts before I can truly comment on this issue.

... I need more facts than what is in the article.

I was expecting you to say that the Board had made a decision and it was under their jurisdiction so that was good enough for you. Oh no that was a different thread.

and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.I've always wondered why nobody ever links evolution to parliamentary democracy (After all, Darwin was a 19th century brit, and there's the thing about evolution refuting the idea of a 'Divine Right', nobility & co), equality between sexes (Assorted examples of males as the 'Subservient' gender among various animal species putting the lie to 'Women should be subservient to men') and other such things...

Edit: Oh, and Huxley's lectures to the working men come to mind...

Far more appropriate in lit than Bio, I assure you. :p

LOL!

I've always wondered why nobody ever links evolution to parliamentary democracy (After all, Darwin was a 19th century brit, and there's the thing about evolution refuting the idea of a 'Divine Right', nobility & co), equality between sexes (Assorted examples of males as the 'Subservient' gender among various animal species putting the lie to 'Women should be subservient to men') and other such things...

Maybe they do, but there not as loud as the ones linking evolution to the devil.

The key is the class he was teaching--biology. I talk about the Bible in my classes all the time, but I'm teaching literature. Kind of hard not to, especially if you're teaching anything more than a hundred years old. But the Bible has no relevance to a biology class--ever.

I disagree, if only because the Bible can be used to point out why religious views of life are incorrect from a scientific viewpoint. But then you get accused of anti-religious bias and that was, in fact, the exact opposite of what this person was doing, so my argument isn't exactly worth much.

Corneliu: Song of songs? What's that about?

I disagree, if only because the Bible can be used to point out why religious views of life are incorrect from a scientific viewpoint. But then you get accused of anti-religious bias and that was, in fact, the exact opposite of what this person was doing, so my argument isn't exactly worth much.

Corneliu: Song of songs? What's that about?

Perfectly normal body function sex with marriage thrown in.

I've always wondered why nobody ever links evolution to parliamentary democracy (After all, Darwin was a 19th century brit, and there's the thing about evolution refuting the idea of a 'Divine Right', nobility & co), equality between sexes (Assorted examples of males as the 'Subservient' gender among various animal species putting the lie to 'Women should be subservient to men') and other such things...

Parliamentary democracy is a good thing?:)

I disagree, if only because the Bible can be used to point out why religious views of life are incorrect from a scientific viewpoint. But then you get accused of anti-religious bias and that was, in fact, the exact opposite of what this person was doing, so my argument isn't exactly worth much.

Corneliu: Song of songs? What's that about?

My counter-argument is simply that a science class isn't the place to debate religion of any sort. There are--or should be, anyway--comparative religion classes for that. Religion and science deal with separate realms--that's one of the places I slightly disagree with Richard Dawkins.

Maybe they do, but there not as loud as the ones linking evolution to the devil.Hilariously enough, I don't think the devil would be into evolution, what with being a witness of creation.

Same thing with the devil being considerably unlikely to be an atheist. Satanists kinda have to be theists. Ah well.

Perfectly normal body function sex with marriage thrown in.

Oh...and here I was thinking it had something to do with music being connected to the fabric of life itself, occasionally being connected to DNA in more recent examples of such music.

Nazz: Aye. I actually do agree with you; I was merely tossing out the thought for contemplation.

Perhaps for high school it should be a combined religion and philosophy(I know I'm mispelling that but I can't tell how) class covering a wide variety of religions and philosophies.

Parliamentary democracy is a good thing?:)No, it isn't. But I do tend to prefer it to the alternatives - it's so much easier to vote a dictator off than to plant a bomb to kill him.

Hilariously enough, I don't think the devil would be into evolution, what with being a witness of creation.

Same thing with the devil being considerably unlikely to be an atheist. Satanists kinda have to be theists. Ah well.

Correct on both counts. This amuses me, you win two kittenz.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/cupz.jpg

I want the cupz back.

Corneliu: Song of songs? What's that about?

The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon, is a piece of erotic poetry from the Old Testament.

here are the first few lines:

The song of songs, which is Solomon's.
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.
I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

The text can also be found here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html

*laughs*

Another great day for stupid people.

Nazz: Aye. I actually do agree with you; I was merely tossing out the thought for contemplation.

Perhaps for high school it should be a combined religion and philosophy(I know I'm mispelling that but I can't tell how) class covering a wide variety of religions and philosophies.

You spelled it fine, though you misspelled "misspelling." ;)

That would be a good idea for an advanced high school class, and I'd certainly support such a class, but you'd have a hard time finding qualified teachers to cover the material, I think.

what is peoples problem, evolution isnt a threat to anyone its an observation of facts. i have met some religuos people who say that science takes away from the beauty of nature.
i totally disagree, considerthe Panda. An animal living in an evolutionry cul de sac, its a carnivor with big teeth and claws but it only eats bambooand not just any bamboo its really picky. it needs to eat a field of the stuff every day to get the equivelent calories of 11 big macs. when it takes a shit the bamboo comes out still green having lost barely any nutrients because bears cant efficiantly digest plants, fish , cats , people and rubbish yes, plants no.
my point is that if god created all things as they are then the panda would be proof of him being a moron, but if it was evolution then the Panda itself would have made all the choices needed to get it into this situation.
in other wordsthe panda became a panda by being a panda.
hence the beauty of nature and the choices it makes for itself can only be emphasised by science.

rant concluded.

No, it isn't. But I do tend to prefer it to the alternatives - it's so much easier to vote a dictator off than to plant a bomb to kill him.

Representative limited federal democratic republic > puny parliamentary democracy.

Mmm. Monkey trial in reverse anyone?

Mmm. Scopes was convicted, you know.

Parent John Rahm told the newspaper that he became concerned when his freshman daughter said she was confused by the supplemental material provided by Helphinstine.
So, if that student hadn’t happened to be an idiot that guy would still be teaching? Nice.

So, if that student hadn’t happened to be an idiot that guy would still be teaching? Nice.

I don't know that the confused freshman is necessarily an idiot. Someone would have picked up on this eventually.

You spelled it fine, though you misspelled "misspelling." ;)

That would be a good idea for an advanced high school class, and I'd certainly support such a class, but you'd have a hard time finding qualified teachers to cover the material, I think.

Really? But there are loads of philospohy of reliigion schoolars out there.

So, if that student hadn’t happened to be an idiot that guy would still be teaching? Nice.

I don't see how so? He was sacked for not doing his job, it has nowt to do with the student, and all to do with his conduct.

I'm not sure he would spend has time getting a biology degree if he didn't agree with what he was learning, why study and teach science if you believe in creationism?
I would need more information to fully understand the situation but I think, from what I've read, that he was trying to show examples of bias and introduce other ideas to make the students think more about things and not take what people tell them for fact. But of course I may be wrong, just my opinion.

There really can't be much of a lawsuit. Substitute teachers are almost universally "employees at will", or, in other words "free hire, free fire".

It means, basically, we can fire you, for anything, or for nothing. We can fire you because we don't like the color of your shoes, or the way you tied your tie. We can fire you because your breath smells like cabbage. We can fire you simply because we felt like it, and we don't have to give you a reason. You are employed at our whim.

Conversly, you can also quit at any time, for whatever reason. You don't have to give us a reason, and you can leave at any time. You remain at your whim.

He can't make a real legal challenge that he was fired because they didn't like what he was teaching. Why? Because in free hire/free fire systems, that's fine. It's perfectly legitimate. They can fire you for any reason they want to.

Really? But there are loads of philospohy of reliigion schoolars out there.

But they don't generally teach in high schools, and I doubt the class would be anything other than an elective, so they'd have to teach something else as well, and that's what worries me. You'd have an English teacher doing Comparative Lit or Comparative Religion, and no real check on whether or not he or she would be proselytizing in the classroom.

But they don't generally teach in high schools, and I doubt the class would be anything other than an elective, so they'd have to teach something else as well, and that's what worries me. You'd have an English teacher doing Comparative Lit or Comparative Religion, and no real check on whether or not he or she would be proselytizing in the classroom.

Heheh then perhaps look only for the athest ones.

Has anyone read mein kampf (my struggle) or acually looked into the history of planned parenthood? Incidentally the connections the teacher made are there if you do your reasearch. (read mein kampf, it wont convert you to be a nazi and where better to learn hitler's views than hitler himself). Hitler beleived stronly in darwin hence the "superior" aryan race and the "inferior" jews. Also for those of you who don't know darwin himself came up with social darwinism.(sorry but you are on your own with planned parenthood are it has been almost four years since i did my homework on it but if you look it is there.)

Sounds like he was fired for being a crappy teacher. No problem there.

I'm not sure he would spend has time getting a biology degree if he didn't agree with what he was learning, why study and teach science if you believe in creationism?
I would need more information to fully understand the situation but I think, from what I've read, that he was trying to show examples of bias and introduce other ideas to make the students think more about things and not take what people tell them for fact. But of course I may be wrong, just my opinion.

Perhaps he didn't start that way, but was swayed by his faith?

I'm a religous man, but have no problem with evolution, perhaps he never did until a while ago?

Hitler beleived stronly in darwin hence the "superior" aryan race and the "inferior" jews. Also for those of you who don't know darwin himself came up with social darwinism.
You really need to read actual reference books. Hitler's interpretation of "Darwinism" was actually pretty thoroughly inconsistent with evolutionary biology of the time, and it's even less consistent with modern evolutionary biology. Hitler, like many people, completely missed the point and interpreted evolutionary theory incorrectly. He cherry-picked bits of the science that supported the ideas he wanted to hold, and ignored all the bits that contradicted him.

Kind of like what you are doing right now.

You really need to read actual reference books. Hitler's interpretation of "Darwinism" was actually pretty thoroughly inconsistent with evolutionary biology of the time, and it's even less consistent with modern evolutionary biology. Hitler, like many people, completely missed the point and interpreted evolutionary theory incorrectly. He cherry-picked bits of the science that supported the ideas he wanted to hold, and ignored all the bits that contradicted him.

Kind of like what you are doing right now.

Heh isn't that what people who want to twist your mind to uncomfatble ideas do?

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.
Good for you. You're still wrong.

But feel free to define your terms and provide your evidence. I'm sure we're all excited to see what you've got.

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.

Heh Darwin was a Social Darwinist? Was there any such a thing while the man was still alive?

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.

Hitler disliked Jews. Many Christians dislike Jews.
Same sort of statement ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species

The full title to origin of species is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwins other book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Man

Hitler disliked Jews. Many Christians dislike Jews.
Same sort of statement ;)

Many christians didn't liquidate 6 million jews. (and 4 million other assorted)

Many christians didn't liquidate 6 million jews. (and 4 million other assorted)

Shit neither did Charles Darwin.

Many christians didn't liquidate 6 million jews. (and 4 million other assorted)

The vast majority of Nazi's were Christians - so yes they did.

The vast majority of Nazi's were Christians - so yes they did.

;) Have me there exept (even though i am a atheist) there is a difference between saying and doing. You can say all you want. (also the majority of germans didn't work in death camps)

Brazil is a third-world country that has a terrible school system.

And yet, a biology teacher that teaches creationist crap being fired HERE wouldn't even be an ISSUE, let alone NEWS! America is the only supposedly developed country in the world in which there's even a DISCUSSION regarding the teaching of science!

Brazil is a third-world country that has a terrible school system.

And yet, a biology teacher that teaches creationist crap being fired HERE wouldn't even be an ISSUE, let alone NEWS! America is the only supposedly developed country in the world in which there's even a DISCUSSION regarding the teaching of science!

Perhaps because we are the only ones smart enough to question what we are taught?

Perhaps because we are the only ones smart enough to question what we are taught?

"questioning" evolution by promoting creationist claptrap does not come close to any definition of "smart" I care to use.

Perhaps because we are the only ones smart enough to question what we are taught?

Funny, that was what Charles Darwin did and what you STILL resent him for doing.

Further, there's a difference between questioning with evidence and trying to push bible-thumping CRAP down the throats of people. The first shows intelligence, the second shows stupidity.

You're not the only ones smart enough to question, you're the only ones dumb enough to bible-thump.

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.

whether that is true or not is irrelevant as:

1) a man's views do not, in any way, alter the validity or lack thereof of his arguments. The Nazis also came up with jet powered planes. The fact that they were nazis does not mean that jet engines will now come crashing out of the skies. What he believed as a philosophy does not, in any way, alter whether his statements are true or not.

2) Science, especially biological science has progressed somewhat in the last 130 or so years. We no longer need rely on origin of the species. We have more sophisticated methods now. Even if his observations WERE biased, future observations have backed up the validity of the claim.

I see lots of christians are in this thread - I'd like to direct them to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12452775&posted=1#post12452775) so that the thread may live and we can continue the discussion.

=)

Perhaps because we are the only ones smart enough to question what we are taught?

If that were true there would be an encompassing class which discusses the merits of several religions, philosophies and the scientific method.

Currently however the only interest seems to be to push the Christian ideas forward and to compare them to a horribly distorted version of evolution, and not to have an honest and open debate.

In other words: the USA is not the only one smart enough to question what it is taught, but the only one stupid enough to crave deceit.

Perhaps because we are the only ones smart enough to question what we are taught?
If that were true there would be an encompassing class which discusses the merits of several religions, philosophies and the scientific method.


I'd rather we not "discuss the merits" of religious philosophies alongside the scientific method...it'd be a short discussion.

"The scientific method yields a lot of results that are useful in society. Most technology that you use today is a result of the use of the scientific method."

"Religious philosophies have given us...um...they make people feel good?"

I'd rather we not "discuss the merits" of religious philosophies alongside the scientific method...it'd be a short discussion.

"The scientific method yields a lot of results that are useful in society. Most technology that you use today is a result of the use of the scientific method."

"Religious philosophies have given us...um...they make people feel good?"


Bwahahah you need to brush up on your history man!

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.


Darwin was also a christian who at times felt uncomfortable with his own conclusions. Hitler was a propagandist who knew how to twist facts to help him. i think that saying a level headed scientist and a jealous politicion are the same thing is a bit out of line.

Bwahahah you need to brush up on your history man!

Second that motion.

i know that this is me quoting me but this is even more useful now that religion is becoming a big part of this thread. please i beg you to read this!!


what is peoples problem, evolution isnt a threat to anyone its an observation of facts. i have met some religuos people who say that science takes away from the beauty of nature.
i totally disagree, considerthe Panda. An animal living in an evolutionry cul de sac, its a carnivor with big teeth and claws but it only eats bambooand not just any bamboo its really picky. it needs to eat a field of the stuff every day to get the equivelent calories of 11 big macs. when it takes a shit the bamboo comes out still green having lost barely any nutrients because bears cant efficiantly digest plants, fish , cats , people and rubbish yes, plants no.
my point is that if god created all things as they are then the panda would be proof of him being a moron, but if it was evolution then the Panda itself would have made all the choices needed to get it into this situation.
in other wordsthe panda became a panda by being a panda.
hence the beauty of nature and the choices it makes for itself can only be emphasised by science.

rant concluded.

Second conclusion.

Hilariously enough, I don't think the devil would be into evolution, what with being a witness of creation.

Same thing with the devil being considerably unlikely to be an atheist. Satanists kinda have to be theists. Ah well.

Do you think if God, Allah, Satan, Buddha, and all those other guys had really low self esteem, they would be athiests?

See...they don't have self esteem...so they don't believe in themselves...

Hitler was a social darwinist. So was Darwin. That's as simple as I can put it.

Wait a second, Darwin was in fact a christian and not always comfortable with his own findings, hitler was a manipulater who would twist anything to his own favor. i think that compatring a level headed man of science with a cruel and manipulative politician is a bit out of line.

whether that is true or not is irrelevant as:

1) a man's views do not, in any way, alter the validity or lack thereof of his arguments. The Nazis also came up with jet powered planes. The fact that they were nazis does not mean that jet engines will now come crashing out of the skies. What he believed as a philosophy does not, in any way, alter whether his statements are true or not.

2) Science, especially biological science has progressed somewhat in the last 130 or so years. We no longer need rely on origin of the species. We have more sophisticated methods now. Even if his observations WERE biased, future observations have backed up the validity of the claim.

1. I am not whether evolution or about whether it is right or wrong, I am mearly pointing out the the teacher was correct in pointing our an oft overlooked point about hitler. (and statlin and mao and Ho chi mi and most other mass murderers of the 20th century)

2. Also, what I meant by my earlier statement was that if there is no discussion or debate, then you believe the first thing that comes along in the classroom, regardless of what it is. That is foolhardy.(Hitler taught jews are evil, ect, ect.)

I am not whether evolution or about whether it is right or wrong, I am mearly pointing out the the teacher was correct in pointing our an oft overlooked point about hitler. (and statlin and mao and Ho chi mi and most other mass murderers of the 20th century)

The grammar and spelling in this post was eye-gougingly bad.

Your point has already been disproved. The version of "evolution" that Hitler advocated as the reasoning behind the concept of a master race has nothing to do at all with the scientific community's understanding of evolution in 1938. Nor does it have any connection at all with our understanding of evolution now.

1. Evolution was not widely accepted in western nations in 1938 so that point is up for further debate.

2. Sorry about the spelling all, i am multi-tasking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species

The full title to origin of species is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwins other book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Man

now that made me laugh

you think that the origin of species is about human eugenics?

After you read both books you get that impression.

After you read both books you get that impression.

Reading Comprehension. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension)

Reading comprehension can be improved by: Training the ability to self assess comprehension, actively test comprehension using questionnaires, and by improving metacognition. Teaching conceptual and linguistic knowledge is also advantageous.

I was reading senior college books when I was in grade school, so don't talk to me about reading comprehension especially when you probibaly haven't read either of the books in question.

I never understand why the people who say that they need more information on something don't go out and find it. C'mon, Google is toolbars and part of browsers now...

Anyway, here is what the Oregon schools say on when you can teach things like creationism and when you can't:
"Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as 'creationism'), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology)." That includes creationism.

Now, lets look at what he's done, from a more detailed article-
Helphinstine said in retrospect slides of Nazi death camps weren't appropriate for his freshman and sophomore students.

And given a second chance, he said he wouldn't introduce arguments from Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a group building a Creation Museum in Cincinnati dedicated to teaching a Bible-centric view of natural history.


...
Helphinstine won't elaborate about his own beliefs, saying only that the goal of teachers is to present the facts while concealing their own biases.

By that measure he did a middling job, said Jordan Kolb, a sophomore in his biology class at the 582-student high school. "He didn't give his opinion unless you asked," Kolb said.

But when asked, the student said, Helphinstine "said he believed in parts of evolution, but that on the whole it was just ridiculous. There wasn't enough proof, he said."

So, looks like he was fired for doing something that would get him fired.

The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1174447541172320.xml&coll=7&thispage=1)

I was reading senior college books when I was in grade school.

My little sister loves to take my textbooks and read out the words she sees, hell if she can understand what they mean.

I was reading senior college books when I was in grade school, so don't talk to me about reading comprehension especially when you probibaly haven't read either of the books in question.

Meh, I read Milton and Relativity around the age of ten. (I really did, we had one of those 'library sets' that people buy to make their studies look pretentious), doesn't mean I understood them.

EDIT: Bah, Dinaverg beat me to the point...

Perhaps because we are the only ones smart enough to question what we are taught?

No, that's not it.

1. Evolution was not widely accepted in western nations in 1938 so that point is up for further debate.

2. Sorry about the spelling all, i am multi-tasking

So... You're comparing yourself to all the other nations...

...in 1937.

Could it be that we will be arguing the obvious for another thousand years?

I was reading senior college books when I was in grade school, so don't talk to me about reading comprehension especially when you probibaly haven't read either of the books in question.

I notice you claim to be this brilliant wonder kid. Yet you can't even fucking spell the word "probably".

And there is a difference between reading and comphrehending. Plenty of people have read Ulysses (I haven't, personally) but as I understand it, practically no one gets what the hell is up Ulysses.

I'm glad this happened after only eight days.

I'm not. WHAT THE HELL TOOK THEM SO LONG???

Far more appropriate in lit than Bio, I assure you. :p

IIRC isn't it more sex ed than anything?

After you read both books you get that impression.

origin of the species is about human eugenics?

dude please i have an A-level ,FDSC and BSC, all in arshaeology and evolution i am currently studying an MSC in Ecology and Evolutionary Behaviour. Your full of it.
when Darwin first published human beings werent considered as part of the theory. they were considered outside of evolution, if for no other reason than to not piss too many peoples imaginary friends off. it was ten years before humans were considered.

plus Darwin was a christian who wasnt always comfortable with his own findings so saying he invented eugenics is a bit extreme.
( before you say it i know thats not exactly what you said)
eugenics was simply where some particularly extreme dicks took the theory of evolution.

its like blaming Newton for inventing the Atom Bomb.

Hilariously enough, I don't think the devil would be into evolution, what with being a witness of creation.

Same thing with the devil being considerably unlikely to be an atheist. Satanists kinda have to be theists. Ah well.

Not the Leveyan sort. For those who follow the teachings of Anton Levey (note that I may have misspelled his name, I'm to lazy to google it right now) Satanisim is worship of yourself as the highest power . . .

I notice you claim to be this brilliant wonder kid. Yet you can't even fucking spell the word "probably".

And there is a difference between reading and comphrehending. Plenty of people have read Ulysses (I haven't, personally) but as I understand it, practically no one gets what the hell is up Ulysses.

A: He wouldn't be the only one who's reading ability is greater than his spelling ability. I blame my spelling problems on Dysgraphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia) and yes it has been diagnosed.

B: Before complaining about the word probably in thyne neighbors post correctly spell the word comprehending in thyne own.

Just thought I'd share this with everyone.

Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/20/teacherfired.ap.ap/index.html)


I'm glad this happened after only eight days. Though I'm sure there will be the inevitable legal challenge/religious outcry from the usual suspects. Maybe we'll get some more precedent (on top of Kitzmiller v Dover) to keep people from bringing this shit into our schools.

What I hate is the fact that Christians are being hypocritical. I believe science is God's law for the way things work as the bible and the commandments are laws for us. Saying science is of the devil has to be the devil's best lies to believers.

I'm not sure he would spend has time getting a biology degree if he didn't agree with what he was learning, why study and teach science if you believe in creationism?At a guess, I'd say he went for rather gigantic 'Rest' of biology that doesn't particularly concern itself with evolution, from anatomy over biotopes to predator/ prey relationships, with some social behaviour patterns & co thrown in?

Has anyone read mein kampf (my struggle) or acually looked into the history of planned parenthood? Incidentally the connections the teacher made are there if you do your reasearch. (read mein kampf, it wont convert you to be a nazi and where better to learn hitler's views than hitler himself). Hitler beleived stronly in darwin hence the "superior" aryan race and the "inferior" jews. Also for those of you who don't know darwin himself came up with social darwinism.'cause I'm lazy - link (http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml).

For that matter, I think it rather hilarious that you link an egalitarian like Darwin to Social Darwinism - for that matter, Social Darwinism does precede The origin of Species - under a different name, of course. Similarly, in The Descent of Man, Darwin argues that empathy, social conscience, and morals are evolved as well (Correctly, btw) - and clearly provide a (Social-) evolutionary advantage over more, ah, 'Selective' societies. He does see negative effects, yes - but apparently (Obviously, given the success of empathic societies), the positive ones trump these.

A simple example for this would be the invention of glasses - the society that provides glasses doesn't waste the intellectual (And to a lesser extend, physical) potential of its visually-handicapped, the society that kills its visually-handicapped does. The former will, over time, produce more visually-handicapped individuals, yes - but it will also provide the means to make this a non-issue. The latter does have less visually-handicapped individuals - sadly, it lacks the incentive to actually pass beyond this stage. It wont be the latter society that invents telescopes.

While we're at it, you did read the bible, yes? Particularly Joshua & onward. Now that is pure racism - 'Superior' Israelites and 'Inferior' Kanaanites - the latter of which subsequently get exterminated whenever possible.

And guess what's the basis of this? 'God's Chosen'.

Oddly enough, Darwinism doesn't allow for this kind of racism - you're a part of the same species, and can interbreed.

Btw, I do believe I've seen you posting with another nation before... The incomprehensible writing style and hilarious arguments are familiar...

1. I am not whether evolution or about whether it is right or wrong, I am mearly pointing out the the teacher was correct in pointing our an oft overlooked point about hitler. (and statlin and mao and Ho chi mi and most other mass murderers of the 20th century)Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a biology class and not a history class?

I'm not defending him, but maybe it would have been wiser to have a talk with the guy first instead of firing him on the spot and perhaps driving him into the arms of some pro-ID school management somewhere.

I was reading senior college books when I was in grade school, so don't talk to me about reading comprehension especially when you probibaly haven't read either of the books in question.
So you are yet another "genius" who has somehow managed to avoid learning the absolute most fundamental, elementary, basic concepts in evolutionary biology. Meh. We've got piles of your type of "genius" running around.

Read a book. For realz.

1. Evolution was not widely accepted in western nations in 1938 so that point is up for further debate.

2. Sorry about the spelling all, i am multi-tasking
Wait a minute. Are you seriously saying that because people didn't accept it in 1938 it shows that it's likely to be wrong? In 1938 it wasn't generally accepted that black people had the right to vote, does that mean it's still up for further debate?

Not the Leveyan sort. For those who follow the teachings of Anton Levey (note that I may have misspelled his name, I'm to lazy to google it right now) Satanisim is worship of yourself as the highest power . . .

Bwaahahahahah or the other name for it is ego wank.

In 1938 it wasn't generally accepted that black people had the right to vote, does that mean it's still up for further debate?If you look at the Right places online, then yes, it appears to be.

No different from modern biology, really :P

On a side note, it just strikes me that we should reconsider the physics and engineering of Watt's steam engine & Stephenson's locomotive, as the moral and ideological implications of these devices - and the technologies derived from them - ended up causing the same to be used for the transportation of the Jews, Gypsies etc to the concentration camps. Surely, such evil cannot be allowed to be teached in machine engineering & physics, and kinetic gas theory/ Newtonian mechanics should be banned/ replaced/ criticised as the tools of fascism and racism they are!

On a side note, it just strikes me that we should reconsider the physics and engineering of Watt's steam engine & Stephenson's locomotive, as the moral and ideological implications of these devices - and the technologies derived from it - ended up causing them to be used for the transportation of the Jews, Gypsies etc to the concentration camps. Surely, such evil cannot be allowed to be teached in machine engineering & physics, and kinetic gas theory/ Newtonian mechanics should be banned/ replaced/ criticised as the tools of fascism and racism they are!
It occurs to me...

Hitler believed in God. So we can't teach kids about God, because Hitler believed in God. Since we already can't teach kids about evolution, because apparently Hitler was totally a Darwinist, and we can't teach them about God, I guess we are going to have to find something else to tell them about where life came from.

Personally, my vote is for the Iroquois story about how the world came to be. It's a fun story.

In the beginning, the world was covered over with water. There was an island floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. One day, Sky Woman fell down from the island above. (There are variations in the story as to why exactly she fell.)

Sky Woman fell very far, and would certainly have been killed when she smashed onto the waters below, but a fishhawk came to her aid. Its feathers made a pillow for her and she drifted above the waves. But the fishhawk could not carry her for long, and so it called for help from the creatures of the deep sea.

"We must find something for her to rest on," the fishhawk told them. So the animals dove down into the sea to try to find something. Many tried and failed, and some even died when they stayed down too long, but finally Little Toad came back up with a mouth full of mud.

They placed the mud on the back of Turtle and began to shape it into Earth. Sky Woman shaped the land, sprinkled the stars, and created the Moon. And the Turtle holds the Earth on his back to this very day.

It occurs to me...

Hitler believed in God. So we can't teach kids about God, because Hitler believed in God. Since we already can't teach kids about evolution, because apparently Hitler was totally a Darwinist, and we can't teach them about God, I guess we are going to have to find something else to tell them about where life came from.




Ohh ohh not to mention Hitler was a veggie, and he did kill an arful lot of Jews, so I guess we should burn all the veggies, the motherlovin Jew killers!

WDT 2: Make comparisons to Hitler. This is surprisingly flexible because Hitler was a busy guy. He did everything from eating to painting landscapes to attacking the world. So if someone argues napping is good for you, point out that Hitler liked napping too.
*nods*

This amazes me.
I think what happened is this teacher chose to teach in the last bastion of conservathink left in Oregon.

My kids live in Portland Oregon. My experiences there lead me to believe that the pacific northwest exists in some parallel pocket universe populated with eco friendly tree hugging femi-nazis and politically correct politeness junkies.

the City of Portland issues $200 fines to drivers who don't yield to pedestrians. Sell sidewalk space to bums so they can panhandle and if a bum bothers you more than once he can be arrested(not altogether an unpleasant law)

I don't agree with the guys method but sheesh, fired summarily, they don't even automatically fire teacher molesters until they are found guilty. I say Harsh Much.

This amazes me.
I think what happened is this teacher chose to teach in the last bastion of conservathink left in Oregon.

My kids live in Portland Oregon. My experiences there lead me to believe that the pacific northwest exists in some parallel pocket universe populated with eco friendly tree hugging femi-nazis and politically correct politeness junkies.

the City of Portland issues $200 fines to drivers who don't yield to pedestrians. Sell sidewalk space to bums so they can panhandle and if a bum bothers you more than once he can be arrested(not altogether an unpleasant law)

I don't agree with the guys method but sheesh, fired summarily, they don't even automatically fire teacher molesters until they are found guilty. I say Harsh Much.

$200 fine s to motorist that don't yeild to pedestrians, fuckin' cool.

You do know that pedestrians have a right to use the pavements, and cross the roads yeah?

http://funhouse.bubble.ro/598/South_Park_Version_of_Evolution/

:D

At a guess, I'd say he went for rather gigantic 'Rest' of biology that doesn't particularly concern itself with evolution, from anatomy over biotopes to predator/ prey relationships, with some social behaviour patterns & co thrown in?


Every last bit of which concerns itself with evolution?

I don't agree with the guys method but sheesh, fired summarily, they don't even automatically fire teacher molesters until they are found guilty. I say Harsh Much.
He was a substitute, so he doesn't get the same protections as a full-time or tenured (if the school does that) teacher. I'd fire his ass immediately too...every second he spends slinging bullshit in the classroom is time that could be better spent doing, well, almost anything else. Like actually teaching biology.

At a guess, I'd say he went for rather gigantic 'Rest' of biology that doesn't particularly concern itself with evolution, from anatomy over biotopes to predator/ prey relationships, with some social behaviour patterns & co thrown in?
Every last bit of which concerns itself with evolution?
QFT. You can't teach biology without evolution...it's the thread that ties the whole field together. Without it, it's just a bunch of separate pieces of information to memorize without any overarching themes. (no offense intended to bio enthusiasts, but I think you'd agree with the general point)

QFT. You can't teach biology without evolution...it's the thread that ties the whole field together. Without it, it's just a bunch of separate pieces of information to memorize without any overarching themes. (no offense intended to bio enthusiasts, but I think you'd agree with the general point)

True. But the real difficult one for me to see them teaching from a creationist perspective is astronomy. I've seen no rational creationist theory for astronomical phenomena.

True. But the real difficult one for me to see them teaching from a creationist perspective is astronomy. I've seen no rational creationist theory for astronomical phenomena.such as gamma ray bursts, or cosmic background radiation?

True. But the real difficult one for me to see them teaching from a creationist perspective is astronomy. I've seen no rational creationist theory for astronomical phenomena.

Flat Earth Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society)

Have a good laugh. I sure as hell did.

such as gamma ray bursts, or cosmic background radiation?

I would imagine the arguments would fall more along the lines of "God said it's this way, so there is no cosmic microwave background radiation, or gamma ray bursts. Now let's all sit around with our thumbs up our butts and pretend asteroids don't exist either. Huzzah!"

Sorry. I try to be tolerant and accepting of wacky religion and wacky theory, but once you cross the line and try dressing up religion as fact and trying to bring down scientific advancement that has time and again benefitted humanity, I get a little pissed off.

I would imagine the arguments would fall more along the lines of "God said it's this way, so there is no cosmic microwave background radiation, or gamma ray bursts. Now let's all sit around with our thumbs up our butts and pretend asteroids don't exist either. Huzzah!"

Sorry. I try to be tolerant and accepting of wacky religion and wacky theory, but once you cross the line and try dressing up religion as fact and trying to bring down scientific advancement that has time and again benefitted humanity, I get a little pissed off.
What?

What?

It just seems like the majority of the "Ways to put Christ back in the Classroom" are basically teachers sitting around either saying "God did it." or "God didn't say anything about it, so it must not exist."

such as gamma ray bursts, or cosmic background radiation?

Such as the speed of light. *chuckles* It's hard to argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old when we're picking up light from galaxies billions of light years away. :p

So, if that student hadn’t happened to be an idiot that guy would still be teaching? Nice.

To be fair if he was throwing out information that was contrary to the class or other classes the student may have taken I can see being "Confused" on what to answer on a test or something

You learn real fast that tests are as dependent on the professors ability to understand your answerers as the actual answerers you give. I know a lot more then some professors I have taken in the past but if I did not read the material they provided I may not have answered it in a form that the teacher counted

(sorry for the babbling) but the idea is that the material may not in of itself been hard but may have been contradictory enough to how they thought and answered on the subject to seek further explanation (by their parents) to resolve the issue so they could do good on a test or a quiz.

To be fair if he was throwing out information that was contrary to the class or other classes the student may have taken I can see being "Confused" on what to answer on a test or something

You learn real fast that tests are as dependent on the professors ability to understand your answerers as the actual answerers you give. I know a lot more then some professors I have taken in the past but if I did not read the material they provided I may not have answered it in a form that the teacher counted

(sorry for the babbling) but the idea is that the material may not in of itself been hard but may have been contradictory enough to how they thought and answered on the subject to seek further explanation (by their parents) to resolve the issue so they could do good on a test or a quiz.

It certainly would confuse some people. *nod*

Such as the speed of light. *chuckles* It's hard to argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old when we're picking up light from galaxies billions of light years away.are we? :p

are we? :p

We are. *nod*

Such as the speed of light. *chuckles* It's hard to argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old when we're picking up light from galaxies billions of light years away. :p

Clearly those galaxies were created billions of years before the earth was created six thousand years ago. Isn't it obvious?

Clearly those galaxies were created billions of years before the earth was created six thousand years ago. Isn't it obvious?

Of course ! And that is why our sun, the center of creation, is nowhere near the center of the milky way :)

Clearly those galaxies were created billions of years before the earth was created six thousand years ago. Isn't it obvious?

Except that the universe was created at the same time as the Earth(according to creationists).

Just thought I'd share this with everyone.

Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/20/teacherfired.ap.ap/index.html)


I'm glad this happened after only eight days. Though I'm sure there will be the inevitable legal challenge/religious outcry from the usual suspects. Maybe we'll get some more precedent (on top of Kitzmiller v Dover) to keep people from bringing this shit into our schools.

Some little shit will just cry "ZOMG!!! RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION!!!one11eleven"